My thoughts exactly I understand the DMO is also having staffing issues which will be affecting the roleout of new defence equipment. Being on the "inside yourself" Gf I was wondering if you were able to share any thoughts on how this might be resolved?Yes, its about balance (and context) - in areas where there is significant churn and where the trade is a very specialised skillset, then you can't afford to keep on bringing in the young turks.
eg, pilots, trainers, submariners, acoustic warfare officers, chooks, loggies are worth their weight in gold... younguns need to learn their craft before they become owls.
Obviously the DMO has an advantage over the millitary in that it has a much larger pool of people with relavent experience it can recruit without training.
On a personal note: I did look into applying to a few DMO positions a while back and I made some observations which I see as hindering their recruitment which I thought I would share.
First the positions did not seem to be open to people with parallel experince on different systems adapting. Some of the selection criteria about working with defence systems was mandatory when it should have been desirable.(eg making exposure to a specific defence database mandatory, when the other requirements of the position take years to learn and define how good the candidate will be at the position)
Secondly few engineers have the time or will to write extensive selection criteria while there are still plenty of other jobs out there. A written selection criteria has gone by the way side in many state and local public sector applications, in favour of a restructured CV and the selection criteria addressed at the interview stage.
My 2 cents from an engineer outside looking in, I would like to hear from someone inside DMO.
Last edited: