Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Divisional System

I would be very interested to hear peoples comments on the state of the divisional system in RNR units ? also have many of your read the "RN Ethos" leaflet available to all at units
yours aye
 
The divisional system in the RNR has suffered some fairly serious neglect over the last few years. I am glad to say it is on the up. DOs are being made to have reports in on time and of a suitable standard. I have heard tale of people not having had a RORRS for over eight years.

It's about time it was taken more seriously.

Maybe they will reintroduce a DOs course again.
 
Agree that there has been almost criminal neglect in the past but is now (slowly !) getting better.
Binning the RNR DO's course was an absolutely stupid idea.
Everyone in the Divisional system - LHs, S/Rs, DOs, XO & CO need to ensure we're all doing our job properly.
Anyone remember "the most important single factor" ?
 
I Know, lets rename STO's, DO's. They could be responsible for Discipline, welfare, training etc. We could write a book and call it "The Divisional Officers Handbook" and give it the BR number 1992. (tongue firmly in cheek)

To me the rot set in when we introduced BTO's and tried to introduce a system out of step with the RN. In Some units, ratings had BTO's and DO’s, so the whole thing became confused and we have never recovered. Perhaps it stems from having clear line of responsibility from TPO/UTO(S) on the training side and 1st Lt on the divisional side. What ever the reasoning was or is, it ain’t working!
 
The divisional system is fine, its the DO's that are the problem. Finding a good officer that is interested in his people is rarity. It is the DSR's that hold it together.
 
fullasternboth said:
The divisional system is fine, its the DO's that are the problem. Finding a good officer that is interested in his people is rarity. It is the DSR's that hold it together.
Brilliant generalisation there.
Come on, we all know good & bad Officers and good & bad SR's.
 
Surely this just links into the CLM discussion. I we had a few more senior rates and Junior officers(upto Lt Cdr) who understood a little bit more about leadership then they would appreciate that looking after the people in there charge is vital.
 
Having worked with the wavy navy and been a PSI during my career, let me say a couple of things, firstly the RNR are part time, one night a week to be taught and to keep up with divisional documentation is laughable.
that is why the PSI is key, if you have a good one he will point the BTO in the right direction, same as onboard a real establishment/ship. The PSI knows his people the same as a DSR does in the real Navy, we cant expect a shopkeeper to learn OOW/SEAMANSHIP etc and expect them to keep up divisional records, where do they get the time from?

Also, the standard of SR in the fleet as a whole are dropping due to lack of manpower and rating up people who are clearly not worthy of the rank, we need to keep it honest and call a spade a spade and not a finely tuned piece of machinery to excavate a whole!!!!
 
Mchammock thought that fullastern was generalising when he talked aobu the quality of officers and SRs.

A generalisation it might be, but the truth is that the RNR has inherited a system from the RN which is predicated on easy access to a DO (or DSR), but has done little to support that.

I know of instances in the RNR where people could not even be told who their DO was - somewhat limiting for training and career advancement. The key here is that what ever the system the RNR decides to use (and why not use a different system as pots suggests) it must be fully supported you cannot have half measures.
 
GCYZ said:
I Know, lets rename STO's, DO's. They could be responsible for Discipline, welfare, training etc. We could write a book and call it "The Divisional Officers Handbook" and give it the BR number 1992. (tongue firmly in cheek)

To me the rot set in when we introduced BTO's and tried to introduce a system out of step with the RN. In Some units, ratings had BTO's and DO’s, so the whole thing became confused and we have never recovered. Perhaps it stems from having clear line of responsibility from TPO/UTO(S) on the training side and 1st Lt on the divisional side. What ever the reasoning was or is, it ain’t working!

STO's are not meant to be DO's - they are meant to assist the STO and the XO (in their capcity as Training Officer) in providing specialist training and planning of ORT to enable the ships company to achiveve TPS/OPS and Bounty. They also must ensure personnel records are in order so that gains to the TS (which they must ensure personnel reach with specified time limits) can be determined and together with the DOs ensure that PTPs match specialisation tarining requirements as laid out in BR60A.

DO's, as you say, are responsible to the 1st Lt, and much greater emphasis is now being placed on divisional work and welfare of personnel. Part of the problem in the past has been the dropping of the requirement for annual reporting outside of promotion reports etc. Consequently, the only reports on file were from ORT, unless the individual was in zone. Annual reporting has now retuned so the situation should improve, especially as their is a big push to improve the quality of report writing and actively include DSRs.

STO's may act as senior DO's, but they're more like a HOD.
 
PartTimer said:
GCYZ said:
I Know, lets rename STO's, DO's. They could be responsible for Discipline, welfare, training etc. We could write a book and call it "The Divisional Officers Handbook" and give it the BR number 1992. (tongue firmly in cheek)

To me the rot set in when we introduced BTO's and tried to introduce a system out of step with the RN. In Some units, ratings had BTO's and DO’s, so the whole thing became confused and we have never recovered. Perhaps it stems from having clear line of responsibility from TPO/UTO(S) on the training side and 1st Lt on the divisional side. What ever the reasoning was or is, it ain’t working!

STO's are not meant to be DO's - they are meant to assist the STO and the XO (in their capcity as Training Officer) in providing specialist training and planning of ORT to enable the ships company to achiveve TPS/OPS and Bounty. They also must ensure personnel records are in order so that gains to the TS (which they must ensure personnel reach with specified time limits) can be determined and together with the DOs ensure that PTPs match specialisation tarining requirements as laid out in BR60A.

DO's, as you say, are responsible to the 1st Lt, and much greater emphasis is now being placed on divisional work and welfare of personnel. Part of the problem in the past has been the dropping of the requirement for annual reporting outside of promotion reports etc. Consequently, the only reports on file were from ORT, unless the individual was in zone. Annual reporting has now retuned so the situation should improve, especially as their is a big push to improve the quality of report writing and actively include DSRs.

STO's may act as senior DO's, but they're more like a HOD.
That is exactly my point. Why do we need separate roles? In the RN the DO has the training role, why should the RNR split the job. This only causes confusion among the JR’s. They see an officer in charge of their division and that’s all that matters, they don’t care if he is DO or STO. When I was a BTO JR’s would come to me with request forms to be signed etc. Did I turn them away and “wait until next week to see your DOâ€, of course not. The key is having a DO who turns up every week! The role we currently call STO is a major function of a traditional DO. We need one person the JR’s can focus on. BR1992 works for the RN why shouldn’t it work for the RNR?
 
GCYZ said:
PartTimer said:
GCYZ said:
I Know, lets rename STO's, DO's. They could be responsible for Discipline, welfare, training etc. We could write a book and call it "The Divisional Officers Handbook" and give it the BR number 1992. (tongue firmly in cheek)

To me the rot set in when we introduced BTO's and tried to introduce a system out of step with the RN. In Some units, ratings had BTO's and DO’s, so the whole thing became confused and we have never recovered. Perhaps it stems from having clear line of responsibility from TPO/UTO(S) on the training side and 1st Lt on the divisional side. What ever the reasoning was or is, it ain’t working!

STO's are not meant to be DO's - they are meant to assist the STO and the XO (in their capcity as Training Officer) in providing specialist training and planning of ORT to enable the ships company to achiveve TPS/OPS and Bounty. They also must ensure personnel records are in order so that gains to the TS (which they must ensure personnel reach with specified time limits) can be determined and together with the DOs ensure that PTPs match specialisation tarining requirements as laid out in BR60A.

DO's, as you say, are responsible to the 1st Lt, and much greater emphasis is now being placed on divisional work and welfare of personnel. Part of the problem in the past has been the dropping of the requirement for annual reporting outside of promotion reports etc. Consequently, the only reports on file were from ORT, unless the individual was in zone. Annual reporting has now retuned so the situation should improve, especially as their is a big push to improve the quality of report writing and actively include DSRs.

STO's may act as senior DO's, but they're more like a HOD.
That is exactly my point. Why do we need separate roles? In the RN the DO has the training role, why should the RNR split the job. This only causes confusion among the JR’s. They see an officer in charge of their division and that’s all that matters, they don’t care if he is DO or STO. When I was a BTO JR’s would come to me with request forms to be signed etc. Did I turn them away and “wait until next week to see your DOâ€, of course not. The key is having a DO who turns up every week! The role we currently call STO is a major function of a traditional DO. We need one person the JR’s can focus on. BR1992 works for the RN why shouldn’t it work for the RNR?

OK, DO's in regular training establishments (for this is what we must compare an RU too, depite the name change from RTC), do perform the role of STO (scheduling training etc), but this is there full time job. DO stuff is done around the day job. In the Reserves we just don't have the time to do this, hence what is a split in responsibility - a sensible split imo.

I agree the DO's need to turn up regularly, but this is also where the DSR's role comes in. I don't agree we need on person as a focus - that means one person does all the jobs and juniors don't get any experience! My RU is actually looking at Divisions of only 4 or 5, both to ensure quality pf reporting and to give SR's divisional experience.
 
PartTimer said:
OK, DO's in regular training establishments (for this is what we must compare an RU too, depite the name change from RTC), do perform the role of STO (scheduling training etc), but this is there full time job. DO stuff is done around the day job. In the Reserves we just don't have the time to do this, hence what is a split in responsibility - a sensible split imo.

I agree the DO's need to turn up regularly, but this is also where the DSR's role comes in. I don't agree we need on person as a focus - that means one person does all the jobs and juniors don't get any experience! My RU is actually looking at Divisions of only 4 or 5, both to ensure quality pf reporting and to give SR's divisional experience.

In my unit (stand by for potential beadwindow) there is a PSI assigned to each Specialisation. RNR 16's are passed through the PSI for approval (Including Officers, but we'll not go there). The PSI amends the PTP to show training has taken place etc, contacts the individual if there are any problems etc. This frees up the STO to be a DO. Since we introduced this system it has worked very well. Don't know if this is unique to us or common to other RU's. Agree in principal with small divisions (after all that is how the term came about) but unfortunately the regular attendee with shoulder the burden. The role of giving Juniors experience is very much determined by how we task ADO's, and that is another point for dicussion.
 
GCYZ said:
PartTimer said:
OK, DO's in regular training establishments (for this is what we must compare an RU too, depite the name change from RTC), do perform the role of STO (scheduling training etc), but this is there full time job. DO stuff is done around the day job. In the Reserves we just don't have the time to do this, hence what is a split in responsibility - a sensible split imo.

I agree the DO's need to turn up regularly, but this is also where the DSR's role comes in. I don't agree we need on person as a focus - that means one person does all the jobs and juniors don't get any experience! My RU is actually looking at Divisions of only 4 or 5, both to ensure quality pf reporting and to give SR's divisional experience.

In my unit (stand by for potential beadwindow) there is a PSI assigned to each Specialisation. RNR 16's are passed through the PSI for approval (Including Officers, but we'll not go there). The PSI amends the PTP to show training has taken place etc, contacts the individual if there are any problems etc. This frees up the STO to be a DO. Since we introduced this system it has worked very well. Don't know if this is unique to us or common to other RU's. Agree in principal with small divisions (after all that is how the term came about) but unfortunately the regular attendee with shoulder the burden. The role of giving Juniors experience is very much determined by how we task ADO's, and that is another point for dicussion.

Same in our RU (same one?!?!), but the STO is responsible for an awful lot more. A good PSI will make the STO's life a lot easier for the day to day stuff like booking courses and handling updates of PTP's, but it is the STO that has to deal with formulating the training programme and generating the PTP's.

As an aside, the PSI will only clear the RNR16 throught the SM for budgetary purposes (as far as I'm aware).
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top