The IDC was established in 2009 in recognition of Information Dominance as a modern warfighting discipline. Comprising officers of the Oceanography (180X), Information warfare (181X), Information Professionals (182X), and Naval Intelligence (183X) communities and the Space Cadre, the IDC was created to more effectively and collaboratively lead and manage the cadre of officers, enlisted, and civilian professionals who possess extensive skills in information-intensive specialties.
The Navy needs officers who are agile, flexible, and fully .capable of leading across the range of functions associated with the IDC. This must be considered when evaluating officers within IDC communities. Evaluate the officer's potential to be an IDC leader, as a priority attributes and milestones within communities are secondary to this consideration. As such, board members should view an officer's performance in leadership assignments as an indicator of his or her ability to lead diverse organizations across the range of IDC missions and functions.
In 2010, the IDC held its first combined commander and captain Command and Leadership Screen Board to select those officers for leadership in the most significant community assignments. However, some officers currently in zone for promotion have not had the opportunity to be screened for combined IDC milestone or command tours. As such, board members should view an officer's performance in leadership assignments as an indicator of his or her ability to lead diverse organizations across the range of IDC missions and functions.
RDML Willie Metts and Captain Justin F. Kershaw sat this year's board as the IWO representatives.
7 comments:
FYI. Admiral prefers Will to Willie.
"...established in 2009..." but to date the only place (command/staff) that they are under one hat is OPNAV N2/N6. Not a lot of traction for three years and counting.
For 'Anonymous 18JAN13/11:06 AM'- must this be an all or nothing? Must all IDCers fall under a single IDC Officer? I don't recall that being the guidance/intent when VADM
Dorsett briefed us on the IDC concept during his visit to C3F Staff in 2008. Further, the Commander of an organization gets to decide how to task organize this Command/Staff, his HHQ boss (nor the DNI) does not tells him how to task organize, that is not consistent w/ Naval tradition and the authorities/responsibilities that are entrusted to a Naval Commander/Commanding Officer.
There are plenty of Commands/Staffs where multiple IDC Officers service under a single
IDC Commander, just to name a few:
#1 - FCC/C10F (Commander = 1810; Staff = 1810/1820/1830)
#2 - Any #FLT Command where some 1810s and all 1830s work under a single N2 (normally a 1810; however, some N2 billet are open for 1810 or 1810 Cross IDC Detailing)
#3 - Any CSG/ARG Staff where some 1810s and all 1830s work under a single N2
#4 - Navy Cyber Forces (Commander = 1820; Staff = 1810 and 1820, maybe some 1830s, not sure)
#5 - CPF Staff where all 1810s and all 1830s work under a single N2 (1830)
#6 - NIOC MD/CTF 1060 (Commander = 1810; Staff = 1810 and 1820)
#7 - NIOC Tx/CTF 1040 (PCO is 1820; staff is mostly 1810s)
#8 - NIOC P'Cola/CTG (Commander = 1810; N3 =1830)
#9 - NIOC CO/CTF 1080 (CO/Commander = 1830; Staff is mostly if not all 1810s)
#10 - NIOC Misawa/CTG 1070.2 (current CO is 1830; Staff is mostly if not all 1810s)
.
.
.
#11 - USCC (Commander = Army MI Officer; Staff consists of 1810s, 1820s and 1830s)
There are plenty more I could list, but I think the above data points show that the intent of CNO Roughead has been achieved ...
Further, there has been a tremendoues amount of progress over the last three years, besides above:
#1 - IWO PQS
#2 - IDC Mid-Career Course
#3 - Recent IDC Command Instruction
#4 - 1st two weeks of initial accession training of 1810s and 1820s is conducted together at Corry Station
Feel free to e-mail me, love to chat to get your perspective - HIGH SIDE SID = mcellio; NIPR = michael.c.elliot@navy.mil
R, CDR Mike Elliot
@CDR Elliot,
Thanks for stepping in there so I didn't have to. A tremendous amount of progress has been made. Too many people are looking for a"finished" product. You don't get to "finished" with an organization that has too evolve. People who hate change should be ready to accept irrelevance.
@CDR Elliot,
Thanks for stepping in there so I didn't have to. A tremendous amount of progress has been made. Too many people are looking for a"finished" product. You don't get to "finished" with an organization that has too evolve. People who hate change should be ready to accept irrelevance.
I don't understand the last paragraph of the post. At least for IWOs, all IZ were considered by a COs Board. Will be interesting to see how aligned the 6 IW COs and the 6 IW selectees are aligned. 100% alignment is not necessarily the best result.
de ANON at January 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Not (necessarily) looking for all IDCers under same single person/entity. That said, we do need to have our cylinders of excellence (INTEL/IW/IP/METOC) combined and working together to do ‘Information Dominance”. Training curriculum aside, it’s not being done. (PLEASE correct me)
That said it would be easier to synergize the lines of IDC efforts if they were under one individuals responsibility (at the functional/operational level). At OPNAV that’s the N2/N6.
Obtw … Pointing to the longstanding intel/cryppy relationship is not an example of moving toward IDCness. That has been a tight relationship for decades.
Post a Comment