As a follow up to earlier correspondence I feel the need to open a discussion on the merits of the apparent constant need for Supply Sqn’s to reorganise and rename themselves.
The requirement to change the title of all areas is prevalent at all levels and causes real problems when trying to identify an opposite number at another unit. If it is difficult for us to find the correct point of contact on a unit how do our customers and suppliers cope? As a Service we are renowned for our use of acronyms but I would contend that when we worked to a basic ‘standard set-up’ everyone had a fighting chance of finding the correct point of contact. I do not wish to appear to be, and believe I am not, a dinosaur but I would stop using a store if they constantly changed the name of every department. Our customers do not have the opportunity to change, they must use us and surely we want them to talk to us, ask any inventory clerk (or what ever his new title is) how important it is to speak to and hear from inventory holders?
In addition our young entrants, the life blood of the trade, are in a no win situation, they are taught to a format based on the JSP 336, the ‘Binbrook Sqn System’ they undertake 14 weeks of training passing out of Painthorpe and arrive on a new unit asking for Supply Sqn only to be told it’s now Forward/Depth/Logistics Support Sqn/Materials Management Sqn etc. The individual then finds himself in an organisation bearing no relationship to that taught. We also require the same individuals to deploy OOA with no platform specific Pre Employment training, he arrives to an alien country, living conditions, and working procedures, when he has a problem with an aircraft demand he speaks to an LFP (or what ever the platforms parent unit calls it) and struggles because he only knows his units procedures, which are sure to be different to the detachment aircrafts parent unit.
The JSP 336 will be of little use and he will have to rely on a mountain of Work Procedures and Orders. If any of us are required to operate alongside our Army colleagues (who have deployed as a formed unit) the problems are even greater as we employ new or long forgotten skills alongside a formed and cohesive unit. On completion of a successful OOA he/she returns to their parent unit, which has once again reconfigured its self to a whole new Sqn organisation with new acronyms.
Our IT infrastructure is a one size fits all, USAS is USAS, basically designed to support the ‘Binbrook System’ whilst the small systems package is a museum piece, employing transaction codes no longer taught. I believe we need a Sqn format, which is employable on all MOB’s employing standard acronyms (how about SCAF, TSF R&D etc) whilst being flexible to the need and deployable. Our ‘Binbrook System’ evolved gradually over decades but has been ripped apart over the last few years by a number of incumbents who are often only in post for two years before moving on, whilst those remaining just get the system ‘working ‘ before the next incumbent reconfigures the Sqn again and exercises his ‘Change Management’ skills!
I believe our trade is at a crossroads, we must be a flexible, deployable, trained trade in order to survive as a ‘blue suit’ organisation but we are losing our flexibility due to platform specific procedures and practises. How long would it take a tradesman from another Unit to learn your unit specific procedures 4 hours, 7 days? This will get worse with the planned reduction in MOB’s, people will stay on a unit for many years, possibly in three or four ranks, how flexible and deployable is that individual, is he in effect a Civilian who gets paid an X factor. This trade has some outstanding professionals who have a proven ability to operate in the front line of operations over sustained periods lets not throw this away in the drive for change for changes sake!
I know this seems a long comment but it's not a simple porblem!
Any thoughts?
DT_Xtremez_30:
The requirement to change the title of all areas is prevalent at all levels and causes real problems when trying to identify an opposite number at another unit. If it is difficult for us to find the correct point of contact on a unit how do our customers and suppliers cope? As a Service we are renowned for our use of acronyms but I would contend that when we worked to a basic ‘standard set-up’ everyone had a fighting chance of finding the correct point of contact. I do not wish to appear to be, and believe I am not, a dinosaur but I would stop using a store if they constantly changed the name of every department. Our customers do not have the opportunity to change, they must use us and surely we want them to talk to us, ask any inventory clerk (or what ever his new title is) how important it is to speak to and hear from inventory holders?
In addition our young entrants, the life blood of the trade, are in a no win situation, they are taught to a format based on the JSP 336, the ‘Binbrook Sqn System’ they undertake 14 weeks of training passing out of Painthorpe and arrive on a new unit asking for Supply Sqn only to be told it’s now Forward/Depth/Logistics Support Sqn/Materials Management Sqn etc. The individual then finds himself in an organisation bearing no relationship to that taught. We also require the same individuals to deploy OOA with no platform specific Pre Employment training, he arrives to an alien country, living conditions, and working procedures, when he has a problem with an aircraft demand he speaks to an LFP (or what ever the platforms parent unit calls it) and struggles because he only knows his units procedures, which are sure to be different to the detachment aircrafts parent unit.
The JSP 336 will be of little use and he will have to rely on a mountain of Work Procedures and Orders. If any of us are required to operate alongside our Army colleagues (who have deployed as a formed unit) the problems are even greater as we employ new or long forgotten skills alongside a formed and cohesive unit. On completion of a successful OOA he/she returns to their parent unit, which has once again reconfigured its self to a whole new Sqn organisation with new acronyms.
Our IT infrastructure is a one size fits all, USAS is USAS, basically designed to support the ‘Binbrook System’ whilst the small systems package is a museum piece, employing transaction codes no longer taught. I believe we need a Sqn format, which is employable on all MOB’s employing standard acronyms (how about SCAF, TSF R&D etc) whilst being flexible to the need and deployable. Our ‘Binbrook System’ evolved gradually over decades but has been ripped apart over the last few years by a number of incumbents who are often only in post for two years before moving on, whilst those remaining just get the system ‘working ‘ before the next incumbent reconfigures the Sqn again and exercises his ‘Change Management’ skills!
I believe our trade is at a crossroads, we must be a flexible, deployable, trained trade in order to survive as a ‘blue suit’ organisation but we are losing our flexibility due to platform specific procedures and practises. How long would it take a tradesman from another Unit to learn your unit specific procedures 4 hours, 7 days? This will get worse with the planned reduction in MOB’s, people will stay on a unit for many years, possibly in three or four ranks, how flexible and deployable is that individual, is he in effect a Civilian who gets paid an X factor. This trade has some outstanding professionals who have a proven ability to operate in the front line of operations over sustained periods lets not throw this away in the drive for change for changes sake!
I know this seems a long comment but it's not a simple porblem!
Any thoughts?
DT_Xtremez_30: