• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Logistics Officer Occupational Analysis

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
375
Points
1,080
Communiqué from the RCLS Secretariat:

In July 2020, the LogO OA was launched with the goal of addressing defined problems within the occupation and delivering an Occupation Specification (OS) as mandated by the new Job Based System (JBS) adopted by the CAF over ten years ago.

During the analysis phase, consideration was given to several factors resulting in a decision designed to develop professionally competent, institutionally credible Logistics Officers. That decision determined there would be only one Logistics Officer occupation with core competencies in materiel management, transportation, personnel administration, and budgeting. As LogOs progress in rank and experience, they will either select a career path in sustainment as a Logistics Sustainment Officer (LSO) and get advanced training and specialization in sustainment specialties or they will select a career path in the sub-occupation of Finance with core competencies in budgeting, financial management, financial services and policy, and personnel administration, and where they will receive advanced financial training. Thus, in future, all Logistics Officers will be classified as either Logistics Sustainment Officers (LSO) or Logistics Finance Officers (LFO).

With the analysis done and the decision finalized, the implementation phase has begun. CFLTC is working hard to restructure required training in preparation for the first round of courses in 2024. Preliminary work has begun with the elimination of the 2023 Transportation Officer specialty course, elimination of all but one of the 2023 Human Resource Officer specialty courses, and the commencement of the rewrite and translation of new course materiel to effectively train the new LogO core competencies. Current qualifications and experience will be acknowledged and honoured meaning that re-training for current LogOs who have reached the Occupational Functional Point (OFP) will not be required.

As we move forward, the information phase will be key to educating all LogOs on this crucial evolution of the trade. Passage of information will be done in four key steps:

1. Initial communiqué on the LogO OA (this message) – May 2023;
2. Senior Officer Information Sessions – June/July 2023;
3. Locally held information sessions held by local reps – June/July/August 2023; and
4. RCLSI virtual information sessions – August/September 2023.

These information sessions and townhalls will aim to provide you the information you require to move into the next phase of this process, either to make a selection for your career, or to mentor someone else through the selection process. The Selection Phase will be carried out in mid to late Fall 2023. We will begin with members identifying their professional preferences to be either LSO or LFO, and succession planners and chains of command will confirm based on service requirements. This selection phase will set the stage for the new training to begin in 2024.
 
I saw this just before I left for my civ work today, but didn't get a chance to really read it. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, particularly in the reserves.
 
I saw this just before I left for my civ work today, but didn't get a chance to really read it. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, particularly in the reserves.
It is a very interesting change and IMHO moves to a better employment model where you are either sustain or finance, which is allows for more flexibility in employment whereas before folks were pigeoned holed on the RCAF/CA side of the house at times in their career.

It will be interesting to see the impact on the RCAF given that you need to go into the LFO stream to specialize in HR as they are the primary employer of HR qualified personnel. That may be a typo though as it is worded awkwardly.
 
We had a discussion about this yesterday among a few of the trade advisors on whether the part about personnel admin falling under LFO was accurate or not. As written, and as many junior officers are reading it, it would appear that way.

What this has done, at least from an RCAF perspective, has created a path to implement something that has been the desire of a few senior logisticians for a decade now. Streaming individuals into either "hard" log or "soft" log, with the desire to accelerate those going the LSO route.

The coming split has also done something else that may have unintended consequences. It has created a career path on the finance side that will slowly move them away from any true need to do operational, uniformed work, and thus making it easier to justify civilianizing that portion of the trade. When you think about it, other than providing some actual military bearing into the finance world, why do we need uniformed finance officers? What tasks in the field or on a deployment require someone to be in situ, rather than sitting in an office somewhere with a reach back capability?
 
The coming split has also done something else that may have unintended consequences. It has created a career path on the finance side that will slowly move them away from any true need to do operational, uniformed work, and thus making it easier to justify civilianizing that portion of the trade. When you think about it, other than providing some actual military bearing into the finance world, why do we need uniformed finance officers? What tasks in the field or on a deployment require someone to be in situ, rather than sitting in an office somewhere with a reach back capability?

Is this a bad thing ? I don't see it that way...
 
One could argue that the more we offload tasks to the civilian side, the less influence and change can be brought about by the CAF. Look at our procurement organization. It is a civilian run organization with some military personnel mixed in. Where I find it affects us most is the creation of policies that are thrust onto the CAF without consideration of the burden those policies create. The uniformed side can't just hire a bunch of casual and term employees to complete the additional work to meet institutional mandates.
 
One could argue that the more we offload tasks to the civilian side, the less influence and change can be brought about by the CAF. Look at our procurement organization. It is a civilian run organization with some military personnel mixed in. Where I find it affects us most is the creation of policies that are thrust onto the CAF without consideration of the burden those policies create. The uniformed side can't just hire a bunch of casual and term employees to complete the additional work to meet institutional mandates.

I'm not sure some Snr Log Officers would have been successful at changing, adjusting or molding, Gov Canada procurement policy...

Procurement is a political tool, the end product is secondary to to Jobs and Votes.
 
Many procurement problems in the CAF are driven by revolving door military personnel inserted in the process, who lack the knowledge and experience to be effective, slowing down the process.

On the financial front, I recall a Comptroller's conference 20+ years ago where a Capt asked why there were any Log Fin positions above the rank of Maj. Not a good way to make friends, but a valid question, to which the reply was "GOFOs wouldn't trust a civilian."
 
What this has done, at least from an RCAF perspective, has created a path to implement something that has been the desire of a few senior logisticians for a decade now. Streaming individuals into either "hard" log or "soft" log, with the desire to accelerate those going the LSO route.
Agreed, it is just formally acknowledging the fact that FinO has over the past decade+ been streamed completely differently. Lumping LSO together also get rids of the notion that one is "supply" or "transport" only as reality is it is just sustainment and any LSO should be able to take on those roles within reason

In effect we are saying that for LSOs the RCN model is the way to go, can't say I disagree much (except for NPF trg screw that noise :) )

Like HR being a RCAF issue, it will be interesting to see how the RCN integrates LFOs into their fold given their current trg model

The coming split has also done something else that may have unintended consequences. It has created a career path on the finance side that will slowly move them away from any true need to do operational, uniformed work, and thus making it easier to justify civilianizing that portion of the trade. When you think about it, other than providing some actual military bearing into the finance world, why do we need uniformed finance officers? What tasks in the field or on a deployment require someone to be in situ, rather than sitting in an office somewhere with a reach back capability?
It is a good point although in my last deployment one of the most useful ppl on the ground was the FinO as they literally held the purse strings and could react to the situation on the ground as needed by TF. That level flexibility couldn't be achieved with reach back in the same way.
 
The prior OA recommended Log Os be employed in functional lines (Tn, Sup, Fin, Food Svcs...) and was rejected by the branch, as they wanted to build environmental empires as a priority over building support capability.

Which resulted in situations like the Army wanting no Fin Os below the rank of Maj, and wanting their Maj Fin Os to start the job with five or more years of experience.
 
The prior OA recommended Log Os be employed in functional lines (Tn, Sup, Fin, Food Svcs...) and was rejected by the branch, as they wanted to build environmental empires as a priority over building support capability.

Which resulted in situations like the Army wanting no Fin Os below the rank of Maj, and wanting their Maj Fin Os to start the job with five or more years of experience.

The Log Branch needs to be torn down.
 
The Log Branch needs to be torn down.

What do you mean by torn down?

If you mean the broken up of the former Log Branch and return under direct command of the individual Environments, like in pre-unification then I would be against it. If you mean that you want more environmental training for the Logisticians, then I'm for it.

Developing professional and competent Logisiticians will always be a difficult balancing act. There is continuous debate about "soldier first, trade second" which leads to how much time for training and continuous development of these skills will be enough and at what cost.
 
What do you mean by torn down?

If you mean the broken up of the former Log Branch and return under direct command of the individual Environments, like in pre-unification then I would be against it. If you mean that you want more environmental training for the Logisticians, then I'm for it.

Developing professional and competent Logisiticians will always be a difficult balancing act. There is continuous debate about "soldier first, trade second" which leads to how much time for training and continuous development of these skills will be enough and at what cost.

I absolutely mean the Log Branch should cease with the purpleness and instead revert to pre unification structures.
 
I absolutely mean the Log Branch should cease with the purpleness and instead revert to pre unification structures.

That's interesting. I recently served with a US logistics officer who lamented that his military needed to get better at joint logistics as each service had its own system which made working together much more difficult than it needed to be.
 
That's interesting. I recently served with a US logistics officer who lamented that his military needed to get better at joint logistics as each service had its own system which made working together much more difficult than it needed to be.

I'm not talking systems and such, purely from a pers management and career management standpoint.
 
That's interesting. I recently served with a US logistics officer who lamented that his military needed to get better at joint logistics as each service had its own system which made working together much more difficult than it needed to be.
I'm not talking systems and such, purely from a pers management and career management standpoint.
Agreed, we should be integrated from a systems perspective but pretty sure @Halifax Tar is referring to the fact that currently all Log NCM trades are treated as purple throughout their career unlike Log Os who generally matriculate and do developmental positions within their environment. They (Log NCMs) move from environment to environment often without much thought to the training bill and disruption that causes to both the environment and the member.

We don't make Majs/LCdrs Log Os from the CA/RCN do their OC or other developmental billets in a different environment (less truly purple roles) but we routinely do it to Log NCMs. So not only do they have to learn how to work at that next rank level, they now have to operate a different culture that is potentially completely foreign to them. In addition, they are now leading others in that environment that they are trying to learn. Think of the first time any of us were in the field and/or on a ship as a Pte/S3 and now try and imagine it as a newly posted in PO2/Sgt having to lead ppl

I adapted this from a longer post I made in the RCLS RCafe so it doesn't flow right but gets the gist across :)
 
It will be interesting to see the impact on the RCAF given that you need to go into the LFO stream to specialize in HR as they are the primary employer of HR qualified personnel. That may be a typo though as it is worded awkwardly.
It was just a typo/awkwardly worded and all Log Os will be trained on HR as confirmed by the RCLS Integrator on the DiaLOGue cafe


https://hangar.cloud.forces.gc.ca/discussions/2988
 
Ahh, got it. So the Branch itself doesn't need to be torn down, rather the NCM occupations need to be rescoped as either new occupations or with sub-occs along environmental lines.
One challenge is that such a change would likely require significant PY investment, would still need people to fill the purple positions, and is in an environment where ever system change is seen as an excuse to further cut uniformed support PYs.

All while the CAF trained effective establishment is already too large a proportion of the maximum paid strength to ever be filled.
 
One could argue that the more we offload tasks to the civilian side, the less influence and change can be brought about by the CAF. Look at our procurement organization. It is a civilian run organization with some military personnel mixed in. Where I find it affects us most is the creation of policies that are thrust onto the CAF without consideration of the burden those policies create. The uniformed side can't just hire a bunch of casual and term employees to complete the additional work to meet institutional mandates.
There are plenty of military people involved in that; the issue is what @dapaterson pointed out, in that they don't have the time in the job or experience to know the impacts when they are contributing to policy. I prefer when the lead on the procurement side is an experienced civilian and the mil folks are there as support/learning only.

Policy makers could simply ask the worker bees before they make policy /processes, but that's not how they roll (in any area). The CAF ISSC policy that came out about 10 years ago and was recinded withing about 6 months comes to mind (it basically only worked for the air force in very specific situations), but people pushing things into DRMIS etc is similar. For example, the ADM(IE) policy to track all halocarbons in DRMIS down to the individual cylinder would increase the number of PM routines by 10-70 times for 'granularity', so the LCMMs at MEPM and AEPM have told them we aren't doing that (and have created a simple spreadsheet that will do the same tracking without requiring extra work by the maintainers).
 
Back
Top