• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MOZART: MOC to MOSID (Merged Topics)

What does everyone think reguading Mozart? Will it work?


  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
If I may, I would like to put my .02 in on this topic.  I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things?  IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job.  For example, in the civvy world, unions have taken this specialization to the extreme.  â Å“I'm sorry Bloggins you can't do that job there because it's not in your job description, we need to fill out a requisition and have an electrician change that light bulb, I know we can't see to fill out the form but I am sure everything will work out in the end.â ?  How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.
 
TR said:
Well what happens if that office person is in the reserve world and pushes paper from monday to friday but on the weekend exersise is a crew commander. well the new code will not reflect the accuracy of his experience. The code lables him/her as a paper pusher but in reality that persoon is just as qualified to command a vehicle as any other commander in that regiment. :sniper:

Sniper?   ;)

Hmm... Anyway, in answer to your question, if this project is done correctly, there should be some leeway for that. By now we all know that one soldier typically has more than one job, especially class B junkies like myself (and you too TR, don't kid yourself) ;) This code is to reflect current experience that can be used advantageously. So, if said paper pusher has other jobs and uses other skills than just pen to paper or paper to shredder... it would be noted...

Freight_Train said:
I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things? IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job ... How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.

You're right about the diversification of the CF. It IS a good thing. I mean look at the US army. One Rad Op for one type of radio and only that type... If he gets blown up, who the hells gonna man the radio ??? I don't think this project is meant to box anyone into a corner (or screw ppl out of jobs), although that isn't something I had thought about... In the end, I think it is just to find the right person for the right job.

hoser said:
Can anybody factor a fairly reasonable guess as to what a program like this would cost?

C'mon. Nothing the CF spends money on is reasonably priced...   :-\
 
Freight_Train said:
If I may, I would like to put my .02 in on this topic.   I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things?   IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job.   For example, in the civvy world, unions have taken this specialization to the extreme.   â Å“I'm sorry Bloggins you can't do that job there because it's not in your job description, we need to fill out a requisition and have an electrician change that light bulb, I know we can't see to fill out the form but I am sure everything will work out in the end.â ?   How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.

It's a good two cents.  I've heard similar criticisms of the US Army, where drivers don't learn basic vehicle maintenance.  It's always been one of our strengths, so I've been led to believe, that we do have soldiers cross-disciplined.  It's why you learn comms, dvr, MG, mortar etc. as a corporal instead of just one particular speciality, no?
 
MOSART FAQ from the DIN:
Q. What is the MOSART project?

MOSART stands for Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring. In essence, we are looking at the entire Military Occupational Structure (MOS) and then redesigning and tailoring it to meet two key objectives:

Modernize the MOS so it supports the mission of the Canadian Forces â “ now and in the future.

Develop a MOS that helps the Canadian Forces become an employer of choice.

This will be achieved through the use of more flexible and cost-effective classification structures.

Q. What does MOSART mean for me?

MOSART means:

Better career options.

The ability to make better career decisions because of clearer career paths.

Greater flexibility with respect to career choices and career advancement.

MOSART does not necessarily mean:

Alternate service delivery.

Job cuts.

Pay cuts.

Q. I have issues with my (pick one) Pay, Rank, Training, Etc.  Will MOSART fix this?

MOSART understands the broader issues facing members of the Canadian Forces today but we cannot directly address these problems. Our aim is to develop a modern, flexible military occupational structure that will ultimately make it easier to solve many human resource related issues.

Q. What exactly is the Military Occupational Structure (MOS)?

The MOS provides the essential structural framework for personnel management. It consists of Career Fields, Occupations, Sub-Occupations and Occupational Specialties around which most personnel management activities occur. Personnel planning and production, HR policy development, recruiting and selection, training, pay, promotion, assignment and career management are some of the key human resource activities that use the MOS framework.

The MOS plays a vitally important role in military human resources. Initiatives that lead to changes in human resource policy in areas such as pay, terms of service, and promotion can have a profound impact on the MOS. A change in CF roles, force structure, unit organizations, capital equipment and maintenance doctrine can also impact the MOS if they lead to any significant change in the type or number of CF jobs. The impact of these changes on the MOS can range from simply amending occupational specifications to the deletion or creation of entire occupations.

Q. Why are the MOS and MOSART important?

One of the things the MOSART team keeps top of mind is, â Å“we have 90,000 reasons to succeedâ ?. The current MOS has many deficiencies, which in turn causes frustration for members of the Canadian Forces, as well as commanders leading the organization in today's challenging environment. By modernizing the MOS, we can increase operational effectiveness while giving members the widest possible spectrum of employment and career opportunities. It is anticipated that MOSART will result in:

A more effective organization.

Cost benefits

More motivated and satisfied members of the CF.

Q. Why do we need the MOSART project?

There are a number of reasons behind the MOSART project. The MOS was created almost 40 years ago and since then it has been updated using a patchwork approach. It is time that the MOS is reviewed in its entirety. Not only do we need to modernize the MOS but we also need to update the policies and management structure that supports the MOS.

It goes without saying that much has changed in the last three decades. Budget cuts, changing requirements, increasing demands, and difficulty recruiting and retaining people have put enormous pressure on the CF and, ultimately the MOS.

In recent years it has become clear that the current MOS is not able to meet occupational requirements for increased operations. A MOS built around careers rather than operations has led to a higher ratio of personnel costs to operational capability. We have inadequate numbers of people in the right occupations and an inflexible MOS policy that limits our ability to do anything about it.

For more information, visit the Why MOSART? section of the Web site.

Q. What MOS structural changes are we making?

Better employment flexibility and more comprehensive organization of all required CF work functions will depend on:

Designing and implementing broadly-based career fields; and
Identifying and implementing, where necessary, sub-occupations.
The first of these structural initiatives, â Å“Career Fieldsâ ? are defined as â Å“a grouping of military occupations and/or common/generic jobs, which is used for the purpose of both improving operational effectiveness and broadening individual career development to meet the environmental and CF requirements.â ? Logically grouping and managing occupational and/or professional development functions achieve this.

The second of these structural initiatives, â Å“Sub-occupationsâ ?, may be formed within a parent military occupation when there is a requirement to employ an identified group of officers or NCMs with additional skills and knowledge in a series of related jobs. These jobs may be career-developmental in nature and form a significant part of the overall function of the occupation, but include unique requirements of a more advanced or specialized nature for which it is not effective to train all members of the occupation. The reason for having sub-occupations assumes the pre-existence of the jobs/developmental conditions necessary for an occupation, beyond which these further characteristics apply.

Q. Why career fields?

The advantages of using Career Fields include:

Improve the CF's ability to develop the right person for the right job at the right time to meet mission requirements.

Enhance the effectiveness of the personnel management system in meeting CF requirements while addressing members' expectations.

Give the CF the ability to identify and capitalize on synergies, particularly in professional development, created by grouping occupations in career fields.

Provide operational commanders with more flexibility and efficiencies in employing and deploying qualified CF members.

Allow the CF to effectively address and manage emerging operational and corporate work requirements in areas such as Human Resources, Information Operations, Space Operations, Information Management, Project Management, and Policy Development/Analysis.

Q. Why sub-occupations?

Using sub-occupations will result in the following advantages:

Save money on training and professional development because it is not cost-effective to train all members of the occupation.

Permit the CF to tailor specific pay, compensation, benefits, and other personnel cycle activities to a select and more specific group of members.

Sub-occupations make it possible to organize the work into more manageable elements.

Sub-occupations will also mean:

Selection and professional development will be easier to achieve and it will be easier and faster for members to reach a certain level of competence.

Greater flexibility to react to changing requirements.

Q. What is the MOSART project timeline?

MOSART is a long-term project. In project management terms it is currently in the â Å“Project Definition Phaseâ ?. Analysis of specific Career Fields began in April 2003 and implementation of the new MOS and its supporting policies scheduled to start in 2005 with completion in 2008.

Q. Has Mosart conducted a pilot project to test its vision?

Yes. The MOSART Project is now in the process of conducting and implementing a MOS pilot project using the Health Services MOS's as a test case on which to evaluate MOSART options. The pilot project has been an excellent review and an opportunity to co-ordinate the writing and re-writing where necessary of existing MOS policies to ensure conformation with test aims and objectives. This interim policy will ultimately replace A-PD-055-001/AG-001 during the course of the project implementation phase.

Q. How is MOSART linked with other Human Resources (HR) initiatives?

There are currently about 13 different HR projects and activities going on within the CF. You may have heard of some of them, like the Terms of Service Project, the Recruiting and Retention Project, the Reserve Force Employment Project, and the Quality of Life initiative.

All HR initiatives will have an impact on MOSART because of the interrelationship between HR functions and the MOS. While some initiatives will have little or no direct impact on the MOS progress is monitored closely to make sure MOSART is in step with these activities. Other initiatives have a greater impact on MOS modernization and the MOSART team is proactive, working to ensure changes do not have a negative impact on the project.
 
One of the underlying principles behind the shift from MOC to MOSID is the data management requirement. MOC numbers are inconsistent, 2 digits for officer classifications, three digits for NCM trades, and each may or may not have letters appended. With movement to consolidated pers databases, it was identified that the rest of the Department's personnel don't have an equivalent numbering system and it would require the maintenence of what will become a superfluous extra occupation code (the current MOC) just because that's what service members are used to.

After all, the MOC is just a designation for a trade, it's not a symbol for the trade and it has no inherent value for retention just because we're used to it.

Tradition, where it turns its eyes resolutely towards the past with too much insistence on the old and too rigid a dislike of the new, can have a strong effect by discouraging progressive thought and change. - Lieut.-Colonel R.J.A. Kaulback, D.S.O., p.s.c., "The Regiment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. XCI, February to November 1946

 
If someone were to enter a sub-occupation & not like what it has to offer, would he be stuck there or would it be easy to get back into the "main-stream" occupation?
 
That should be no different that someone moving between sub-occupations now. The MOC/MOSID is just a piece of data, it can be changed to match personnel managment processes.
 
I could see it being used to trap people with skill sets that the army does not have enough depth in.  An infantry man in recce Pl could be sifted to a recce sub-occupation & be denied return to a rifle Coy.  This may not seem bad to some, but if career progression is slow in the recce sub-occupation then this guy may suffer from it.  LAV crew could be an unhappy sub-occupation for others.
 
They could start with separating "mounted" Infantry from Light. There is no need for people in LIBs to qualify on LAV, just like there is no need for LAV Batt people to go on Basic Para. It should be possible to change from one to the other, but it should be considered a remuster (especially after the development of the "Light Force" and the trg needed to become Spec ops-capable)
 
Ok, I just have to know, what is the deal with MOC codes? I mean, I myself am 22U but have seen many officer MOCs ending in A, not U. Can anyone explain this to me? The only thing I can think of is U stands for "untrained" or something like that.
 
You got it.  "U" means Untrained.  Just about every officer's an "A" after being MOC trained, but some MOCs have sub-specialities and you will see other letters of the alphabet.
 
Thanks a lot, Horse_soldier. Was just something i was curious about
 

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?  


Seems to me that they could just as easily add job descriptions to the existing MOC system, since it has worked well for decades.. Did the puzzle palace come up with the MOSID term?
 
Just a few observations.

One, you have to wonder how much time some coffee boys at One-Oh-Fun Col. By wasted coming up with all that warmed over bullshit to stuff into the FAQ. Makes on scratch the head.

Two, why not go with the system the American Army uses? You have your MOC (say 11B for light infantryman) and then a series of ASQ(I think that;s the acronym) These are a combo of letters and number denoting additional skill sets within the overall MOC. I think P= parachustist qualified, V= Parachutist & Ranger School qualified, and then there is something for Pathfinder qual'd, Dragon qual'd, etc. This sort of ties in with what Jungle was saying. First you are Infantry qualified (11 series MOC). Then you can be a lightfighter (11B), a mortarman (11C), or mech infantry (11M). After that, depending on the needs of your "sub-MOC" you can be trained in additional sub-sub qualifications and be identified as such. The Americans ever throw in a number to denote your level of expertise/rnk/leadership training. So an 11B2V would be a BPara, RS grad, light Infantry SGT. It makes sense to just adopt that to our current MOC codes instead of reinventing the wheel and making everyone a twenty-digit code. We're already just cogs in the machine, I don't necessarily want to be reminded of it everytime I have to fill out paperwork requesting a simple job description.

Third, God love the REMFs for initiating some horseshit makework project that layers on the beauracracy and may help the admin drones in some small obscure part of the paperwork machine, while being able to smuggly tell the front line troops to go swallow a dick everytime we ask for something that makes life under a hooch in 5 below weather at O'dark-you're-shitting-me just a touch bit easier. That's what I love about MY Strong and Proud Canadian Forces. <gag>
 
Great... now I'll have one more thing to mess up when identifying myself to superiors.  :salute:
 
Steel Badger to all Callsigns:

A SOCORDIA MAGISTRATUS LIBERA NOS, DOMINE!


I say again,


A SOCORDIA MAGISTRATUS LIBERA NOS, DOMINE!


Steel Badger....... Out.
 
I have mixed views with this subj.  I think it is a good method to get latteral movement between the trades but could cause some problems as I see.  What does everyone else think?
 
I thought he was an excellent composer and particularly liked the Magic Flute.  If you mean the Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring (MOSART) Project, there are mixed views. ;)
 
Mozart, MORPS, Power Rangers its a just a cycle. Everything comes full circle look at the Sonar Trade in the Navy.

Sonarman --  NACOP (1986-MORPS) -- TAS OP(1995) (to intergrate the defunct Ocean OP trade)-- back to Sonar OP (present)

With not enough specialty and focus in an area of warfare by a specific trade. The discipline suffers.

CROW (lets stay the same and concentrate at being good at own trade)
 
What is with the military and stupid acronyms?
 
Back
Top