Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group
Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium
4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil))
24 September 1998
Cross-reference p. 4 of 63 of official printed copy of report
To achieve the aim, the Study Group first established the strategic context within which the Canadian Forces would operate in the 21st century. This in turn determines the demands placed on professional military officers in the execution of their duties and responsibilities. The context in question includes both the perception of the military officer held by Canadian society and the changing nature of the international system in which the government determines Canadian national security policy. The Canadian Forces officer must execute Canada's national policy. Therefore, how the government responds to the environment and the roles the government of the day might assign its military forces is crucial when determining how military officers should be educated and trained.
An extensive corpus of work, both Canadian and foreign, pertaining to the development of an effective professional military officer, was reviewed and informed the work of the Group throughout the study. This material includes such Canadian sources as the Rowley Report of 1969, The Report of the Ministerial Committee on the Canadian Military Colleges (1993) and the Officer Professional Development Review Board of 1995 (the Morton Report). In addition, the U.S. Congress' Skeleton Report on Military Education (1989), and other foreign sources were consulted. A complete list of the sources used during the Study is included at Annex C.
The Study Group sought to determine what relevant policy makers, executives, commanders, senior staff officers and educators thought about the current situation. That is, what was required of RMC, how this requirement was being met today, and what was necessary to improve the situation? Consequently, the Group set out to establish a clear impression of the "as is" state, and delineate the range of measures and options suitable to meet the stated objective. To facilitate the process, a list of questions to assist interviews was prepared and tailored to specific audiences; i.e. Flag/General Officers, operational commanders, senior faculty at RMC, ex-cadets and cadets themselves.
These questions addressed all four pillars at RMC. They were designed to find out what the "users" of the RMC product thought, compare this with what the "producers" of the product thought, and thereafter, assist in reconciling those areas where "producers" and "users" did not agree.
The questions focused on seven discrete, related aspects: Recruiting/Retention; Leadership; Academic Program; Professional Development/Military Ethos; Academic/Military Interface at RMC; CF/RMC Interface and, Language/Culture. This structure kept the interrelationships among issues and the mutually supporting dynamics between RMC and the CF at large, at the forefront of Study Group deliberations. The list of questions is at Annex D.
The results obtained through a series of initial interviews enabled us to develop useful hypotheses and guide further discussion with relevant authorities. Follow-on interviews were conducted both at RMC and in the wider CF community as necessary.
Over fifty interviews were conducted during the course of the Study. A full list is included at Annex E. Key individuals interviewed early in the process include: the Chief of the Defence Staff; the three Environmental Chiefs of Staff; the Commandant of RMC; the Principal of RMC; the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff; ADM(Per); ADM(Pol); the Chief of Research and Development and, the Deans of the various Departments at RMC. A large number of operational commanders were interviewed across Canada (Esquimalt, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Bagotville, Valcartier). Directing Staff at the Staff College in Toronto and Kingston were interviewed as well as several faculty members at RMC. A substantial number of post-graduate students and cadets were interviewed at RMC. Many of these interlocutors were graduates of RMC.
Finally, we invited written submissions from anyone at RMC and, indeed, the Forces at large. Many submissions were received and the concepts, ideas and suggestions contained in these submissions are reflected in this report.
Ongoing dialogue was maintained with individuals in key appointments at RMC and in the CF. Where required, individuals were formally interviewed a second time to confirm data, obtain additional feedback or achieve agreement with Study Group hypotheses.
Commander CFRETS played a significant role throughout our work. He was kept appropriately apprised of the Group's progress and we sought supplementary guidance when necessary.
The methodology used was both progressive and iterative. The first phase of work produced a comprehensive, detailed picture of the "as is" situation. This was then compared with the desired end-state determined by the Board's TORs. To remedy shortfalls and chart a course to the final objective, hypotheses were formulated, vetted and developed into a series of discrete recommendations. This process included a comparison among competing options. The emerging model was frequently checked to ensure its feasibility and internal coherence.
The Group was sensitive to the requirement to ensure high quality education and constantly compared proposals touching on academic issues with practices at respected universities across Canada. At the same time, it was recognised that RMC is a unique institution. It is the sole institution of higher education in the nation whose primary responsibility is to prepare cadets for career service as professional military officers. There was consequently an imperative to examine approaches utilised at institutions of the same "species". Therefore, where appropriate, we examined relevant practices at the United States Military Academy, West Point, U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and Royal Military College Sandhurst, UK as being similar institutions of our two closest allies.
The Study Group always remained mindful of the resource implications of its recommendations. In a period of personnel reductions and tight budgets "the best can be the enemy of the good". Nonetheless, the absolute requirement for high standards and quality results remain the guiding light. Whether RMC was a cost-effective solution to the CF requirement, or whether other methods such as increased recourse to Alternative Service Delivery (ASD) could be adopted were carefully examined. Resource implications are raised where appropriate throughout the report and are specifically addressed in Annex G.
The Group addressed the question of implementation once the final model was confirmed. With due regard for a need to allow those responsible to put appropriate structures and processes in place, we provide an outline implementation plan, suggest milestones and provide for ongoing monitoring. And, as it neared completion of its work, the Group made presentations to the Board of Governors and the Armed Forces Council.
Recommendations are made throughout the Report when they arise in the course of the discussion. A complete list of recommendations is at Annex H .