Re: SOPs was; Re: [OT]Nukes... tunnels.... boom....

--- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:

> That is not a fair comment to make regarding SOPs,

> 'Standard Operating Procedures' (SOPs) are there to
> provide a common way of 
> doing things which puts everybody on the same page [
> hence the 
> standardization ;) ], SOPs are normally the result
> of experience

Well, hell just froze over.  I have to agree with
Derek.	SOPs in the US Army cover a lot of things that
HAVE to work with 100% fluidity.  Especially in the
Engineer side of things.  For instance, if we marked
the lefthand side of a breach lane the first time we
did it, and the righthand side of the lane the second
time we did it, we'd end up killing a LOT of tankers. 
Most of our written SOPs cover basics like lane
marking, communications procedures, maintinence
procedures, logistics packages, and obstacle planning,
plus a lot of idiot cards and checklists.  Some of
these things are done differently than, say, my old
unit in Germany did things.  But rather than the minor
details of how things are done, what is important is
that everyone is doing them the same way in our unit.

> BUT this doesn't mean that SOPs are static, at the
> end of a operation (say 
> a fighting patrol) the question should be always
> asked "OK, this is what we 
> did, what can we do to improve on this?". Ideally
> this process starts with 
> the soldiers (during a post patrol de-brief) and
> travels up the chain of 
> command [feedback ;)].

We call it an AAR (After Action Review).  It's become
a ritual in the US Army to the point that it's
frequently too stylized to matter, but it's a serious
failing to not hold one after every mission.  On
occasion something significant actually does come up
in one.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage