What systemic issues would you change in the MOD or in the single Services?

I don’t understand the hatred for JSP101
It requires structured, logical thought, and attention to detail.

I can immediately understand why illogical and untidy minds, and those who think "loose" and "lose" are the same word would react to it the same way the brides of Dracula might respond to a platter of warm Italian ciabatta with a garlic and herb topping.
 
It requires structured, logical thought, and attention to detail.

I can immediately understand why illogical and untidy minds, and those who think "loose" and "lose" are the same word would react to it the same way the brides of Dracula might respond to a platter of warm Italian ciabatta with a garlic and herb topping.
An alternative view. It requires pedants who lack the imagination to do anything but follow process and rules.

It rather depends on whether one regards JSP 101 (and any other procedure) as guidance or regulation. We’ve all met plenty of service “leaders” who cannot think beyond the rule book.

Visionary, options people tent to lack attention to detail. Detail focussed, logically minded people tend to lack imagination. Which is why you need diversity in a leadership team.
 
An alternative view. It requires pedants who lack the imagination to do anything but follow process and rules.

It rather depends on whether one regards JSP 101 (and any other procedure) as guidance or regulation. We’ve all met plenty of service “leaders” who cannot think beyond the rule book.

Visionary, options people tent to lack attention to detail. Detail focussed, logically minded people tend to lack imagination. Which is why you need diversity in a leadership team.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I'm of the view that - in a structured corporate body of any sort, especially one in which staff must perforce work at pace - the use of standardised formats not only makes the work of compiling a document easier/faster than would be the case if every author felt obliged to invent a new format for each piece of work. By the same token, an audience accustomed to a standard layout and structure will work through the product more efficiently.

On t'other hand, if either the author or the consumer is so insistently änal to give higher priority to matters of detailed layout than to content, then some poor sod's definitely in for a world of hurt ;-)
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I'm of the view that - in a structured corporate body of any sort, especially one in which staff must perforce work at pace - the use of standardised formats not only makes the work of compiling a document easier/faster than would be the case if every author felt obliged to invent a new format for each piece of work. By the same token, an audience accustomed to a standard layout and structure will work through the product more efficiently.

On t'other hand, if either the author or the consumer is so insistently änal to give higher priority to matters of detailed layout than to content, then some poor sod's definitely in for a world of hurt ;-)
I agree entirely that organisations need a corporate style, both for efficiency and branding purposes. The problem comes when coherence with the style guide becomes more important than content.

The only reason for writing a document is to get a message over.
 
YO should be kept as far away from managing soldiers as possible, the constant smart ideas and "fun" activities they plan is a constant annoyance.
Agreed - they should be leading them instead, making mistakes and being mentored by their SNCOs.

How else do you expect them to learn?
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I don’t understand the hatred for JSP101.
It's less about the document and more about the way it's applied. It gives an excuse for every belter to focus on how many spaces you have after a full stop and the correct indentation of your paragraphs, rather than on the content of the document. In some HQs (mostly Andover, unsurprisingly) it ends up with a rigid application of standardised document formatting that often gets in the way of writing something clearly in a way that's easy to read.

The new version is mostly good, but people have focused on applying the new formats rather than on the principle that clarity and flexibility are the key.
 
That is absolutely the best way to learn but if you have a ineffectual/weak SNCOs it leads to a rapid decline in morale.
If you have weak and ineffectual SNCOs then sack them - simple.
 

UKTAP

LE
You can have visionary thoughts, produce novel solutions and present them in a standardised way. That is what Defence Writing is for.

Engineers do exactly the same thing. Imagine how chaotic the world would be if Scientists and Engineers presented their solutions for automotive engineering safety written on a folded out toilet roll tube, in Shakespearean English, using old Biblical Units.
 
You can have visionary thoughts, produce novel solutions and present them in a standardised way. That is what Defence Writing is for.

Engineers do exactly the same thing. Imagine how chaotic the world would be if Scientists and Engineers presented their solutions for automotive engineering safety written on a folded out toilet roll tube, in Shakespearean English, using old Biblical Units.
Or say, not mention which units, assuming everyone works in Imperial.

But actually your contractors work in metric...
 
It's less about the document and more about the way it's applied. It gives an excuse for every belter to focus on how many spaces you have after a full stop and the correct indentation of your paragraphs, rather than on the content of the document. In some HQs (mostly Andover, unsurprisingly) it ends up with a rigid application of standardised document formatting that often gets in the way of writing something clearly in a way that's easy to read.

The new version is mostly good, but people have focused on applying the new formats rather than on the principle that clarity and flexibility are the key.
The worst habit I've seen out of Andover is an absolute insistence about removing every single vowel in the name of brevity.

If I read another Pj Nnsch again...

I'm actually quite a fan of Guards way of writing everything in full. Although it can make for some very long sentences!!!
 
Last edited:
I agree entirely that organisations need a corporate style, both for efficiency and branding purposes. The problem comes when coherence with the style guide becomes more important than content.

The only reason for writing a document is to get a message over.
We are in heated agreement, then :thumright:
 
If you think that ICSC is an objective look, I strongly suspect you're deluded (no offence intended).
Perhaps a bit deluded. I'm off there very soon and I'm trying to convince myself that I will actually do alright.
 
The worst habit I've seen out of Andover is an absolute insistence about removing every single vowel in the name of brevity.
I for one ignore any communication written in such an infantile manner.
 

Latest Threads

Top