My BBDU experiment: after two years, I be done with this nonsense

[RogueLeader]

It doesn't matter why >I< think, or you.  NHQ has already answered this question.

I've already indicated that GTLs have allowance for day-of ORM decisions.  What they can't do is add anything "extra" to the tasking.

So you are saying that I can't use my tool for part of my ORM Assessment.  There is no added tasking or "extra."  A lot of this could be prevented if Commanders would check if they would be suited for the specialty before signing off on "Commanders approval"

[a2capt]

That way .. all the threads in uniform ..

[Mela_007]

Whether it's allowed or not to add an extra test for GT members, I think I'm going to use it for me...no taking this out of context.  What I mean is that I think it's a test I'm going to give to myself and see where I stand.  I have been wanting a way to "judge" my own physical fitness for GT work and it sounds like a consensus here that a 2 mile hike with 24-hr pack in under 30 minutes is a reasonable test.  So, I'll do it to myself.  If I don't meet the standard, then it gives me something to work toward.  This way it's not something that anyone is requiring of me, just a way to test myself on standards experienced GTLs would like to see in their potential GTMs.

[Ned]

I recently came across a concept that helps explain why CAP uniform policy is so difficult for so many of us.

It is a "Wicked Problem", a term used by planners to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to resolve because of incomplete, contradictory, or changing requirements.

In general, a wicked problem has these characteristics

1.There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

3.Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good or bad.

4.There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

5.Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

6.Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

7.Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

8.Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

9.The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.

10.The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e.: Planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Looks to me like our uniform policy "debate" fits the definition pretty closely.

Wicked problems - by their very defintion - may never be "solved," but there are coping strategies that can be used to manage the issue, including collaborative efforts to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and work together in drafting policy.  Like, say, a national uniform committee.

Anyway, I think the concept helps explain why we find the issue so frustrating.

[abdsp51]

Sir,

Part of what I see being the problem is that there is no unified consensus about it.  Some want the AF style canned except for cadets, others want the polo canned, etc.  One of the main thing I see is the discontent that many can't wear the AF style either by reasons within their control or reasons outside of it and are stuck with Corp only.  One of the biggest complaints about the Corp is the definition of grey and that there is a lack of formal attire outside of the blazer combo.  Another issue is the trend of the polo being considered the minimum uniform for SM. 

Another issue is that no one wants to be the bad guy and point out uniform violations and when they are pointed out no one wants to take action on it.

[arajca]

Wicked problems - by their very defintion - may never be "solved," but there are coping strategies that can be used to manage the issue, including collaborative efforts to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and work together in drafting policy.  Like, say, a national uniform committee.

Anyway, I think the concept helps explain why we find the issue so frustrating.

A National Uniform Committee that the average member has no input to. I'll use myself as an example. Over the past few years, I have sent up 12 or 15 suggestions, each fully developed with graphics when appropriate. To date, I have heard back on exactly 1. The wing commander button holed me at a meeting to told me he was not sending a particular one up and explained why. The rest went somewhere, but everytime time I inquired about them, I was told they were sent up, until they supposedly went up to National where, I think, they ended up in someone's shreader.

After a change at a level above the unit, I heard from the commander that he's not sending any uniform ideas up because he felt the uniforms were good as the were. I've heard this story repeated multiple times from folks in various wings.

To me, the NUC is yet another failed solution until there is some way for the average member to have their ideas taken seriously.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Right?

I'm sure there are a lot of "old salts" on the said committee, but perhaps there should be an open application process where the willing members could have submitted applications to become part of the committee instead of shadowy NDA-like approaches members roped in with.

[RiverAux]

Those characteristics define most real-world problems, so the concept is not terribly useful. 

I'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions.  We'll never get away from them. 

The CG Aux has the same potential for massive uniform problems as does CAP.  However, they avoid them by
1) Having essentially the same uniform as our parent service
2) In practice, there is no discrimination among members in regards to what uniforms they can wear.  There is some guidance than could lead have led them down the same road as CAP, but it is so vague as to be unusable, and since everybody recognizes that, it isn't applied. 
3) Having a relatively small number of uniform options. 

I will agree that the 3 issues above relate back to one of the Wicked Problem characteristics in that they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service.  Because of the great relationship with its parent, the CG Aux doesn't face the same issues and avoids the problem. 

[PHall]

Comparing the USCGAux with CAP is an Apples and Oranges thing.
CAP has a Cadet Program and the CGAux doesn't.
If you seperated the CAP Senior Members who do not conduct the Cadet Program from the rest of CAP, then, you might have something to compare to the CGAux.

[Ned]

Sir,

Part of what I see being the problem is that there is no unified consensus about it.  Some want the AF style canned except for cadets, others want the polo canned, etc.  One of the main thing I see is the discontent that many can't wear the AF style either by reasons within their control or reasons outside of it and are stuck with Corp only.  One of the biggest complaints about the Corp is the definition of grey and that there is a lack of formal attire outside of the blazer combo.  Another issue is the trend of the polo being considered the minimum uniform for SM. 

Another issue is that no one wants to be the bad guy and point out uniform violations and when they are pointed out no one wants to take action on it.

Exactly.  Wicked problem, isn't it?

[ . . .] they relate back to another problem -- CAP has a poor relationship with our parent service.

Pretty good example of characteristic #9.  Here you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform.  The "solutions" to the uniform policy issues become plain only when a stakeholder gets to define the problem in ways the other stakeholders cannot agree.

Wicked, huh?

A National Uniform Committee that the average member has no input to. [. . .] To me, the NUC is yet another failed solution until there is some way for the average member to have their ideas taken seriously.

To say that you do not have access to the committee is not the same thing as not having meaningful input to the uniform policy that is eventually adopted.  At some point the draft 39-1 will be posted for full input, and members will have a full and complete opportunity to be provide input.

Kinda like what we are doing with the 52-10.  We posted it for input.  Significantly revised it based on the input we received, and have posted the revision for further comment.  Members and stakeholders are being heard loudly and clearly in the process.

I expect the same for the 39-1.

Having said that, I again repeat that since we are dealing with a largely aesthetic issue (what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful of our diverse membership) many members are going to be unhappy with whatever is decided.  And our discussions here on CAP Talk will continue unabated.

Because it appears to be a wicked problem.

I'm sure there were uniform problems in the Roman Legions.  We'll never get away from them.

Now you are just egging me on to repeat myself.  So I will

Although we are only Auxilia, we must continue to present a professional image to the full Legionnaires.

Our centurions are forced to wear helmet crests of horsehair or worse.  We should be able to wear feathers like the regular centurions.  I am embarrassed every time I go the marketplace.

And our standard bearers should not wear the pelts of lesser animals like coyotes or deer.  They should wear wolf pelts or perhaps bear to show that we contribute to the total effort as much as any member of the VI Legion!

No, we should be proud of being Auxilia and should not try to look like full Legionnaires.  They are the ones in battle, not us.  Our contributions are vital, but we are not Roman citizens; we hail from the provinces.  We are content to work quietly at our jobs.  After all, Auxilia are not trained nearly as much as a Legionnaire, so we should dress distinctively.  We don't want to draw unnecessary fire from barbarians, do we?

But the last Emperor made too many uniform changes -- our helmets, shields, and armor are different from when I first joined the Auxilia.  And I have to pay for these myself!

But Cladius Didius looks foolish in his tunic -- he is the size of an elephant, but refuses to acknowledge that life was good to him in Gaul.  We should have distinctive uniforms for our  Auxilia "Maximus" members.

Our youngest recruits deserve some distinctive items to help motivate them for the rigorous training. Perhaps we could award them phalerae to wear on their breastplates.  That should do the trick.

[FW]

^Hizzah!   

[RiverAux]

Here you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform.

No, you've got it exactly backwards.  The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF.  If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems. 

[Eclipse]

+1.

[arajca]

Open for comment like 52-10 or 174-1? There is an extreme difference on opportunites for members to comment on regs. 174-1 was released complete with no opportunity to comment THE DAY BEFORE the changes took effect, despite NHQ KNOWING the changes were coming at least 1.5 months ahead of time.

In the past, comments for regulations were required to go through the chain of command, just like suggestions are. If someone in the chain doesn't like your comment, its dead. If someone is just to [darn] lazy to hit forward, members' comments are dead.

As I mentioned, I was only informed of the status of one suggestion I made. I have made several inquiries over the years to try to see where my ideas died, including a direct PM to a member of the NUC to see if any made it there - not even if they had been rejected or accepted, just if they got them - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE ABOVE WING.

And I'm supposed to accept that members suggestions are even considered outside of cadet programs?

[abdsp51]

Here you have defined whether or not CAP has a good relationship with our parent service based simply on whether the AF will allow [by BMI definition] obese persons to wear their uniform.

No, you've got it exactly backwards.  The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF.  If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems.

So your basing your assesment that the relationship with the AF is poor because members who for what ever reason can/will not met H/W or grooming requirements can not wear the AF uniform? 

[Ned]

No, you've got it exactly backwards.  The uniform problem is one of the symptoms of the poor relationship that we have with the AF.  If we had a good relationship we could work out a solution that doesn't cause other problems.

Thank you for making my point.

Because we both have it exactly backwards.  For you (and others) uniforms are a symptom of a poor relationship.

For others, any such poor relationship is a symptom of the uniform issue. 

Both are valid viewpoints, but tend to make the problem intractable because one stakeholder's "solution" becomes another stakeholder's "problem."  And both problems become symptoms of the other.

Wicked, huh?

[Eclipse]

No - the inability to come to simple logical solutions regarding the uniform is a small, but highly visible symptom of
both the relationship issue(s) between CAP and the USAF, and CAP's internal organizational problems in regards to leadership by committee and the failure to understand how something which should be a no-thought, baseline part of being a member
becomes "important" when the rules for wear are both inconsistently written, and worse, inconsistently enforced and applied.

CAP wants to play both sides of the street - categorizing the uniform as simultaneously "important" and "not important".
As a point of fact, CAP does this with a >LOT< of things.

You can't have it both ways, and the day CAP realizes this at a meaningful level will be the day we finally start getting out of our own way, and until we realize this, we are destined to continue to walk in the same circular rut.

[RiverAux]

+1 to Eclipse

But, Ned does have a point in that the uniform problems actually do occasionally cause problems with the AF.  So, yes, they can both be a symptom of the poor relationship as well as a cause of the poor relationship. 

Its a vicious circle that can only be fixed by improving our overall relationship with the AF and working together as a team whenever possible.  In that sort of environment you can fix a lot of things, including uniform issues. 

[Ned]

No - the inability to come to simple logical solutions regarding the uniform is a small, but highly visible symptom of
both the relationship issue(s) between CAP and the USAF, and CAP's internal organizational problems in regards to leadership by committee and the failure to understand how something which should be a no-thought, baseline part of being a member
becomes "important" when the rules for wear are both inconsistently written, and worse, inconsistently enforced and applied.

Ahh, yes.

Most issues are clear when someone else has to decide them.

Seriously Bob, with your own words, you just pointed out how uniforms are tied into at least three otherwise separate issues:  CAP - USAF relationships, CAP internal governance processes, and respect shown to our diverse membership.

The fact that the problems are interelated, do not have "true-or-false" solutions - only "good" and "bad", and there is no stopping rule (no goal line, no end, etc.) are key reasons this is an intractable problem.

Which I think meets the definition of a wicked problem.  If this were easy, given all the angst we would have solved it long ago.

CAP wants to play both sides of the street - categorizing the uniform as simultaneously "important" and "not important".

I don't think CAP has ever said that uniforms are "unimportant."  I think every leader recognizes that uniforms are an integral tool to help us perform our missions.

But we should never confuse our uniforms with our missions.

[. . .] we are destined to continue to walk in the same circular rut.

On that, sadly, we agree.

[RiverAux]

If this were easy, given all the angst we would have solved it long ago.

I don't think he (or anyone) said it was an easy issue to fix.