ISS1 2017

Reservist Magazine is the award-winning official publication of the United States Coast Guard Reserve. Quarterly issues include news and feature articles about the men and women who comprise America's premier national maritime safety and security

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 32 of 55

Component Force Planning Working Group (RCFPWG or Working Group). The RCFP system will be used by the RCFPWG to annually review and validate the prioritization of RC missions, requirements, and capabilities and then make recommendations relating to the appropriate distribution of RC resources (billets and people) in the Coast Guard's PAL. Key is that the RCFPWG is a permanent body designed to conduct an annual review. This allows for positive and ongoing improvement of the RC that aligns with other Coast Guard process improvement systems. i ntroduction of the rcfp WG A nd s yste M The Working Group is comprised of both Active Duty and Reserve members from all levels of the Coast Guard. The composition of the working group can be found in the VCG's charter. The Working Group includes both Force Planners (the HQ level people who develop high-level Coast Guard strategies and capabilities) as well as Force Managers (the people who carry out that strategy by managing the RC workforce). For example, the Headquarters shops located in the DCO construct such as CG-5P (prevention), CG-5R (response) and those located in CG-7 who own the Coast Guard's capabilities (e.g. CG-721- specialized capabilities, CG-731 – boat forces, and CG-741 – shore forces) are Force Planners. The Force Managers are the organizational elements in the field who are responsible for managing the RC; for example, LANT-1, PAC-1, DOL-1 and the Reserve Chiefs of Staff located at the Areas. The RCFP Working Group is designed to operate through an annual process that develops a continuous feedback loop whereby the planners determine Coast Guard requirements and provide the managers with yearly strategic priorities via the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD), The managers then implement those strategies and plans, and in the course of doing so, the managers tell the planners what is or is not working. In other words, they identify gaps in RC training or policy that are impeding RC members in their ability to carry out assigned missions, and then report those gaps up to the planners at HQ. The planners are then responsible for developing solutions to resolve the gap by, for example, implementing a policy change or seeking funds or courses to provide additional training opportunities. h o W is the A nnu A l feedb A ck loop used by the rcfp WG A nd s yste M supposed to W ork? The annual feedback loop is called the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management (SOPP/GFM) system. The feedback from the Force Managers to the Force Planners is delivered through existing mechanisms such as the OPAR (Operational Performance Assessment Reports), Annual Field Planning Assessments (FPAs), and other data analysis relating to the use of funds, reserve orders, and metrics relating to competencies, most notably Individual Training Plans (ITPs) and FORMS (Funding, Orders and Requirements Management System). In some instances, an existing reporting mechanism is inadequate to report the gap. In every case, the Reserve Force Readiness System (RFRS) and the Gold and Silver Badge networks are a crucial element in the effective management of the RC and reporting what is and is not working out in the field. Currently, the Office of Reserve Affairs is updating the RFRS instruction to better explain how the RFRS System relates to the RCFP System. In general terms, however, close cooperation and communication between all elements in the RFRS System is critical to the success of the RCFP System and, more generally, the RC. This is because the information received by the Force Planners and senior Force Managers from the RFRS System, in addition to analysis of the data described above, will inform and guide the recommendations on RC employment made by the RCFP Working Group to the Executive Steering Group (Senior Level managers of the RCFPWG) and then, ultimately, to the Global Force Management Board (the executive level planning group comprised of senior decision makers within the SOPP/ GFM process). Once the process is complete, yearly guidance will be issued to the Reserve Component in the SPD which will then used by Area and District planners to provide more tactical guidance throughout the field. Once the guidance is issued, the cycle begins again as Force Managers report successes and gaps up through the various reporting mechanisms to be reviewed by the RCFPWG for consideration and resolution strategies. To illustrate how the process should work, consider a member who is assigned an ICS competency on the PAL at a Sector but who is declined entry into an ICS class because she is priority 4. Such a situation creates a training gap (RC assignment priority level) that must be addressed. If other RC members are also declined entry into ICS classes indicating more than a problem with just this single member, then there may be a training gap that effects the entire RC and one that should be reported up to CGHQ through the RFRS. If RFRS is working correctly, the RFRS staff and/or the Senior Reserve Officer at the Sector will report the concern up to the District DXR staff. The Issue 1 • 2017 � RESERVIST 31

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Reservist - ISS1 2017