Ray,
I read your post with interest, since I have been the Master of Ceremonies at a an average of four ceremonies each quarter at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for the last 22 months and attended an average of four more each quarter. Each of these ceremonies ended with a very enthusiastic singing of The Army Song by all (or almost all) in attendance. As the MC, it was been very heartening to see the degree of participation, and a relief at the end of the ceremony to expand the pent-up energy by singing myself. I was really quite pleased to see this tradition when I first arrived. I had first experienced the mass singing of The Army Song while stationed at Fort Drum, NY, from 2003 to 2005. All ceremonies conducted by the 10th Mountain Division (LI) ended with the singing of the Division Song and The Army Song. I did not know the Division Song (I was assigned to the Medical Department Activity) very well and so could not sing it very well. I did notice that the volume did pick up when the ceremony moved to The Army Song, since most people in attendance knew it.
At Walter Reed, we included the lyrics in the program for each ceremony that had a program (most did), so more people could participate by reading along.
I agree with your contention that all Soldiers and Army civil servants should learn The Army Song and participate in its public singing whenever possible. I would not want the Army to change to another Song, since we would simply be returning to a condition in which few people would know the Song and therefore could not sing along. Isn't The Army Song itself less than 20 years old? I don't remember being exposed to it at all when I was enlisted during the 1980s and early 90s. If we are still in the first generation of its existence, perhaps we just need more time to pass.
Again, thanks for starting this discussion.
Major Michael D. Dake
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The Army Song
A few days ago, I attended a mass retirement ceremony at Fort Myer, Virginia. It was held outdoors with The Old Guard marching on the parade field. The Old Guard was impressive and the attendees seemed to enjoy the ceremony.
At the end of the ceremony, the band played the Army Song: "The Army Goes Rolling Along." The Army Song is normally played at the conclusion of U.S. Army ceremonies. It is an Army custom that Soldiers stand at attention and sing the lyrics of the Army Song.
I started singing the Army Song, but my wife noticed that I was the only person who was singing in our vicinity. I was surprised that no one else, especially other Soldiers, were singing along.
I have also noticed at most other Army ceremonies that I have attended, there hasn't been great enthusiasm in singing the Army Song. Either people don't know the words to the song and just stand at attention or they sing along but not loudly enough to show some spirit. I'm not sure if it's like this throughout the Army, but I've served in tactical units and up to the Army Staff, and most of the time, I've haven't seen or heard enthusiasm in singing the Army Song.
Singing one's Service song is a way to express pride in one's Service. The Marines sing their Service song, the Marine Hymn, with great pride and exhilaration and they know the lyrics by heart.
I realize that this is a relatively insignificant issue to raise, especially when the Army is concerned about much greater issues. However, when the Army Song is played before national leaders and foreign dignitaries, not to mention along with other Service songs, the accompanying singing should reflect the pride of the Army.
Soldiers and Army Civilians should learn the Army Song (at least the first verse and the refrain) and sing it with pride and spirit when it's played. Or, the Army should replace it with another song that Soldiers and Army Civilians can truly sing with pride and spirit.
Major Ray Ceralde
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
At the end of the ceremony, the band played the Army Song: "The Army Goes Rolling Along." The Army Song is normally played at the conclusion of U.S. Army ceremonies. It is an Army custom that Soldiers stand at attention and sing the lyrics of the Army Song.
I started singing the Army Song, but my wife noticed that I was the only person who was singing in our vicinity. I was surprised that no one else, especially other Soldiers, were singing along.
I have also noticed at most other Army ceremonies that I have attended, there hasn't been great enthusiasm in singing the Army Song. Either people don't know the words to the song and just stand at attention or they sing along but not loudly enough to show some spirit. I'm not sure if it's like this throughout the Army, but I've served in tactical units and up to the Army Staff, and most of the time, I've haven't seen or heard enthusiasm in singing the Army Song.
Singing one's Service song is a way to express pride in one's Service. The Marines sing their Service song, the Marine Hymn, with great pride and exhilaration and they know the lyrics by heart.
I realize that this is a relatively insignificant issue to raise, especially when the Army is concerned about much greater issues. However, when the Army Song is played before national leaders and foreign dignitaries, not to mention along with other Service songs, the accompanying singing should reflect the pride of the Army.
Soldiers and Army Civilians should learn the Army Song (at least the first verse and the refrain) and sing it with pride and spirit when it's played. Or, the Army should replace it with another song that Soldiers and Army Civilians can truly sing with pride and spirit.
Major Ray Ceralde
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Measuring Productivity and Efficiency
All,
I am curious to what extent the rest of the Army is linking efficiency and productivity measures to unit funding.
About three years ago (around 2005/2006), the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) introduced PBAM (Productivity Based Adjustment Model) in an effort to link resources to outcomes. PBAM is actually a very complex, multi-component model, but in the interest of brevity and simplicity, this blog entry will only address the productivity and efficiency components. These components:
1) compare productivity against previous reporting periods,
2) compare efficiency against industry or command accepted and published standards,
3) financially reward or penalize health care facilities for their status compared to a base period.
Recurring reports are based on a rolling 12-month period, published monthly and compare the most current 12-month period against a 12-month base period. The defined base period is refreshed every fiscal year. Financial adjustments are cumulated and made three to four times a year.
For the pure productivity component of the model, each patient encounter is converted to an industry-accepted measure of work that is weighted to account for different levels of resource requirements. In an inpatient setting, these measures of work are referred to as RWPs or Relative Weighted Products, and in the outpatient setting, they are referred to as RVUs or Relative Value Units. If a facility’s aggregate productivity falls below the baseline, a negative adjustment is imposed. If productivity is above the baseline, the facility receives a positive adjustment.
The efficiency component compares a business unit’s productivity per provider per day against industry accepted and published standards. If the business unit’s efficiency falls below the benchmark, a penalty is imposed. When efficiency is above the benchmark, the facility receives a positive financial adjustment.
This is a very summary explanation of PBAM as a catalyst for further discussion. If so inclined, I am interested in reading how other Army departments are linking business unit productivity to resources in an effort to be better stewards of the tax dollar.
Thanks!
Burke
Major Burke Bristow
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
I am curious to what extent the rest of the Army is linking efficiency and productivity measures to unit funding.
About three years ago (around 2005/2006), the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) introduced PBAM (Productivity Based Adjustment Model) in an effort to link resources to outcomes. PBAM is actually a very complex, multi-component model, but in the interest of brevity and simplicity, this blog entry will only address the productivity and efficiency components. These components:
1) compare productivity against previous reporting periods,
2) compare efficiency against industry or command accepted and published standards,
3) financially reward or penalize health care facilities for their status compared to a base period.
Recurring reports are based on a rolling 12-month period, published monthly and compare the most current 12-month period against a 12-month base period. The defined base period is refreshed every fiscal year. Financial adjustments are cumulated and made three to four times a year.
For the pure productivity component of the model, each patient encounter is converted to an industry-accepted measure of work that is weighted to account for different levels of resource requirements. In an inpatient setting, these measures of work are referred to as RWPs or Relative Weighted Products, and in the outpatient setting, they are referred to as RVUs or Relative Value Units. If a facility’s aggregate productivity falls below the baseline, a negative adjustment is imposed. If productivity is above the baseline, the facility receives a positive adjustment.
The efficiency component compares a business unit’s productivity per provider per day against industry accepted and published standards. If the business unit’s efficiency falls below the benchmark, a penalty is imposed. When efficiency is above the benchmark, the facility receives a positive financial adjustment.
This is a very summary explanation of PBAM as a catalyst for further discussion. If so inclined, I am interested in reading how other Army departments are linking business unit productivity to resources in an effort to be better stewards of the tax dollar.
Thanks!
Burke
Major Burke Bristow
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ILE Class 09-002 BLOG
Hello fellow SG 29B Bloggers,
This is our class Blog site where those of you who have not found a blog site to suit you may contribute your thoughts and ideas. Please be mindful of the CGSC rules on blogging when submitting your post. If you have questions concerning this assignment, please feel free to ask me.
MAJ Marla Seeman
This is our class Blog site where those of you who have not found a blog site to suit you may contribute your thoughts and ideas. Please be mindful of the CGSC rules on blogging when submitting your post. If you have questions concerning this assignment, please feel free to ask me.
MAJ Marla Seeman
Friday, January 16, 2009
Welcome Class 29B
Look forward to working together with class 001-09 for the next 15 weeks. I appreciate everyones leadership and participation in the staff group duty positions. Please see the following 2 items which are open for discussion:
ITEM #1
A few of you have mentioned that you are interested in coordinating the reading assignments. One option is to assign each reading to volunteers who will read the passage carefully (in detail) and report back to the group with an outline of the reading in a word document. We need to establish rules such as:
1. Participation encouraged and is established up front so that assignments can be made.
2. Outline is due at least the day before (24 hours before due date). For example, if the reading is for a class on Wed, then summary must be available on Tuesday. One option is to use the class established 3 groups to divide up the readings.
ITEM #2
Some people have expressed having a class quiet time early in the morning for student reading time. Is there any opposition to having class room quiet time until 0745?
I look forward to your comments.
v/r,
LTC Margaret Yacovone
Student Saff Group Leader
CGSS, ILE Group SG 29B
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
ITEM #1
A few of you have mentioned that you are interested in coordinating the reading assignments. One option is to assign each reading to volunteers who will read the passage carefully (in detail) and report back to the group with an outline of the reading in a word document. We need to establish rules such as:
1. Participation encouraged and is established up front so that assignments can be made.
2. Outline is due at least the day before (24 hours before due date). For example, if the reading is for a class on Wed, then summary must be available on Tuesday. One option is to use the class established 3 groups to divide up the readings.
ITEM #2
Some people have expressed having a class quiet time early in the morning for student reading time. Is there any opposition to having class room quiet time until 0745?
I look forward to your comments.
v/r,
LTC Margaret Yacovone
Student Saff Group Leader
CGSS, ILE Group SG 29B
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Welcome to our BLOG Site
All,
Welcome to the official Blog site for Staff Group 29B. We are a group of professional military officers attending Intermediate Level Education (ILE) at Fort Belvoir, VA. We will use this site to share our thoughts and ideas. We welcome your comments. Comments posted on Staff Group 29B's Blogsite are moderated and will be approved only if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Thank you,
Mike Mismash
MAJ, EN
ILE, Ft. Belvoir, Class 29B
"The views expressed in this blog are those of that particular author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government".
Welcome to the official Blog site for Staff Group 29B. We are a group of professional military officers attending Intermediate Level Education (ILE) at Fort Belvoir, VA. We will use this site to share our thoughts and ideas. We welcome your comments. Comments posted on Staff Group 29B's Blogsite are moderated and will be approved only if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Thank you,
Mike Mismash
MAJ, EN
ILE, Ft. Belvoir, Class 29B
"The views expressed in this blog are those of that particular author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government".
All,
Welcome to the official Blog site for Staff Group 29B. We are a group of professional military officers attending Intermediate Level Education (ILE) at Fort Belvoir, VA. We will use this site to share our thoughts and ideas. We welcome your comments. Comments posted on Staff Group 29B's Blogsite are moderated and will be approved only if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Thank you,
Mike Mismash
MAJ, EN
ILE, Ft. Belvoir, Class 29B
"The views expressed in this blog are those of that particular author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government".
Welcome to the official Blog site for Staff Group 29B. We are a group of professional military officers attending Intermediate Level Education (ILE) at Fort Belvoir, VA. We will use this site to share our thoughts and ideas. We welcome your comments. Comments posted on Staff Group 29B's Blogsite are moderated and will be approved only if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Thank you,
Mike Mismash
MAJ, EN
ILE, Ft. Belvoir, Class 29B
"The views expressed in this blog are those of that particular author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
