Military bases struggling with personnel shortages, internal review finds

[MJP]

Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel? For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?

3rd line (so CMSG) is 75% civilian already, with the only place that has more mil than civ within the formation being CFAD Angus likely due to the close proximity of the school. There is likely more room at 2nd line for more civilian IMHO but that is a very CA centric thought as I do not kn RCAF/RCN employment patterns well

 

[Eaglelord17]

Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel? For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?

That is a fair question, much of the maintenance and supply side of the CAF can be handled by civilians. But there is inherent advantages to having things inhouse as well.

The more you have inhouse the more skillsets your building in your troops which means the more capability they have when push comes to shove. You also aren't dealing with unions and other difficulties that can come from dealing with civilians.

Another advantage is when things actually get serious and people start dying (I know we don't think that way because we haven't had it happen for a long time) you have some redundancy. This is a serious flaw in most of the CAF because we only think of bare minimums but in a real war those bare minimums quickly become insufficient. If there is no one else to step up to the plate there is a serious learning curve which will cost many more lives.

Penny pinching in the wrong areas can cost lives if not wars. The fact that we lack parts and other critical equipment in peacetime means if we actually start losing equipment in a war we will quickly be destroyed. We need warehouses filled to the brim with equipment, warstock that can be called upon in the event of serious issues, spare parts for all the equipment we are using and intend to use, troops to man, issue and repair this equipment. This isn't cheap but we aren't a organization based on making money. We are a organization based on the controlled application of violence and as such should have some very different requirements than pretty much any other group.

 

[Quirky]

If anything it makes sense if not Moose Jaw then at least pre-positioned regionally in Edmonton for Tudor parts

Tutor* periodics are still conducted in Trenton so a Montreal depot isn’t all that far fetched. The fleet isn’t a military operational necessity, no parts to fix a plane, one less for a formation. Oh well.

The one that does not make sense is the CF-18 depot in Edmonton, does cold lake really lack the space for a parts hub? Waiting on a part could have an affect on ops in that fleet.

 

[YZT580]

We have dedicated delivery in the form of the National Freight Run, run by CMSG and executed by a number of partners within the CAF. Shipping by planes is expensive and they really can't carry the quantity that rail or trucks can at a fraction of the cost. Several posters have mused about more planes to move stock around and that argument might be valid for expeditionary ops but domestically an optimized NFR fits our needs fine and when it is needed commercial is there to back stop.

Nice thought but shipping time between Montreal and the majority of our bases is measured in days, not hours. That is why the couriers all use a/c. Heck, the last mail car was uncoupled in 1971 and the last mail as baggage was in the mid 80's plus shipping by rail requires handling everything at least twice and it still takes 4 days from Montreal to Vancouver and that is after getting your cargo included in an outbound container. Central warehousing only works efficiently when the people working there are directly motivated. Your priority of winter survival gear prior to a trip to Churchill isn't any more important to the clerk in the warehouse than that of the captain in Toronto who needs some A4 for his printer because he has a presentation to make.

The report on logistics that came out recently was a devastating indictment. 50% of all shipping requests are late: many by months and years rather than just a few days so regardless, the current system is broke.

* edited for very shitty wording

 

[MJP]

Nice thought but shipping time between Montreal and the majority of our bases is measured in days, not hours. That is why the couriers all use a/c. Heck, the last mail car was uncoupled in 1971 and the last mail as baggage was in the mid 80's plus shipping by rail requires handling everything at least twice and it still takes 4 days from Montreal to Vancouver and that is after getting your cargo included in an outbound container. Central warehousing only works efficiently when the people working there are directly motivated. Your priority of winter survival gear prior to a trip to Churchill isn't any more important to the clerk in the warehouse than that of the captain in Toronto who needs some A4 for his printer because he has a presentation to make.

The report on logistics that came out recently was a devastating indictment. 50% of all shipping requests are late: many by months and years rather than just a few days so regardless, the current system is broke.

While I live in reality not pie in the sky, so it is less a thought than actuality. What percentage of material ordered needs hours vs days? Of the material that comes out of the depot is how much is routine replen that has no real priority and therefore has no need to go by air?

I agree the OAG report for spring 2020 is damming as were every one of the reports for the last 30 years (go read the report on supplying the Afghan Campaign from 2008) so I certainly not defending status quo as the way forward, but air transport was never the solution despite your assertions to the contrary.

As an aside instead of cherry picking and why not use the the direct quotes from the OAG report. The actual statements from the report are:

We found that 50% of all materiel requested during the period covered by our audit was received after the required date of delivery. Among the late deliveries,

• 50% were at least 15 days late
• 25% were at least 40 days late

3.28 Among the high-priority requests, we found that 60% arrived after the required delivery date. Of these,

• 50% were at least 6 days late
• 25% were at least 20 days late

We also found that at the time of our audit, National Defence had a backlog of about 162,000 requests that were more than 1 year late, stalled at some stage in the process.

Like any high level report there is always a degree of nuance to the numbers and underlying factors at play that are outside of the scope of the report. Regardless there are vast efficiencies we can make to our supply chain and to our overall supply chain management , not gatekeeping status quo but the solutions are better processes and efficiencies not more planes.



Canada. (2020). Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to Parliament of Canada: Report 3 Supplying the Canadian Armed Forces – National Defence. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_202007_03_e_43574.html#hd4a

 

[YZT580]

Didn't see the need to quote the whole damn thing. Seems the problem is getting the stuff out the door. 4 days on a truck doesn't account for a 30 day delay in delivery.

 

[GR66]

That is a fair question, much of the maintenance and supply side of the CAF can be handled by civilians. But there is inherent advantages to having things inhouse as well.

The more you have inhouse the more skillsets your building in your troops which means the more capability they have when push comes to shove. You also aren't dealing with unions and other difficulties that can come from dealing with civilians.

Another advantage is when things actually get serious and people start dying (I know we don't think that way because we haven't had it happen for a long time) you have some redundancy. This is a serious flaw in most of the CAF because we only think of bare minimums but in a real war those bare minimums quickly become insufficient. If there is no one else to step up to the plate there is a serious learning curve which will cost many more lives.

Penny pinching in the wrong areas can cost lives if not wars. The fact that we lack parts and other critical equipment in peacetime means if we actually start losing equipment in a war we will quickly be destroyed. We need warehouses filled to the brim with equipment, warstock that can be called upon in the event of serious issues, spare parts for all the equipment we are using and intend to use, troops to man, issue and repair this equipment. This isn't cheap but we aren't a organization based on making money. We are a organization based on the controlled application of violence and as such should have some very different requirements than pretty much any other group.

The problem I see with the idea of manning warehouses, etc. with uniformed staff so that you have extra people to replace casualties is that if we go to war that's the time that you can LEAST afford to draw your experienced logistics people from your warehouse system. That's exactly the time that you'd need the warehouses to be their most efficient and pulling experienced uniformed staff away and replacing them with new replacements at that critical moment could be a huge problem.

The better way (as was noted above by FJAG) would be to have sufficient redundancy in the front line logistics units to maintain support to the combat units despite combat losses.

Clearly this isn't a cheap option. You need a larger rear area civilian workforce that can have the experience and to keep up the required level of supply during a conflict plus significant redundancy in your uniformed front line logistics units to cover casualties. Not as sexy as tank regiments or HIMARS batteries, but not much point in having fancy equipment if you can't support and maintain it in the field in time of war.

 

[MJP]

Didn't see the need to quote the whole damn thing. Seems the problem is getting the stuff out the door. 4 days on a truck doesn't account for a 30 day delay in delivery.

Apologies thought you would want to have informed discussion about what was actually said. Sorry for injecting reality.

So to placate your hobby horse and how do you propose the RCAF solve their pilot problem to man more Transport AC?

How many more planes do we need? What kind and where are they based? What additional infrastructure is required?

In terms of increased support trades who gives up PYs so we have more AVN/AVS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tactical aviation transport could flown by Warrant Officers

 

[FJAG]

Clearly this isn't a cheap option. You need a larger rear area civilian workforce that can have the experience and to keep up the required level of supply during a conflict plus significant redundancy in your uniformed front line logistics units to cover casualties. Not as sexy as tank regiments or HIMARS batteries, but not much point in having fancy equipment if you can't support and maintain it in the field in time of war.

I think you make the key argument here. Too many people misunderstand the term "teeth to tail ratio" when discussing combat capability. Teeth do not work without an adequate tail. We need to distinguish between what elements of the tail are essential for warfighting and fully staff and support that element. On the other hand that element of the tail which is merely administrative overhead must be critically examined to ensure only the absolutely essential core is kept while the massive expense that it eats up is redistributed to more essential users.

There are two tail elements that I consider absolutely critical both in peace and war: supply and maintenance. Both have been heavily and justifiably criticized in various audits over the last few decades and both need improving. Better functioning training systems, depots and workshops are key to this and IMHO having Amazon-like supply depots with high technology computer systems but low-cost, low-skilled civilian workers which combine to create rapid turn around of orders is a valid option (outsource it to avoid civil service salaries and work habits if necessary). Our current systems are not up to snuff. Besides Amazon, car manufacturers and dealerships have developed fast systems to fulfil supply and repair part processing. Creating such a system from scratch isn't easy (even when one has a model, its not easy as was demonstrated by Target's failed foray into Canada which was entirely the result of their Canadian specific failed supply chain ordering system)

There are many parts of the CAF which need major overhauls and rebuilding from the ground up. That's never easy but at some point we need to admit that the current supply system, while it might continue to limp along, is no longer fit for purpose and we should never be afraid to look at successful systems on the civilian side for inspiration. We desperately need to curtail our administrative overhead and reinvest the capital in other things including a more capable supply and maintenance system.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Dude I respect ya but that is a bunk suggestion with no backing in anything substantive and I come from the ranks(although not MM Tech). Our 3rd line is mostly civilian and the back bone of 1st to 2nd line is SNCOs not officers and in my opinion they are just as much the problem as bad officers. As technical SMEs, I find them as a institution wholly lacking. Do not get me wrong there are a great many that are excellent, but many are dead weight and couldn't tell you the difference between and _S or _P MRP and or where a PReq/PO is stuck in the system. Part of it is breath and scale of the trade as they flit between being both lower level procurement and pure material management folks.

To touch on your policy aspect one thing many folks don't realize is that ADMMat owns policy and they belong to DND not the CAF. They are part of the whole supply chain but supply chain management is not our strength as that is a total understanding and cultivation of relationships across an entire supply chain.

Just so it is clear what I mean supply chain management is not the same as logistics.

Logistics = Logistics is the process of strategically managing the procurement, movement and storage of materials, parts and finished inventory (and the related information flows) through the organisation and its marketing channels in such a way that current and future profitability are maximised through the cost-effective fulfilment of orders

Supply Chain Management = A network of connected and interdependent organisations mutually and co-operatively working together to control, manage and improve the flow of materials and information from suppliers to end users

That said I am curious what policies you think are weak? I have my own thoughts but curious what you see as an issue.

Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command. I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch.

I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight. I think allot of that comes from our management of our people. Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army. We need to stop this. Meaning get rid of the purple.

Policies ? How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ? in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR. I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA. I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication. Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.

Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel? For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?

Yes they do. We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop. As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.

 

[GR66]

Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command. I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch.

I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight. I think allot of that comes from our management of our people. Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army. We need to stop this. Meaning get rid of the purple.

Policies ? How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ? in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR. I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA. I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication. Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.



Yes they do. We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop. As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.

I can certainly accept that the part in yellow is valid and assume the argument is likely equally true for most/all Navy trades. Perhaps that's an argument for making some of these positions "Navy" as opposed to "Purple" as you'd be (hopefully) getting more people that are looking for some sea time by choosing the Navy specifically, or does being "Purple" give more opportunity to get postings were being in the field is the duration of a field exercise vs. a months long deployment? I honestly don't know the answer to that and I guess if it was an easy question to answer navies around the world would have solved the problem already.

As for the two portions in green, don't they somewhat contradict each other? The LogO's aren't specializing enough in supply so they're not competent, but the MMT's can't primarily focus on the portions of the supply chain that can ONLY be done by uniformed personnel because they need to "have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop"?.

 

[FJAG]

Yes they do. We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop. As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.

I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's not really a contradiction, GR66.

When HT talks about learning the supply chain, he is talking of a supply tech learning all aspects of exactly that: the supply chain.

When he talks about the officers, he is talking about the fact that in the navy, our SeaLog officers are generalists, not specialists as in the Army/Air Force. They learn just enough of all the following and are simultaneously responsible for all of the following functions onboard a ship: Finance/accounting/budget, NPF, food services, transportation, supply management, records management (OK for that one they get help from the Cox'n staff), plus other assigned ancillary duties. On land, these are all performed by differently and specifically trained officers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.

Another reason the private sector uses robots etc, especially in the US, is an aging - and/or litigation prone - workforce gets injured more often resulting in claims against the company. It's also hard to find high quality entry level staff who will work for low wages.

So it's cheaper and more sustainable to invest heavily in AI for the physical work.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.

They don't. In fact in BLog in Halifax (Base Supply) Civilians (Public Service) heavily out weigh MMTs in leadership and worker bee positions. Civilians have very heavy foot print in 2nd and 3rd lines Supply orgs. At this point what you espouse would essentially remove any military foot print from the 2nd line back. You cannot manage something you have no technical or practical experience in, hence the reason we need to have Cpls and Ptes in the 2nd and 3rd lines to gain that experience and an appreciation for the full gambit of how our supply chain operates, or fails too.

Most MMTs wont get exposure beyond the 2nd line already as most of us bounce from 1st to 2nd for the majority of our career or a staff job like I am in now.

I can certainly accept that the part in yellow is valid and assume the argument is likely equally true for most/all Navy trades. Perhaps that's an argument for making some of these positions "Navy" as opposed to "Purple" as you'd be (hopefully) getting more people that are looking for some sea time by choosing the Navy specifically, or does being "Purple" give more opportunity to get postings were being in the field is the duration of a field exercise vs. a months long deployment? I honestly don't know the answer to that and I guess if it was an easy question to answer navies around the world would have solved the problem already.

As for the two portions in green, don't they somewhat contradict each other? The LogO's aren't specializing enough in supply so they're not competent, but the MMT's can't primarily focus on the portions of the supply chain that can ONLY be done by uniformed personnel because they need to "have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop"?.

What OGB said.

 

[GR66]

I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.

This is more what I was getting at. I don't see great benefit of a Cpl/MCpl picking orders in a warehouse in Montreal when that uniformed member can't really then be moved to a deployed position in time of conflict without creating a gap in the important supply chain. Having more senior WO/PO level uniformed staff there though that understand how the facility works as well as have first hand knowledge of what materials should take priority, etc. when everything is in demand at once is vital. It's getting the right mix.

It's not really a contradiction, GR66.

When HT talks about learning the supply chain, he is talking of a supply tech learning all aspects of exactly that: the supply chain.

When he talks about the officers, he is talking about the fact that in the navy, our SeaLog officers are generalists, not specialists as in the Army/Air Force. They learn just enough of all the following and are simultaneously responsible for all of the following functions onboard a ship: Finance/accounting/budget, NPF, food services, transportation, supply management, records management (OK for that one they get help from the Cox'n staff), plus other assigned ancillary duties. On land, these are all performed by differently and specifically trained officers.

Understood. That certainly sounds like a serious issue to me. While finance and tracking of NPFs, etc. are important functions for an accountable public agency in time of peace, it's the supply of war materials that keep our people alive and effective in the fight during a war. Hopefully it's something that can be corrected before we're forced to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

[FJAG]

They don't. In fact in BLog in Halifax (Base Supply) Civilians (Public Service) heavily out weigh MMTs in leadership and worker bee positions. Civilians have very heavy foot print in 2nd and 3rd lines Supply orgs. At this point what you espouse would essentially remove any military foot print from the 2nd line back. You cannot manage something you have no technical or practical experience in, hence the reason we need to have Cpls and Ptes in the 2nd and 3rd lines to gain that experience and an appreciation for the full gambit of how our supply chain operates, or fails too.

You can change any policy or status quo if there is a valid reason for it and the desire exists to make the change happen. Saying that "this is the way it is" is the worst possible raison d'etre for resisting reform albeit it is the predominant reason within government bureaucracies.

One doesn't need to have spent three years turning wrenches or stocking shelves to become a director or manager of maintenance or supply services. A week or two of OJT/ experience as a shelf stacker in an Amazon-like facility is enough. A general understanding of what your subordinates' jobs are and an education in the systems involved will do. Even better if there have been progressive management/leadership roles along the way starting at, let's say, the sgt or WO level.

Just as important, to be a proper manager/leader of a warehouse facility it would be highly beneficial if the middle and higher end managers were military end-users who have experienced the difficulties of working in the field. Their "customer" experience would be invaluable in keeping the warehousing system responsive to the end-users.

If we are putting trained and skilled (and highly paid even at the private and corporal level) service members into warehouses as shelf stackers and putting civilian managers with little or no experience as end users into the leader/manager roles then we have adopted the worst of both worlds.

$.02

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is more what I was getting at. I don't see great benefit of a Cpl/MCpl picking orders in a warehouse in Montreal when that uniformed member can't really then be moved to a deployed position in time of conflict without creating a gap in the important supply chain. Having more senior WO/PO level uniformed staff there though that understand how the facility works as well as have first hand knowledge of what materials should take priority, etc. when everything is in demand at once is vital. It's getting the right mix.

Understood. That certainly sounds like a serious issue to me. While finance and tracking of NPFs, etc. are important functions for an accountable public agency in time of peace, it's the supply of war materials that keep our people alive and effective in the fight during a war. Hopefully it's something that can be corrected before we're forced to learn that lesson the hard way.

There is more to working a 2nd or 3rd line supply job than just picking stores for shipments. Analytics is a huge role, returns and disposal, receipts, shelf life management, warehouse organization, stock investigations, SCA management, right down learning how to build up pallets and prepping for shipment.

 

[MJP]

There are many parts of the CAF which need major overhauls and rebuilding from the ground up. That's never easy but at some point we need to admit that the current supply system, while it might continue to limp along, is no longer fit for purpose and we should never be afraid to look at successful systems on the civilian side for inspiration. We desperately need to curtail our administrative overhead and reinvest the capital in other things including a more capable supply and maintenance system.

Sunk cost fallacy bites many organizations in the butt, the CAF is one of them.

Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command. I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch.

I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight. I think allot of that comes from our management of our people. Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army. We need to stop this. Meaning get rid of the purple.

Policies ? How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ? in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR. I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA. I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication. Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.



Yes they do. We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop. As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.

The Naval Officer piece is funny because in the general community they are highly regarded because they have a breath of knowledge that other specialist Log Os do not have. I can see where it can be an issue but that is not much different than CA/RCAF Log O when they do QM roles or are mid-high level Capt jobs as they are seen as Logistics Officers that can solve logistics issues regardless of specialization.

OTOH I am a Supply Officer and did hard supply for 2 years, then went as QM for 2 years, 1 year as 2IC as a Supply Coy, tour as 2IC and then staff G4 Sup so I am fairly decent at supply policy and procedures. Not everyone gets that ability to really dive into their specilization it the CA but I will concede that our folks get more application than our Naval brethren. Where they excel is exploiting the nuances between each of the disciplines and understanding enough of each to get the job done leveraging the experts in every field.

I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight. I think allot of that comes from our management of our people. Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army. We need to stop this. Meaning get rid of the purple.

Agreed, I detest this purple aspect and causes lots of pain for marginal value. Treat the NCMs like the Officers, you are one environment and work in one environment but can go to a purple job

Policies ? How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ? in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR. I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA. I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication. Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.

Being held accountable on an MLR or even as an SLOC holder is a CoC resp and that it is not happening is not the result of bad policy. They have the tools both within supply policy and outside of it. FWIW I agree that for SLOC holders it can be frustrating to see someone not sanctioned for poor practices when they knew better. On the MLR front have seen a number of CoC have soldiers pay and put on RMs because of how they lost their kit. QR&O 38.03 is fairly restrictive though especially if a mbr objects to a deduction.

If I was going to quibble about anything MLR in the policy I would ask ADMMat to explain their rationale for having soldiers utilize insurance when they lose kit. Outside of the Personal, most insurance companies see that as government owned property and will not cover crown property for an individual. It is a bad policy build on bad advice.

That said these are pretty low-level policies that don't affect the supply chain or supply chain management overall (although arguably equipment stewardship is crucial).

When I think of bad supply policy and supply execution, I think of SuperMax's Tutor part allocation, the overusage of 1Z for parts so it needs SM/LCMM intervention before it is releases, over-usage of High Priority Requests and lack of automation in our system.