CAP Seal Background Color

[Luis R. Ramos]

Wasn't one of the reasons if not THE REASON that The Hock Shop was dispensed with the lack of quality control/inability to keep standards?



Yet Vanguard is doing the same according to most posters here...



...Nothing appears to be done by NHQ...



Flyer

[Ned]

Don't trivialize it with the typical "Seriously, is this a big deal?" response. 

But, Bob, it IS a trivial detail.  Petty, picayune, trifling, or whatever you want to call it.

It is an optional item on an optional uniform worn by very few members.  So minor a defect that it has gone all but unnoticed by anyone for well over a decade.

It's not just this issue, it is the issue. [ . . .]

Stupid little trivialities that call into question the attention to detail of the whole situation

Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail, the shoe was lost" argument, but leaders who can't tell the difference between trivial and important issues cannot lead effectively in large organizations.

And this is probably the best example of a trivial detail I can imagine.  Sure, it needs to get fixed, but to start talking about firing people and predicting Doom and Gloom for the entire organization is just silly.

And poor leadership.

[Storm Chaser]

Seriously, here is a discrepancy on a uniform item used by less than 2% of the membership that went unnoticed for decades.  And somebody should be fired?

Only 2% of members wear the CAP polo shirt? I'm pretty sure that number is larger, much larger than that.

[Ned]

Wasn't one of the reasons if not THE REASON that The Hock Shop was dispensed with the lack of quality control/inability to keep standards?



Yet Vanguard is doing the same according to most posters here...



...Nothing appears to be done by NHQ...



Flyer

Luis,

If you go back and read some of the previous posts, you will see this is not a Vanguard issue.  They are simply making the same products that CAP itself made for years and sold through the Bookstore and CAPMart.  If there was a mistake made, Vanguard had nothing to do with it.

[Eclipse]

It's not just this issue, it is the issue. [ . . .]

Stupid little trivialities that call into question the attention to detail of the whole situation

Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail, the shoe was lost" argument, but leaders who can't tell the difference between trivial and important issues cannot lead effectively in large organizations.

And this is probably the best example of a trivial detail I can imagine.  Sure, it needs to get fixed, but to start talking about firing people and predicting Doom and Gloom for the entire organization is just silly.

And poor leadership.

Firing people not doing the job is poor leadership?  I think the entirety of the for-profit business sector disagrees.

Yes,

This.

Particular.

Issue.

In and of itself.

Is one in a forest of small things.  However, there's supposed to be staff to handle this, which means FOR THEM.
It's not trivial, IT"S THEIR JOB. 

Short handed?  Burn the "not invented here" shirts and start asking for help.

This is one of 10 or 20 "easy" fixes.

3 or 4 seasoned members take the regs and spend a few days at Vanguard reviewing
quality and specification issues of every piece of inventory, sends a report to VG and the
NHQ OPR with a 60-day response and 120 day remediation required.

This sort of thing should have been in the contract.

[Eclipse]

And who, specifically, is the OPR for this?

[Storm Chaser]

I don't think these types of issues should be submitted through the chain of command. My group commander, wing commander and region commander have more important things to do than to forward these up the chain. I should be able to contact the OPR directly with these types of issues or concerns.

Edited for spelling/grammar.

[Luis R. Ramos]

But Ned, I do remember the posts! 

Basically people seem to be posting that when NHQ issued the contracts or handed the contracts or whatever NHQ did not give standards/specs to Vanguard...

Yet it also appears that when Vanguard runs out of something they create their own specs! 

Flyer

[NIN]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

Whereas the Bookstore probably had one of their paid people who might have been an expert on heraldry and was the sort of "go to" person for that sort of thing, in the ensuing 20 years since the reorganization of CAP, Inc, we've seen a lot of things outsourced, pared down, moved on line, pushed out to the field, etc.

Heraldry is one of those things that on the surface seems "easy and not terribly important" when you're talking about maintaining your major programs, layoffs, etc. (ie. you're not going to cut out someone in the safety department so you can keep a guy on staff who knows that "bar sinister" is not a place where bad guys go to get a drink)

[Eclipse]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

The DP is a volunteer, like everyone else.  Where is his staff?

30,000 adult volunteers.

This also isn't "heraldry".  In most cases this is holding the vendor accountable for quality and adherence to the specs.

It requires someone who isn't color blind and a reasonable eye for detail.

30,000 adult volunteers.

[Ned]

30,000 adult volunteers.

Yup, one of whom noticed a minor discrepancy which can be fixed with a simple notification through the chain.


Well, that and two pages of exciting discussion on CAPTalk.  If only we could generate this much interest in mission-related matters.

[Eclipse]

30,000 adult volunteers.

Yup, one of whom noticed a minor discrepancy which can be fixed with a simple notification through the chain.

Yes, by all means let's minimize the issue by continuing to try and shape the conversation as if this is
only about a single issue and beyond that, NHQ, Vanguard, and all involved have their act together.

That, is the SOP.

That is why CAP is in the position it is in today.

[SamFranklin]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for. 

[Tim Medeiros]

The OPR for uniform items is DP.

This is part and parcel the proximate result of paring down of the HQ staff to the bare minimum. 

The DP is a volunteer, like everyone else.  Where is his staff?

30,000 adult volunteers.

This also isn't "heraldry".  In most cases this is holding the vendor accountable for quality and adherence to the specs.

It requires someone who isn't color blind and a reasonable eye for detail.

30,000 adult volunteers.

The OPR is not a volunteer, according to http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/contacts/ the OPR is Ms LaBarre who is paid staff.  If you look in the key personnel directory she's listed with the Chaplain/Health Services folks.  She's also rather approachable, a quick non-snippy email would likely put this on the track to resolution.

[Panache]

I have to admit a bit of amusement that this is a big deal in some people's minds.

Of all the things...

[Eclipse]

Seriously, you're missing the point.

The issue isn't any one insignia, it's the fact that all of these details are blown off or left to the members to deal with.

If we have paid staff who's job it is to do this, that's worse.

I can't begin to imagine why she'd be listed with Chaplains and HSOs, unless it's a secondary duty and
this isn't her main job.

[SunDog]

Whomever is responsible for enforcing the vendor contracts needs to be fired or relieved, and Vanguard should
have some contractual tenants that penalize them when they produce products of unacceptable quality or
which do not adhere to specifications.

As to the "chain" - let's not kid ourselves or play games.  There is no "chain" in this regard.  Real, serious
issues die on the vine all the time because someone in the "chain" can't be bothered.  This kind of thing
isn't the responsibility of anyone below NHQ, so why would anyone below that level waste their precious
CAP time?  Talk about windmills.

What a classic CAPTalk over reaction to a trivial uniform issue.

Seriously, here is a discrepancy on a uniform item used by less than 2% of the membership that went unnoticed for decades.  And somebody should be fired?

Weren't you the guy who said:

Any Wing CC who views the background color of an insignia produced by our sole-source vendor as a priority should be removed immediately.

You seem to have a limited number of tools in your Leadership Tool Box, sir.   

There is an OPR for this, they should fix it and anything else related.

Yup, absolutely.  Someone just needs to tell them about it.  Which is what the chain is for.

Really, just takes the briefest of notes - "Hey, I was looking at Vanguard Item # CAP 0900A, the enameled seal for the mess dress, and the blue background appears to be in conflict with the official description of the seal in CAPR 900-1, which prescribes a "silver gray."  Just thought you'd like to know."

This needs to be fixed, but let's all retain a sense of perspective here.

Ah, Ned, now you done it. . .you are too articulate, too clearly intelligent, to really believe Eclipse is going off over this one issuein particular. C'mon, man!

Eclipse annoys me heartily (nothing personal, we just B diffrent tempers), but he was obviously speaking to the general state of CAP management affiairs, with this issue as an illustrative example of the bigger picture.  You're choosing to pretend he's ranting about a dinner plate. Shame!

Use that intellect to influence direction; loose about 1/2 the rabbit holes, dead processes, abandoned initiatives, forms, pubs, orphaned efforts, and sundry time wasting-no value added junk. Then perhaps some focus can be put on effective mgmnt of what remains.

Hire a BPR outfit, or use summary execution, or do something to tighten this thing up. . .

[SunDog]

I agree with Ned. 

The measure of an organization is what it accomplishes, not what it does along the way to produce that accomplishment. Bob has missed the mark in saying that trivia like seal background tells us something important about our organization. I agree it's a snafu and shows that we get lots of little administrative things wrong and can do better in that area. But, mission accomplishment is the metric. These aren't the droids we're looking for.

I gotta disagree.  I can't speak to CP or AE; I do MP and aircrew.  We can't keep pilots largely because of the bilizzard of administrivia. We don't get "lot's of little administrative things wrong", we get lot's of big administrative things wrong. We're burdened with useless process, and we waste people's time.

Waste. Time. Our finite resource. You want my help on Sunday? After a full day on Saturday that should have been a half day, but for the goofy, pointless hoops I had to jump through?

We aren't nearly as mission capable as could be, largely because we aren't focused, aren't efficient with our time, and haven't culled the trivial and concentrated on the essential

final rant.

[NIN]

 that is a good point. One of the key aspects of volunteer management that I always try to follow as a commander was do not waste my people's time.

we do a lot of things pretty well. Or at least really thoroughly. But sometimes I wonder if we're not a little too thorough, or too hidebound, in what we are trying to accomplish.

I get making sure people are qualified. And safe. But sometimes the flaming hoops get to be a little bit crazy.

The pendulum can swing the other way as well. Using professional development training as an example, it is easy to say " oh yeah, let's cut that two day course down to one." then all the sudden the training you're delivering is really not that effective or even useful. You just taken a training activity that was pretty important ( sometimes ) and turned it into a box checking exercise. what wastes a volunteer's time more? Traveling to a training event where we are trying to cram 16 hours of training in to 8  in the name of efficiency, or actually executing the 16 hour training schedule as it was designed? ( I have seen it go both ways. I have been to two day long training events that were so poorly run that we could have got everything we needed in the first six hours. I have also been 21 day training event that we're still poorly run that the students barely had a chance to say their name, let alone ask a question. A lot of it is finding the balance of effective use of the time and not wasting time)

As a parent with two kids, neither of which are in CAP, my time is an incredibly finite resource these days. I only have a certain number of weekends to devote to CAP anymore. And most of those com somewhere between the first of november and the  first of April, so I want to make sure that I get the most bang for my buck, or day spent.

I realize this has suddenly turned a uniforms thread to something else ( shocking ), but it does speak to the continued viability of our volunteer force in the face of increasing schedule pressures from our membership. It is one thing to have dedicated members who only do CAP. I think we all know that we need a much broader membership base than that. A lot of what we could be doing, both at the local and national levels, is working to identify processes that need to be streamlined, eliminated, or modernized.

Wasn't there a committee formed a few years ago to look at Paperwork Reduction? I mean paperwork is one thing, but just looking at all of our processes would be key.



As a brief example, I know a member who recently applied for and received equivalency for his military training in the professional development program. He had to jump through a whole series of hoops that were not in the regulation to accomplish this. That entire process that he went through could have been far more simple had somebody just said "hey, whoa, what is the simplest way to accomplish that?" Instead  of taking a couple days, the process stretched into a couple weeks with several iterations of emailing documents around and people saying that the process as described in the manual wasn't the way things should go. Come on, this is not rocket surgery. This is a black and white, fairly straightforward, process that has been in place for years. Why can't we do it the absolute simplest way and stop wasting peoples time?

[ColonelJack]

I realize this has suddenly turned a uniforms thread to something else ( shocking ),

I think that's against the rules here.  If it isn't, it ought to be.   

Wasn't there a committee formed a few years ago to look at Paperwork Reduction? I mean paperwork is one thing, but just looking at all of our processes would be key.

Several years ago, there was a government-wide attempt to reduce paperwork.  It was actually called the "Paperwork Reduction Act."  All it did was lead to more paperwork to ensure that the paperwork reduction act was being followed.

Your Federal Government at work, folks.

Jack