Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Army Numbers Fall Again

Are they even initial enquiries John? I think anyone in the marketing game would consider the 100k+ “applications” to be no more than unqualified leads.

If you defined an enquiry to be someone who actually engages beyond just providing basic email and phone details, I’d bet that enquiries are significantly less than what is being quoted as “applications”.

When you think about it, 100k leads is pretty pathetic given the Army’s recruiting spend. At best it’s smoke and mirrors, at worst it’s higjly misleading.
@bob, I couldn't agree with you more - I was simply trying to avoid the inevitable squealing from @CAARPS that these really are genuine 'applications' and the only problem is turning these genuine 'applications' into genuine feet through the ACC door.

Technically, of course, he's 100% correct - that's how the Army counts and what the Army calls 'applications' even if nobody else does, and I do mean nobody else be they the other Services, many of the MoD, Min and Secs of Def, etc, etc, or any other reasonably comparable businesses.

@CAARPS link spells it out very clearly, as have previous similar monthly and quarterly Statistical Reports (my bold):

Due to differences in the application process for each Service, the three Services do not currently adopt the same definition of an ‘application’. Therefore, application numbers cannot be added together across the Services to show total Armed Forces applications (hence separate tables and graphs are provided).
The number of applications received does not directly relate to intake figures, since: Figures relate to the number of applications received and not the number of applicants, as one applicant may submit several applications;...
.....

  • Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking).

I'd suggest that it's not just "highly misleading" but that it's very difficult to see how it can be anything but deliberately misleading - as you and I debated rather heatedly before these figures should all be readily and easily available, particularly to a former Min of State for Def tasked with finding out why recruiting was so poor, but they're not. Really, they're not! Nobody knows how many made it through the door, why so many (at an educated guess around 75%) didn't, or how many were rejected or why. I know it seems unbelievable, particularly to anyone who was previously involved in gathering that information as you were, but that's all too clearly the position.

So one stage on from a prospect
No, @Bob, that's the only point where I disagree with you. These aren't "one stage on from a prospect" but, again according to the link @CAARPS gave, many of these aren't even "prospects" (again, my bold):

Applications that do not result in intake
The main causes of applicant failure (i.e. no offer to join the Services given) include:
  • Failing security clearance;
  • Not having the required residency;
  • Not achieving the required recruiting test score for the desired branch/trade;
  • Failing the medical scrutiny;
  • Not achieving fitness entry standards;
  • Applicants withdraw for their own reasons (e.g. change of mind) during the process
The main causes of application failure (i.e. the applicant declines an offer to join):
  • Applicants may have submitted other applications for employment (including multiple applications to join the Armed Forces) and accept another offer;
  • Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking).
Making these "applications" even less like "prospects" (and more like your "smoke and mirrors" at best if not my "deliberately misleading" at worst) is the issue of Commonwealth applicants for the 200 specialist vacancies per year exempt any residency requirement, which again @CAARPS' link details (again, my bold):

There has been a large increase in the number of applications to join the Army Regular Forces in the last
three quarters. The increase is, in part, due to a rise in Commonwealth applicants as a result of the
announcement that residency requirements would be waived to allow 200 Commonwealth citizens per
annum to be recruited to fill a limited number of roles in the Regular Armed Forces which require

specialist skills. In addition to this, the introduction of the Army Quick application process (‘Quick App’) in
November 2016 may have resulted in increases in applications following this period. Since the same
period last year, there has been an overall increase of 27,990 applications to join the Regular Army.


All applicants for these 200 places are included in the figures, even though there is absolutely zero "prospect" of the vast majority of them being enlisted as all the 200 vacancies have already been filled for the year and many will never have even been to the UK at all and just be applying 'on spec' from their own country.

I recall it being suggested that there were "thousands" of Commonwealth applicants for each of these vacancies. If correct that would mean at least 200,000 of these 66,913 "applications" were by Commonwealth applicants without the normal required residency qualification, of whom 99.9% had no "prospect" of actually joining, putting the number of "prospects" in negative territory.

Personally I think that's probably a wild exaggeration and the real figure is probably closer to that given by @CAARPS elsewhere ("We have circa 100 comenwealth applicants for each available post"), but that's still around 19,800 with absolutely no prospect of joining, so that's 30% of those 66,913"applications" straight in the bin. That's hardly a good start in terms of "prospects" before you add in those who, again according to @CAARPS' link, have made "multiple applications" or those who have made "Applications ...with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking)."


It really isn't difficult (or shouldn't be) to count the number of applicants at the same point as everyone else in the Armed Forces and to only include genuine "prospects" ... but the Army seems curiously reluctant to do so.


 
@John G i look at this from a

I think the measure known as “Applications” is made at an import stage in the process; it measures the success of otherwise the Awareness stage of the recruiting campaign. No more. I think it’s deliberately misleading in calling it Applications for two reasons. Firstly, calling an unqualified lead an Apllication is misleading for the reasons you state. But also by banding around a big headline number without any context, it’s pretty meaningless. Those leads arise from a a campaign or a seri s if campaigns. What were the objectives in terms of time, cost and quality? Were they met?

It’s a classic example of lack of accountability. Not a lot different from the routine “we’re making progress” reports the MoD came up with from Herrick.

For me, the recruiting game is one in which it is quite easy to set clear objectives and measure them. Whether it happens inside the organisation I don’t know. But the fact that the senior leadership spouts a meaningless number under a misleading title suggests a lack of accountability.
 
that the senior leadership spouts a meaningless number under a misleading title suggests a lack of accountability.
Suggests?

You are way too forgiving.

These are people who have risen to seniority by dint of skirting their essential responsibilities, and hedging omission behind flimflam like this.

I'd go so far as to say they are probably entirely unaware of being wholly deceitful.

Yet there's no mechanism - no OFSTED, no GMC, no watchdog of any stripe - to critique their performance.

It's a surefire recipe for institutional decline.
 
@John G i look at this from a

I think the measure known as “Applications” is made at an import stage in the process; it measures the success of otherwise the Awareness stage of the recruiting campaign. No more. I think it’s deliberately misleading in calling it Applications for two reasons. Firstly, calling an unqualified lead an Apllication is misleading for the reasons you state. But also by banding around a big headline number without any context, it’s pretty meaningless. Those leads arise from a a campaign or a seri s if campaigns. What were the objectives in terms of time, cost and quality? Were they met?

It’s a classic example of lack of accountability. Not a lot different from the routine “we’re making progress” reports the MoD came up with from Herrick.

For me, the recruiting game is one in which it is quite easy to set clear objectives and measure them. Whether it happens inside the organisation I don’t know. But the fact that the senior leadership spouts a meaningless number under a misleading title suggests a lack of accountability.

It’s lucky that applications (other than being up by the same metric that has been used throughout RPP) have nothing to do with performance targets or KPIs.

That is all about LtT figures, which are spectacularly bad by the way, so reporting, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 or 100000 applications doesnt change the price of fish to capita, other than, the more applications, the more that are eligible for rejection by the standards set by the MOD. And they are up just to be clear ^~

But of course, everyone commenting knew that already :)

Oh and PS, The 300 day pipeline is pretty much the same as it was in 2009 when the army had full control of the pipeline, but why let the truth... and all that :)
 
Suggests?

You are way too forgiving.

These are people who have risen to seniority by dint of skirting their essential responsibilities, and hedging omission behind flimflam like this.

I'd go so far as to say they are probably entirely unaware of being wholly deceitful.

Yet there's no mechanism - no OFSTED, no GMC, no watchdog of any stripe - to critique their performance.

It's a surefire recipe for institutional decline.


Don’t need an OFSTED need a Minister and a Parliament.


And Arrse probably.
 
Don’t need an OFSTED need a Minister and a Parliament.


And Arrse probably.
Ahem.

We've had both of those as long as I've been alive, and longer.

Obsessed by cost, ignorant of the realities and limitations of military action, their members are incapable of effective oversight of the Army.

So, you wind up with Generals guaranteeing results they're in no position to secure, to people who are in no position to challenge the General's assertions, and - in any case - don't care, as long as it's cheap, 'cuz there ain't no votes in Defence.
 
It’s lucky that applications (other than being up by the same metric that has been used throughout RPP) have nothing to do with performance targets or KPIs,
I get that entirely; it’s pretty obvious that no contract the size of RPP would be run on a single metric.

But when that single metric gets used by VSOs and the Centre as a headline indicator them it does become relevant.

Here’s my measure of success. Calculate the cost per recruit starting basic. According to an article I read recently, Capita have been paid >760M over the course of the contract. The MoDs own costs we can only guess at but let’s call it another 100M to be kind. It’s probably more. So over the 10 year RPP the fully burdened costs will be north of 1Bn.

And how many will have been recruited? Less than 100k. So that’s 10k a recruit or 8 months wages. That’s pretty shocking to me.
 
Ahem.

We've had both of those as long as I've been alive, and longer.

Obsessed by cost, ignorant of the realities and limitations of military action, their members are incapable of effective oversight of the Army.

So, you wind up with Generals guaranteeing results they're in no position to secure, to people who are in no position to challenge the General's assertions, and - in any case - don't care, as long as it's cheap, 'cuz there ain't no votes in Defence.


Sorry.

I meant we need a competent and dutiful Minister and a Parliament with the long term interests of the nation at heart.


Left out the modifiers.





While I’m at it, can we have golden unicorns and a talking kitten please?
 
I get that entirely; it’s pretty obvious that no contract the size of RPP would be run on a single metric.

But when that single metric gets used by VSOs and the Centre as a headline indicator them it does become relevant.

Here’s my measure of success. Calculate the cost per recruit starting basic. According to an article I read recently, Capita have been paid >760M over the course of the contract. The MoDs own costs we can only guess at but let’s call it another 100M to be kind. It’s probably more. So over the 10 year RPP the fully burdened costs will be north of 1Bn.

And how many will have been recruited? Less than 100k. So that’s 10k a recruit or 8 months wages. That’s pretty shocking to me.

And me, I don't think at any point I have said that RPP has/is being successful. The Key metric is LtT and it is consistently well below target.

I also don't believe applications are a measure of success and other than marketeers I don't believe any senior officer is heralding them as such (I haven't checked so could be wrong).

But what I have consistently said is that those applications are up and they are and it is an undeniable fact.
 
It’s lucky that applications (other than being up by the same metric that has been used throughout RPP) have nothing to do with performance targets or KPIs.

That is all about LtT figures, which are spectacularly bad by the way, so reporting, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 or 100000 applications doesnt change the price of fish to capita, other than, the more applications, the more that are eligible for rejection by the standards set by the MOD. And they are up just to be clear ^~

But of course, everyone commenting knew that already :)

Oh and PS, The 300 day pipeline is pretty much the same as it was in 2009 when the army had full control of the pipeline, but why let the truth... and all that :)
Pretty sure the time taken, in 76, from walking into a Recruiting Office and starting at Sutton Coldfield, was no longer than 12 weeks and maybe less. And this in a completely paper-based, no mobile comms era. It ain't rocket science - poor Army decisions have just made it so.
 
Pretty sure the time taken, in 76, from walking into a Recruiting Office and starting at Sutton Coldfield, was no longer than 12 weeks and maybe less. And this in a completely paper-based, no mobile comms era. It ain't rocket science - poor Army decisions have just made it so.

Absoloutly, but it’s easier to pretend that it’s all down to Capita and everything was rosey before they took over :)
 
And me, I don't think at any point I have said that RPP has/is being successful. The Key metric is LtT and it is consistently well below target.

I also don't believe applications are a measure of success and other than marketeers I don't believe any senior officer is heralding them as such (I haven't checked so could be wrong).

But what I have consistently said is that those applications are up and they are and it is an undeniable fact.
I’d me surprised if a genuine marketeer would use a meaningless metric; my experience of digital marketeers is that they are very hot on numbers and accountability. Not that Capita are marketeers....

Which IMHO is why the RPP hasn’t worked. Wrong contractor, wrong contract, wrong requirement, no understanding of partnering etc etc

I think the MoD had to contract a large slice of its recruiting. The old system of shopfront recruiting offices in the run down bits of run down towns was no longer fit for purpose and that was ten years ago. Recruiting had to move into the digital space and there’s no way it could be done in house. It had to be outsourced, but not to a perennial under-bidder like Capita.

Having been through the ADF process I’ve seen how a slick outsourced system can work. The ADF can get a bog standard recruit through in three months....very similar medical and background checks. It can also take a year when the recruit needs additional checks, medicals etc etc it when they are going for a role with few vacancies.
 
Pretty sure the time taken, in 76, from walking into a Recruiting Office and starting at Sutton Coldfield, was no longer than 12 weeks and maybe less. And this in a completely paper-based, no mobile comms era. It ain't rocket science - poor Army decisions have just made it so.

Heh. While it wasn't "real Army", East Midlands OTC managed to go from "interesting stand, might as well talk to them" to "attested recruit in comically-shaped beret live-firing on the range" in a fortnight in 1989.

Which was fortunate for the Free World: since after forty years of Cold War, once the STAVKA got word that O/Cdt Jrwlynch was now signed up and learning to use That Rifle, they threw in the towel practically overnight. I sign up in October 1989, by November they're tearing down the Berlin Wall... coincidence? I think not!
 
Top