tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post1959850763218848475..comments2021-06-10T14:53:55.046-04:00Comments on Archived U.S. Fleet Forces Command Blog (2009-2012): DRRS-N UpdateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post-38897824611654345582011-07-19T15:51:27.462-04:002011-07-19T15:51:27.462-04:00Anonymous,
One of the key elements of the DRRS-N ...Anonymous,<br /><br />One of the key elements of the DRRS-N system is the utilization of the NRRE-BI tool. This interface capability allows for manipulation and display of DRRS-N data reported from the ship in a wide variety of formats and displays. Unfortunately, this function must be accessed through the DRRS-N ashore site (bandwidth limited at sea). Although bandwidth may be an issue, it is possible to set up automatic products (reports and displays) which could be sent to units or staffs in a PDF format or e-mail summary. <br /><br />If anyone needs assistance my team is standing by to assist. We can work with you to evaluate the products currently used, the desired output, and existing DRRS-N information. We can probably come up with a product that would satisfy your requirement (and those of up echelon leadership). If bandwidth is an issue we can help set up automatically generated product(s) so that logging into the BI tool would not be required. <br /><br />Hopefully, the utilization of this function can help to obviate the need for multiple reports to multiple organizations all using the exact same information.<br /><br />Looking forward to working with you,<br /><br />Skip Shaw<br />CAPT, USNCAPT Skip Shaw, USNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post-1324262563470460772011-07-15T10:12:55.619-04:002011-07-15T10:12:55.619-04:00Anonymous, thanks for your comment. We are in com...Anonymous, thanks for your comment. We are in complete, rpt complete, agreement that we need to identify and eliminate redundant reporting systems and requirements. Below I address some of the specific systems you mentioned that are related to DRRS-N, but I believe you identified a broader problem of the number of reporting requirements (operational AND administrative) we impose on our units. While many of these reports are required, I’m certain there are more than a few that are either unnecessary or are tasked directly to the unit when the TYCOMs / ISICs could and should be providing that information for them. <br /><br />Regarding the readiness reporting requirements: <br />Some of the requirements won’t go away, such as CASREPS that feed MFOM -- they are still required because our units use this information to report the status of equipment and my chain-of-command requires it. DRRS-N was not designed to replace systems like MFOM; rather, it was designed to pull the existing information from these systems into one place to provide executive-level summaries on unit readiness. <br /><br />Some requirements probably should go away, but we have to keep them around because they feed other organizations (outside the Navy). For example, the Joint Staff still requires the Services to report readiness into GSORTS because they use the information for Joint systems, such as JOPES and TPFDD. We’ve incorporated the SORTS report messages within DRRS-N (via OARS) in order to consolidate the process and create a common readiness picture. I’ll keep working to remove this additional reporting requirement.<br /><br />Finally, I believe some requirements are redundant and simply must go away. These redundancies include anything that requires information a unit has already reported via other methods – a unit should never be double-tapped for the same information! I suspect that many of the ISIC quad charts you mentioned fall directly into this category. If an ISIC or higher echelon has a specific, preferred way of seeing their readiness reports, they should be working directly with the DRRS-N team to meet their unique requirements.<br /><br />Thanks again for the comment. This blog and my Fleet visits are critical to making sure I better understand what is happening on the deck plates.<br />All the best, JCHjrADM J. C. Harvey, Jr USNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post-27560407745542294722011-07-14T10:54:32.458-04:002011-07-14T10:54:32.458-04:00Anonymous said...
Good Evening Admiral,
While att...Anonymous said... <br />Good Evening Admiral,<br />While attending a DRRS-S Operational employment course the opportunity to present the DRRS-N linkage to DRRS-S presented itself in the course while developing the DRRS Center of Excellence (DCE) for Europe. <br />Through the use of the Capability Trees “tool” we have linked directly UICs with missions assigned to the Navy commander in DRRS-S. <br />This Operational linkage has provided a level of excitement in the COCOM. If we can write the plans’ /annexes with the proper amount of detail (detailed planning) the circle will close the supporting supported loop for readiness reporting against aligned PRIMARS and the PESTOF. <br />Operational DRRS-N is the next greatest step. Moving the tool into the Numbered Fleet Commander realm will finish the growth cycle of the program from a TYCOM tool to an Operational tool and subsequently across the entire Navy.<br /><br />Fidelity in reporting is a must, assessment ratings have to go beyond the Power Point depth of button management and the copying and pasting of CASREPs.<br /><br />Have a great evening Sir<br /><br />V/R<br />MaseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post-68994395015524888542011-07-11T15:09:10.915-04:002011-07-11T15:09:10.915-04:00Sir,
I applaud this effort, but I have to ask the...Sir,<br /><br />I applaud this effort, but I have to ask the question of when are we going to remove other readiness reporting programs? By this I mean, we have DRRS-N, SORTS, TORIS/TFOM, Redlines, ISIC Quad charts, and various other specific programatics; NEURS, ATRs, etc. If DRRS-N is the means that you track surface ship readiness, why is it that subordinate commands still require different readiness reports? Would it not make sense to be a master of one reporting method than to be OK at many while expending countless man hours on duplicate efforts? <br /> <br />This goes back to ADM King's message to his commanders on staff generating orders/taskers to the fleet. Does that order/tasker make sense and is it necessary or already being done? <br /><br />Hopefully this initiative will continue forward and eliminate these redundancies.<br /><br />Thanks for listening.<br /><br />v/rAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-108340941503318870.post-57514706632141284812011-07-08T22:56:19.162-04:002011-07-08T22:56:19.162-04:00Sir,
Back in the day, 1990s, I remember reporting ...Sir,<br />Back in the day, 1990s, I remember reporting all sorts of readiness. The funny part was our NCEA did not cover what we needed for training. It is good to see the focus on the basics. It will be interesting to see if any reports come in as "Not Ready"...I doubt it, since over-inflating one's capability happens not because of fear of reporting something bad, but because we sometimes forget the true baseline. I know you understand because of your previous focus on amphibious operations; This is why FST training is so important, you can practice, rehearse, practice some more, then finally when underway really see if you past the test. Of course constructive criticism/feedback is needed at all watch stations for the training to be valuable. You need to add "bads" back....debrief format "goods", "bads", and "others" Thanks for listening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com