A
aesop081
Guest
Jim Seggie said:Policy exists but its not always applied.
Thats an entirely different problem and still doesnt relate to HQ bloat.
Jim Seggie said:Policy exists but its not always applied.
armybuck041 said:I find this article entertaining as I drop off my DEUs at the Drycleaners for the 1 Can Div "Red Patch" parade next month.......
Old Sweat said:First, unless we wish to arbitrarily release them regardless of how they stack up against their peers, we have to find things for them to do. It doesn't matter what, but unless we just send them home and pay them until CRA, we have to find things for them to do.
Old Sweat said:Edward may be better able to address the topic, but it seems to me back when the CF tried to reduce the number of generals, the civilian side of the department converted the "surplus" positions from general/flag officers to senior executives in the public service. Any transformation that transfers resources to "the field" would be a long term process, and would require the active participation of the central agencies of the public service.
E.R. Campbell said:My favourite example of "growth" is in the Public Affairs (Communications) field.
I well recall, back in the '80s, when we had, in NDHQ, a Director of Public Affairs (or something like that). He, it was a he, was a colonel. Then it, PR, became more important and we got a Director General Public Affairs or Public information or something like that - it was an infantry BGen named Terry Liston, in fact, and he was a pretty good DG - so good that he was soon replaced by a civilian in a two star equivalent slot and ADM (Policy) become ADM (Pol and Comm) (Comm = Communications = Public Affairs) then, after a small scandal or two, the Associate Assistant Deputy Minister became a full fledged ADM with her (it was a her) own Branch - Col to BGen to MGen (equivalent) to LGen (equivalent) in about ten years.
Is public affairs more important than it was in the '80s? Yes, clearly. Is it four times more important? I don't know. Is ADM(PA) doing four times as much as that Col did 25 or so years ago? I don't know that either. Nor, I suggest, does anyone else. I do know that Mme. Touchette, the ADM(PA) has been, since mid 2010, assisted by BGen Blanchette and (I read somewhere) about 400 other people.
Of course, there are redundancies, inefficiencies and even superfluous HQs. There is room for streamlining of the institutional structure in order to find PYs for essential structures and essential work.old medic said:Top general fights to cut the fat in the Forces
By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, Parliamentary Bureau
25 Feb 2011
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2011/02/25/17415176.html
That is definitely another way to do it.dapaterson said:And why not roll the Finance and Corporate Services mantle onto the Vice Chief, with a "Chief Financial Officer" under the VCDS in the hierarchy, but with a dotted line to the Deputy Minister?
dapaterson said:Maybe roll the Chief of Military Personnel and ADM Human Resources - Civilian into a single Chief of Personnel, with associates for Military and Civilian.
Both these points are bang-on! The current stove-pipes for our human resources processes are an outline for disaster. There is an excellent LFCO on HR management that identifies the importance of holistic HR planning and the necessity of identifying whether work/positions should/must be military or civilian and Reg or Res. Unfortunately, I have never seen this actually followed within the Army ... in fact, I have seen the full opposite where it does not matter that I have demonstrated a position needs to be a Reg F or Civi, but higher demands a request for a new Cl B/A position because those are the flavour of the moment. In NDHQ, I have seen Cl B/A and civilian indeterminate positions permanently created to compensate for a temporarily vacant Reg F position. One approval pipe for the creation of Regular Force, Reserve Force and Civilian positions would go a long way to cleaning the management of our HR. A consolidated HR L1 is probably essential to allowing such a single pipe.Infanteer said:2. Human Resource Management ideas must be fixed - critical is this is the use of Class B/Civilians in roles they should have never been used for. Expensive overuse of these positions means the CF can get away with poor pers management, creating extra positions that aren't feasible under the current strength. We need to figure out which full time military positions are important and which can be cut (at all ranks).
Where a military member is not required, it is often cheaper to have a PS. At the same time, there is a limit on the number of military personnel the CF can have. This means some balancing is required. Some offices in higher HQs are mostly civilian with a handful of military scattered in to ensure the military perspective is not lost. The trick is ensuring the military and civilian resources are properly balanced and in the right places of our force structure. Again, this points to the requirement for an integrated HR management system.ArmyRick said:Now as far as Fed Govmnt employee (Civy) filling in as RMS clerks, could we not hire more RMS clerks? Replace those people as they retire so there is no uproar.
I am not entirely in agreement with your conclusions, but there is some particular merit to be pulled from this statement. Every time we introduce a new layer of HQ, we introduce new work that only exists because that new HQ exists - it the layer of HQ is superfluous, then we have burdened ourselves with mandatory superfluous work.Rifleman62 said:The more bureaucrats you have, military or civilian, the more bureaucracy is created. Ever expanding HQ creates more bureaucrats, military and civilian, who create more bureaucracy.
MCG said:There would be savings in TD (as the frequency of things being somewhere else reduces), SWE (as one-of positions are eliminated on closed bases and staffing efficiencies are realized on larger bases), PLD (assuming movement is from high-cost to lower-cost places), PILT (again, assuming movement is from high-cost to lower-cost places), and relocations (as more no-cost moves become possible).
However, I see the biggest savings being in PYs which can be reinvested from bases into operational organizations.
Where elements of the institutional structure (bases, stations, depots, schools, static support units, non-deployable HQs and any other organization outside the field force, operational air units and the fleets) are superfluous, those elements self-generate superfluous work. In the case of superfluous HQs (even unit & base HQs) the reports & returns, information tracking, information processing, planning efforts, etc are all unnecessary consumption of effort - often the amount of work that goes into this effort is used to justify growth or retention of PYs. The CF and DND also has a vast array of work that is mandated of every unit and formation - this is more work that only exists because a unit/formation exists. Here again, growth is justified in order get the mandated work done but no discussion occures as to whether there is even a requirement for the organization who's existence creates the work.
So, if one eliminates a base (or an intermediate HQ) then there is a lot of work that simply disappears with the organization. Granted, there will be a requirement for PYs to reinforce bases that become the new homes to the lodger units of closed bases. But, there will also be PYs freed for reinvestment into operational units and schools/training centres.
This is not to say that there should be a wholesale elimination of bases and intermediate HQs. It might be an irreversible mistake if a base closure results in a CF wide training area shortage for land operations, and it would take years to recover from the effects of closing an HQ only to discover that is necessary. Instead this is a suggestion bases and intermediate HQs should be deliberately assessed for thier value-added and necessity. One could then ask, what is the opportunity cost of keeping a base (or intermediate HQ) as opposed to reinvesting the PYs.