Aug 2012 NB Agenda

[Al Sayre]

I really don't like the IT as an ES Specialty.  I can see a corollary to the Communications regs spinning up already.  Only those with an X level can install computers, hook up printers, install software etc.  The wireless LAN goes down but nobody at the mission has an ES qual, so they aren't allowed to fix it.  Etc. etc.  We end up hamstringing ourselves because some people in a group/specialty track wants to build their own kingdom. 

It will take about 10 seconds after this is approved before they someone has the bright idea to add a "CAP Geek Squad" patch to 39-1 and starts asking for VW Beetles so they can shuttle around between the mission bases.   

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I know NER is looking at the IT issue for Area Command. Even at that level it looks like the ES requirement will be MSA. (Basically to be working in the ICP / ACP).

If we've got someone with the life experience to provide FREE IT Support to our mission, let's keep the flaming hoops to a minimum.

What's next? An ES qual to be updating mission status boards?

[Eclipse]

Well, from that perspective, "life experience" means you should be able to ace any testing or tasking
without too much trouble - just like a Ranger still has to actually demonstrate skills for GT, and we wouldn't let
Chuck Yeager in his prime simply fly a CAP airplane.

The challenge comes in with what you decide is "important".  Experience has shown that when it comes to technical matters, some people believe theory academics are more important than practical reality.

Any test or qualification for an operational ITO position that includes a question about the OSI model misses the point.

[lordmonar]

The problem.....is that it does not need to be an specialty......you just need someone who know how to do it.

[Eclipse]

The problem.....is that it does not need to be an specialty......you just need someone who know how to do it.

I agree, but the argument could be made for most specialties in CAP, and I know a >>>>>LOT<<<<<< of "IT Guyz" who
have no idea what they are doing. 

In fact, cleaning up their messes has put both bread and butter on my table the last few years.

You don't want to be dependent on a Geek Squad guy who professes to having a clue and makes things worse.

There are also those on the other side of the spectrum with a wall full of certs who seek to maintain their
"secret society" and believe that "effective" has to mean "expensive" and "complex".  Some identification
of common sense skillz from NHQ would not necessarily be a bad idea from that angle.

[lordmonar]

As an IT and Hardware professional myself.......and seeing what sort of IT stuff we get out of NHQ.....I don't know if they are qualified to come up with a common skills list for a mission base IT infrastructure.

And yes I too know a lot of IT pros who purposely go out of their way to make things difficult (my squadron IT guy made different ADMIN passwords for each one of our 10 computers!  I could have killed him!).

[Eclipse]

^ UGH!  BTDT!

SECURITY!  SECURITY!  SECURITY!

It's like safety - if it's your focus over usability, you miss the point!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The thing about the IT rating, anything to do with IT in fact, is how up-to-date a person's life experience with it is.

I have an IT degree, but it comes from the days when I was an assistant IT manager on an AS-400 based system, and Windows were something you drew the shutters over.  I also learned programming in QuickBasic.

Meaning: good for its time, but not terribly useful today...kind of like being an ace at Missile Command on an old Atari system, or being a wiz at coding on a Tandy Trash80.

One of my professors told me that as soon as technology hits the shelves, it's obsolete.

[Eclipse]

Agree - in a lot of cases, an "IT Degree" takes longer to get then the technology lasts.

Even certs these days are questionable unless you intend to stay on that train and support big-iron in the back room.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

So let's take a look at how 2 other CAP Specialty Tracks get to join the ES world. Public Affairs Officer and Chaplain

Mission Chaplain (MC)

• Be a CAP Chaplain
• IS 100, 200, 700
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• Chaplain's Course 221-A
• 1 Chaplain specific Task

Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Qualified MSA
• IS 100, 200, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 PIO specific Tasks

Mission Staff Assistant (MSA) (for reference)

• IS 100, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 MSA specific Tasks

Now why does the PIO, who talks to the press, needs IS200 & ICS300 when the MC, who talks to the families, does not?

Having looked this all up I could get on board with a SQTR for Mission IT Support (MIS). MSA qualification as a prerequisite and some tasks to cover network / internet, PC and software troubleshooting. I would not link it to the IT Spec Track as this is a function that cadets should be able to participate in (and may be the best source)

[Eclipse]

Now why does the PIO, who talks to the press, needs IS200 & ICS300 when the MC, who talks to the families, does not?

The PIO serves as part of the actual ICS staff, including processing incoming clues and related information, and
strategically deciding what should be released in an effort to get back more information.

MC's do not.  They have no strategic or tactical role in the mission, and are there solely for comfort and counselling, primarily externally,
since you can be an MC, but nor necessarily involved in CISM.

[AirDX]

Mission Staff Assistant (MSA) (for reference)

• IS 100, 700, 800, ICS 300
• A or B CUT & Basic ES Comms Task
• 3 MSA specific Tasks

MSA only needs IS-100 and -700.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Oops. Cut and paste error.

[rmutchler]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

[PhoenixRisen]

Having looked this all up I could get on board with a SQTR for Mission IT Support (MIS). MSA qualification as a prerequisite and some tasks to cover network / internet, PC and software troubleshooting. I would not link it to the IT Spec Track as this is a function that cadets should be able to participate in (and may be the best source)

As an IT guy myself, I'd love to see something like this.  I've never really had the time to get as involved in the operations side of the house (though when possible, I'd like to start working towards GTM and MS / MO quals), so being able to use current experience to work towards a qualification, IMO, would greatly help me out.

It will take about 10 seconds after this is approved before they someone has the bright idea to add a "CAP Geek Squad" patch to 39-1 and starts asking for VW Beetles so they can shuttle around between the mission bases.

[joke]

Can we get cool, police-style badges to accompany the Geek Squad patch?



[/joke]

[Eclipse]

Thankfully, those guys are not long for the world.  I give them, and Best Buy for that matter, about another year, maybe two.

[lordmonar]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

You can have an IT guy......who fixes things.....but not an ES rateing.  When our plane breaks....we call the mechanic....no ES rating.  When the Van breaks we call the mechanic.....no ES rating.....when the radio breaks....we call the radio repair guy....no ES rating.

[JeffDG]

I agree there should be an IT specialist position in ES.  Does it make sense for an IC, AOBD, or other mission staff member to be troubleshooting equipment?  Should the IC be trying to fix a wireless connection?  No!  Just like the COMM guy shouldn't be talking to media, or assigning resources.

In the spirit of ICS, the position shouldn't be a required mission staff position, but should be "spun up" as necessary for a mission.

There should be some requirements for an IT specialist, such as education, certifications, or prior experience.  The IT speciality track could also be used for this.  Being a C/ITO shouldn't be a limiting factor, if they have practical knowledge.

You can have an IT guy......who fixes things.....but not an ES rateing.  When our plane breaks....we call the mechanic....no ES rating.  When the Van breaks we call the mechanic.....no ES rating.....when the radio breaks....we call the radio repair guy....no ES rating.

When you need a comm net set up you call a CUL:  ES rating.  When you need an aircraft flown on the mission, you call an MP:  ES Rating.

Setting up a field IT infrastructure is not a Geek Squad type of call.  You need to understand what's being done with your network and how to set it up to make sure the mission gets done.  That's a mix of IT and Mission skills, and that, traditionally, ends up with an ES rating.

[krnlpanick]

I was asked by someone yesterday how long I had been in the IT industry. Over the last 17 years I have gone from help desk to field service engineer to chief architect of software development and senior application security engineer (lot's of fancy titles, right?)

So what does this mean, it means that for the last 17 years I have generally had a job in IT fixing something that (generally) some other "IT guy" did wrong. The common answer to the question, "Who did you say did your infrastructure here again?" is generally answered with the likes of "Oh, it was our secretary, Bonnie's, husband's, sister's, dog's, previous owner's, babysitter's dad. Really great guy, told us all kinds of stuff about computers and the internet"

This is a problem across the whole of the world, not just in IT, but like people jumping in and saying "I used CB Radio's my whole life, I can be your MRO" - it has no place on a mission

CAP strives to put qualified people in key tactical and strategic roles on missions and the MIS position should absolutely be no different than any other position. Like the other qualifications, MIS should not be tied to the ST in any way/shape/form. Frankly, I think the IT ST could use a lot of work, but that is a whole seperate conversation.

My recommendation, FWIW is to have 2 qualifications

MIS (Mission IT Support) - This person is responsible for providing operational support to the mission staff for their computers, printers, networking equipment, and assigned field equipment (I still foster hope that eventually equipment like tablets will be available to GTL type people for missions). This person is also responsible for tracking corporate assigned assets assigned to mission staff and maintaining a minimal inventory of backup equipment for mission critical systems. The MIS reports to the MID or the Logistics Branch if no MID is assigned for the mission.

MID (Mission IT Director) - This person is responsible for procuring mission equipment, defining the Information Security policies for the mission, designing and implementing infrastructure as required for the mission's success and managing MIS staff. This position is not required for every mission, and the MID can also be the MIS for the mission. The MID reports to the Operations Section Chief.

This fits into the ICS system well and covers (imho) the most important aspects of Mission IT Support.

MIS
Prereqs: GES, IS100, IS200, IS700, IS800, MSA
Training Tasks:
   * Deploy and set up of mission IT equipment
   * Understand the concepts of Information Security
   * Maintain a log
   * Track corporate assets assigned to the mission
   * Implement a mission information security plan
   * ...

MIC
Prereqs: GES, MIS, IS300, IS400
Training Tasks:
   * Create an information security plan
   * Establish a Network Operations Center (NOC)
   * Assess information security risks for mission
   * Design and implement controls to mitigate mission information security risks
   * Procure corporate owned equipment
   * ...

I could probably go on for a while writing what tasks I think these qualifications should include, but as you can see this is not stuff that you would necessarily want you sister's guy who knows a guy doing - especially on an AF evaluated or real mission.

So, that is my $0.02

[JeffDG]

My only quibble with the above would be the title of the MID.

Under ICS, a position under the LSC would be a "Unit Leader".  The Logistics Branch has units, not Branches (which have leaders titled Directors, like the AOBD).  So, I would call your MID the ITUL.

Also concur about not tying it to the IT Specialty Track.