Posted by Vice Admiral Krystelle Knight (Engineering DIrector / Acting Chief EGO) in Reorganising the Fleets

Posted by Vice Admiral Jack D (President) in Reorganising the Fleets

Posted by Vice Admiral Krystelle Knight (Engineering DIrector / Acting Chief EGO) in Reorganising the Fleets
Posted by… suppressed (14) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Hi all,

Over the past two terms, I’ve been mulling over the current fleet structure. It’s clear, as I said prior to last term, that there are too many government posts in the club - we simply cannot fill them. This has been evident with some FComms not filling their AFComm posts, which causes problems later down the line when the FComm takes an LOA or has RL to contend with. Another example is the lack of FComm candidates - during last term, we only had 4 people apply for 4 FComm roles; this term it was 5.

The result of that is an increase in involvement from the President in the management of fleets. As you saw in my last post, I have had to intervene with 3 ships to improve their health, and I will be intervening with another later this week.

In short, the current fleet structure, designed in the 1990s, is not working 30 years later. But we shouldn’t be surprised by that - the club’s size and demographic has changed over that time. But it means we do need to review how we are structured, especially if we want to maximise the opportunities that will come with the new Academy series and Voyager game.

One of the ideas that has been suggested is centralising the FComm responsibilities into a single team. Whilst there would be fleets (which are a useful tool for fleet identity, and also making the site more navigable) the concept would be to have a single team who provide the FComm function across all fleets, chaired/lead by a nominated individual. This would allow the team to support each other if RL kicked in, or if a particular fleet had multiple ships that needed support. Similar in a way to the boards, but with perhaps different selection criteria.

Before we go down that rabbit hole, I just wanted to see if anyone else had any other ideas for how the fleets could be restructured.

Yours,

Jack

So a team as in how many people? There are 17 ships, still way too many with our current population. So as not to overwhelm people you still need at least 3-4 people for the FComm team.

Krys

Hey Krys,

Yes, I was thinking about the same number… which would mean reducing the fleet staff in total by 50% (given that we have 4 fleets which should each have an FComm and AFComm).

In terms of ship numbers, I do agree we need to bring down the numbers. The challenge I’m finding is that most seem to be soldiering on, with little appetite from ships individually to be decommissioned. But that’s possibly a separate discussion.

Jack

Ok,

In the interest in keeping this thread alive, let’s assume that a single “fleet command group” is a possible alternative to the current construct. In terms of how it could work, I would suggest something along the lines of:

Responsibilities - Same as responsibilities laid out in FCOMM. There may be the option to delegate further responsibilities in the future, but I’m not sure which ones at this time.

Structure - Given that we’ve previously run fleets of six ships with two staff, and FComms as currently running fleets of 3-4 ships with no AFComm, it seems to make sense that there should be a member of fleet staff for every 3 ships. So, at the moment, somewhere between 5-6 members of the group. I would imagine a lead being nominated by the President, who would then identify additional members for approval by the President (similar to AFComm selection). Each one would be responsible for three ships, with the ability to cover off other ships if required for LOA/AWOL purposes. In a way, this is almost like having one FComm and several AFComms to look after the ships - in a more centralised manner.

IMO, this lead position would be a good fit for VP.

I did wonder whether we should dedicate a space for the most senior CO who wants to be part of the group, to provide some historical views, but remove any requirements for the other roles. Any thoughts would be welcome.

Ultimately, this would break the link between fleets and fleet staff - which has both pros and cons. The main benefit I see from this, aside from reducing the number of fleet staff, is improving collaboration between them when dealing with issues across the fleets. It also means if an FComm is away, there is a good network to pick up the reins until they get back.

I’d welcome any thoughts.

Jack

When talking about the fleets, are we only talking about Foremost, Pioneer, Meridan, and Black? Or are we including the Academy in with this as well? My impression is Academy separate? Please, absolutely correct me if I’m wrong. I’ll base my information on just the 4 fleets combined.

I’m unsure about this at the moment - for the time being, lets not include the Academy and keep it separate.

As things stand this year, we’ve seen fleet reports submitted every now and then. I think that’s what we’re trying to address, yes?

Number of Fleet Reports submitted per month (excluding Academy):
January: 1
February: 1
March: 2
April: 2
May: 1
June: 0
July: 2
August: 1

If we centralize all ships into one fleet, making 5-6 people as active FComms, we might get the fleet report done. But for those few who can actually submit the work, they will end up doing a lot more work than as it currently stands. Even if that person(s) changes each month, we would still be putting a large chunk of work potentially on a select few individuals. Its a pretty healthy smattering of not knowing which ones will get done. (And I’m not trying to harp or anything on RL issues.) RL Issues do come up and it seems to me that the club is suffering as a whole. On average, we would likely still only see 1 to 2 people handling the bulk of the ships.

But maybe I’m wrong? I’d be happy to be proven otherwise. Open to thoughts as well! :)

-Tony

Hey Tony - thanks for the input!

This is more broader than fixing fleet reports. At the moment, we have 4 FComms and only one AFComm (who has been acting FComm for the last month)… we have no resilience in the fleet staff, nor do we have a way of sharing best practice or for fleet staff to easily ask for help if RL does come up.

This wouldn’t actually reduce the fleet staff to any less than we currently have - and provides a way to balance work across a larger team. So it shouldn’t increase the workload when it comes to reports - if anything, it sets a realistic number of ships for someone to be accountable for (3 ships… which is less than the 6 FComms used to do).

Yours,

Jack

It sounds like it could be a solid idea. Having enough fleet commanders to handle a small group of ships would be beneficial!

My only concern is that, from what I can tell, each month we seem to have several FComms either LOA or AWOL. And it seems to change every month at that.

Let’s say we have 6 fcomms for this bigger fleet. Let’s say 4 of them are either LOA/AWOL. From the sounds of it, the remaining 2 would likely divey up the ships of those respective commanders for that month between the two of them. And if that’s the case, instead of 3 ships, they could be responsible for 9 instead for that month.

I don’t have any issue with the idea if it were to function in its ideal state. But if we have consistent absences across the board due to RL, I wonder if it will overwork those who are consistently around? Does that make sense?

If you want, you can send me a DM on discord if I’m not making sense. :)

-Tony

Hey Jack,

I think having a FCAPT/COMO slot each term as an “advisor” or “aide” to the Fleet Command Team would be a good idea. This “Flag Advisor” could be appointed by the incoming FCOMM and approved by the Pres as a go between and general all around support for the team. Lets say a FCOMM Team has five members (Fleet Commander, Assistant Fleet Commanders x3, and a Fleet Advisor or Flag Captain).

Thoughts,
Condor

I think this may be quite doable, my only concern is the number of ships we currently have and if, as Tony brought up, that 2 or 3 at a time are AWOL or absent. It will still leave a ton of work for the remaining ones with 17 ships. I mean at least with individual Fleets it’s only 3-4 ships. If we cut back to 11-12 ships then it’s not quite as much of a burden if some individuals are not available.

Krystelle

My question with this would be… do we then even have “fleets,” so much as “a fleet”? A single Fleet Commander with multiple… Fleet Liaisons. Would we even need - or want - to distinguish fleets at that point?

The changes to be made behind the scenes could depend on the answer to that question. Either option is feasible, fwiw (likely each in a couple of different ways), and the option to return to the old structure would still be available regardless of the direction chosen.

Nathan
TECH Lead

I understand the point about some of the fleet staff being on LOA or AWOL - we do get some of that now. However, that tends to mean that a fleet gets neglected at the moment. What I think this new model achieves is a way to a) provide some support to those ships if one of the staff goes AWOL and b) a way to identify quickly if more support is required.

I do like the idea of having an ‘advisor’ type role - I’ve actually considered whether we should have a space on the team for the longest serving CO who volunteers for the job. That would provide some capacity should someone go AWOL.

I’m also keen not to impose ‘hard’ limits on the number of people in the team, rather provide guidance on the number that there ought to be based on the number of ships. That allows the team lead to appoint additional people if there are some longer-term LOAs in the team.

On the subject of whether we have ‘fleets’ verses a ‘megafleet’ - I think they do provide some good IC context to the ship, but I am keen to make it clearer to visitors what RP areas we have - I don’t think the current drop down menus really allow for that; but perhaps that’s another discussion.

Jack

Hmm you mean organizing them in like an Alt era Fleet, TNG, Abrams,etc. That kind of idea? I like that concept.

Krys

I like this idea a lot. I do appreciate and understand the AFComm position as a learning position, but it does cause a problem when the FComm is away. Because then we are left with someone who perhaps does not have the experience needed to address tough situations, so it then falls to the President or the VP to step in. This team would be the best of both worlds. It would allow for us to keep training new people in how to manage the fleets, but it also has an experienced person as backup in case there is a long term AWOL or LOA.

I do like the idea of a recommended ratio being put into the bylaw for the team. This give a lot of flexibility to the bylaw for if the club grows or contracts, so we aren’t having this discussion again in say 5 years. It also allows the team lead some flexibility if there are a couple of really interested newcomers. They can add them to the team, without being limited in the number of “experienced” members.

Steve

Thanks all for your inputs - that’s been a really useful discussion. I think we’ve now got broad consensus that replacing the current fleet structure with a centralised team is the right direction of travel — one that gives us greater resilience, flexibility, and support across the club.

I’d now like to firm up the structure and terminology for this new model so we can update FCOMM. Aspirationally I’d like to get this in place before the start of next term.

Whilst we agreed that we would bring it together under a single individual (it was suggested the VP), I am keen to make sure it’s collaborative, both up and down the chain but also across the different groupings of ships. To that end, I’m keen that we end up with a ‘team’ rather than a single individual with deputies/assistants, and that should be reflective in the name. One of the names I’ve been toying with is ‘Fleet Command Council’.

The Council would be lead by a Council Chair, and have Fleet Command Officers who could effectively do the role of FComm for the ships they are assigned. These would be appointed by the Council Chair, in consultation with the Council and with the approval of the President.

We also discussed having some assistants who could support the Council as well as receive mentoring in the roles; a suitable term could be Fleet Command Assistants.

And finally we had the idea of the longest serving CO who volunteers filling a ‘council senior advisor’ role to, well, provide advice.

I’d welcome thoughts on the above. I know we also discussed how we would list ships on the site, but that’s a discussion we can have following this.

Jack

I like Fleet Command Council, Council makes it sound like a team, as you say, not just one person running it. Council Chair would reflect this, but I am not so sure about Fleet Command Assistants, as it makes the Chair sound like the top dog again. How about just Council Members? That sounds more like a team. Question, is this CO who would be a Council Senior Advisor different than the Chair?

Krystelle

Oh, good idea with the Council Members. And yes, the CO who is the Senior Advisor should be different to the Chair (perhaps we need to set that out as a requirement).

Jack

Okay so how bout Senior Council Member for him?

Krys

I wanted to make a point of them being separate to the other members - almost like how the US military have senior enlisted advisor as someone who has the experience and credibility to highlight issues.

Jack