MOZART: MOC to MOSID (Merged Topics)

[McInnes]

2. MOC numbers are being phased out in favour of MOS ID and MOS ID subdivisions.

Directorate of Pay Policy

031 00010 Infantryman INFMN Standard

So instead of Infantry being 031, its now going to be 00010.

 

[Armymedic]

By 2008 it will all be changed...
I am not sure when they are actually changing the MOC number to the ID, but medical is one of the first they streamline, because of all the sub specalties we have. There was an insert ref this in the Maple leaf. Currently they are looking at the information services ie LCIS trades for restucturing.
One benifit of the change is spec pay is given to trades upon restructuring.

 

[Yard Ape]

Need someone in the know to explain this one to me, because from the bottom this looks like an expensive project that achieves nothing yet is make-work for senior officers & beurocrats.

The MOC codes that have been used to define our occupations are being done away with.  Now we will have what is to be called MOSID (mil occupation specification id?).  These new numbers look to be 6 or 7 digets long and nobody will ever remember them.

So my question is, why?  Why have we invested in a project that seems to have done nothing but change one type of occupation ID code for another?  Is this projet doing anything else for us? 

 

[Zoomie]

The little that I have heard about this project is that these new MOSIDs will be more representative of the specific job that a certain sailor/soldier/airman does.  Instead of 011 = armoured crewman, a new MOSID = Coyote Driver or Coyote Gunner (or even Honey Wagen driver - but I digress).
This would also translate into the other branches of the CF.  AVS/AVN techs in the Airforce will have more specific codes to express what exactly they do in the AF (ie what aircraft and what they work on).

 

[Spr.Earl]

I'd hate to see what series #'s we Hengineers will end up with!
Every few years some one has to justify their job in Ottawa eh?
Lord love a duck can't they leave well enough alone.

 

[Armymedic]

Zoomie hit it on the head...As far as I know they are not "doing away" with MOC numbering but added MOSID to be more specific with the actual role you are filling...Some places like you MPRR and career manager shop, things like that would be benefical.

 

[Yard Ape]

Why?  Jobs are already reflected on the MPRR, and usually not any job that I've ever held (because it just show the slot the career manager used to put you in the unit & not the job you actually filled).  The MPRR already reflects qualifications.

Are we going to a system that has a number to represent every possible permutation of qualification combinations in every MOC?

The old MOCs always had additional numbers tagged to the end (but seperated by a ".") that would indicate QL level achieved (you could be MOC 031.6a).

I'm sure this new system will work, but I cannot figure why it was worth starting.

 

[LCISTech227]

Hey just thought I'd post a bit of info that I have on this MOSID thing... It is coming into effect because of MOSART.   Now if you don't know what this is, it's a project for a restructuring of the MOC's and if you are on the DWAN here is the link to their site:

http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/mosart/engraph/home_e.asp

Anyways,   earlier this year I filled out (and so did all Sig's types in my det) a questionnaire on what my job actually entailed.    This questionnaire was used by MOSART to figure out this whole MOSID thing for my trade and other Sig trades.   The way it was explained to me is that instead of choosing LCIS Tech, you would just choose Sig's then depending on your path would determine whether or not you were a tech (e.g. like if you should an aptitude for troubleshooting and maintenance you would be selected for tech training, etc.).   So basically this means that all Sig's NCM's will start out as Operators and then move on if selected.   Now, all this could be pure tripe but, that's how it was explained to me.

Cheers,

 

[combat_medic]

I see this as another useless make-work project teamed by a staff of hundreds at NDHQ, so they can justify the existance of so many senior officer positions in Ottawa. Who wants to bet there's a team of Colonels and Generals up there right now who are trying to justify their positions in the creation of CADPAT boot polish?

In the past 10 years or so, they've completely renamed the basic training courses, what, 3 times? GMT or QL2 or BMQ or whatever they choose to call it, it costs millions and gives some desk jockey another reason to be earning his paycheque.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm not concerned about not being able to remember the new MOSIC because I lost track of my MOC about two remusters ago anyhow.  I think I'm an Eight Thirty Something but really, who checks that stuff when you put it on your PEN? 

I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to stop myself from applying for any courses that have certain MOCs as prerequisites....beyond that, does the number really matter to an individual troopie?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to stop myself from applying for any courses that have certain MOCs as prerequisites....beyond that, does the number really matter to an individual troopie?

I think it does matter when you consider that the energy to constantly ram through these frivolous changes and the bureaucracy that supports it is the "sucking chest wound" of the Canadian Military.

Look at the numbers below; you got to have all these guys doing something, since only a handful are actually in command or essential staff positions.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't be frivolous, infanteer, if we ever went to war you know damn well we would be putting at least 939 infantry battalions, armoured regiments, artillery regiments, medical battalions, service battalions and engineer regiments in the field.

Ummm....or not.  What would the total number of Lieutenant Colonels overseas in WW II command positions be?

3 infantry divisions  (10 infantry battalions (1 MG and 9 rifle), 1 recce regiment, 5 artillery regiments (3 field, one AA, one AT) - not sure if the other supporting arms had LCols or not - assuming not, that is 48 Lieutenant Colonels)
2 armoured divisions (1 armoured recce regiment, 3 armoured regiments, 4 infantry battalions, 4 (?) artillery regiments) = 24 LCols
2 independent armoured brigades (3 armoured regiments) - 6 LCols

Grand Total - 78 LCols.  Counting all the active battalions in Canada, the reserve battalions, and the staff positions - would this come anywhere close to 900?

God help us all, I am now assisting Infanteer in banging his drum...

 

[CdnGalaGal]

LCISTech227 has a pretty good explanation of what that MOSART questionnaire was for and how the big guys in Ottawa are planning to revamp our system. At the place I was working at, all the Comms guys (reg force and reserve) had to fill out the questionnaire as well (officers and NCMs filled out different versions of the survey). 3 hours of hell. But it was very thorough when asking about one's level of experience with all types of equipment and qualifications I felt I had come away with through my experiences and courses.

While this project IS costing a bundle, I do see a reason for conducting it. From an administrative point of view, it'd be a bit easier to determine who is most suited for what job (it's not just about the courses you take or the military "tests" that you pass, it's about the job experience you ACTUALLY have). So, if a position for a Sig Op, say, comes up for a tour and the person who decides who goes has two choices - Two Sigs, both 5's qualified, same time in... But one has only been doing admin work in the OR for like 5 years and nothing else and the other has been working nonstop with various comms equipment nonstop and maybe dabbled in the lineman's trade as well... The job is going to go to the guy most suited (the one working with comms). The decision time needed has now been cut down by a LOT because the ops guy has only to flip through a list of potential candidates and check out some numbers or letters by a person's name to determine the best choice rather than peruse through piles of MPRRs. If the decision is made more quickly, it gets the ball rolling a lot faster than it would right now.

The MPRR shows what courses and positions these candidates have filled, but (as Yard Ape mentioned) the position descriptions don't necessarily reflect the job that this person was ACTUALLY doing. And passing a course nowadays doesn't mean you are a SME or can even DO what you were taught to do on that course (either from pure stupidity or just not enough OJT with the equipment or material covered on that course).

As with all projects undertaken by our military, it is slow and costly. And while its goal seems trivial, it just makes life for those organizing everything that little bit easier.

I agree that they should be getting more bang for their buck, but that's the cost of being thorough.

 

[Infanteer]

CJ:

Good post.   I think what you have explained represents a fundamental way in which a highly centralized bureaucracy that is the military thinks.   It prefers to look at soldiers quantitatively as opposed to qualitativley.   Rather then see solders as a living, unique person with his own strengths and weaknesses, it trys to ram everyone into "MOSID codes", "MOSART surveys", and "CF 743a's".   Doing so ultimately leads to a "check in the box" mentality, which is characterized by such concepts as "ticket punching".   I would venture that the solution can be found in trust of subordinates, decentralization, and objective yet qualitative control measures.


Michael, remember that these figures are for total CF Officer positions, so it includes Air Force and Naval Officers.   As well, these facts are for regular force Officer's only, so I think they do not include any Reserve Officers, at least the ones below the rank of Lt Col, anyways.  

Since the Army is the biggest force (20,000), you can get a good idea of Army figures by simply dividing the number by three.   However, even forces wide, the number still seems absurdly high.   I am still wondering what 18 Major Generals/Rear Admirals actually do.   As well, assuming the ninth in the figure is the CDS, we have 8 Lt Generals/Vice Admirals.   One to command the Army, one to command the Navy, and one to command the Air Force leaves still leaves us with five extra guys with "three leafs" on their shoulders.  I remember a DND page that had the actual positions held by all the General and Flag Officers in Canada, I'd be interested in seeing it again.   I am not argueing that cutting their salary is going buy us an armoured brigade complete with strategic airlift, but you got to wonder about the staff and departments created for these high ranking officers and what happens when this mentality filters down to the Colonel/Brigader rank; obviously, the answer is that in an Army of three Brigades, we have roughly 100 colonels and Brigadier Generals.

I've become convinced that the bureaucratic mentality of self-expansion for its own worth, the civilianization of our Forces command with its incorporation into NDHQ, and the notion of equality and careerism (well, its "time" for him to become a major/we have x amount of officer cadets coming into the system, so we have to promote x amount of officers to make the space) are all behind this inflation of higher level ranks.   It's unfortunate, because I am sure that most of them are hard working and dedicated to the Forces; they've only seen their oppurtunites to command diminshed due to being relegated to unneccesary positions (such as renaming the NCM training system 3 times in a decade).

Here is another one that got my spider senses tingling.   Does it appear that these figures may be abit high considering the amount of units, staff and training positions we have in our military?

 

[George Wallace]

This nonsense is really getting me peeved.   I know that many unemployable officers, of all ranks, are being given jobs in NDHQ, but do they have to be given these "Reinvent the Wheel" type of jobs?   I no longer know what I am qualified 'cause some weenie has decided to change all the qualification codes, again.   I no longer know what I can drive 'cause another weenie has changed all the codes on the 404's and 416's yet again.   (Now you need a "T" behind a vehicle or you can't haul a trailer.)  For instance; what does A2. B3. C1. 2. 4. 21. 23. 24. 25. 60. G10. 11 with Specialties A E F really allow me to drive, and are they the latest codes?

Please let these incompetent boobs be relegated to getting coffee and only coffee.   Don't let them near anything else until their contract is completed.

GW

 

[CdnGalaGal]

I think what you have explained represents a fundamental way in which a highly centralized bureaucracy that is the military thinks.  It prefers to look at soldiers quantitatively as opposed to qualitativley.  Rather then see solders as a living, unique person with his own strengths and weaknesses, it trys to ram everyone into "MOSID codes", "MOSART surveys", and "CF 743a's".  Doing so ultimately leads to a "check in the box" mentality, which is characterized by such concepts as "ticket punching".  I would venture that the solution can be found in trust of subordinates, decentralization, and objective yet qualitative control measures.

Maybe another way to solve the problem is to look at other militaries (perhaps the American military?) for ideas on how to identify the qualities of our soldiers.

I don't mean to devalue anyone's views, but the opinions of Cdn soldiers in leadership positions regarding their troops are fairly subjective. Of course their opinions should be considered, as well as a soldier's ability to learn a new skill, but the purpose of these new codes as I see it is to give one a better understanding at a glance. Using letters and numbers seems quantitative... But I think it is needed to accommodate for the sheer number of soldiers that we have. After all, what is more time consuming? Searching through stacks of papers for the information you need or determining what you need from an updated list that summarizes qualifications, experiences, trade information, courses in one string of letters and numbers (assuming this person knows what they mean)? MOSID, from my understanding, incorporates qualitative data with quantitative information on a soldier. Any other pertinent information (such as the MPRR) will likely also be available. When I filled out the MOSART survey, I was surprised to find that it contained many questions about many topics that required subjective answers from the individual on how (s)he FELT his training and experiences prepared him to work with specific equipment, systems, etc or in different fields...

MOSID is to be implemented as a supplement to the current system, not a be-all end-all.  

 

[CdnGalaGal]

what does A2. B3. C1. 2. 4. 21. 23. 24. 25. 60. G10. 11 with Specialties A E F really allow me to drive, and are they the latest codes?

Well, we've gotta deal, so look 'em up. The codes on your driver's licence are on the back, and if they aren't, go see your friendly neighbourhood MSE Op and they'll know.

One of the biggest problems with change is that we all have to keep up...

 

[George Wallace]

I don't mean to devalue anyone's views, but the opinions of Cdn soldiers in leadership positions regarding their troops are fairly subjective. Of course their opinions should be considered, as well as a soldier's ability to learn a new skill, but the purpose of these new codes as I see it is to give one a better understanding at a glance.

My last gunner would get one of these new codes, although all she did was sit in the seat and keep it warm, as she was UNQUALIFIED to fill that position, but qualified to be an number on a manning slate.

Using letters and numbers seems quantitative... But I think it is needed to accommodate for the sheer number of soldiers that we have. After all, what is more time consuming? Searching through stacks of papers for the information you need or determining what you need from an updated list that summarizes qualifications, experiences, trade information, courses in one string of letters and numbers (assuming this person knows what they mean)? MOSID, from my understanding, incorporates qualitative data with quantitative information on a soldier. Any other pertinent information (such as the MPRR) will likely also be available.

All fine and good if one has conciencious officers keeping their personnel's records up to date.  I along with many of my peers had to send several of our subordinates home to research what they had done for, up to the last four years, because their previous superiors had failed to make entries into their UERs at the appropriate times.

When I filled out the MOSART survey, I was surprised to find that it contained many questions about many topics that required subjective answers from the individual on how (s)he FELT his training and experiences prepared him to work with specific equipment, systems, etc or in different fields...

MOSID is to be implemented as a supplement to the current system, not a be-all end-all.  

It really is a waste of resources and time.  If personnel records can not be kept up to date as is, it will be completely useless to revamp the system just for the sake of change.

A Crewman 011 may have driven a tank last year, and drive a Coyote this year, and then be a Bison Amb driver next year, and perhaps be a gunner the year after that.  It is a waste to create codes for this as there are codes on their 404's and 416's already and those are in PeopleSoft.  A new MOC for every job you do is ridiculous.  "Last year I was 17956, but this year I was 19973." will mean nothing.

GW

 

[CdnGalaGal]

My last gunner would get one of these new codes, although all she did was sit in the seat and keep it warm, as she was UNQUALIFIED to fill that position, but qualified to be an number on a manning slate.

There are still a lot of things to be worked out with this MOSID project. Keep in mind that it is still a work in progress. Specifics, like exactly what would qualify one to receive a certain code and periods of time that keep codes current have to be worked out. And again, PERs, course reports (though not so much nowadays) report on the degree of skill a person has attained and should also be available. If you have some good ideas, why not staff them up? I can only hope that someone up there will listen.

All fine and good if one has conciencious officers keeping their personnel's records up to date.  I along with many of my peers had to send several of our subordinates home to research what they had done for, up to the last four years, because their previous superiors had failed to make entries into their UERs at the appropriate times.

Then that is the failing of the previous supervisor or admin personnel and not the officer looking to fill a spot with a qualified soldier. Other problems will arise with MOSID, such as that which you have identified, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you identify problems, then you know what to fix, right?

When the MPRRs were being redone, I looked over mine and found that only my driver wheeled course and PLQ were recorded... Glitch in the system? Laziness? Who knows. Mistakes happen. The system isn't perfect, but we can sure as heck try to make it as close to perfect as possible.

It really is a waste of resources and time.  If personnel records can not be kept up to date as is, it will be completely useless to revamp the system just for the sake of change.

A Crewman 011 may have driven a tank last year, and drive a Coyote this year, and then be a Bison Amb driver next year, and perhaps be a gunner the year after that.  It is a waste to create codes for this as there are codes on their 404's and 416's already and those are in PeopleSoft.  A new MOC for every job you do is ridiculous.  "Last year I was 17956, but this year I was 19973." will mean nothing.

Over the long term, I think this project has its benefits, including valuable time being spent on something other than shuffling through unneccessary paperwork to find the information needed. Managers have to think about time value of a recurring event over the long run. The lengthy process needed to accomplish the aim might seem draining and pointless, but if there is a good plan in place (and I've got to trust that there is), then it will all come clear in the end.

Since we can't change it at our level, our only options are to get into a position to influence the changes, to go with the changes, or to get out (not deal with it).

Maybe reading up on the goals of these proposed changes will aid in our understanding about WHY these changes are occurring and HOW they will affect us.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

George, UERs are a joke.  Mine hasn't been updated in 8 years.  I couldn't even begin to research what I've done, I simply have no way of knowing which exercises I went on, etc.

They went to all that trouble, for the Reserves, to install RPSR but didn't come up with a way to automatically update UERs or anything?  I understand we are going to Peoplesoft now, but still - - it is the same at my civvie job; we have a computer for just about every person in an administrative role, but no one's computers talk to each other or do any actual thinking.

If EXERCISE RAGING BEAVER is scheduled for September 8, 9, 10, and Private Bloggins signs in for Sep 8,9,10 on the EXERCISE RAGING BEAVER  paysheet, wouldn't it make sense to have a computer system that would not only submit his pay for those days, but also update a UER at the same time?  You wouldn't think this was rocket science....