Landworthiness is a proactive capability assurance system for the Land Domain and first entered the Army’s language around 4-5 years ago. Generated in response to the need for a common methodology to examine and assure Land based capabilities, Landworthiness, at its core, provides a snapshot of Land capability performance.
Discussing capability in the Defence context, it is important to understand we talk about far more than a piece of equipment we issue to a soldier. A rifle is not a capability by itself, a soldier trained in the use of the rifle is a stepping-stone to realising a capability, but again not a complete capability in itself. A team of soldiers, each an expert in the use of the rifle and ancillaries, routinely training as a team, is the capability. This capability is part of how Army gets its job done. Our Land capabilities all rely on teams of appropriately trained and experienced soldiers to generate the right effect at the right time. A battery of 155mm guns, a tank squadron and a bulk refuelling capability all need synchronised effort and physical systems to make them work. These capabilities are then able to further combine (Combat Teams, Battle Groups, Task Force) and generate wider effects in support of the larger force. This is how Army works with the rest of the ADF.
When we look at the team/capability through the lens of Landworthiness, we assess all the building blocks, commonly referred to as Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FIC), that make the team an effective capability and fit for purpose. Landworthiness challenges us to step back and take a big picture approach, posing such questions as:
- Does the equipment or platform issued to the soldiers/team suit the mission and is it safe to operate?
- Are the individuals and teams appropriately trained?
- Are there enough skilled people to conduct the range of tasks expected and do we train often enough?
- Do we have the training areas and facilities we need?
- Can we repair and maintain our key systems to the degree we need to?
- Do we have the doctrine to guide common understanding?
- What are our learning loops/continuous improvements for this capability?
The Land Force has mechanism for posing these questions in isolation; if a piece of equipment is unsuitable, a Report on Defective or Unsatisfactory Materiel (RODUM) is submitted. Feedback on training content and standards is routinely collected at the end of training courses. Doctrine undergoes constant revision. Safety reports are generated to highlight where things go wrong. But how is this information aggregated and used to understand the health and performance of a capability? The Landworthiness Branch approach plays a key role in joining the dots and exposing the gaps. It is a powerful command support tool more appropriately characterised as a mindset or a culture rather than a rigid process.
These above questions often lead to more questions, and at the heart of the Landworthiness philosophy is a desire to understand “if our capabilities are as safe as they should be and do we train as we intend to fight?” When we ask these questions, we can then start to identify risk. Risk often presents when our efforts and FIC, while present, are not synchronised or balanced. Risk doesn’t mean that we can’t embark on a task or mission, but a fuller understanding of risk enhances our probability of success. A Landworthiness mindset will sharpen a commander’s view of risk and can highlight opportunities where FIC can be better balanced.
Landworthiness seeks to understand these key capability questions by using a couple of key tools. These are:
- A Land incident investigation ( a safety investigation that aims to prevent a recurrence and seeks to identify systemic weaknesses, not individual fault)
- An Independent Landworthiness Board ( a day – long in depth examination of a key capability by an independent panel of star ranked officers)
- An Independent Landworthiness Review (similar to a Landworthiness Board but on a smaller scale, these reviews should be initiated by capability managers wishing to gain an objective view of the health of a capability they are responsible for)
Landworthiness is a culture that fosters interest in all aspects of a capability. It is a mindset that is applicable to every soldier in the Army and is likely already how many commanders think about the tasks they must complete – they just may not be aware that there is a term for it; Landworthiness.
http://drnet/defence/landworthiness/Pages/Home.aspx
DUTY FIRST
Two words combined to generate an unambiguous meaning. Prioritise the mission; we exist to devote ourselves to a higher purpose. This can (and has) come at a cost. Army, broader ADF and the nation expect this continued cost to be borne by soldiers. When civilians transition to soldiers, they accept this, and in doing so, strike one-half of a moral contract. The other half of the moral contract is borne by our leadership. Leaders and decision makers hold a moral obligation to give our people the best chance of success through the equipment we give them, the high quality training we ensure they complete and the direction and guidance we set for them.
