|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:aside from the whole "our traditions!" It seems like a good move in the long run? Honestly though... How often did it matter for last name vs XXX1/2/3? If I wanted to use bearing I would use Petty Officer BlahBlah anyways. XXX1/2/3 was always pretty interchangeable with last names formality wise.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
everyones just gonna take to calling everyone else by last name only anyways. Constantly saying petty officer ___ is going to get tiring but really isn't this only going to increase retention and give sailors a more versatile set of skills? Like the gently caress does an AO do on shore duty? Why not be able to have multiple job classifications on a ship. Maybe I'm missing something but won't it essentially let you hold multiple ratings? The training and such is still gonna be the same to do said job, I assume. So what's the fuss about idk it makes sense to me Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:everyones just gonna take to calling everyone else by last name only anyways. Constantly saying petty officer ___ is going to get tiring It's a good change overall. Expands greater skillset range across all billets, and theoretically translates better to civ world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Heard a lot of frustration over this today. I'm not sure if the abruptness as a bad idea or a good idea--it's a huge change, but dragging it out may have been worse. The loss of tradition is painful, but I think the rating system as is has hampered the Navy's ability to respond to configuration of ships and technological developments. Exhibit 1: ETs, ITs and ICs have a ton of overlap and a ton of 'someone else's job' syndrome, but it's too late to reconfigure everyone into 'Radarmen' 'commsmen' and 'networkmen' and who knows how long those distinction in skillsets would be meaningful? Throw FCs in the mix too. Exhibit 2: how else do we get rid of MAs? Exhibit 3: CTs. I think. I don't really understand what they do or why they aren't EWs, except for CTIs. Who could probably be ISs with language training. See exhibit 1. Exhibit 4: Minemen -- AOs ashore, BM/OS/GM hybrid at sea. Oh, you've done eight years working in deck? Time to put you in charge of CIC--you need experience if you're going to make chief. You're a master of sonar? Too bad, this rating exam was 80% about how to build mines! Meanwhile, even if you turn out to be an awesome deck mineman, you're going to go to a bunch of BM schools, get trained to do BM stuff and then work as an AO ashore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
isn't tradition like 90% of the reason we hate the Mil. I mean some of it is cool but yeah. So pretty much it's gonna be nearly the same to how the other branches do it and presumably every other country "I don't want no scrubs in my rating! I earned this title! damnit!"  Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
This means my reserve unit may actually send me to some MA schools now. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:This means my reserve unit may actually send me to some MA schools now. looool
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:looool My CO said "Integrated security would really help make things safer here, who here has a background in security.... Don't you?". Working with networks while geared like an MA does not sound like fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:My CO said "Integrated security would really help make things safer here, who here has a background in security.... Don't you?". Going to a school full of MAs sounds like less fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
oh man lots of salt on facebook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Going to a school full of MAs sounds like less fun. I hear it's in Texas. I don't want to go to Texas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I hear it's in Texas. Spent 8 months down there wasn't so bad, beats the poo poo out of Portsmouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
It's not really the "mah traditions" aspect because that's loving retarded. It's that the system already exists as NECs. Just expand NECs across whatever you decide a community is. If an ET and IT can both go to comms school XXXX, then let them get the NEC. Then detail based on NEC. It basically reeks of a way to spend gobs of money to seem more 21st century!!! And write better evals for suggesting a monumental idea Laranzu fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I hear it's in Texas. It's San Antonio. It's Texas, but not the terrible bigoted country part. And besides, it's an airforce base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:aside from the whole "our traditions!" It seems like a good move in the long run? I'd imagine it'll be shortened, probably to PO#. Which happens sometimes already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
poopkitty posted:It's San Antonio. It's Texas, but not the terrible bigoted country part. it's vaguely in our no column just in case the anti baby solution fails and we need to off a fetus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:it's vaguely in our no column just in case the anti baby solution fails and we need to off a fetus. It's legal in Texas, and 2 of the four clinics in TX are in San Antonio. Others are in Austin or Houston, 2-3 hours away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Checking in to say that I think the Navy is making a very smart strategic move here. Also,  at tradition. If tradition mattered, MIDN would be loving stabbin' themselves some seaman and not giving it another thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
The problem here is not about changing titles, traditions, and stuff. The problem is this:piL posted:Exhibit 4: Minemen -- AOs ashore, BM/OS/GM hybrid at sea. Oh, you've done eight years working in deck? Time to put you in charge of CIC--you need experience if you're going to make chief. You're a master of sonar? Too bad, this rating exam was 80% about how to build mines! Meanwhile, even if you turn out to be an awesome deck mineman, you're going to go to a bunch of BM schools, get trained to do BM stuff and then work as an AO ashore. We're going down from 60-80 ratings (depending in how you count them) to 16 NOS's. There is going to be a significant loss of expertise in any given NOS area. As a CO I already have a problem with the experience of my crew as the Navy gets younger and underway time decreases. Further watering it down is going to be painful in the long run. The other thing is that the way units are manned is going to end up loving operational units, especially small commands. With BBD fit/fill from PERS now I may get sailor that's +/-1 rank or missing an NEC, but I'm certain I'm going to get the right rate which guarantees some level of competence in the area they'll be assigned. Now a billet will be defined by 2 or 3 NOS's and PERS is going to fit/fill based on that too which means commands will get people missing NOS's for the billet they're filling and have no idea what's going on in half or more of their job. Not to mention what happens with the entire A and C school structure and how sailors are assessed, trained, and certified. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The problem here is not about changing titles, traditions, and stuff. The problem is this: If you took all of that away from that single message, then holy poo poo. Also, let me ask you directly, what is the number one change that JO's would make to the Navy's detailing system? Frankly, I see this as a very progressive shift if implemented correctly and followed through on. Boon fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you took all of that away from that single message, then holy poo poo. Also, let me ask you directly, what is the number one change that JO's would make to the Navy's detailing system? Those are fairly obvious implications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Those are fairly obvious implications. Did you read the message? The long and the short of it is that the Navy's classification system is hosed up and has been for a while. It doesn't integrate well into the joint community and it sure as poo poo doesn't translate to anything that isn't directly defense industry/USA Jobs related. Based on that single message, everyone, including MML, has made leaps of logic to the rollout of a program that has not been yet detailed. Further, YES. ABSOLUTELY. There will be problems in roll out. Full disclosure: the only reason I'm so cavalier about all of this is because I've been studying corporate strategy and M&A's recently and therefore have taken the tack that organizational change/integration, especially on the scale of the Navy, is hard and not successful a lot of the time. Yet, the Navy needs to change in order to stay modern because as this forum will so self-evidently show, it's not an organization that easily retains talent. Boon fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you took all of that away from that single message, then holy poo poo. Also, let me ask you directly, what is the number one change that JO's would make to the Navy's detailing system? As a sitting CO who has read the message, and the briefing book from CNP to commanders, and having been in this business for 13 years I feel pretty comfortable with my takeaways. Saying this better aligns with joint commands is dumb. I would love to meet with the colonels and generals who were just so perplexed at what "IT1(SW)" meant that their staffs and operations fell apart. On its face I don't think having NOS's or whatever is bad. This is just being poorly implemented and communicated and from what I've seen so far was done with the shore infrastructure in mind and is leaving most operational units flapping in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Just waiting on them to change Seaman to Seamate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
I'd love to see that briefing book if you're willing to share, unless it's FOUO. That said, no one at a flag-decision level gives a poo poo about what the military thinks about this (in the short-term), and thinking about it in those terms is not the best. I'm not invalidating your claims on this or dismissing them out of hand, but I've got some news for you if you think that no one has thought of those concerns that you've raised. It IS abrupt. It isn't the best communicated (from what I've seen - again, I'd love to see that briefing book). But it is a shift which represents some positive change and thinking in how the Navy approaches its career paths. Objecting on what are all short-term grounds is a poor ideal for what is an institutional change. Again. It all depends on how it's implemented and frankly, something that changes up the career paths NEEDS to be implemented for JOs. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'd love to see that briefing book unless its FOUO and you're willing to share. Yeah, I mean truly no one gives a lick of a poo poo what any of us think about this, but I would not be so cavalier as to think that the problems and questions I've raised were thought of and addressed by those who proposed this. From what I'm seeing and hearing now this was incredibly closed loop and, given the abruptness of it, I suspect it was a plan that an outgoing SECNAV was looking to cram in under the wire. I don't want to share too many details from the briefing book because I'm not sure if it's FOUO, but reference as to how closed loop this was the HASC and SASC were not briefed until yesterday morning. I agree that the Navy need to modernize it's manning and personnel systems, but I just don't see this being a magic bullet. A longer term plan that allows for adjustment and correction would work not one that involves a surprise detonation of a century or so old way of doing business without a clear and detailed plan available for publishing. Even the briefing book makes no mention about simple stuff like what happens to everyone's service dress and dress uniforms as of this NAVADMIN since there are no more rating badges let alone how something like the Chief's Board* is going to work now. This is READY - SHOOT - AIM at it's finest. (* For reference, it looks like MN is going to be part of the submarine family of NOS's for some reason despite MN not ever serving in the submarine community. I'm sure that a former MN1 is going to compete against the other sub-NOS's favorably when the vast majority of the board members will be wearing dolphins.) Edit: Fixed when HASC/SASC were notified. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
im getting out in 8 months. burn the whole place to the ground for all I care, just dont gently caress up my separation paperwork.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:
So It really is "DESTROY EVERYTHING" and have nothing to replace it. I was expecting at least a portion of the back end to exist, and just not be released to the scrub tiers quite yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Boon posted:Based on that single message, everyone, including MML, has made leaps of logic to the rollout of a program that has not been yet detailed. This is what Ive been trying to communicate to everyone losing their minds. To be honest I'd be surprised if they didnt leave the NOS as a top level job code and use NECs under them for specificity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I agree that the Navy need to modernize it's manning and personnel systems, but I just don't see this being a magic bullet. A longer term plan that allows for adjustment and correction would work not one that involves a surprise detonation of a century or so old way of doing business without a clear and detailed plan available for publishing. 1. I don't think it's meant to be a magic bullet. 2. Describe to me how you think that might happen in a world where both the HASC and SASC are involved and it is over any length of time that isn't immediate. Bear in mind, we live in the a world where the Pentagon has no say as to what Congress deems is in it's own best interest. For reference, the repeal of DADT was passed on near party lines back in 2011 when the D's held a large enough number of Senate seats to nearly be filibuster proof. I'm not trying to die on a hill here, but this outrage is expected and also at least partially irrational. There will be problems, yes, and you as a CO will have to fight through them, but it will be an iterative and ongoing process and we have only just begun with no real details yet laid out. Essentially, the Navy just announced a major change, the market is reacting (and in this case the market is extremely conservative) but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not invalidating your claims on this or dismissing them out of hand, but I've got some news for you if you think that no one has thought of those concerns that you've raised. Did you type that with a straight face? And to be clear, I'm in agreement that our system needs some fixing but those at the top show a frightening inability to account for, or at least a lack of concern with, 2nd and 3rd order effects of sweeping policy changes. You as someone who has been in for a while should know this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Boon posted:1. I don't think it's meant to be a magic bullet. 2. Describe to me how you think that might happen in a world where both the HASC and SASC are involved and it is over any length of time that isn't immediate. The HASC and SASC don't necessarily have a say in how any of the services organize their enlisted forces, but the idea that they wouldn't at least be notified that this was in the works or coming down the pipe until the day before is, to me at least, incredibly telling. At this point however you are right, I may be overreacting to something for which very little detail is known. However, the fact that so little detail is available on such a major change, and the Navy can't even figure out what uniforms we need to wear let alone how to manage the 300k sailors in the service doesn't fill me with confidence that satisfactory answers are waiting in the wings. Also, I misspoke earlier. The information I got yesterday afternoon led me to believe there would only be 16 NOS's. The stuff I've gotten today now makes it seem like it will be a lot more then that. I haven't done an exact count but it might almost be 1 for 1. If that is the case then maybe this is much ado about nothing because then this would effectively be nothing but a name change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Did you type that with a straight face? Yes. I'm approaching this from the perspective of someone who has been in, worked at the 4-star staff level (and as the CNO's executive agent office for a major system) who then got out and is pursuing an MBA and corporate strategy. I've got a lot to learn still, and a great deal of experience to gain, but I've got a bit of perspective that is hard to have when you're in and dealing with all of the poo poo as it happens. I don't want to pretend like this is a great move, because it's honestly impossible to say. The honest answer is that I don't know. Here is what I can say. - The Navy needs to change. - The Navy will not change willingly. - Congress will be of no use here. - Top-brass is not as dumb as people believe. Separately, the idea that top-brass fails to understand second and third order effects is something easily said but hard to justify. The truth is, it's far more likely that they misunderstand the second or third order effects. For reference, businesses fail in about 70-90% of all mergers and acquisitions. That is an astounding number for what is often considered the paragon of efficiency (the private sector) and something that they are presumably experts in. The reality is that organizational change and/or integration is VERY hard. Further, the larger the organization the more likely it is to fail. It's for that reason that I am not so quick to shoot this idea down on premature, short-term grounds. It's frankly too early to say, and can fail at any point, and likely will, between now and full implementation and follow-on. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Boon posted:
Its hard to tell until we see some follow on NAVADMINS (which hopefully appear soon) regarding some of the near term issues. If those are entirely half assed it shows what kind of preparatory work was put into the plan. What is an almost certainty is that it won't fail before tons of money and good will is expended in lieu of good decision making and preparation for those second and third order possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
I am reminded of Admiral Gortney's effort to introduce a whole new way of implementing programmatic processes requiring a lot of contracted consulting and staff briefs and training, after which immediately folded the moment he went to NORTHCOM. This fascinates me though, a) because god help me I still love the Navy, and b) it's a sort of real-time case study in change management. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
gently caress it. I see nothing about this list that makes it seem FOUO, and it's going to be out eventually, so here you go. Keep in mind this is all I have so far. This table with, no context or supporting information, is all that has been released to triads:code:ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Yeah I agree, that's a supremely lovely introduction to a massive change. Hopefully you get more soon because I can't imagine the discontent you're going to have to deal with from your command. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah I agree, that's a supremely lovely introduction to a massive change. Hopefully you get more soon because I can't imagine the discontent you're going to have to deal with from your command. Question based upon my general hatred of higher learning and credentialing institutions. If you're in an MBA and studying business administration, where they claim to understand/know business. Then 70%-90% of all mergers and acquisitions (where hopefully they have some business administrationy / organizational culture people involved) fail. Does it make you feel like maybe its all guesswork and no one knows what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Are all the A1xx rates related to each other? Like, is that a logical grouping? If so, it looks similar to AF enlisted AFSCs. The first 2-3 digits define the career field, then whatever follows narrows it down to specialties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
At first it looks that way, then you get down to ETs, ITs, etc and it's just BXXX.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:09
|
|
