Organizational Excellence Start-Up

[Stroke]

The OE specialty track has been left for individual Wings to establish and implement with guidance from regulation.  This is much the same as how ES training is conducted with a particular Wing's 'flavor' if you will.  As more and more Wings start to develop and implement their OE specialty track programs, what would you as either a member of the OE track or just a member of the wing like to see as far as specific implementation of the objectives covered in CAPP 229?  What expectations do you have of individuals in the program? 

For Example:
Being on AD AF, I have related similarities in this track to the Weapons School or AMMOS (Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School).  Both produce graduate level experts in their fields who are expected to go back into the flying or maintaining community and perform in leadership rolls.  Members of the OE track, from what I can see, are expected to be experts in CAP and fulfill leadership rolls in the CAP community.  So, through my lens or perspective, I would like to see similar training take place with the OE members in my Wing.  Now, I am not proposing that OE members be 'TOP GUN' like experts flying a -172.  I am merely stating, as a comparison, individuals that graduate from the AD school are a well rounded expert in all aspects of their field.     

Thoughts?

[Eclipse]

I think that the idea of the program is well-intentioned, and a track to groom commanders in the more subjective ways of management
is sorely needed, but the simple fact is that we do not currently have the depth of manpower, expertise, or time for it to get any real traction.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think that many wings informally have tried to appointment leaders that have appropriate experience in the program.

However, as far as all this formal procedures, etc., unfortunately it all gets down to resources availability -- personnel staff, and volunteer time availability.   
RM 

[peter rabbit]

my concern about the OE track is that it requires: Achieve the Technician rating in one of CAP's primary missions:  Aerospace Education (AE), Cadet Programs (CP) or Emergency Services (ES).

I've invested time in the aircrew area - MS, MO, MP, CD, O-RIDE, and in getting Senior & Master Ratings in three other areas, and a Technician rating in another. Getting another rating in one of the three specified tracks would be difficult for me.

[SarDragon]

Does it say you need a rating as ESO, or can any of the ES related ratings be used - Ops, Stan/Eval, etc.? There's a big difference.

[Stroke]

SarDragon--I couldn't find anything that specified ESO...so...any of the ES related ratings would work.  I believe the intent is that you focus on the three missions. 

I'm really surprised.  It looks to me that this track is doomed to fail because of manpower shortages and resource availability?  After some of the comments/complaints about the lack of real training for Commanders and National implements this program, we are going to let this opportunity fail. 

I really do see this track as a great opportunity to get a strong community of best practices for those members who want to seek out leadership opportunities in CAP.  I'm disappointed to see it may have already failed before it could get started.   

[arajca]

National threw this out for the members, then hasn't put any advice or guidance out since. Although they have said otherwise, this is a commanders' track. Even as a wing staffer, I cannot get farther than the Tech rating in it because I have not been a commander. I also do not see myself taking command anytime in the foreseeable future.

[peter rabbit]

Insert Quote
SarDragon--I couldn't find anything that specified ESO...so...any of the ES related ratings would work.  I believe the intent is that you focus on the three missions.

from NHQ - in addition to AE & CP specialty tracks,

One can get credit for the ES ratings by getting a rating in the ES, Ops, Flight Ops, or Stan-Eval specialty tracks.

BOBBIE-JEAN TOURVILLE
Chief, Professional Development
HQ Civil Air Patrol

This still leaves me out in the cold.

[James Shaw]

How many folks do we actually have in this Specialty Track?  I have not heard much about it lately.

[FW]

Last I heard; the program is still on hold as the final details have not been worked out.  I would hope a final guide would be published by 2012. 

IMHO, The OE track has much potential in grooming our future leaders.  Contrary to some opinions, we have a wealth of assets to draw from in our membership; Generals, Corporate Presidents, former CAP senior leaders...

The idea is to create a leadership which can utilize best practices; building a continually better CAP for all concerned. 

[James Shaw]

IMHO, The OE track has much potential in grooming our future leaders.  Contrary to some opinions, we have a wealth of assets to draw from in our membership; Generals, Corporate Presidents, former CAP senior leaders...

The idea is to create a leadership which can utilize best practices; building a continually better CAP for all concerned.

I agree!!

I applied for and was approved for my Master Rating in the OE track last year. I also feel that it would  be a good program if it can get some more muscle behind it. I just havent seen much about this for a while.

[jimmydeanno]

I enrolled a few months ago and am waiting for my Senior Rating to be approved.  Just being a member for a while enabled me to meet most of the lower requirements by default.  In reality, I meet most of the requirements through the Executive level, with exception of the additional mission specialty tracks and the upper command billets.  I have 4 Master Ratings and a few other miscellaneous specialty track ratings, but not the right ones...

However, it might be a while to get the last rating in ES, because it isn't something that I'm necessarily interested in pursuing as part of my PD, but I certainly understand the concepts, execution, etc of the ES program.  I just have no interest in administering the ES program.

[mclarke]

my concern about the OE track is that it requires: Achieve the Technician rating in one of CAP's primary missions:  Aerospace Education (AE), Cadet Programs (CP) or Emergency Services (ES).

I've invested time in the aircrew area - MS, MO, MP, CD, O-RIDE, and in getting Senior & Master Ratings in three other areas, and a Technician rating in another. Getting another rating in one of the three specified tracks would be difficult for me.

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

[tsrup]

Absolutely, if OE is supposed to do what it says, then technician in all three missions should be obtained.

I know that this is going to leave some people (mostly those in senior squadrons) out in the cold, however these things aren't meant to be "gimmes" for everyone.  It will recognize the fact that this member is at least versed in all aspects of CAP and is a well rounded member of the program.

A person in a senior squadron or person who's only focus is ES, and while I'm sure is invaluable to his/her squadron, they are not by definition well-rounded.

OE is a track that should require extra and long term commitment to obtain, not something that could be grabbed with minimal effort.

[peter rabbit]

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

Hmmmm........that sounds just like what SUIs are supposed to do.

[Eclipse]

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

Hmmmm........that sounds just like what SUIs are supposed to do.

No.  SUI's are supposed to insure that a unit is at least meeting the regulatory minimums for operation.  They have nothing to do with
seeing how others do things, since the regs are the same for everyone at the SUI level.

Yes, there is a mechanism for sharing best practices, but that is not the reason that SUI's exist.

[Spaceman3750]

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

Hmmmm........that sounds just like what SUIs are supposed to do.

And higher HQ commanders/staff...

[peter rabbit]

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

Hmmmm........that sounds just like what SUIs are supposed to do.

No.  SUI's are supposed to insure that a unit is at least meeting the regulatory minimums for operation.  They have nothing to do with
seeing how others do things, since the regs are the same for everyone at the SUI level.

Yes, there is a mechanism for sharing best practices, but that is not the reason that SUI's exist.

Actually, IMO, if done with the attitude that an SUI is a two-way thing, you can learn and share quite a bit.

[Larry Mangum]

Apparently the OE track is being reworked. Only the head of PD at national can approve anything right now.

[Eclipse]

Actually, IMO, if done with the attitude that an SUI is a two-way thing, you can learn and share quite a bit.

I agree to a point, but an SUI is not, by purpose, "Squadron 101", and it certainly is not the generalized education the OE tracks purports.  You need that walking into the SUI to be an effective inspector.

An SUI should be a straightforward question and answer session.  It is then up to the respective commander to fix things based on the findings, and
the next echelon to decide how much of what is discovered is important.

[tsrup]

I think OE should require Technician in all 3 missions of CAP. Other than that, I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone who could actually visit numerous squadrons during the year to speak and hear ideas, see how different squadrons operate, and such. To improve, I think it should be a hands-on approach.

Hmmmm........that sounds just like what SUIs are supposed to do.

No.  SUI's are supposed to insure that a unit is at least meeting the regulatory minimums for operation.  They have nothing to do with
seeing how others do things, since the regs are the same for everyone at the SUI level.

Yes, there is a mechanism for sharing best practices, but that is not the reason that SUI's exist.

Actually, IMO, if done with the attitude that an SUI is a two-way thing, you can learn and share quite a bit.

Not even close.   An SUI is done for inspection of compliance.  If you wait until your SUI rolls around to ask the necessary questions then you have failed already.  It's not like the criteria is top secret or anything.