Admiral Guadagnini asked me (in the manner a flag officer asks a commander) to begin keeping logs for my officers during an extended under-way period. We had to be creative about what to measure, because there only was one planned unmooring/mooring and no under-way replenishments (unreps).

We tracked contact reports made, radio hails, deck-landing qualifications—anything where a metric could be applied. Little of what we measured mattered or was useful in determining a watchstander’s effectiveness. The value was in the second- and third-order effects that came from discussions with my watchstanders. That was when I discovered how much or little bridge experience my department head tactical action officers had in their division officer tours. I realized my officers had no idea how many special evolutions they had done—nor could I recall the same for myself. I also realized that if I did not make sure they were capable bridge watchstanders as department heads, a decade or more would pass between their last sea details as a division officers and their next in command.

Go read the rest of it. 

This strikes me as a pretty good idea. We have a few blackshoes here, and I'd like to hear your thoughts, particularly,  what should be included in such a logbook.