IS Supervisor Selection- ARRSE or two thumbs up ?

#1
After reading the newly promulgated PD14, I find the voices in my head asking: "is the fifteen year" rule designed to discourage those with IS career aspirations, and send them in a flat spin toward our already bloated RD structure ?
Is it to to test the determination of potential candidates?
Or is it simply a way of thinning out the ranks, after many of the Application Operators have made a swift (and not entirely unpredictable) side pace into IS Supvr slots, therefore effectively becoming supervisors of a trade group that they have never fully qualified in, given that, they have not passed their IS foundation course.....good trick if you can do it I suppose.
It seems a little unfair to the more experienced soldier.
(and before i get bombarded with "Life isnt fair" I KNOW!
Not that Im cynical...of course.
please post your views, I haven't read a good argument for ages!
Congrats BTW for all the fortunates that got selected :D

:twisted:
Tell the nasty voices to stop :!:
 
#2
Jimmy,

I dont think the 15 year rule is about discouragement. The PD is being put into place to take account of the fact that IS Eng is going to be trained from class 3 level, therefore anyone who hasnt been identified as a potential Supvr IS by their 15 year point probably isnt the right man for the job.

Also i imagine the Corps want a return for their investment in the individual. If you take a soldier who has done over 15 years and train them for a supervisory role, you might only get 1 posting out of them before they embark on the big winddown and resettlement. Whether the Corps will give those already on the IS roster some sort of grandfather right to apply over 15 years service is another matter - IMHO this rule works for the future but needs some careful thought to take account of those who have joined the roster later in their carears.

As for a flat spin onto an already bloated RD roster, if your an IS Eng who isnt earmarked for Supvr, your already there. And is being an IS Eng in trade at SSgt the correct prep for being an RD WO2? Of course it isnt, another change of the goal posts looms i fear.

Boney
 
#3
All IS Engrs who are selected for Supvr IS training who are over their 15 year point will be given grandfather rights. How long this right will be given is another matter...
 
#4
What is the correct background and training for an RD WO it is not so long ago since the RD warrant ranks were swamped with ex technician SSgts
 
#5
chalkntalk said:
What is the correct background and training for an RD WO it is not so long ago since the RD warrant ranks were swamped with ex technician SSgts
C&T,

Agreed, and i didnt mean anything derogitory in my comments. Its my belief that a SNCO who has been a Tp screw, a Tp Sgt and Tp Staffy and maybe has some training wing/training establishment experience would be the more obvious RD candidate, their carear profile will be the stronger on a promotion board. I've always had a belief that the best RD wallhas are born to the job, although i've met some brilliant RD's who have tech backgrounds.

Boney
 
#6
Boney_M has some good points.

But I cant get over the idea of training an IS Engr for 15 years to become an extremely highly qualified individual to then shove him onto an RD roster doing boots & haircuts. I mean, justify that to an accountant!!

Do you think IBM would train somebody for 15 years who then becomes for an example a Cluster Server expert, then to say "sorry Bob, didn't make supervisor so you have to go and work in the boiler room maintenance"!! I think not...

I agree not all can be a WO2 supervisor, but surely there must be a way for a top Sgt IS Engr to stay in trade, overwise it is such a waste. I know what I would do if I was forced RD, I would unfortunately get out whilst still current with the IS world outside, otherwise 7 years in RD qualifies you for becoming a barrier technician at NCP car parks.

Ideas?
 
#7
Interesting points.

What would you do with an IS Op SNCO who does not make IS Sup?

I agree that for him to then disappear into the RD roster would be a tremendous shame, but how then would they get promoted? Could you have a WO2 IS Sup and a WO2 IS Op? I think not.

Or do we now look at the American system of having a rank that sits between Officers and Ranks which is for very specialist trades?

If the corps has not thought this out they could be in for some big trouble and start losing a lot of SNCOs in the IS roster at the 15 year point.
 
#8
The system is being implimented on the current model. We dont have WO2 RS Operators in trade for instance so were not going to have WO2 IS Eng in trade. So where do they go for carear progression? Currently the only place left is the RD roster, and that comes with all the problems and questions that have been raised in this thread.

I do quite like the idea of the American style "chief warrant officer". I've recently been working with 2 of them and they are brilliant at what they do. But where does that leave the Supvr IS? Its definately a tricky situation and the loss of subject matter experts to the RD roster isnt a situation we should be getting ourselves into, its a total waste of skill. I'm not sure i know the answer, but i dont think the IS Sup/IS Eng roster can stand another major change of rules again and i cant think of a system in place that would cater for the problem.

Boney
 
#9
I guess in some ways Pay 2000 addresses this issue. With Pay 2000 the brain the size of a planet IS Engr peaks out at Sgt, but remains there and eventually gets to the highest increment, so in theory, he could earn more than his SSgt Supvr due to time as a Sgt. Also the pension is final salary based so he would also not be losing out for pension. The problem of course is a simple matter os self esteem which goes close in hand with rank. I know that when you leave the main gate the brain the size of a planet IS Engr will get the better job, but whilst in, the rank you hold is often key to progressing.

But as boney says, a tricky problem which is not easily resolved.
 
#10
Whilst I understand and appreciate the problems associated with career structure on the non supervisor path, the answer seems straightforward. We still have a lot of tech staffies floating around the Corps and with the current trade structures not all specialists will be suitable for either sups posts or the RD roster, which lets be honest doesn't float many peoples boat anyway. Career progression must be made available to these people before they vote with their feet, as many will.

There has, and will always be, a requirement for SSgt/WO in trade in a non sups roll, primarily for those posts which are not deemed worthy of a full blown sup but still require an experienced SNCO with management experience. Why not then a trade structure which allows 2 paths, the Sup and the trade specialist. This would also relieve the massive list of excellent tradesmen who maybe don't quite have the edge or just don't fit the sups profile who end up shoehorned into RD slots which they don't really want but the promotion is too good to turndown. Records take notes and respond if you will.

As for the US Chief structure, this is more in line with the TOT appointment than anything else, it is a natural progression for the high flying supervisor types not a trade follow on.
 
#11
Sadly much of the foregoing assumes that all of these people who do not get selected as Supvr(IS) will automatically go onto the RD roster. We would do well to remember that the RD roster is the most competitive of all the supervisory rosters and there is far from an automatic right of entry.

In the current climate I also would fall shy of assuming that there is likely to be a mass exodus of disappointed IS Eng SSgts flocking to the non existant jobs in the IS/IT industry.
 
#12
Good point well made CnT. An IS Eng SSgt who wants carear progression and hasnt been selected for Supvr IS will want to move onto the RD roster. An IS Eng SSgt not selected and is happy to stay in rank until retirement will be happy to sit on his laurals in trade. That however poses a problem for the IS roster, as jobs at the top end will be clogged with those happy to stay in trade, thus slowing down progression in the lower ranks. Clearing 12 or so Sgt's out a year onto the Supvr roster may speed things up to Sgt rank, but there is a danger of "dead mans shoes" from Sgt to SSgt if this situation arises.

This in my opinion needs careful handling by Glasgow. When the trade is established from class 3, the new entrants will need to see throughput in the roster and carear progression for the future. If they dont, we will face losing them to civi street. I agree that the jobs are more scarce now, but someone with the ability to learn and some experience may be attractive to civi firms, especially now they dont pay them pop stars wages.

Careful handling and some foresight is whats needed.

Boney
 
#13
Helmet - check
Body Armour - check
Trench dug - check
Ok here goes then:

Can anyone actually explain what engineering these IS Engrs will actually do? They have little (if any) envolvement in BOWMAN less a few individuals, will this increase with CORMORANT and FALCON. Most (and not all I grant you) IS ops i have come across have chosen that route because they dont like getting cold and wet in the field 'engineering' field CIS systems, but would much rather be in Wilton or static at the ARRC (and spend all day creating pointless websites - you know who you are!) :twisted:

When I am SOinC I will spend all the extra money training the real system engineers/managers (YofS/FofS)!! :D

Can't wait for the replies to this one!
 
#14
Got to agree with Zorro,

Connectivity/ technical support is delivered by Techs(inst/sys) and managed by the FofS/YofS

IS Ops of course play their part, configuration, addressing etc but ultimatley arent you all just database administrators? Or am I being ignorant to your skillset.

On the network I see you carrying the laptops then pinging the server... true?


Hehe Im going to get flamed alive for this I think.
 
#15
chalkntalk said:
In the current climate I also would fall shy of assuming that there is likely to be a mass exodus of disappointed IS Eng SSgts flocking to the non existant jobs in the IS/IT industry.
The jobs are there..................and most SSgt IS Engrs have that most valuable commodity.................Experience!

They have the quals too...........if they get off their arrse and get them as the corps train, but don't test to industry standards :!:

I just love the assumption that the corps can p*ss people off because they think that there is nowhere for them to jump ship to :evil:
 
#16
Disco said:
Or am I being ignorant to your skillset.
.
Summed it up quite well in your post mate. Records and blandford are still unsure of the role the IS Eng plays in the field, and its extremely diverse within the IT field. It lies anywhere from complex database administration to "carrying the laptops and pinging the server". The trade is young, give it time. As for the post on what enginering does an IS Eng do, the bloke behind the end product is the Operator, the person who implements the system for them is the engineer - simple as. I didnt ask for the moniker, i assume its either following the Corps policy or civi street trends.

And connectivity delivered by techs? Where does the router lie in that? The router may lie in the tech field, but usually the IS Eng with the relevant experience is called upon to configure it. Connectivity when you talk about the BME is one thing, effectivity connectivity i.e. the data actually passing is usually down to the router, so maybe the IS Eng has a part to play in that??

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and i will respect everyone - but the uninformed out there need to see what the IS trade are achieving Corps wide rather than what they see locally to them. Theres more doin than laptop carrying and pinging!!

Boney
 
#17
Zorro and Disco,

How you make me laugh !

Were any of you 2 on your holidays in the sand last year ? and did you see the outstanding efforts of some of the said IS Engineers who had to work on intricate, complicated systems and deliver results 24 hours a day in a very difficult and harsh climate which was not conducive to a good IS environment ?

Oh yeah, these were the same IS Engineers who advised some of the various comms wagons when there were faults/problems that some of the experts couldn't see.

Oh yeah and some of these IS Engineers carried out military and armoured driver training in addition to their day jobs which weren't / couldn't be carried out by the people employed to do them on a day-to-day basis.

Over to you two !!!

ps I'm talking about some of the mighty fine IS Engineers from the fighting 1st !!!! from Herford in case you're wondering.

pps and no I didn't see many other trades tinkering inside a router or a LAN either.
 
#18
flagwaver said:
Zorro and Disco,

How you make me laugh !

Were any of you 2 on your holidays in the sand last year ? and did you see the outstanding efforts of some of the said IS Engineers who had to work on intricate, complicated systems and deliver results 24 hours a day in a very difficult and harsh climate which was not conducive to a good IS environment ?

Oh yeah, these were the same IS Engineers who advised some of the various comms wagons when there were faults/problems that some of the experts couldn't see.

Oh yeah and some of these IS Engineers carried out military and armoured driver training in addition to their day jobs which weren't / couldn't be carried out by the people employed to do them on a day-to-day basis.

Over to you two !!!

ps I'm talking about some of the mighty fine IS Engineers from the fighting 1st !!!! from Herford in case you're wondering.

pps and no I didn't see many other trades tinkering inside a router or a LAN either.
Okey cokey yes m8 I was there. Infact I waslucky enough to be involved in the role out of the new Coalition network. There were many teething problems such as the HD`s having the wrong images etc many many issues to overcome and both IS OPs and Fujitsu worked some hours to bring things to a stable conclusion, but it was not all the effort of a few IS Ops, you are a cog in the machine, a crucial part of A team. You are reliant on a trade to plan and install and maintain your network, reliant on a trade that will plan and power your network equipment and reliant on an overall technical trade to manage and ensure compatability and connectivity.

Now my post was a little tounge in cheek and I would be lieing if I knew the whole spectrum of the new IS Op trade. But working with many I would say it is not so glitzy as some make out, an d you want to be careful you do not so readily isolate yourselves as an independant group.

I think we have strayed away from the original posters questions, yes I am partly to blame for that, apologies

:twisted:
 
#19
Totally agree with Disco,
Flagwaver I am sure you and your guys did a great job in the sand (and if you are as good as you think i would welcome you to my unit to show up the slackers we have here) :evil:

But as Disco rightly pointed out you are a cog in a machine, how many IS Engrs will scope the ICS requirement of a deployment, come up with the IER, help design, install, and run any new "combat" CIS system (COTS LAN's dont really fit this). How many IS Supvrs are there in PJHQ?

You and and awful lot others are in danger of learning false leasons from the Gulf on how we should operate in a fast moving high tempo warfighting role. Vanilla PCs in air con containers are one thing, ruggadised BOWMAN UDTs in the back of a 50 year old veh are another.

Anyway as Disco says, have strayed away from the original post, apologies for that. Will go and sulk somewhere else (and look forward to flagwavers posting order!!) :wink:
 
#20
Disco said:
Connectivity/ technical support is delivered by Techs(inst/sys) and managed by the FofS/YofS
Now...I'll stop short of flaming you cos I'm all for harmony in the firm, however...my perception is that there is a load of operational IS which has historically been delivered by the operator trades (the handful of IS geeks looked after Regt LANs and websites etc) and overseen by the YofS/FofS but this has been largely due to the lack of IS tradespeople out on the shopfloor, but also in part to the personalities at Supvr IS level - i.e. working off the same songsheet and all that...

My own unit has found it difficult to adjust to an IS mindset and I am in no doubt that some of the lads (we don't have any lasses) have absolutely no desire to get down and dirty with operational equipment, flashing bombproof sick chits around like a crucifix in front of Count Dracula. Ironically, this was less of an issue when we had only a handful of IS Ops, as the RS and AS Ops were needed to go on most of the deployments. Now that we're starting to get IS Engrs out of the factory (and Supvr IS who have earned the appt? :wink: ) that patronising and arrogant REMF attitude needs to go. The aforementioned chitty-waving NCOs should, in my opinion, be required to prove their worth. Are they so superior that their peergroup - the blokes who are off on e.g. TELIC (someone has to import those PoW photos onto the Regimental LAN :D) - takes the hit and fills those operational jobs? Good enough to chill at home, in safety, with their family while their muckers are tabbing round in body armour?

I have started to get a warm fuzzy feeling over the last couple of months, with the arrival of some quality blokes at the higher end of the payscale and the arrival into the trade of young blood with real potential to kick arse, rather than some oxygen waster who was going nowhere as a tech, sys op or data bop (or clerk :wink:) and merely wanted a nice, cushty time and a little earner for civvy street. Some of these new guys are keen as mustard and damned good at their old trades...some are brand new siggies and I'm chuffed to bits.

So, in my opinion, the IS "primadonna" bubble has burst at last and, with that, Disco's valid comment should become less and less so. BUT...without quality blokes at the top end to drive the troops, the IS trade will remain peripheral geeks and never earn the right to become the link-trade in the whole info collection > management > exploitation > superiority strategy (wow...I've gone all light-headed...I best lie down for a bit).

It may be flippant but let me hark back to the point about IS seniors in trade and the patronising attitude that they're all far too good to become RD WOs. Wake up and smell the coffee. I know lots of IS personnel who have completed RMQ, Skillies, NBC, JSMEL, PTI, Drill courses etc but I'm pretty sure that the numbers pale into insignificance when placed aongside peers in other CEQs. Let's face it - we all know of blokes who ended up in the ADP/IS roster cos they weren't good enough to be FofS/YofS (and were possibly too soft/scared to go RD? - feel free to argue) and IT was an easy option with a less competitive roster. Let's not huddle under the flag of REMFness...if RD is good enough for highly-trained techs who don't want to become Foremen then it's certainly good enough for IS Engrs who don't want to go Supvr IS.

PD

oh...on a related point...Techs can register for FoS selection at Class 1 Sgt (5-6 yrs) and Operators can apply to go YofS at Cpl Class 1 (5 - 6 yrs) but IS Engrs need to be a Class 1 Sgt (9 yrs). When this is combined wth the upper range of 15 yrs service for selection, does anyone else see a slight imbalance in the selection process? :?:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Royal Signals 23
S Royal Signals 5
X Royal Signals 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top