Intelligent Mobilisation - A definition

#1
Apologies if this has been discussed previously - MODs feel free to bin the thread if this is the case.


Numerous threads on ARRSE refer to Intelligent Mobilisation, there seems to be little information on exactly what it is, and how it works. Like many ARRSE users, I have been intelligently mobilised, but have never been told exactly how it is defined, and the advantages, etc. And how it compares to previous mobilisation processes. There appear to be very differing opinions about it and how it works. Now the army has been executing this process for three years, does it work?

If somebody on ARRSE has the "DS Answer" or any more info, I'd appreciate it.

Although I've posted this in the Just TA forum, I would also be interested in regular soldiers' views of Intelligent Mobilisation, i.e. From a regulars' perspective, does the system work?

I know that the thread title gives flamers et al the chance to go down the "ARAB v STAB" type discussion - this was not the reason for posting this - please use the NAAFI thread!
 
#2
In essence intelligent mobilisation means mobilising someone for an operation who is willing to go. This involves utilising the chain of command to identify individuals who are fit for task and who will not have work/family issues affecting mobilisation.

This is in contrast to the TELIC 1-4ish policy of LAND and RTMC mobilising individuals from a big list (often in alphabetical order on TELIC 1) and sorting them out when they get to Chilwell.

FORGE is designed to assist with this process (FORGE stands for FORce GEneration) in identifying trained individuals but the engagement of the chain of command with the individual is central.

Under FAS TA the intent is to increase the support to affiliated regular units and thereby make a mobilised tour of benefit to a reservists career path as opposed to a detriment as it is often seen at the moment.

At the end of the day intelligent mobilisation is an ideal rather than the a totally achievable goal. While volunteers will be trawled for at each deployment, there will always be a requirement to compulsorily mobilise individuals to fill certain posts. Until the whole army is recruited and trained to full establishment this is likely to continue.
 
#3
Blyth_spirit said:
Until the whole army is recruited and trained to full establishment this is likely to continue.
Do tell...what is the difference between a "plan" and an "aspiration"? :twisted:

The bad news is the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned out to conserve energy, the good news is work on the tunnel extension is proceeding ahead of schedule!
 
#4
Cuddles said:
Blyth_spirit said:
Until the whole army is recruited and trained to full establishment this is likely to continue.
Do tell...what is the difference between a "plan" and an "aspiration"? :twisted:

The bad news is the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned out to conserve energy, the good news is work on the tunnel extension is proceeding ahead of schedule!
edited to read "Until the next Orange Order Pope.."
 
#5
Cheers Blyth,

Blyth_spirit said:
In essence intelligent mobilisation means mobilising someone for an operation who is willing to go. This involves utilising the chain of command to identify individuals who are fit for task and who will not have work/family issues affecting mobilisation.
So, essentially the soldier volunteers, and the army make it look like the soldier is being forced to go on Ops, as far as the soldier's employer is concerned? As far as the CoC is concerned, on the work / families' side - I wonder how the CoC manages to get this right, and surely, this should be "business as usual" and monitored throughout the TA soldier's career, rather than the "Sh1t hitting fan" mobilisation looms type picture.

Not spoiling here, but I kinda go back to my first post - "How does this differ from previously?"

As for FORGE - absolutely, needs an establishment!
 
#6
It is academic now, as all mobilisation is currently voluntary.

msr
 
#7
Sorry MSR,

I disagree - this is absolutley not academic.

If, I (like many others) had turned around 3 years ago and said "Hold on, exactly what is the crack here?" - we would have got the wrath of our units / CoC, etc.

At no point at Chilwell, did the assortment of brass stand up and say "You're only here if you really want to be, and you can go home if you want" - To be fair, at that time, I didn't have a problem with going, but there again, didn't know that my six month tour was going to cost me so much financially.

So, like good TA Soldiers, we dropped everything, and did the necessary. Three years on, the effects of Intelligent Mobilisation can now be analysed to make sure that the next time (and knowing Tony...) that we mobilise for war in a way that does not decimate the TA within six months.

Again, how does this differ from the previous method of mobilising TA?

...and good morning MSR!
 
#9
MSR - thanks for the link

msr said:
forniup said:
Isn't this what intelegent mobilisation is about. NOT calling up the mongs but calling up the guys who can do the job? They only guys who have been deployed recently from my TAC were people who could do the job funny old thing the wasters didn't get a look in
No, intelligent mobilisation is about filling the LSNs with blokes who have the correct trade qualifications and who are best able to mobilise*. As to whether or not they actually do the job they were asked to, that's a different matter.

msr

*intelligent mobilisation runs on a traffic light system: Red (e.g. caring for an elderly relative, new born child, etc), Amber (e.g. Married no kids yet, likely to face an employer appeal) and Green (e.g. volunteers, those without family ties). You try to fill the slots with Green, before moving up the scale.
I would guess that in the absence of a clear brief, this traffic light system is well and truly open to error. My point being that most people in my unit were not canvassed at all, in relation to family ties, employer attitudes, etc. Therefore, shouldn't the FORGE plan be in place at all times in peacetime? With more of an opt out (for good reasons) being in place, before mobilisation looms - as opposed to soldiers getting to Chillwell, to be deemed not suitable for mobilisation.
 
#10
Unfortunately FORGE (having been written for regs and the TA bit tacked on at the end) has no facility for registering the changes an individual has with work and family situation. In FORGE's eyes, if a soldier is FFA/FFD he can go. Therefore the engagement of the CoC remains the only commonsense (!?!) check before mobilisation and appeal and all the associated heartache therein.

The mobilisation bill has gone down since 2003/4 and the vast majority can be achieved through individual volunteers. However there remains no formal system of recording the level of 'mobilisability' of a TA soldier from day to day; it is only done when a reservist is considered for a deployment.
 
#11
Why should there be any room for error? Surely your CoC knows the guys and girls and their circumstances?

This comes from the NAO report:

The Department has made great strides in improving the processes through which Reservists are mobilised. It is crucial that the Department continues to give Reservists and their employers 28 days’ formal notice of mobilisation and additional informal early warning of possible deployment. It is also important that the Department continues to mobilise first those who volunteer for deployment where this is consistent
with operational requirements.

And I think, acknowledges that the process was a bit 'hit and miss' especially in the early TELICs.

msr
 
#12
msr said:
Why should there be any room for error? Surely your CoC knows the guys and girls and their circumstances?

This comes from the NAO report:

The Department has made great strides in improving the processes through which Reservists are mobilised. It is crucial that the Department continues to give Reservists and their employers 28 days’ formal notice of mobilisation and additional informal early warning of possible deployment. It is also important that the Department continues to mobilise first those who volunteer for deployment where this is consistent
with operational requirements.

And I think, acknowledges that the process was a bit 'hit and miss' especially in the early TELICs.

msr
Over the last ten years in my unit, with the slashing of MTD budgets, we were lucky to see our CO for 4 days in any trg year. As to whether or not he or the CoC knows his girls and boys, not a hope, wouldn't even be able to identlify males from females on the nominal role!

Do you have a link to the NAO report? re: 28 days.. are there any stats on the how much notice TELIC 1 / 2 pers actually got? i know our unit was generally 3 - 5 days notice, whereas many were more. What was the average? - and how do you improve this in future?
 
#13
#14
msr said:
ABrighter2006 said:
Do you have a link to the NAO report? re: 28 days.. are there any stats on the how much notice TELIC 1 / 2 pers actually got? i know our unit was generally 3 - 5 days notice, whereas many were more. What was the average? - and how do you improve this in future?
NAO report: http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506964.pdf

How to improve it in the future?
Please email MajGenTheDukeofWestminster@ta.mod.uk ;)

msr
Interesting...

What is the highest TA rank to have been mobilised? Any 2 star posts on the next TELIC/HERRICK trawl lists?
 
#15
Intelligent mobilisation means mobilising someone for an operation who is willing to go, but who may be totally unsuitable. If you need 30 soldiers and you have 30 volunteers are you (the MoD) going to turn them down? Are they likley to be the most suitable for the 30 tasks? Err no, In recent threads we have heard form various units where new young slodiers have just finished their training and volunteered. Off to to ops after only 10 months TA service amounting to a total of maybe 35 days training, would the regulars send out an 18 year old after 5 weeks basic, I don't think so. After all they volunteered didn't they.

Edited for bad spelling during rant!
 
#16
WH - It's obviously something of a numbers game - Sodoku - fill in the blanks!

I started this thread because the phrase "Intelligent Mobilisation" is banded around in TA units / Employer forums like some form of holy grail, as the answer to all concerns relating to TA mobilisation. And I am yet to really see a clear distinction between IM and the way RMC worked five years ago. Couple this with the RFA96 in practice, and the picture does not look anywhere the actuality.

So, when IM does fail, which anecdotally, at least on ARRSE, it appears to, in a significant number of cases - who is responsible?
 
#17
ABrighter2006 said:
WH - It's obviously something of a numbers game - Sodoku - fill in the blanks!

I started this thread because the phrase "Intelligent Mobilisation" is banded around in TA units / Employer forums like some form of holy grail, as the answer to all concerns relating to TA mobilisation. And I am yet to really see a clear distinction between IM and the way RMC worked five years ago. Couple this with the RFA96 in practice, and the picture does not look anywhere the actuality.

So, when IM does fail, which anecdotally, at least on ARRSE, it appears to, in a significant number of cases - who is responsible?
Brighter, you seem to be missing the point that Blyth and MSR have very clearly stated,

TELIC 1-4 were conducted under the NOT very intelligent, intelligent mobilisation.

Post Op Reports and demob surveys from TELIC 1-4 highlighted the downfalls of the IM process used for these tours and led to the changes in IM which have led to the current form of Intelligent Mobilisation.

The name has remained the same but the process is VERY different.

old scheme:

As stated - the system was intelligent in as much as it could match a vacant LSN with a TA bod in the same LSN in a unit. That person was then mobilised - often with less than 14 days notice and any discrepancies were sorted out at Chilwell.

These discrepencies ranged from people permanently med downgraded to 2 in my sub-unit who had actually been struck off strength but the mainframe in glasgow had not caught up.

pretty obvious that this was not acceptable.

By my mobilisation the system had improved. My TA Unit was warned off that it was getting called on, a trawl was conducted and all of the LSN's bar 3 were filled with willing volunteers - HOWEVER we all volunteered on the proviso that we were compulsorily mobilised and our employers were not told we volunteered.

This worked well and there were only 5 employer appeals. At this stage the process actually got REALLY inteligent, the appeals were all passed to the TA unit HQ for comment. Of the 5 the unit responded that 3 were vital to the effectiveness of the troop, the others were expendable - Glasgow upheld the appeals of the 2 outright and entered a dialogue with the other three emplyers, result was only one of the three being upheld and the employers of the other 2 withdrew there appeals.

However in the last 2 years the system has changed again.

Now Intelligent = Purely Volunteers. Whilst the call-out notice technically makes mobilisation compulsory in order that the limited protection to the reservist offered by RFA96 is applicable, all mobilised are actually volunteers and employers are told this when the call out notice is sent out. There is no prospect of turning to your boss and rolling your eyes saying "sorry boss, didn't know it was coming, got no choice"

However there is still a form of the old system lurking in the background.

After the trawl for volunteers has been concluded the list of vacant LSN's is looked at again, if there are still vacancies in mission essential LSN's then the old system kicks in and using the ForGe system and matches anyone in the same TA LSN who is FFA and FFM.
so hopefully the problems with the sick and the already resigned will not raise their head again.

One final point - No system is infallible, in no way do I try to apologies for any defects in the system (And to clarify I am NOT on the payroll of MCM Div!!) but there will always be mistakes, we should always strive for excellence but it is an inevitable fact of life that mistakes will be made and people who are not actually available for mobilisation will be called up - but then that is why there is an appeals process, if you have a genuine reason for not going then state your case, my experience is that those who really do not want to go can get their call out cancelled.

And to finish off - I'm NOT an expert on this but this is the system as it has been explained to me by my chain of command, if there is anyone from MCM/RTMC lurking out there who can correct anything which is incorrect please get logged on and give us the gospel.

If nothing else this whole thread highlights that the message is not filtering down through the correct system of the chain of command, maybe this should be addressed at a far higher payscale than most on here!

Humph.
 
#18
Well done Humph, succinctly put.

The issue highlighted from this, in addition to those which Humph highlights, is the need for TA commanders, at the Sub unit and Troop/Platoon level, to really engage with and konw their soldiers situations. It is they who will have to advise the higher chain of command of issues which will come to the fore during trawls. Similarly soldiers need to be up front with their CoC about their personal circumstances. If they try and hide a problem at home or work it is likely that they will end up being involved in a stressful appeals process. Being up front should avoid this.
 
#19
Humph, Top post thank you - I played Devil's advocate here, and your last para along with Blyth's comment summed up nicely, the "failing" of the system in certain cases.

Blyth_spirit said:
The issue highlighted from this, in addition to those which Humph highlights, is the need for TA commanders, at the Sub unit and Troop/Platoon level, to really engage with and konw their soldiers situations. It is they who will have to advise the higher chain of command of issues which will come to the fore during trawls. Similarly soldiers need to be up front with their CoC about their personal circumstances. If they try and hide a problem at home or work it is likely that they will end up being involved in a stressful appeals process. Being up front should avoid this.
I guess the clear message that needs to go through the CoC is the need for clear, concise and most importantly clear communication.

As always thanks to Blyth, MSR for their' posts - much appreciated.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads