Are Unit Self-Inspections As Intensive As SUIs?

[ProdigalJim]

Found out today that my unit is due for a self-inspection.

CAPR 123-3, para 13b, says "The appropriate inspection guide and/or Self-inspection Tool will be used for region, wing, and local level self-inspections."

A later paragraph goes on to say that we have to supply a written report of the self-inspection findings one level up the chain, with a copy to the Wing IG.

The only guide I know of is the one for SUIs, which we completed a while back, the one with 38 pages of instructions and tabs for each major staff or operations function. Please tell me that I don't have to produce a full-up binder responsive to all the SUI questions every 12 months.

?

[Al Sayre]

Think about it this way, if you give yourselves an honest hard assessment including your continuity books, and correct anything you find, you should have no issues on the SUI.

[Eclipse]

You don't have to produce a full-up binder ever.  That's something wings have taken to doing to make the inspection process shorter,
But it's not required.

Ask and answer the questions, send the report up the chain.

A self-assessment is just another snapshot.

SUIs are not final exams, if staff are doing their jobs, they are no big deal, if they aren't there's nothing to document.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The SUI can be intense, but my experience with it is that it is not the inspectors just looking for stuff to gig you on.

The inspectors I dealt with were really, honestly trying to help each department improve itself.

[ProdigalJim]

SUIs are not final exams, if staff are doing their jobs, they are no big deal, if they aren't there's nothing to document.

Well we have a good squadron and I have a great staff; I was thinking more about the physical headache of making another binder (which our Wing does). That plus having to document that there's nothing to document, so to speak.

We did well in our "real" SUI, so I'm thinking those documents are a good starting point.

[Eclipse]

Well we have a good squadron and I have a great staff; I was thinking more about the physical headache of making another binder (which our Wing does). That plus having to document that there's nothing to document, so to speak.

I understand, and this "non-documenting" is one of the most ridiculous dances some IGs expect.

"No" is an appropriate answer for many of the questions.  Whether "no" gives anyone a concern is for a commander to decide later.

A knowledgeable staffer should be able to substantiate and address the questions without a binder to back him up.
Everything should be online somewhere (Checking watch...yes..it's 2014...EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ONLINE SOMEWHERE).
There are very few places where physical documents are required anymore, and those places are notated by either
reg or wing OI, otherwise, .PDF is your friend.

The reason these binders became "en vogue", and I'm not saying they are necessarily a bad thing, is because of man power
shortages at CAP-USAF (for CIs) coupled with inexperienced / ineffective staff officers who didn't' have a clue what was
going on and turned what should be a 1-hour inspection into a 4-8 hour root canal of "I don't know".

In most cases, a self-inspection will be reviewed for format by the IG, and may, or may not be read by anyone else.   It's a tool to
show you where you are.  They are usually most effective immediately after a change of command.

1) As I mentioned, SUIs and CIs are not final exams, they are supposed to be "current ops snapshots" - wings and units that cram to check boxes the
month before a 3-year inspection are defeating the entire purpose of the exercise, and the fact that many inspectors can't see through that cramming,
or that cramming on the check boxes is enough to actually get an "outstanding", shows the state of the system as it exists today.

Bottom line, the things CAP and CAP-USAF actually thinks are important, Property, Money, and Safety Training, are no longer in the
local control of commanders and are not question marks the day of the inspection.

2) An active program can document what its done in a few hours, an inactive program can't make up activity.

3) The grades are meaningless.
The only way to get stood down is to fail to respond, or break major Safety, Financial, or property regs.  The online systems make that
nearly impossible these days unless you are falsifying records (i.e. lose a radio and keep inventorying it as if you had it, etc.).

Any commander with 1/2 the needed staff who really cares about staying a commander is going to be far enough into the
lane to be fine.  The pay for "marginal" and "outstanding" are identical, as are the accolades (in most cases).

The commanders far enough out of the lane to actually have real problems probably shouldn't be commanders anyway, so that works out, too.
The phrase "CAP is administering us out of business." is only uttered by commanders who have not properly recruited / delegated to their
staff, or who have been ignoring everything but their "thing" for 1.5-3 years.  Appropriations for sympathy cards in these cases are expressly prohibited.

4) The inspectors are not the secret police of CAP, they have zero authority.   They are fact-finders, and in far too many cases
will know less about the subject then the person being inspected.  Answer the questions in simple language, substantiate if asked,
and move on.  Leave the "discussion" for the responses.  You'd be amazed how many discrepancies are noted which later are removed because
they actually aren't.

5) The day of the inspection is not the day to be fixing things.  Play the team you brought and make it easier on everyone.
Assigning an officer to a staff job while the inspector is sitting there (assuming it wasn't a legitimate oversight) isn't going to
magically produce a year's worth of staff activity.

6) Staff activity is not CAP's mission.  The member experience in executing the tri-prop is CAP's mission.

7) It is perfectly appropriate to use the clock to your advantage.  In most cases, responses are required in 90 days (or whatever the reg says), not action. 

And finally...

A good commander knows his grade going in, and is just as hacked, if not moreso, if the grade is higher then he thinks he deserves, then
when the grade is lower.

[Private Investigator]

A knowledgeable staffer should be able to substantiate and address the questions without a binder to back him up.
Everything should be online somewhere (Checking watch...yes..it's 2014...EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ONLINE SOMEWHERE).
There are very few places where physical documents are required anymore, and those places are notated by either
reg or wing OI, otherwise, .PDF is your friend.


4) The inspectors are not the secret police of CAP, they have zero authority.   They are fact-finders, and in far too many cases
will know less about the subject then the person being inspected.  Answer the questions in simple language, substantiate if asked,
and move on.  Leave the "discussion" for the responses.  You'd be amazed how many discrepancies are noted which later are removed because
they actually aren't.

And finally...

A good commander knows his grade going in, and is just as hacked, if not moreso, if the grade is higher then he thinks he deserves, then
when the grade is lower.

I am glad 2014 got here. When I was an IG we was just making the change to online so everything had to be hard copies. Staff people should know their job.

On #4 you try to get someone who knows what he is talking about to inspect a section. So sometimes you have a tech rated Finance person inspecting a master rated Finance officer and of course that would be a great grade. But you have a master rated communicator inspecting a unrated comm officer and their corporate radio is in a file cabinet, that calls for a spanking.

I prefer when a section got a number score, i.e., "yea me I got a 98 on Personnel!" instead of the current, 'highly successful'. That really does not encourage or boost my ego