IS Supervisor Selection- ARRSE or two thumbs up ?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by bigbadjimmyp, Apr 25, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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

    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.

  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. 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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. 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: