Is the Command Inspection Program outdated?

2014-10-14T14:38:00-04:00

Annually divisions spend millions to fund a week of CIP inspections that assess a units readiness based on a semi-annually created checklist. Is this a good assessment of a unit or is the process outdated?

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made Oct 14 at 2014 3:03 PM

2014-10-14T15:03:13-04:00

I think it's pretty outdated and bet this will get relooked in the coming years when we go back to being a garrison Army. I don't know that they'll throw it out (probably not), but I don't think the program is necessarily a good assessment of a unit. Rather, it's a good assessment of how a unit can conform to a checklist and make sure they prepare for what higher headquarters is looking for.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Oct 14 at 2014 3:20 PM

2014-10-14T15:20:29-04:00

Sir, I think that parts of the CIP are outdated; specifically some of the checklists used for the MICP in the back of most of the ARs. And to be quite frank, some of those ARs are also out dated. With that being said, ICIs are important because they give an incoming CDR a snapshot of where their unit stands on readiness as defined by the Army. Based on those results, CDRs can adjust fire on how they are going to train and allocate resources in order to bring up those areas that may be lacking. SCIs are designed to show the CDR if those processes he/she have implemented are working. Then there are the SAVs which are designed to spot check areas and provide immediate feedback to either "fix on the spot" or identify external resources required to fix a problem area. So the CIP does serve a purpose, but it is not an all encompassing tool to determine readiness and some of the checklists are outdated.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 7:09 PM

2014-10-14T19:09:22-04:00

Millions? Where are you getting that number? I would disagree that the process is outdated. Checklists, maybe, but a good OIP coordinator ensures inspectors are maintaining relevant checklists. I guess the question begs, What is the alternative?

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 15 at 2014 4:58 PM

2014-10-15T16:58:26-04:00

As much of a pain such inspections are, it is always good to get another perspective on how you are doing in relationship to the requirements and as compared with other units.

As someone else already mentioned, a soldier is only concerned about what the commander looks at... the same holds true for a unit. It causes units to take a look at things that they may otherwise not look at.

Interestingly, I have found that similar programs exist in the civilian/commercial world, as well... often to a higher degree.

If the inspection program is well run and well intended, it is worthwhile. If it simply a "gotcha" game, it is not helpful.

Response by LTC Stewart Stephenson made Oct 15 at 2014 6:21 PM

2014-10-15T18:21:57-04:00

If it is implemented in a timely manner and with the right mindset, the CIP is a VERY valuable tool.

Looking back, my first year of command could have been much easier with a solid ICI. As we all know, the Army has rules for EVERYTHING (and those rules change - ALARACT messages, policy changes, TM updates, etc.). A new commander generally has neither the time nor the expertise to delve into every single aspect of the command in the first few months and, depending on the type of unit, maybe not during the entire command tour.

Think of it this way: the Army mandates an initial command inspection within the first 90 days of command (for AC units, RC units get a bit more time) and prohibits using the results to evaluate the commander's performance. In short, it's a low-threat event but a solid early warning for the incoming commander of any weak areas and an opportunity for the commander to focus on those areas. Properly executed, it's a great teach and train opportunity. Honestly, it should help him/her write an OER support form - fix what's broken and sustain/improve what's not.

The subsequent inspections are a different story. If identified systemic deficiencies were not corrected, NOW we have an issue. Likewise, if a solid program went downhill, somebody has some explaining to do.

Personally, I think the use of published checklists is wrong-spirited and defeats the purpose. The inspected unit already has a checklist -- the AR. Publishing a checklist and limiting the inspection to that checklist deprives the unit of a thorough external assessment and risks the inspection becoming nothing more than a check-the-block training distraction. As COL Burleson pointed out, a soldier is only concerned about what the commander looks at. The same goes for an inspection team.

The inspectors should be the experts in their respective fields, but should also be on the lookout for best practices to share across the parent organization. If the parent battalion lacks an expert, go higher and request assistance from Brigade, etc.

In the end, the program is for the betterment of the unit and the Army. A commander who knows organizational vulnerabilities can focus energies on those areas and concurrently spend more energy on moving the unit forward.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 6:20 PM

2014-10-19T18:20:27-04:00

Using the checklist that we are given is not worth the website it was put on. You have to cut and paste the ones that actually apply. Why inspect a battalion on a division or brigade level task? Also, the list does not always have items that need to be on the list as there are newer tasks that need to be reviewed or new systems.

Response by SGT Christopher Davis made Oct 19 at 2014 10:26 PM

2014-10-19T22:26:38-04:00

Most units will do what is necessary to pass the inspection and I'm sure we all know this!!!!