Cultural Shift in CAP

[Eclipse]

We're not "adding numeric goals" - that is what we're doing now - some random staffer wakes up on a Tuesday, decides he'll "play CAP today" and writes a list of goals that meet no mandate, mean nothing to the mission, and fall on deaf ears.

The is a top-down mission requirement we commit to, and then either do or do not, with all that goes with that.

CAP is will be the secondary response asset to 'x' agency here, here, and here.

Therefore, we need this, this, and this, here, here, and here.

To put those assets there, you will, do x, y, and z.

That is your primary mission and mantra this year.  Anything else is secondary, or an additional part of this plan.

This is across the board in ES, CP, and AE, and includes elimination of unnecessary duplication of effort and activities, calendar and resource
deconfliction with extreme prejudice, and standardization across the board.

And no one, anywhere, is doing anything significant "their way".  We stop wasting time on start-up tasks every time we do something, and
get down to the business at hand, the mission.

[Eclipse]

Is the Chaplain who shows up once a month for moral leadership not a Chaplain? A staff officer positions takes the amount of time that it takes.  Some take hardly any time, while others need to be scurrying their rear off at every meeting to get the job done. 

Again, if we're going to micro this out of the box, we're dead, but I would also say "no".  Chaplains, for starters, are "special", and suffice to say I have significant issues with the existing program, the way it is implemented, and the seemingly conflicting goals of that program.  There is more to being a "CAP Chaplain" than a once a month CD class, and if that is all you are doing, you don't need or deserve the status.  You can teach the classes without the title.

You do realize that we basically have a similar structure already as part of the SUI process?  It doesn't give numerical targets for accomplishments, but it certainly lays out what is expected to be done.  I've never seen any proof that our SUI system really does much to make CAP a better organization, so I'm not sure why anyone would think adding numeric goals to it would significantly improve things.

Most units and wings treat the SUI / CI process as a final exam, not the snapshot it should be, and few do anything on purpose beyond the bare minimums.

[lordmonar]

I have advocated much of what Eclipse is say as well.

National, Region and Wings all need to have clear OPLANS that specifically identify operational requirments.

Wings then tasks squadrons with specific portions of that OPLAN.

Squadron commanders then have the same job description as all USAF squadron commanders......equip, man and train their squadrons to carry out assigned missions.

Right now squadrons can exist for the sole sake of existing.

Can this demotivate members?  Sure it could.  But it also can motivate them by giving them goals.

The Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron is tasked with providing X number of trained aircrews.  They are tasked with providing X number of Ground Teams, Y number of MROs, Z number of FLMs, ICs, AOBD, GBD, etc and so on.

This then gives the commander a idea of how much recruiting he needs to do.  "My squadron needs to have 5 air crew (15 bodies), 2 ground teams  (10 bodies), 2 ICs, 1 GBD, 1 AOBD, 1 PSC, 1 OSC.  That means I need to have 31 members minimum to meet my OPLAN taskings".

It gives the wing a tool to actually manage our personnel.  When they see the HJS squadron start to drop to 31 members they know they need to send someone down there to find out what help they need to recruit and train more people.

This does seveal things.

One.  It would give us a score card that we can judge the effectiveness of a squadron commander. 
Two.  It gives us the ability to do real time status reporting which will improve out ability to meet customer needs.
Three.  It gives our member a better sense of mission. 
Four.  It allows for better target recruiting.   (someone wants to join to be on ground teams....but your squadron is not tasked to ground teams....then you can steer him to a better squadron).  Likewise if you don't have enough pilots you know you have to go out and find some.
Five.  It allows us to better manage training.  Why do a tone of MRO training if we already have enough MROS.

This works really well for ES....but can also be extended to CP and AE as well.

City X has 1000 children in our target age group.   Wing can task squadrons to get and keep a certain percentage of those kids in our program.  Tasking CP squadrons to maintain specific numbers of CP officers based on the size of their units.  (say the HMJ squadron is tasked with maintaining a cadet population of 20 cadets...then they need to have a minum of 2 CP officers and a ratio of 1 officer per 10 cadets.

So now the HJS squadorn needs to have 53 members to meet their ES and CP taskings.

That then drives the support side of the equation.  You need 1 personnel officer for ever 20 members, 1 Admin officer for ever 15 members.  If they are assigned CAP assets then they are mandated to have a logistics officer.  If they have a vehicle then the need a Vehicle officer.

And note...that the goal here is not to allow double billeting.  You can have a pilot who is also a GTM-1 and an AOBD.....but he can only be counted in one of those billets.

The real work on this and the biggest road block to this is the amount of analysis that would be needed to get it up to speed.

On the ES side.....Wings will have to first write the bloody OPLANS.  This tells them specifically how many people they need and what sort of equipment (aircraft, vans, radios, ELPRs, Ground Team gear, etc) they need to meet the OPLAN.

Then they have to look at their wing's geography and demographics.  Where is the best place to place those ground teams, aircraft and support teams.  Which city can support a large squadron or multiple squadrons.  In cities and towns with squadrons how many people can the reasonablly be expected to recruit.

Then the taskings will need to be divided up and given to the squadron commanders.

These will drive everything else.

No more arbitrary numerical goals.  "every needs to increase their squdron by 10%".
If you are meeting your OPLAN taskings then you are done.

[RiverAux]

We actually already sort of have some of those goals.  Those who have access to Commander's Dashboard know where they stand in terms of goals for mission pilots.  Has anyone observed this driving recruitment of pilots?

[lordmonar]

Goals for pilots....but no OPLAN.

With out the OPLAN all goals are just arbitrary.

[RiverAux]

So, Eclipse, how are you doing at implementing these plans and requirements in your group?  A group commander has all the authority necessary to require this within the scope of their command.  How about we try these things out small scale before going national?

[Ron1319]

Called out.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Called out.

Troll?

Eclipse also is not the Group CC as of April/May.

[Eclipse]

Called out.

Called out?  Give me a break.  I did exactly a lot of the things in that list, and most felt short as it is difficult to be a part of a bigger plan when there isn't any, so when I would insinuate there was one, those members who knew better and were disinterested in the idea used this as their excuse.

I was blessed with good commanders, but it is not possible to do the things that need to be done from the middle.
The fact that people think they can causes us a lot of problems.

My units were some of the larger and more successful in the wing, but with nothing to integrate into, where do you go from there.

The fact that I was personally self-actualized was a constant complaint from me.

[RiverAux]

I did exactly a lot of the things in that list, and most felt short as it is difficult to be a part of a bigger plan when there isn't any, so when I would insinuate there was one, those members who knew better and were disinterested in the idea used this as their excuse.

Why would you need to insinuate that there was a larger plan?  Under your system all the squadron commander needs to know is what is required of them in the group plan.  You had the power to tell them that they are required to staff X number of ground teams or else.  Find Y number of new cadets or else.  If they didn't want to go along with the planning process, under which you did say that the targets would be subject to some negotiation, then you had the power to chuck them out of the way.  Did you do that?  Did you find a replacement that then met those goals? 

Now, I certainly wouldn't fault you for not meeting all the goals you wanted to achieve (no one does), but if you're advocating implementing harsh measures including firing commanders and closing down units for them not meeting goals, why didn't you do it when you had the chance (and I do realize that a group commander isn't able to do all of that on their own, but they certainly have a lot of influence with the person who could)?

[Eclipse]

Right now, at least in my wing, very little of consequence in terms of ES or CP is done at the unit level.  All missions encampments, and major CP activities are wing level affairs.

Any plans I put together would have been completely arbitrary as I have no say in who gets called or where they go, etc.

Putting together coherent teams, when they won't likely get called together doesn't serve much purpose.  We also have some "challenges " in regards to people respecting the chain of command, AORs, and sandboxes, which also makes it difficult to walk a path, because you spend a lot of time fighting fires and redoing things needlesly. In some cases, Lincoln Logs stacked neatly and with care were knocked over by people unwilling to even ask why they were there, let alone that they should be left ststanding.

In most areas where I had autonomy, I got things done, but in areas where I was not the "end point" I was not as successful, and frankly I ran out of steam near the end due to a confluence of situations out of my control the last year.

That doesn't change what is needed, nor the fact that it has to be top-down.

Every second of discussed about trivial matters that should be decided as baseline but are left to arbitrary decisions is time we never get back, and time that is not spent on the mission.

[RiverAux]

In most areas where I had autonomy, I got things done, but in areas where I was not the "end point" I was not as successful, and frankly I ran out of steam near the end due to a confluence of situations out of my control the last year.

I can appreciate that and I can actually get on board with a lot of the macro-level ideas you were putting out, but just don't think that how you would want to implement them would ever work in CAP. 

It is a fairly well-established fact that in any organization most of the most valuable work is going to be done by a relatively small percentage of the members.  No matter how small or large the organization, thats the way it is.  We have to accept that fact and understand that if we want more real work to get done there are only two ways to do it:
1.  Recruit more members so that the total number of "hard workers" rises even though their relative percentage remains the same.
2.  Make it possible for the "hard workers" you have to spend as much time as possible on doing the most important things that the organization needs done.  This is where CAP has the most problems due to very high paperwork burdens (even if electronic in form, its still paperwork to me).   Going through the intensive planning process you advocate will primarily just give them more busy work to do in making and sustaining those plans and actually reduce the time available to spend on important things.   

As CAP has become more professional (back to main topic of thread), we have increased the paperwork burdens so that it takes so much of the "hard workers" time to just keep the papers properly shuffled that they just don't have the time to do the important stuff. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

You can't move your argument all over the board like that - one minute the guy shows up once a month, the next he's a GTL, you have to pick one angle.

In my example the once a month guy was the Asst AEO. I suggested that his superior, the AEO, might be the dual hat / GTL.

If the OPLAN calls for this squadron to accomplish X in AE and that would normally require 1 AEO, then where is the problem to solve if the AEO has a part time assistant?

[RADIOMAN015]

We're not "adding numeric goals" - that is what we're doing now - some random staffer wakes up on a Tuesday, decides he'll "play CAP today" and writes a list of goals that meet no mandate, mean nothing to the mission, and fall on deaf ears.

The is a top-down mission requirement we commit to, and then either do or do not, with all that goes with that.

CAP is will be the secondary response asset to 'x' agency here, here, and here.

Therefore, we need this, this, and this, here, here, and here.

To put those assets there, you will, do x, y, and z.

That is your primary mission and mantra this year.  Anything else is secondary, or an additional part of this plan.

This is across the board in ES, CP, and AE, and includes elimination of unnecessary duplication of effort and activities, calendar and resource
deconfliction with extreme prejudice, and standardization across the board.

And no one, anywhere, is doing anything significant "their way".  We stop wasting time on start-up tasks every time we do something, and
get down to the business at hand, the mission.

Hmm, your wing and group must be lagging behind in planning     Actually my wing knows the typical missions the wing will be performing and has taken action to train additional personnel.  Primarily the missions have increased on the aerial/aircraft/flying but nothing very concrete on the ground side.  So GT training is pretty much the standard training/exercising typical for CAP, for "just in case" type missions.   CAP pretty much has a mission "box" we will remain in at least for the near future.

Some on this board, seem to think that the typical senior member "volunteer" in Civil Air Patrol, has little motivation, and therefore a stick/punitive method always has to be used.  I think that the majority of senior members do join with a purpose of service that they have a comfort level with and are motivated within that comfort zone.   It's up to the leadership to properly utilize these members and if a staffing void occurs due to a 'different' mission requirement or typical squadron support , exercise some persuasive/leadership skills to get the member(s) to leave their zone of comfort OR specifically try to recruit adult members that have an interest or developed skill in the specific short fall areas.  (That's what I do for the radio communications side, I go to the amateur radio groups about 3 times a year and post a short recruiting email about what we are doing and that we are always looking for skilled radio personnel and usually pickup 1 member each time around for different geographic areas within the wing).
RM
           

[ol'fido]

As someone who has just left squadron command, I felt that one of the main things hindering me from doing my job was the mandated requirements and the poor tools that are provided to fulfill them. For someone like me, who doesn't use computers at work or even on a daily basis sometime, eServices is a poor interface to try to keep up with those requirements. I am all for making clear and coherent strategic goals for each level of the organization. I am also against the "I'm Just a volunteer" mentality. So if we are going to make this type of commitment to the organization, let's do a couple of things.

1.) Realize that most of our members no matter how dedicated have only so many hours to devote to the program each week/month.

2.) Develop a "on stop shopping" interface for commanders that is KISS ready. Having multiple data bases to hunt and peck through wasted a heck of a lot of time. A commander shouldn't have to hopscotch all over eServices, Capwatch, ORMS, WMU/IMU, WMIRS, etc. to do the things they need to do.

The easier we make the squadron commander's job, the more enthusiatstic and long lasting their tenure will be. From what I have seen and experienced is that commanders want to things right but they do what works when they run out of time to do it "by the book".

[arajca]

1) Amen.

2) eServices is pretty much a one-stop shopping center. ORMS, Ops Quals, and WIMRS are all accessible from there depending on what specialized area you need to go to. Capwatch is provided as a convienence to members. There are a plethora of reports available from the various modules of eServices, again, depending on what you need. WMU/IMU are NOT Civil air Patrol programs, but are programs developed by a member that are tolerated by National and provided access the the CAPWATCH database.

Like it or not, computers are here to stay. I will not claim that eServices is a easy to use interface, but it is easier than the stuff I have to use at work daily.

[a2capt]

2a) .. it may be a one stop shop, in that you can do everything with one login. But thats the where the one stops.  The interface consistency is horrid, to say the least. An awful lot of it is so un-untuitive, it must have been coded on April Fools, by labor that was second-level-outsourced, as it's so out of touch with what the rest of the system is doing, I can't come up with any other explanation for the disconnect.

[arajca]

I never said it was easy to use. In fact, I said:

I will not claim that eServices is a easy to use interface, but it is easier than the stuff I have to use at work daily.

I think the reason for the disconnects are that no one sat down and put together a proper requirements list. i.e. The system will have modules to a,b,c,d, etc. Without that, as ideas come up and are approved by the NB/NEC, they get thrown into eServices, without proper vetting or interfacing. From the field, there does not appear to be a plan for eServices expansion. (Hint. Hint) The B-CUT/A-CUT addition is a prime example. It was discussed several years ago, but not acted on at the time. Suddenly, without warning to the Communications team (at ANY level incl. National), it appears. No time for testing. No time to develop policies and procedures for it. Boom. There it is.

[Eclipse]

Randy - I'm not dissing you specifically on this, but the "computer conversation" is something that needs to be had before appointing
someone as a commander or even key staff.

I understand that not everyone is as tethered at the same level, but the hard-fast reality is that CAP has evolved into a structure that requires
nearly ubiquitous connectivity in order to participate.  Most of that is the reality and expectations of the real world.

For the most part, the majority of the administrative requirements for a unit CC are 10x's easier than they were a decade ago, still a pita, but easily accomplished with little need for in-face meetings or even phone calls.

But "I don't like / use computers much." cannot be the response to every question why things aren't done.  Especially when the corporation
provides the equipment, and for years provided access as well (which most people didn't utilize).

[ol'fido]

You've got to understand that where I work(IDOC), I don't have access to a computer period until after 4 pm on any given weekday. I also don't have access to a personal cell phone(by law as well as dept regs) except on the way to and from work. When I get home in the evening, I have the normal chores, shower, meals, etc that most people have. So, on any given day I may have 1-1.5 hours to do any CAP work or e mails. During a two month period following the May 8, 2009 inland hurricane down here, I was working until about 7 pm every night and bone tired from being on my feet for 10+ hours so I didn't turn the computer on except for maybe 2-3 times for that 8 week period.

It's not a matter of connectivity. It's a matter of making the most of the time I have available to do CAP work. I can over time learn how to do most things on e services.  But when I have to search around for 20-30 minutes before finding the right form or page on eServices and learning how to properly fill it out/enter data, it limits what I can do in any given work session. What my beef is that we could make much better use of the time available for the new commander and some of the old ones if we simplified the interface. In time, as the more computer savvy generation start taking command positions, this problem may solve itself.

What I would like to see is a SQCC webpage that would have each functional area on one side, Logistics, CP, Safety, etc.  And when you clicked on that tab, more tabs would pop up for everything a commander might need in that functional area. For instance in Safety, you would get tabs on ORM worksheet, Safety Survey, Safety Courses, Currency, etc. The CC could do anything a Squadron commander might need here and it would automatically update any other relevant database.

I just want simplicity for efficiency's sake.