LFTSP (MDEM) Views?

[Sapper6]

All,

I have conducted a search and can't seem to find much commentary on the value of the Land Force Tech Staff Program (Officers) or the Army Tech Warrant Officer course.  Any recent graduates out there that want to give a comment on the utility of the program?  Or better yet, any supervisors of the aforementioned qualified pers willing to do the same?

[Apparently, the Chief of Land Staff is on record as saying that the future Army Leaders need to have this qualification or at least know how to employ those that do.]

S6

 

[Sapper6]

Come on guys!

Isn't there anyone out there who wants to comment on the Tech Staff course now being run at RMC Kingston?

S6

 

[Randy]

I took the LFTSP in 2001 and quite enjoyed it. I will admit the course was evenly split on whether it was a good thing or a waste of time.  The course is designed for graduates to go work in DLR, DGLEPM, LFTEU, etc afterwards.  Maybe half of my course went into a tech staff job.  I believe future leaders need to have some grounding in technology but don't think a year long course is required by all.  I can sincerely tell you I am a better officer for having done the course.

 

[Sapper6]

I took the LFTSP in 2001 and quite enjoyed it. I will admit the course was evenly split on whether it was a good thing or a waste of time.   The course is designed for graduates to go work in DLR, DGLEPM, LFTEU, etc afterwards.   Maybe half of my course went into a tech staff job.   I believe future leaders need to have some grounding in technology but don't think a year long course is required by all.   I can sincerely tell you I am a better officer for having done the course.

Randy,

I have heard similar reports.  I know that the Army is trying to increase the visibility of this course to all commanders.  I also know that in the Army Engineers we are trying to get our Tech Staff trained officers and NCOs in to the places you mention above for only2-3 yrs max and then get them back to field units.  For many years the belief out there was that you did Tech Staff and then went to Ottawa to perish.  With LGen Caron being tech qualified, he is trying to change that philosophy.  I tend to agree with him.  Is Tech Staff for everyone? No, but the Army needs leaders who understand 3rd and 4th generation technology if we are going to get into the enemy's OODA loop.

Just my 2 cents.

S6

 

[McG]

I though that I'd heard that the army was having difficulties finding enough WO to fill all the Tech WO positions.  Is this where the problem lies?

 

[Sapper6]

I though that I'd heard that the army was having difficulties finding enough WO to fill all the Tech WO positions.   Is this where the problem lies?

Yes, this is true.  In fact, it has been a tough year to find suitable files for both officers and WOs.  I'm trying to figure out why?  The conclusion I'm coming to is that no one wants to come to Ottawa afterwards to serve their time on a project with the Land Staff or DGLEPM. There appears to be an underlying current that you are screwed if you take this career path.  I suppose the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.  Senior leadership will need to grip this and support those who have taken this course and not eliminate them from leadership opportunities when they come.

Sapper 6.

 

[Randy]

The conclusion I'm coming to is that no one wants to come to Ottawa afterwards to serve their time on a project with the Land Staff or DGLEPM. There appears to be an underlying current that you are screwed if you take this career path. 
Sapper 6.

S6
That's probably half the answer.  The officers and WO's that you want in Ottawa as project staff need to come from field units and be "current" on the latest equipment, TTPs, etc.  However, the words "Ottawa, NDHQ, cubicle-land, etc" are usually met with some level of derision from the field soldier and they figure that once they are "trapped" in Ottawa, they will never get out. 

I agree with you that senior leadership must ensure that soldiers that take the Tech Staff path have an equal chance for career advancement.  Three years should be the average posting length.  The first year is spent learning acronyms and the stuff you should have paid more attention to on course.  You are actually effective in years 2 and 3.  After that, you need to get back to the field.

I did 2 years in DLR on a project and loved it.  But it was a successful project, the work was very challenging, there was money to spend and CLS backing to spend it.  Not a day went by that I didn't learn something new.  I might have a different view of Ottawa had I been assigned to a project with a 15 year time-line that was not the flavour of the day.  Wheel-spinning would be less fun.

The other thing to consider is the current shortage of officers and WOs in field units.  CO's are hesitant to let trained people go if there is no guarantee of a suitable replacement.  The artillery is short Capts (at the seasoned FOO level).  Just the kind of officer you want for Tech Staff.  But also the kind of candidate you want for the IG course (yep, the Arty School has its hand out too), CMTC is a growing priority, oh and by the way, the operational tempo is nuts and there is thing called Transformation coming upon us very shortly.  The Army Tech WO course faces similar challenges. 

It's not that CO's (and higher) don't see the benefits of Technical Staff.  Just doesn't come as high on the list of vacancies to fill....

Randy

 

[Sapper6]

With all the griping about personal equipment recently, it would be great to see some more Combat Arms Sr NCOs take the LFTSP and try to make a difference in DLR.  Preferably, guys who've just come back from the sandbox.

Good to see that the LAV IIIs are holding up relatively well to SA and RPG fire.  Not a bad piece of kit.  Somebody had to work on that project.

Sapper6

p.s. With Leslie announced as the new Army Commander, I will be curious to see if he supports the initiatives that Caron took to get folks on the LFTSP.  Just my 2 cents.

 

[Randy]

S6
I agree. It would be good to see more Cbt A Sr NCMs take the technical training and then be employed in DLR. 
There will always be some griping about kit, no matter what.  Can't please everyone all the time but you shoot for a high percentage.
The submission of UCRs is a good way to get kit improved but unless there is a consistent problem that will either: drastically improve the piece of equipment; or if not fixed someone will die, then it's probably not going to happen.
The one (maybe two) deep desk officers and LCMMs in DLR and DGLEPM are usually responsible for many different pieces of kit.  It takes time and money to make changes and there is never enough of either of those commodities.
Certainly, the right people (with a will) and more of them will make a difference.

I believe MGen Leslie will be very pro LFTSP.  While he does not have the similar tech staff background that LGen Caron has, he spent a bit of time as Acting Asst CLS a couple years ago.  He has an appreciation for what is good and bad in the procurement world.  Watch for things to get faster....  Just my 2 cents.
Randy

 

[McG]

. . . the course was evenly split on whether it was a good thing or a waste of time. 

LFTSP is definately an excellent program.  The technology part aside, it does an excellent job of developing critical thinking skills, and of fostering an understanding of capability development.

The course is designed for graduates to go work in DLR, DGLEPM, LFTEU, etc afterwards. 

There are also spots at the infantry school, the land advanced warfare school, and the DRDCs.

I believe future leaders need to have some grounding in technology but don't think a year long course is required by all. 

The new Army Junior Staff Officer Qualification does have a whole module on technology.  Sadly, this whole module can be written-off for anyone that has completed the unrelated OPME technology, society & war.


. . . no thoughts on MDEM or ATWO for now though . . .

 

[McG]

Here are a few replies to an email that was sent asking LFTSP grads thier thought on the MDEM program (note, the first reply was not an MDEM student & the ones following were all MDEM).  Replies have been altered to remove personal information (unfortunately, this removes more compelling arguments).

HI Denis,
    … The course [LFTSP] is a good course for any one who will be in the Test and Evaluation, Requirements or Project Management jobs.

    The course has many good topics. The program is quire fast paced and if you have recently been in school it won't be as bad. I have not been in any formal education since the early 80s, so I can assure you, my math skills were challenged. The course covers a wide range of topics from Information systems, Communications Systems, CBRB, Weapons Fundamentals and Applications, Project Management, Requirement Mgt, Statistics and Probabilities, Vehicle Systems and fundamentals and a few others. Hi calibre instructors are used from RMC to teach you. Some are better than  others, but on most part a good bunch.

The course has a array of field trips scheduled to include visiting all DRDCs across the country and many US test and research facilities.

I would recommend the course if you plan to work in PM or DLR type job to even return to DRDC. The course has some administrative growing pains like any other.

I did not do the MDEM. This year [07/08] there are no MDEMs on the course. The MDEM component of the course had some challenges. If you have done AOC and the BEng, you will do quite well. The work load is crazy for the MDEM. The MDEM as it stand does not provide  the best masters program from what I heard from the guys on my course.

I good guy to speak to is a friend of mine, Capt 123.  He could fill you in on some of the growing pains for the MDEM if you are interested.

Dennis,

To be truthful, I am not sure I would do the MDEM again because I am not sure that the benefits gained are worth the credentials that it provides.  In doing a masters I would want it to either give me an advantage not otherwise gained without it either in or out of the service, and I am not sure that it does this beyond what I get from tech staff and the experience I will gain working at XXXXX 

That being said, you will be doing schooling for a year anyway and if you do not have large family demands it may be worth your while, even if it is very time demanding.  Additionally, since you are mech eng I don't think you will have any trouble with the tech staff crse alone.  In summary, if family life is not demanding and getting a masters for the PER points alone is what you want then consider the MDEM.  Otherwise it may be better to just do some MDEM crses and use them to get a different master afterwards, if that is still possible (previously known as MAMS or something like that).

I have CC'd some of my other MDEM peers as well if you are not convinced.

Dennis,
LFTSP is an excellent program.  If you take it, I have no doubt that you will learn a lot and enjoy the experience.

That being said, I would not have done the MDEM if I knew it like I know it now.  It is a quantity over quality program which is not rewarding and likely detracts from some elements of the overall core LFTSP learning environment.  Worse, it is a year long kick in the pants and the odds are stacked such that you will not finish within the year allotted (nobody did this year, only one finished on time from 05/06 and a second person from 05/06 who's thesis matched his job finished in Dec).  As a Capt, you will not get PER points for MDEM because the LFTSP will put you at the ceiling for PD.  As a Maj going for LCol it will give you a point (LFTSP is less valued on a Maj's PER).

You may want to touch base with some of the staff responsible for the program.  My hope is that it will develop over the year.  I would not hold my breath that the 08/09 year will be greatly improved, but these would be the people to let you know.  XXXX will give you the honest current answers if you were to contact him.

My advice would be to apply for the LFTSP as now is when they are looking for applicants.  MDEM applications are not submitted until after you are accepted for LFTSP, so you will have a few more months to investigate and decide if that is something you really want to do.  Otherwise, just selectively pick a few of the MDEM courses for top-up in order to collect credits toward some future endeavour.

Dennis,

How can I be diplomatic and loyal pertaining to the MDEM program?  I guess I would have to echo the points noted from my colleagues.

The LFTSP program does have some merits in development of some critical thinking and presentation techniques, skills, etc.  As for the MDEM it seemed to lack a focus with a lot of "Academic Liberty" in how the staff perceive the program.  I am reminded of the Bugs Bunny cartoon where bugs and Daffy are arguing, "It's duck season - no it's rabbit season."  With the MDEM, the argument is between the RMC academic faculty and the LFTSP DS - "It's an academic program”, “no it's a staff program!"  It tended to get quite frustrating.  I also need to echo YYYY’s comments pertaining to quantity versus quality.  It is not academically difficult - shear quantity is what will kill you.  There were some interesting courses and yes, some good, knowledgeable instructors.

Even amongst the DS, there were inconsistencies in standards and perceptions.  “Oh you are MDEM - you can do this pile of work in one night solo, even though your colleagues will be working on it in groups of two or three” (just because you are MDEM doesn't mean you can read any faster).  When it came to the exercises, there was even more frustration as the presentation counted for 10-15% of your course mark, even though the DS critique focused on one's staff duties and presentation style/quality vice its actual content.  That being said, whenever an academic sat in on the exercise briefings (rarely), they tended to ask valuable and pointed questions on the sciences (these were directed primarily at the MDEM's and was quite valuable in providing some insight on the quality/ thought provoking questions that could be posed during a thesis defense).  The MDEM program is supposed to be undergoing its 5-year accreditation this year - so perhaps a lot of the details will be worked out.......

I will not even venture down the path of the military staff.  It is my understanding that there will be a big change over next year (a really good thing).  Some leadership is required to provide some direction to the programs, set priorities, set standards, and enforce compliance.

As for the family front, that adds a whole other level of complexity to the situation.  XXXXXXX making the balancing of family, and school a difficult chore.  I would come home with a pile of work, and my wife would be waiting - "XXXXXX - I need a break"  Or she would just be content to finally have an adult conversation.  There were times (Exercise week), where I would come and go – “hi I am home, I will just eat, then I have to get back for syndicate work”.  It was very difficult.  My wife told me afterwards that she would have rather I had been away for the week instead of coming and going.  My recommendation, is to either come on IR, or if you bring your family, find a support network of other young families (i.e. those of your course mates).

If after all this, you still wish to take the MDEM, I recommend that you come in with a well-defined project with some military sponsors and an idea of who to get for an academic sponsor.  within the first couple days of the course, the Chief Instructor asked the 5 MDEM to stand up and present their project proposals - we were left, going umm, err, ahhh - and then he slammed us for not being prepared.  The project needs to meet several criteria
    1.    Military requirement (get a sponsor from DLR, DGLEPM, DRDC, etc)
    2.    Graduate level (what does that mean - I still don't know)
Know your specific problem space and drive the problem deep in your studies.  I am sure some of the DRDC scientists could provide some advice.

I recommend that you apply for the LFTSP, and consider what you wish to achieve from the MDEM.  Weigh your criteria, and make your decision.  Come prepared with a well-defined project BEFORE the start of the course (it would benefit to do so , even if not going for the MDEM), and develop your social network support for your family.  If you decide to pursue the MDEM, please feel free to pose any questions to me (I still have a term paper and thesis to finish myself).

Hope this helps and did not dissuade you too much.

 

[Sapper6]

McG,

Excellent feedback on the MDEM/LFTSP!  Thanks for posting.  I know the comments here are balanced and thorough enough that any officer or Sr NCO contemplating taking the program will be all the more wiser!

Good post!

S6

 

[McG]

Just considered a few more things that may be of interest to those reading this thread.  First a few web links:
The official site: http://www.rmc.ca/academic/ams/index_e.html
A Maple Leaf article from 2005: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/vol_8/vol8_34/834_15.pdf
A Maple Leaf article from 2007: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/vol_10/vol10_11/1011_05.pdf

One additional thing that I would like to point out is that the published requirement for officers to have a degree is not a true requirement (and if it is, then it is being ignored).  There have been at least a handful of officers without any degree who have completed the program.  Additionally, the LFTSP will be recognized as 8 senior undergrad credits toward a degree at RMC (though no other university will recognize these credits because RMC awards them for the program as a whole & not for individual courses).

For the ATWO there is a bit of discrimination.  They do almost the exact same program (a few but not all courses had easier exams for ATWO & their project if different from both the LFTSP and MDEM), but RMC will only award 4 junior credits toward an undergrad.  Like the LFTSP, the ATWO will be hard pressed to have a civilian university recognize these.

Regardless, if you are doing OPMEs & planning to get a distance degree from RMC, then either LFTSP or ATWO will help.  You will be out of luck if you are 5 credits away from a degree at U of Manitoba (as one unlucky individual found last year).

 

[McG]

For those in the Kingston area that want to get a better idea of the programs, check out the 13th Annual Project Symposium (18-19 June).

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/conference/ams/index_e.html