Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate...

[Old EO Tech]

What does this mean? It kinda sounds to me like NDHQ work if by “manage” you mean you create & maintain “strategic policy” (we can debate what you think this means too).

Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Such as ? 

100% in agreement.  We are our own worst enemies at times in the CSS trades.

Well IMHO, the G4 Foods and the Master Driver would be very difficult to justify as CWO, simply because all they do on top of what a MWO does is manage a pers spreadsheet, and that is not justification for a CWO.  I'm not enough of an expert on what the DSC did day to day as they work in G1 not G4, but the I've had discussions with 3 different G4's and our consensus was the ETSM and the Snr Supply Tech, are the two CWO critical, both LEMS and MMDS are not in good shape currently and need to be steered in the right direction.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.

Cool.  I look forward to reading all of that so I can better understand your assertions.

 

[McG]

Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.

Okay but, as others have noted, neither "strategic" nor "policy" describe tasks within the level of a Canadian Army division.  So it sort of sounds like you are keeping yourself really busy doing work that should be centralized at a higher level, or maybe you are doing work that exists only because the HQ has capacity beyond what it needs, or maybe your talking yourself up, or I don't know. 

But if you are telling me that your work illustrates why the Army needs more CWO and the best description of your work that you can give is a shallow reference to things you should not be doing at that level of HQ, then I am left to maybe conclude that your conclusion is wrong.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Okay but, as others have noted, neither "strategic" nor "policy" describe tasks within the level of a Canadian Army division.  So it sort of sounds like you are keeping yourself really busy doing work that should be centralized at a higher level, or maybe you are doing work that exists only because the HQ has capacity beyond what it needs, or maybe your talking yourself up, or I don't know. 

But if you are telling me that your work illustrates why the Army needs more CWO and the best description of your work that you can give is a shallow reference to things you should not be doing at that level of HQ, then I am left to maybe conclude that your conclusion is wrong.

Well my intent was not to get into a debate on the proper use of the words strategic vs operational.  Yes our sub-formations are of course tactical.  And I deal with DGLEPM(ADM-MAT), DDRMIS and CA G4/CA DRMIS on a daily basis.  However, I would say that those organizations do rely on the CA Div's to manage and execute and even produce strategic policy in some cases.  Maybe in a perfect world that would all be done in the NCR, but the fact is they don't and I would even say can't know in detail all the difficulties faced in the Div's, nor should they.  And living out west for the past 7 years I will certainly say this is true, or we would not still be struggling with MBT support issues more than a decade after they were introduced, and a dozen BN later....that is another issue, that I don't want to get off on a tangent :-/

But I assure you I am not "just talking myself up", though it is apparent as myself and Halifax Tar have stated, we in the CSS world certainly have failed to message what we do, and that is even more apparent in this forum.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The CAF does not teach strategy very well, nor does it use the word properly.  Its akin to calling anything with a turret and some armour a tank.  Hew Strachan's article should be mandatory reading.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396330500248102

.... if we could afford the article

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well IMHO, the G4 Foods and the Master Driver would be very difficult to justify as CWO, simply because all they do on top of what a MWO does is manage a pers spreadsheet, and that is not justification for a CWO.  I'm not enough of an expert on what the DSC did day to day as they work in G1 not G4, but the I've had discussions with 3 different G4's and our consensus was the ETSM and the Snr Supply Tech, are the two CWO critical, both LEMS and MMDS are not in good shape currently and need to be steered in the right direction.

Is there not room for the Snr Trades person to be a CPO1/CWO anymore ? The advocate for and be all end all SME for their given profession seems to me to be a reasonable position.

But I admit having said the above the CAF has made it abundantly clear that is not a role for a CPO1/CWO anymore.

Well my intent was not to get into a debate on the proper use of the words strategic vs operational.  Yes our sub-formations are of course tactical.  And I deal with DGLEPM(ADM-MAT), DDRMIS and CA G4/CA DRMIS on a daily basis.  However, I would say that those organizations do rely on the CA Div's to manage and execute and even produce strategic policy in some cases.  Maybe in a perfect world that would all be done in the NCR, but the fact is they don't and I would even say can't know in detail all the difficulties faced in the Div's, nor should they.  And living out west for the past 7 years I will certainly say this is true, or we would not still be struggling with MBT support issues more than a decade after they were introduced, and a dozen BN later....that is another issue, that I don't want to get off on a tangent :-/

But I assure you I am not "just talking myself up", though it is apparent as myself and Halifax Tar have stated, we in the CSS world certainly have failed to message what we do, and that is even more apparent in this forum.

I find terribly difficult to explain to my wife what I do all day as  PO1 Storesy.  Most of my day is managing my 7 Storesmen, planning for our ships reactivation and being up to nose looking for references and digging through the various manuals that control how we weild the dark art of Naval Logistics. 

What we do is mundane and unexciting. It lacks any "glory" and seldom are you ever appreciated publically for your contribution.  Most outside my world see me as some magician that is to be avoided at most time and only to involved when the mess gets too big for the operators and the techs.

Having said the above nothing will destroy and chance of mission success quite as fast as a faulty or broken supply chain. 

How exactly do I advocate for that ? And is anyone really interested in listening, until of course when its too late.

Old EO Tech our predecessors let us down.  Know we have to right the ship now my friend.

 

[Old EO Tech]

So what, for example, would a technical CWO advisor in a functional sub-set of the Div HQ be providing as advice to the G4 that would be more appropriately passed to the Div Comd directly, and that the Div SM is not providing?  I'm intrigued and would like to better understand the tear-line between technical specificity/expertise and generalized/institutional (even at the tactical/operational level) appreciation of issues.

For the record, I do believe the CAF should be pursuing significantly more exchange amongst allied forces at the NCM level, but a challenge will always be less standardization of known product amongst allied forces at the non-commissioned level.  An interesting point of discussion would be how technical expertise is/can be a double-edged sword in NCM exchange consideration, as I have heard anecdotally that forces are less willing to accept exchange NCMs for the very reason that the particular national armed service is highly dependent on its own specific way of doing things, and where there is not as great a degree of commonality of task-specific expertise between even like-minded militaries.

Regards
G2G

I would prefer to use the term SME CWO as used in the SEM directive language.  Particularly as the CA equates technical to skills that stop at MWO or lower.  But to answer your question, the DSM is most certainly the command team partner to the Div Comd, and an outstanding leader, but is not an expert in everything that a Div HQ does to enable the formations.  It's much the same relationship as the ETQMS or RQMS has as advisors to the CO/RSM of a unit, but they are not the CSM Admin Coy.  The problem being is that the ETQMS/RQMS roles are embedded in doctrine, we failed to do the same since unification, to the CWO SME at a Div HQ, for years/decades we could not even decide to move them out of a Svc Bn to a Div HQ :-/

I at least here in 3 Div, do spend a lot of time on the second floor, working with the G3 staff as well as my boss the G4 to ensure we are collectively giving good accurate and timely advice to the Div Comd and COS.  I may not go myself to the CUB or COS Coord, but my influence and knowledge is going.  And maybe because I happen to know BGen Tevor Cadeau personally, from his time breaking tanks at LdSH as a Capt, but he does like to wander around Div HQ and talk directly to his staff, and I've had more than a few direct conversations with him on CSS issues.  So I'm certainly not replacing the Div SM, but I am providing expertise that he can't.  And really more importantly I am working every day to ensure that the Div's LEMS structure is being an enabler to our success and not an impediment. 

As to your second point, yes the differing ways if doing sustainment in NATA/ABCA countries could be a challenge, but from a purely Canadian/Commonwealth perspective I think we train our people extremely well, and for example I did some short exchanges with the Brits in Bosnia in the 90's, and it was not hard at all for me as a FCS Tech to adapt to their system and integrate.  Though I see OUTCAN NCM postings being more leadership slots than SME Advisors.  Much like the current posting to the US Army NCO Academy in Texas is now.  And we have an instructor slot for a US Army SM in the Osside Institute in St. Jean.  But at these senior level postings, what we call leadership vs advisors gets pretty blurry for sure.  Many GOFO postings are "advisors" to other NATO Commanders, on how to employ the Canadian troops/equipment under their command.  In that scenario I think an appropriate SA CWO would be very easy to do and very easy to employ.

Cheers

 

[Old EO Tech]

Is there not room for the Snr Trades person to be a CPO1/CWO anymore ? The advocate for and be all end all SME for their given profession seems to me to be a reasonable position.

But I admit having said the above the CAF has made it abundantly clear that is not a role for a CPO1/CWO anymore.

I find terribly difficult to explain to my wife what I do all day as  PO1 Storesy.  Most of my day is managing my 7 Storesmen, planning for our ships reactivation and being up to nose looking for references and digging through the various manuals that control how we weild the dark art of Naval Logistics. 

What we do is mundane and unexciting. It lacks any "glory" and seldom are you ever appreciated publically for your contribution.  Most outside my world see me as some magician that is to be avoided at most time and only to involved when the mess gets too big for the operators and the techs.

Having said the above nothing will destroy and chance of mission success quite as fast as a faulty or broken supply chain. 

How exactly do I advocate for that ? And is anyone really interested in listening, until of course when its too late.

Old EO Tech our predecessors let us down.  Know we have to right the ship now my friend.

I do not envy you doing Logistics on a ship, my short exposure to a ship in Victoria left my knees aching after just an afternoon tour of a frigate :-/ 

I fear that it will be our replacements that will have to fight this fight for us, I will certainly leverage everything I can in my remaining years, but it will likely take 5-10 years to prove to the CAF that SME CWO are a good thing for the CAF as an institution.  I'll be retired likely before new leadership is in place that will realize that.

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

Why can't you just train SME MWO to do that job?

 

[Old EO Tech]

Why can't you just train SME MWO to do that job?

In your opinion can a SME MWO be the AJAG SM?

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.

A MWO fresh from a sub-unit Sergeant Major appointment, where they deal with it first hand, is probably well-positioned to move into advising and assisting at the AJAG level.  In fact, where I've been, its the MWOs as opposed to the CWO that handle the day-to-day management of disciplinary issues.

 

[Infanteer]

By the way, I'm not just bagging on MWO/CWO.  There are numerous positions where the same questions/analysis should be done at the Col, LCol, and Maj levels.  We routinely have Majs doing things that Capts should be doing.

 

[Furniture]

I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.

If this is the bar that needs to be met than maybe a Sgt can handle it... I was trained as a Sgt by the AJAG CPO1 in Esquimalt, and I doubt my understanding was less adequate than a PO1+... 

There is a weight/authority assigned to rank, whether we want to acknowledge it officially on not. Down ranking NCM positions while continuing to push more senior officer bloat devalues NCM ranks. Now maybe my experiences aren't indicative of the entire CAF, but I have been disregarded because I'm not "senior enough" by officers with significantly less experience than me. As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...

 

[Old EO Tech]

I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.

A MWO fresh from a sub-unit Sergeant Major appointment, where they deal with it first hand, is probably well-positioned to move into advising and assisting at the AJAG level.  In fact, where I've been, its the MWOs as opposed to the CWO that handle the day-to-day management of disciplinary issues.

Yes and I would agree, that its not the RSM but the CSM/DSM/QMSI that are handling the disciplinary files, the RSM only vets them before they go to the CO.  I'm just playing the devils advocate here, as this is not just about CSS CWO, we just took the brunt of the CWO cuts in the CA.  The SEM project defines us all as SME CWO, AJAG CWO included, and even the CADTC Standards CWO that are also being cut.  I'm just saying we are being very inconsistent in the CA, when we call the AJAG CWO a KP position, requiring it to be filled by a former RSM, but the CSS CWO and the CADTC CWO are not...  So that was the discussion I had hoped to get your opinion on.

Cheers

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes and I would agree, that its not the RSM but the CSM/DSM/QMSI that are handling the disciplinary files, the RSM only vets them before they go to the CO.  I'm just playing the devils advocate here, as this is not just about CSS CWO, we just took the brunt of the CWO cuts in the CA.  The SEM project defines us all as SME CWO, AJAG CWO included, and even the CADTC Standards CWO that are also being cut.  I'm just saying we are being very inconsistent in the CA, when we call the AJAG CWO a KP position, requiring it to be filled by a former RSM, but the CSS CWO and the CADTC CWO are not...  So that was the discussion I had hoped to get your opinion on.

Cheers

I would be interested to see the equation and decision making process behind the decisions about what are KP and SA CPO1/CWO positions and what are to be downgraded to MWO. 

I know the RCN has grabbed all of its CPO1 Positions.  This has been having an interesting impact.  For example now we have seen non HRA and FSA clerks CPO1 take over the CPO1 position at Base Admin.  The same is a very real possibility for the BLog/TEME Orgs, although we have been able to maintain RCN DEU Sup Techs in that position so far.  But there could come a day where a CPO1 Boatswain (For example) will be what is essentially the CPO1 for Base Supply.

I understand that we have this idea that CPO1/CWOs should be able to fill any role at that rank, with in reason, but some of this seem very strange to me. 

Perhaps I just fear change too much.

 

[Haggis]

I would be interested to see the equation and decision making process behind the decisions about what are KP and SA CPO1/CWO positions and what are to be downgraded to MWO. 

SA CPO1/CWO positions are intended to be environmental and institutional leaders at the operational and strategic level (CAFCWO, Army SM, RCAF CWO, Bde and Div SM).  They are part of a command team with a superior commander (CDS, CCA, Bde Comd, Div Comd, Comd MARLANT, WComd).  KP CPO1/CWO are advisors at the environmental and institutional level and are not part of command teams.

 

[garb811]

In your opinion can a SME MWO be the AJAG SM?

Cheers

My turn to be pedantic...

Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.

As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...

The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.

Back to the topic at hand, my point of view is if we want to retain the knowledge and expertise of a CWO for the purposes of staff duties, that is better accomplished by SCRP. I'd just make a further adjustment to that program to provide an off-ramp for "promotable" MWOs who have not been selected for succession planning into a command team position in order to employ them as SME on staff simply because there aren't enough command team positions to keep things flowing smoothly.  It doesn't make sense to me, even with support trades, how promoting a MWO to CWO with no hope of them ever being in a command team position makes sense given what we as an institution have decided as the role of the CWO. 

That would mean folks would have to start being realistic about what their expectations are for their career and start accepting the fact that even for those who are lucky enough to get a command team appointment as a CWO, that might be the end of the road for them and if they want to continue serving, it won't be as a CWO.

 

[dapaterson]

My turn to be pedantic...

Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.

To be fair, the proper term of address for any MWO/CWO in the RCAF, regardless of the rank of those addressing them, is "Brent" or "Marjorie"

The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.

Back to the topic at hand, my point of view is if we want to retain the knowledge and expertise of a CWO for the purposes of staff duties, that is better accomplished by SCRP. I'd just make a further adjustment to that program to provide an off-ramp for "promotable" MWOs who have not been selected for succession planning into a command team position in order to employ them as SME on staff simply because there aren't enough command team positions to keep things flowing smoothly.  It doesn't make sense to me, even with support trades, how promoting a MWO to CWO with no hope of them ever being in a command team position makes sense given what we as an institution have decided as the role of the CWO. 

That would mean folks would have to start being realistic about what their expectations are for their career and start accepting the fact that even for those who are lucky enough to get a command team appointment as a CWO, that might be the end of the road for them and if they want to continue serving, it won't be as a CWO.

Better employment of SCRP to fill junior specialist positions would have to overcome a significant degree of institutional bias in the MWO/CWO corps against junior officers.

Of course, do a better job of selling the pay increase and related improvement of their best 5 years for pension purposes, and it might become more popular.

 

[Old EO Tech]

My turn to be pedantic...

Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.
The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.

Back to the topic at hand, my point of view is if we want to retain the knowledge and expertise of a CWO for the purposes of staff duties, that is better accomplished by SCRP. I'd just make a further adjustment to that program to provide an off-ramp for "promotable" MWOs who have not been selected for succession planning into a command team position in order to employ them as SME on staff simply because there aren't enough command team positions to keep things flowing smoothly.  It doesn't make sense to me, even with support trades, how promoting a MWO to CWO with no hope of them ever being in a command team position makes sense given what we as an institution have decided as the role of the CWO. 

That would mean folks would have to start being realistic about what their expectations are for their career and start accepting the fact that even for those who are lucky enough to get a command team appointment as a CWO, that might be the end of the road for them and if they want to continue serving, it won't be as a CWO.

SRCP is officially an off ramp career line in the SEM project, but the actual positions have not been formalized much as of yet.  That being said SRCP is only one of 3 lines careers for CAF CWO.  Subject Matter Expert CWO is a line by itself.  So I disagree that "the institution" has decided that CT appointments are the only option.  This is a Army centric problem that the CA doesn't understand a need or entry level SME CWO, the other elements are much more open to having SME CWO.  The only caveat the SEM directive says is that you can't go from a entry level SME CWO to a level 2 SME without doing a unit CWO/RSM job after your entry level job.