Army Numbers Fall Again

So because some were in the wrong place all were binned, rather than move those to the 'right' place, where the 'footfall' was?

... so because of the clear need to engage digitally, the need to also engage personally was ignored rather than complemented?

... so the one point constantly and consistently made by those interested in and attempting to join, namely that they want to be able to talk to the same person, in person, is ignored?.
There’s no reason whatsoever why recruits can’t be engaged with personally in the digital space. Why can’t they have a personal recruitment manager to take them through their journey? They don’t physically have to meet; a relationship of trust can be built without a face to face meeting or a bricks and mortar location. There are lots of businesses that do this.

An unconnected example, but we’re just on-boarding with a cloud based CRM system. It’s absolutely core to our business growth, but we’ve bought it, installed it, integrated our website etc, been through the training process and are now being mentored as we implement it without ever physically meeting anyone. Yet I have a personal relationship with an individual sales team member and my onboarding coach. They’re in Arizona, I’m in NSW.

But if you engage the cheapest service provider you can find an accept them running a call centre operation, you won’t get personal relationships. You get the same call centre shit that we get from banks.

The ADF manage this very well. When your application is first qualified, you get a case manager (from the contractor) who takes you through the administrative steps and keeps you informed about progress. You have direct access to him by phone and email. Later, once the admin bIt is working and your lead is becoming a str By prospect, you get a uniformed advisor too who walks you through preparation for the selection board.

From a distance, the RPP seems to operate a cheap-as-chips call centre culture which doesn’t treat recruits as clients. But then who appointed Capita? Who wrote the ITT? Who worked on the client side of the partnership?
 
As I’ve said many times, it’s a headline number measuring the number of UNQUALIFIED leads at the mouth of the funnel. In marketing terms that measures the effectiveness of the totality of activity at the awareness stage of the process. The sources of those leads could (and presumably is?) be analysed by looking looking at hits after a major advert expenditure, abandoned applications, retargetting data etc etc. The analysis can be very granular.
I'm aware you've said it "many times" but repetition doesn't make it any more correct.

If those completing the 'application' have no interest in joining the Army or aren't able to join they aren't "leads", qualified or otherwise.

It's not measuring the effectiveness of the process as those 'applications' are the result of an awareness of totally different processes made for totally different reasons (Jobseeker Allowance and 200 specialist posts) which have nothing to do with the process at all.

In some ways, the numbers that CAARPS led is to are impressive; if we focus on just the viable leads, it’s turning about 20% of viable leads into recruits.
... and if we focus on just those who become recruits that's a 100% success rate. Wow! That's impressive!

... or maybe not ...

The link that CAARPS posted starts to QUALIFY the leads. It sorts out the obvious dud leads and leaves those that have to be prosecuted as viable leads.
Really? WHERE???

Point to or quote ANYWHERE in the link where "it sorts out the obvious dud leads and leaves those that have to be prosecuted as viable leads".

This is pure fantasy.
 
Who worked on the client side of the partnership?
People like you, apparently, who ignored the "client" completely and instead of giving them what they've repeatedly said they wanted (even here) gave them what they thought they should have based on their own totally different and totally unconnected experience.

The comparison with the ADF is a prime example - the ADF recruits a very different "client" from a totally different educational level from a population that couldn't be more different in terms of geography and accessability and being used to contact at a distance, yet you're repeatedly insisting on comparing the two.
 
No @John G, someone who provides their email address etc is absolutely a lead, irrespective of how they enter the system. You now have direct contact details to market to; targeting, retargeting and so on. That’s what a lead is, irrespective of your view.

And no, I wasn’t involved in RPP so your sneary dig about people like me is off target. As is your observation about the ADF, who moved to online recruiting Long after you left Australia and who have very similar problems. It’s the process that I’m talking about. Not the people.

I honestly don’t think you have a clue. Your stuck in a 1970s time warp with no real connection to the 21st century.
 
And no, I wasn’t involved in RPP so your sneary dig about people like me is off target.
I never suggested you were involved in RPP, @bob. What I meant by 'someone like you' was exactly what I said: someone "who ignored the "client" completely and instead of giving them what they've repeatedly said they wanted (even here) gave them what they thought they should have based on their own totally different and totally unconnected experience" - like both Capita and whoever agreed to the RPP with them, which is something you confirm about yourself with every post. To put it another way, someone who'd failed to get anywhere in any employment and had been Second X! wherever they went, who knew the buzzwords but had no idea what they meant or how to use them.
someone who provides their email address etc is absolutely a lead, irrespective of how they enter the system. You now have direct contact details to market to; targeting, retargeting and so on. That’s what a lead is, irrespective of your view.
... and a more perfect example of total incompetence would be hard to find. If your "lead" has (to quote from the Gov link) " no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking)" but you continue to "market (them); targeting, retargeting and so on" in the mistaken belief that they're a "lead" just because you have "direct contact details" then you're wasting valuable and limited resources for nothing when those resources could be used constructively elsewhere to pursue genuine "leads" who are interested. Similarly, if you're wasting resources targeting the 20,000 failed applicants for the 200 Commonwealth specialist places with a waived residency requirement, unless they're automatically contacted when they meet the residency requirement (which, according to the e-mail they receive when told there are no vacancies, they're not) then you're targeting and retargeting those you already know are ineligible which would be borderline insane - you'd have far more success targeting random names in a telephone directory. If that's how you ran your previous enterprises, targeting those who were uninterested or ineligible, then it's no wonder that they all failed dismally and your previous employers got rid of you.
As is your observation about the ADF, who moved to online recruiting Long after you left Australia and who have very similar problems.
Absolute, unadulterated and complete rubbish. Not only does the ADF not have any "very similar problems" with their RPP equivalent that the British Army does, but neither do they have exclusively "on line recruiting". This is absolute rubbish. They introduced on-line initial applications and contact in parallel with DFRCs, as I suggested the British Army should have done, not as a replacement as you claim. Potential applicants can still apply at a Recruiting Centre, as many do, and applications aren't counted as having been made until they physically attend a YOU (Your Opportunities Unlimited) Session at a DFRC. You clearly know as little about the ADF as you do Australian Citizenship, which you absurdly claim to have been granted twice (first in 2014 and somehow again in 2016).
It’s the process that I’m talking about. Not the people.
Again, a perfect example of total incompetence, Without understanding "the people" and tailoring your "process" accordingly any "process" is doomed to fail, which explains why your business ventures all have and you got nowhere in the Army.

Reading a 'Get Rich Quick' book and regurgitating the buzzwords may impress some people, @Bob, but you're incapable of being able to apply it or to answer any questions that need original thought, here or on any subject, in any thread. It's no wonder you failed to get anywhere in the Army and in business - that's not down to being stuck in a time warp, @Bob, but simply being incompetent.
 
Last edited:
As is your observation about the ADF, who moved to online recruiting Long after you left Australia
As above , no they didn't @Bob, they simply introduced it in parallel to DFRCs. More to the point, and another question which I'm sure you have no answer to as with so many others when pressed for detail, specifics or original thought rather than pure fantasy, but this time a very simple one even for you: since you're so confident (but so wrong!) about when the ADF "moved to online recruiting" , just when do you imagine that I "left Australia"?

Or, as usual, do you have absolutely no idea and you're just making things up as you go along?

Oh, and do feel free to answer my previous equally simple question, as you'd evidently just pulled that claim out of thin air as well:
The link that CAARPS posted starts to QUALIFY the leads. It sorts out the obvious dud leads and leaves those that have to be prosecuted as viable leads.
Really? WHERE??? Point to or quote ANYWHERE in the link where "it sorts out the obvious dud leads and leaves those that have to be prosecuted as viable leads".
 
Last edited:
@John G you are as ever googling out of your Arrse. When was the last time you walked into a DFRC to join? If you did, you’d know that the prospective recruit is simply sat in front of a computer to make their online application. If a potential recruit wants information, he or she will be directed to the same computer to research the recruiting website. There are no recruiters in DFRCs, just a skeleton staff providing general advice to potential recruits and handing out brochures. They don’t process applications or form an initial gateway; it’s just a door to the online system; all ADF recruiting is online....

The application is the processed by the contractor and managed online. Documents can be scanned in and uploaded. The basic process is no different; name, address and contact details then the centralised system kicks in.

Recruits have no physical contact with a uniform until they go to a YOU session, which is coordinated by your recruiter by email and phone conversations. They never meet case manager; who works from a central office in IIRC Melbourne.

The YOU session is the equivalent of the Army Briefing which happens at a Recruitment Centre. Not much difference; potential recruits are familiarised with the process and walk out with an action plan and they provide any further documentation required.

The next stage is preliminary interview at the DFRCs which includes the medical. If you pass through that, it’s main assessment where you do your interviews and physical tests. That may or may not take place at a DFRCs; mine didn’t because of the level I was being interview at. Background checks take place before you go to assessment. All of this is managed by you case manager, just like in the UK. And just like in the UK, case managers change during the process because they leave, get sick, pregnant etc etc.

The ADF splits assessment into two elements whereas the UK does it in one and carries out background checks later. From the recruits perspective, it’s not much different( it’s all coordinated by the contractor.

All ADF recruits apply on line whether or not they do it from home or in a DFRC. The UK has recruiting centres that do much the same as a DFRC. The DFRCs does not do what a AFCO did; it’s not a parallel system. It’s the same as a UK recruiting centre with the exception that it provides a couple of computers for recruits use. There are only 15 DFRCs across Australia and three in NSW for a population of >7.5M. There are swathes of Aus for whom a DFRC is several hours travel; in my case DFRC Newcastle is a two hour drive. I applied online.

Next, all ADF recruiting administration is managed by a contractor who also runs all the marketing and manages the information. Service recruiters don’t get to consider the applications until they have been qualified; eligibility checked, medical etc etc.

It really is very similar to the way the UK does it.....and it went through serious teething problems when it was first set up. And you are talking out of your Arrse
 
Last edited:
@John G you are as ever googling out of your Arrse. When was the last time you walked into a DFRC to join? If you did, you’d know that the prospective recruit is simply sat in front of a computer to make their online application. If a potential recruit wants information, he or she will be directed to the same computer to research the recruiting website. There are no recruiters in DFACs providing advice to potential recruits or processing applications; it’s just a gateway to the online system. All ADF recruiting is online....

The application is the processed by the contractor and managed online. Documents can be scanned in and uploaded. Recruits have no physical contact with a uniform until they go to a YOU session, which is coordinated by your recruiter by email and phone conversations. They never meet case manager; who works from a central office in IIRC Melbourne.

The YOU session is the equivalent of the Army Briefing which happens at a Recruitment Centre. Not much difference; potential recruits are familiarised with the process and walk out with an action plan.

The next stage is preliminary interview at the DFAC which includes the medical. If you pass through that, it’s main assessment where you do your interviews and physical tests. That may or may not take place at a DFAC; mine didn’t because of the level I was being interview at. Background checks take place before you go to assessment. All of this is managed by you case manager, just like in the UK. And just like in the UK, case managers change during the process because they leave, get sick, pregnant etc etc.

The ADF splits assessment into two elements whereas the UK does it in one and carries out background checks later. From the recruits perspective, it’s not much different( it’s all coordinated by the contractor.

The DFAC does not do what a AFCO did; it’s not a parallel system. It’s the same as a UK recruiting centre with the exception that it provides a couple of computers for recruits use.

In summary, all ADF recruits apply on line whether or not they do it from home or in a DFRC. The UK has recruiting centres that do
much the same as a DFRC. All ADF recruiting administration is managed by a contractor who also runs all the marketing and manages the information. It really is very similar to the way the UK does it.....and it went through serious teething problems when it was first set up. And you are talking out of your Arrse
@bob, given your proven track record record of lying about everything under the sun, whether it's to support your fantasies or for no discernible reason, I think I'll take the ADF's word for what they do and how they do it rather than yours.

Maybe you could answer any of those many questions you've ignored instead? Or, as usual, maybe not ...

Sorry, @Bob, but I'm not going down yet another of your fantasy rabbit holes to divert attention away from yet another bit of @Bob stupidity.
 
@bob, given your proven track record record of lying about everything under the sun, whether it's to support your fantasies or for no discernible reason, I think I'll take the ADF's word for what they do and how they do it rather than yours.
Here’s the ADF system. Defence Jobs Australia - Recruitment Process

Which is exactly what I described. And pretty much the same as the British system. If you read the role of the Case Officer it reads pretty much across both systems. Similarly the parallels I drew with YOU and Assessment days reads across.

Specifically your contention that the online system was set up in parallel with the DFRCs is utter cock. It isn’t; there’s only one system which is administered by a contractor.

I’m not going to answer your questions save one; you are completely incapable of logical debate. You simply talk bollocks loudly and resort to abuse when anyone takes a contrary view.

The one I will answer is the one about when you left Australia. I’ve no idea when that was, but presumably it was when you had to go. Presumably you were about to get caught...doing what you went to Thailand to do.

BTW I’m quite cool with where my life has gone; it’s certainly not been mediocre or average. And now it has a very exciting new chapter building a rapidly expanding startup. I don’t need your negativity and passive aggression in my life. So be a good man and just fcuck off. I’ve finally ignored you and I’ve no intention of engaging with you again.
 
Unbelievable. That's the exact same link I already gave.

The same link that says (Para 1!) "Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901".
Which is exactly what I described
Only in your dreams, @Bob ... unless, of course, Para 1 doesn't say "Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901"
Specifically your contention that the online system was set up in parallel with the DFRCs is utter cock. It isn’t; there’s only one system which is administered by a contractor.
Yes, @bob. One system. ... and while it's administered by DFR there are three different ways of applying: Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901.

I'm not going to answer your questions save one;
I didn't expect you to for a second, @bob. That would, after all, need an element of both thought and honesty which are evidently both alien concepts.
I’ve finally ignored you and I’ve no intention of engaging with you again.
Wise decision, @Bob ... but as doomed to failure as your other intentions.
 
Unbelievable. That's the exact same link I already gave.

The same link that says (Para 1!) "Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901".
Only in your dreams, @Bob ... unless, of course, Para 1 doesn't say "Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901"
Yes, @bob. One system. ... and while it's administered by DFR there are three different ways of applying: Apply online, at a Defence Force Recruiting Centre or call 131901.

I didn't expect you to for a second, @bob. That would, after all, need an element of both thought and honesty which are evidently both alien concepts.
Wise decision, @Bob ... but as doomed to failure as your other intentions.
Fair play now, that line could be taken both ways. As Bob described or as you interpret it.

I read it first as how Bob described and only on re-reading realised what you inferred.
 
Fair play now, that line could be taken both ways. As Bob described or as you interpret it.

I read it first as how Bob described and only on re-reading realised what you inferred.
Fair one, @Taffd, but it's only open to mis-interpretation. The key's in the placement of the 'commas' - as in the difference between "all ARRSE members who are idiots .... " and "all ARRSE members, who are idiots, ...", which doesn't leave any wiggle room at all.

The point I'm making isn't so much that if you want a physical face-to-face with someone serving in the ADF (in uniform) at a DFRC you can and you're not just 'directed to the same computer to do research, etc', since you have the option (I can give umpteen other ADF links stating this unequivocally) as it's only a minor one and barely relevant, but that the ADF not only has a different system with different checks and balances but it's aimed at potential recruits with a far, far higher minimum and general educational standard and different IT abilities, experience and expectations.

You can't just take a template out of some get rich quick idiot's guide and completely ignore the 'people' part of the equation as if it doesn't matter, assuming that one process will work for all or fail for all - that's doomed to abject failure ... particularly as the ADF process has a similar shortfall of recruits to the UK's so may seem on the surface to have similar issues but they're down to very different reasons.

The reasons the RPP's failing isn't just because it's the "Wrong contractor, wrong contract, wrong requirement, etc, etc" but because it was swopping a flawed system for an equally flawed one with an Army second XI who expected to be somehow wafted into the 21st century on some magic carpet of buzzwords and IT none of which they understood.
 
Here's hoping a landslide of ignoring JohnG follows your decision, and brings a long overdue end to his threadcancer :)
I’ve tried. Occasionally he’s often got valid points but his posting style and aggression is unwarranted. You only have to look at his stats.....

It’s a shame. I enjoy Arrse; a good thread excercises debating in a way that doesn’t often happen in daily life. It’s a shame when a moron like John wrecks it for everyone.
 
I’ve tried. Occasionally he’s often got valid points but his posting style and aggression is unwarranted. You only have to look at his stats.....
I’ve tried. Occasionally he’s often got valid points but his posting style and aggression is unwarranted. You only have to look at his stats.....

It’s a shame. I enjoy Arrse; a good thread excercises debating in a way that doesn’t often happen in daily life. It’s a shame when a moron like John wrecks it for everyone.

It’s a shame. I enjoy Arrse; a good thread excercises debating in a way that doesn’t often happen in daily life. It’s a shame when a moron like John wrecks it for everyone.
Sorry for the SABC but you know who does not ever have valid points, he mindlessly and without reflection spews google shite.

I also have him on ignore, hopefully the mods realise that not gripping this sort of thinking loses them contributors and will lose them revenue!
 
Here's hoping a landslide of ignoring JohnG follows your decision, and brings a long overdue end to his threadcancer :)
You have a history of putting people on ignore who have made you look a bit of twat in the past, I'm surprised that you can see anyone's posts.
 
When you look at storeys like this which appear far too often in the press, is it any wonder youngsters don't want to join a service where they will risk life & limb and get treated like criminals and possibly jailed for doing their job!!
Major quits Army and sends medals back to Queen in protest at eight inquiries into Iraqi death
snip A decorated major facing his eighth investigation over the death of an Iraqi teenager 15 years ago has given his medals back and quit the Army in protest.
Fed up and furious Major Robert Campbell has hit out at 15 years of hell as he is put under a new investigation into a death in Iraq in 2003
despite repeatedly being cleared of wrongdoing
However when these legal vultures got involved it was all stirred up again
Around the same time law firm Leigh Day mounted civil action against the MoD on behalf of the teenager’s family. They were awarded £100,000, although the MoD did not admit liability for the teenager’s death.
In 2014 the taxpayer-funded Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) took on the case after being passed the file by the now-defunct Public Interest Lawyers. Major Campbell said: ‘Ihat came storming into my life in 2015 and made my ability to perform as an officer unworkable. My medication increased exponentially since Ihat turned up and by February 2016 I was no longer fit for service."
It decided in December that no charges should be brought and Major Campbell thought his ordeal was finally at an end.
But this month Major Campbell received an email, with a letter attached from the MoD, informing him that he would now be called before Sir George Newman as part of a fresh inquiry. He called the latest investigation, which will cost the taxpayer around £200,000, ‘unspeakably cruel and vindictive’."
 
When you look at storeys like this which appear far too often in the press, is it any wonder youngsters don't want to join a service where they will risk life & limb and get treated like criminals and possibly jailed for doing their job!!
Major quits Army and sends medals back to Queen in protest at eight inquiries into Iraqi death
snip A decorated major facing his eighth investigation over the death of an Iraqi teenager 15 years ago has given his medals back and quit the Army in protest.
Fed up and furious Major Robert Campbell has hit out at 15 years of hell as he is put under a new investigation into a death in Iraq in 2003
despite repeatedly being cleared of wrongdoing
However when these legal vultures got involved it was all stirred up again
Around the same time law firm Leigh Day mounted civil action against the MoD on behalf of the teenager’s family. They were awarded £100,000, although the MoD did not admit liability for the teenager’s death.
In 2014 the taxpayer-funded Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) took on the case after being passed the file by the now-defunct Public Interest Lawyers. Major Campbell said: ‘Ihat came storming into my life in 2015 and made my ability to perform as an officer unworkable. My medication increased exponentially since Ihat turned up and by February 2016 I was no longer fit for service."
It decided in December that no charges should be brought and Major Campbell thought his ordeal was finally at an end.
But this month Major Campbell received an email, with a letter attached from the MoD, informing him that he would now be called before Sir George Newman as part of a fresh inquiry. He called the latest investigation, which will cost the taxpayer around £200,000, ‘unspeakably cruel and vindictive’."
Veering off-topic as LD, PIL, IHAT, Shiner, etc, are discussed at length elsewhere, as are Bloody Sunday, Blackman and similar incidents, but despite the outrage bus it's unlikely they have any real affect on recruiting at least in terms of potential recruits thinking they "don't want to join a service where they will risk life & limb and get treated like criminals and possibly jailed for doing their job!!".

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of individual cases in any way, should someone in uniform and "doing their job" have any additional right to murder, assault, rape or torture anyone?

Does putting on a uniform (military, police or any other) entitle you to hide behind it and break local and international laws and the LoAC?
... with the Army 'closing ranks' to 'protect its own', whatever they've done and however much they've disgraced the uniform they're hiding behind?

Or does it mean that you're held to at least the same standard as everyone else, so while you can't be tried more than once for the same offence you can be investigated as often as the statute of limitations and fresh evidence permit, regardless of stress and the pressures of "doing their job" ?

I'd suggest very strongly that it has to be the latter, otherwise you're inviting every mental case, psycopath, inadequate and sadist to enlist so that they can get away with what they never could outside - although I'd also suggest that the Army, police, etc, have a duty of care to provide their members, past and present, with suitable and appropriate emotional, medical and legal support and assistance and that may not have always been the case.
 
Around the same time law firm Leigh Day mounted civil action against the MoD on behalf of the teenager’s family. They were awarded £100,000, although the MoD did not admit liability for the teenager’s death.
That probably hasn't done him much of a favour.
 

Latest Threads

Top