DND IT takes a great leap forward

[Old EO Tech]

Glad to see Windows 7 is up and running in-service now. I've used it privately for years and it's a very stable platform.

Not so glad to see the continuing use of Outlook in its old fashion. My last job when I was serving was working for three years to deliver an new records management solution for JAG. Our biggest enemy was Outlook which has two major records management issues: Firstly by storing email in an individual's Outlook account, the emails (i.e. corporate records) were not transferable to an individual's successor (i.e. the records were stored by user rather than by file or project). Secondly, these emails did not become part of the corporate file for record keeping purposes dictated by Archives Canada legislation.

The work around had been that users had to print off the emails that they considered corporate records and then place them in the paper files. A cumbersome and paper wasteful system prone to many errors of duplication or omission.

We solved the problem by requiring the use of RDIMS which provided for the ability to make files transferable from user to user and saved all electronic records associated to a file/project. RDIMS was not my favourite records management program solution but was the mandated one by ADM(IM) and was quite usable.

If some of you are wondering why it takes so long to role out software and why it's always a version behind, the answer is quite simple, it takes the IM security guys a long time to kick the programs tires to ensure it doesn't import system vulnerabilities and that it plays nicely in the box with all the other programs/servers/etc that it needs to be compatible with. We have too few security folks and too vast a system to do that quickly.

:subbies:

Yes I used RDIMS in my time in the NCR as well. While it has a learning curve it was designed specifically for document management and for compliance with corporate records keeping, not to mention it easily solves the problem of corporate data being passed from person to person in the same position/job.  I have no idea why the CAF/DND doesn't make RDIMS mandatory across the DWAN.

Right now as shared drives are always getting full, units are using Sharepoint as an alternative way to share files.  And while you can upload files to sharepoint the program was designed to be a collaboration tool not a document management tool, and makes a poor substitute for one.  In my experience very little collaboration(ie forum discussions) etc are being used on sharepoint and it is all about replacing shared drives which should be done with RDIMS.

 

[Old EO Tech]

By the letter of the law, only DND USB sticks may be used on a DND network.  There's no latitude given in the security orders.  Some units may be turning a blind eye to it, but it's not legal.

Yes but there is no centrally issued DND USB sticks, units simply buy and issue sticks, and place serial numbers on them and track them.  And normally they are cheap 4 gig sticks.  There are no regs that I am aware of that prevents you from buying a better larger USB stick and then handing it to your IT section for them to scan and serialize.  It then becomes DND property and a DND issued stick.  Of course you then can't use it on a non DND computer like any other DND stick.

I personally need a lot of space on a USB stick to carry around all the work files I have, my outlook pst file is now over 1 gig as it is.

 

[FJAG]

Yes I used RDIMS in my time in the NCR as well. While it has a learning curve it was designed specifically for document management and for compliance with corporate records keeping, not to mention it easily solves the problem of corporate data being passed from person to person in the same position/job.  I have no idea why the CAF/DND doesn't make RDIMS mandatory across the DWAN.

Right now as shared drives are always getting full, units are using Sharepoint as an alternative way to share files.  And while you can upload files to sharepoint the program was designed to be a collaboration tool not a document management tool, and makes a poor substitute for one.  In my experience very little collaboration(ie forum discussions) etc are being used on sharepoint and it is all about replacing shared drives which should be done with RDIMS.

Always good to see a fellow RDIMS user.

Some background. Back in 2006 RDIMS was the mandated standard for not only DND but all Fed Govt Depts but there was much drag from subordinate headquarters everywhere to its use.

Besides implementing RDIMS, our project also was the first in DND to implement SharePoint 2007. We used a linking software solution to allow SharePoint access to the RDIMS files. This was not our preferred solution as SharePoint has its own Records Management built in which at the time had US Govt certification but had not been approved by DND (who was also insisting on RDIMS). As a result we used an integrated SharePoint/RDIMS solution. Nowadays there are several superior SharePoint/RM solutions available.

The trouble these days is that most users (and their department managers) still do not wish to do electronic records management as they see it taking extra effort when saving a file (true but for trained staff it is very little effort). They would rather just manage paper files.

:subbies:

 

[Old EO Tech]

Always good to see a fellow RDIMS user.

Some background. Back in 2006 RDIMS was the mandated standard for not only DND but all Fed Govt Depts but there was much drag from subordinate headquarters everywhere to its use.

Besides implementing RDIMS, our project also was the first in DND to implement SharePoint 2007. We used a linking software solution to allow SharePoint access to the RDIMS files. This was not our preferred solution as SharePoint has its own Records Management built in which at the time had US Govt certification but had not been approved by DND (who was also insisting on RDIMS). As a result we used an integrated SharePoint/RDIMS solution. Nowadays there are several superior SharePoint/RM solutions available.

The trouble these days is that most users (and their department managers) still do not wish to do electronic records management as they see it taking extra effort when saving a file (true but for trained staff it is very little effort). They would rather just manage paper files.

:subbies:

Yes we as an organization certainly are hell-bound to cut trees down, we insist on writing paper memo's still when writing a formatted email could do the same thing, PKI has had digital signatures for ages that we never have policies to use in place of paper signatures... and on and on.

 

[bigabe]

This whole thread caught my eye - a refreshingly intelligent conversation on here.

I'll chime in my $0.02 as a non-SSC, non-helpdesk, IT security & IM geek. 

So... here's the two sides of the coin:

Not so glad to see the continuing use of Outlook in its old fashion. My last job when I was serving was working for three years to deliver an new records management solution for JAG. Our biggest enemy was Outlook which has two major records management issues: Firstly by storing email in an individual's Outlook account, the emails (i.e. corporate records) were not transferable to an individual's successor (i.e. the records were stored by user rather than by file or project). Secondly, these emails did not become part of the corporate file for record keeping purposes dictated by Archives Canada legislation.

The work around had been that users had to print off the emails that they considered corporate records and then place them in the paper files. A cumbersome and paper wasteful system prone to many errors of duplication or omission. If some of you are wondering why it takes so long to role out software and why it's always a version behind, the answer is quite simple, it takes the IM security guys a long time to kick the programs tires to ensure it doesn't import system vulnerabilities and that it plays nicely in the box with all the other programs/servers/etc that it needs to be compatible with. We have too few security folks and too vast a system to do that quickly.

:subbies:

Pretty much bull's-eyes most issues.  Except for the whole Print it off  ... I just about puked.  We're in the dark ages enough.

Combine the above message with this message and you can fairly well see both the cart and the horse from an IM POV.

My Outlook box is my main tool for communicating, I average 100-200 files at any one time, some them huge projects and receive massive amount of project related e-mails. Often it comes to fast to digest, so I move them into a unique folder for that project, which will contain various sub folders for the different issues. It's not perfect, but it's far better than any other method of quickly and efficiently receiving, storing, accessing, reviewing and forwarding large amounts of information.

As for SSC, forget ever again getting useful support for your issues. It will become a beast who's sole purpose in life is to generate "ticket numbers" to justify it's own existence. Even now try making useful changes to your department website and you are caught in a maze that supports the "Common look, Common feel, Common suck" mantra. I should bill IT everytime I have to help a proponent navigate the crap to masquerades as our website. 

Outlook - is your day planner.  It is not your entire office.  Its great for personal time management, and that's how its packaged and produced as a product.  Personal time management.

When you're filling 100-200 messages a day - I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, you're doing it how you're taught and how you are comfortable.... but you're doing it wrong.  We'll pretend I meant you're doing IT wrong in a non-funny pun way

Now, the right answer probably doesn't work for you - I get it - I only bitch about it over a coffee and carry on. 
Let's took a look at how IM *should* work.  So, if you're dealing with that level of information - it's obviously a team/collaboration effort. Unless you actually carry out 200 orders a day.  That's actually the point of SharePoint.  That level of info, should be passed on through 'group discussions', team sites, document uploads/downloads, and can be 'access-controlled' by the project administrator, managed and monitored by a much smaller network of IT guys - 1 or 2 sharepoint dudes, really (so others can do things like security audits on new software!) because SharePoint is easy to manage.  Its also easy to keep backed up - as now I only have 1 server and its datacenter to store - not the 7500 users on AD and their beautiful snowflake individualities... Just 1 SP server, or my branch of the National tree.

SharePoint, however, is a great idea that turned into a gross mess by caveman army dudes that know enough about computers to break them- It's basically turned into the same dogs breakfast of shared folders (that were partly cleaned up in the last two years ) with a shiny web interface slapped on the front - mixed with a lot of 'Updated [Insert date 6 months ago] pages.  You can also mix in the (mostly Jr. Officers trying to prove something, but only jokingly finger pointing of course) dick-measuring contest of the latest shiny embedded widget like live-weather, or (yup, its happened) the current Naval Op Map on some tiny units administrative page.

Instead of SP, though, you have 75 folders in a disgusting, non-sensical bilingual mess of folders that have Pte. Bloggins Dwyer Hill application in the same folder as your dentist reminder.... meanwhile, I'm getting work tickets requesting larger outlook storage.  See the dilemma?  When I do receive those tickets, you are pretty convinced I sent you a personal, professional letter, explaining why it can't happen at this time - when in fact, its totally canned, I don't care why because I couldn't if I wanted to, and the personal details were just outlook form fields grabbed from your work ticket, and auto-replied by keyword.  Oops... secrets out.

Let's move on to the content of those 200 messages.  If they're physical project-related - then I think SP with the proper training can be the right tool.  Now, I think there needs to be a 'collaboration' expert in most geographic locations that can set it up quickly, give everyone who needs it a 1-hour brief on how to use it, and dole out the rights to those who aren't going to completely shag it up, or fill it with high-res pictures of unicorns or something...
Now, it gets a lot more intense if those are 'administrative', or now I'll switch to the word 'clerical' type messages.  ORs, JAGS, PSS, C Clk, ULO, PSO offices etc - Those are the usual culprits for a decade of emails spanning 5 2GB PST files that are eventually going to ask me to move them over to a predecessors mailbox.  I don't think SharePoint is the answer for these people - but Monitor Mass is getting closer. 

What ALWAYS happens, is a RIDICULOUS redundancy of data.  Not the good redundancy, like the hand of god wipes out the data stores and we bring it back online 4 hours type of redundancy.  No, the 'Here's my NOK form' for my ARV.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' for inclearance during a course.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' before a BFT.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' because its August and you asked me for one.  Yup, that's 4 NOK forms in 3 weeks.  True Story.  You all know it.  That's the redundancy that exists. 

Why isn't my personal information centrally stored, then accessible by whoever/whatever needs it?  I, as Cpl Flange Bulatron, or whoever, should be able to go on My Careers through an Emaa-ish site, and have a live offering of my options.  There's no reason, I can't add 'Apply to..... CSOR, Close Protection, UTPNCM' into a shopping cart and checkout.  My entire Pers file should be a series of table entries.  I say scrap the paper entirely.  That's the only way to clean it up and manage it properly. I can view it anytime.  Heck, it could even become accessible from home in the same sense your bank info is accessible from home.  Login from your underwear on PATA and check on your outstanding loan cards, upcoming course loadings, your notes to the CM, with an alert to renew your medical and its been 3 years since you hit the range GaraTrooper.  This isn't daydreaming - I want to make this happen in the CAF in my career.  I'm going to scream and puke simultaneously every time I fill out a duplicate form for my entire career - my hernia, not yours. 

There's no technical reason, using what already exists today, that loan cards should exist.  A tool crib, should have a front facing keyboard/monitor that pops up what you're borrowing, and you login with a DWAN ID and now you've borrowed that 50lb torque wrench, or signed for that AHSVS - complete, or those 30 manpacks for a comms course.  None of this is possible, if the mentality still exists that Outlook is how to conduct business in the information world.  It becomes too big of a task, then. It's like trying to tidy and clean up your whole house using only bleach and a snow shovel.

Lastly, one of those quotes griped about the 'common look and feel'... now, I've already stated that I think the current system isn't very functional - but the reason behind that mess, is to funnel the information into the right tables in a relational database somewhere (That means [Members NOK] is a field drawn by NOK forms, and BFT forms and everything else that cares).  Once that's happening, the above pipedream of personalized shopping cart based applications et al. becomes possible.  We could even start looking like an apple store by having you scribble your X with your finger on a tablet in the near future.

So, whats worked in the past?  Google around, and find studies of fortune 500's that have disabled email for a 1-3 months.  Its proven extremely effective for team collaboration and refacing Information Management.

Now, I think that's drastic - but I say disable attachments for the same reason.  Keep the storage to 90Mb.  Email is a 120+ character texting tool with spellcheck.  If SharePoint is too difficult, maybe there's other options. 

Now that I've chimed - I'm just looking to open discussion, not preach or profess. 

What do you think would work for Information Management?  It's a huge and daunting task, and is generally sluffed off to 'barely escaped JPSU' combat arms officers in more than a few places, but there has to be solutions that work.  Work for the reservist who's crapping himself about his USB stick at PER season and works for the JAG and the dudes in between.

It both scares and excites me, and hopefully there's at least 1 or 2 people here who don't totally tl;dr the jesus out of this post.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

bigabe
Your post is infocentric, people use Outlook, because it works for the real world. Like it or not data management is a secondary task and not the reason the majority of people were hired for. If you want to deal with data management issue, get rid of computers and issue typewriters and that will reduce the issue, however as I am currently cleaning up a file from the 70's that combined information from 3 vaguely related projects, don't hold your breath on typewriters solving all problems.

E-vault is a compromise that actually works for the users and deals with large quantities of data issue. The fact that for some reason we can't wait for e-vault to produce those effects is telling of the IM/IT chasing the shiny new toy syndrome.
I have to use RDMIN's on occasion, it is sh*t, you can put as much lipstick on it as you want, it's still a 3 legged blind pig. Version control issues, editing issues, naming conventions that nothing to do with reality to name a few problems. I know it's going to be replaced by Gov.docs (or similar) which I have heard rumours is supposed to be better, I hope so.
Another issue is that IM/IT departments want you to save stuff in RDMIN, when we are already saving the same information into our own Database, which is designed for frontline use and datastorage second. They don't like it because it makes their job harder, the fact that IM/IT will make everyone work 3 times as hard to meet their requirements is immaterial to them.
At this point I see IT/IM as the enemy, not as a resource to help me do my job.

 

[dapaterson]

At this point I see IT/IM as the enemy, not as a resource to help me do my job.

A large part of the problems I've seen on IM/IT projects is a lack of engagement on the part of the requirements owner.  "I want a documents database" is not a specification.  And, when left to their own devices, the IM/IT folks design a tool for their own use - because the user is not engaged in defining their business needs and business processes.

That said, there is too often a temptation to chase the bright & shiny (both by the folks who own the requirement and those wh oare supposed to deliver it).  And too many consultants will promise the moon, under-deliver horribly, then get hired back to fix the mess that was of their own making.


Within DND, there's almost never any consideration of the part-time pers who don't have dedicated access to IM/IT resources.  It's an ongoing frustration to be told "It's on SharePoint" when access is limited to 3 hours a week; and help desk hours are outside parade hours; key information is stripped from the internet because of BS Common Look and Feel requirements...

 

[FJAG]

bigabe
Your post is infocentric, people use Outlook, because it works for the real world. Like it or not data management is a secondary task and not the reason the majority of people were hired for.
...
I have to use RDMIN's on occasion, it is ****,
...
Another issue is that IM/IT departments want you to save stuff in RDMIN, when we are already saving the same information into our own Database, which is designed for frontline use and datastorage second. They don't like it because it makes their job harder, the fact that IM/IT will make everyone work 3 times as hard to meet their requirements is immaterial to them.
At this point I see IT/IM as the enemy, not as a resource to help me do my job.

You miss bigabe's points.

1.  Outlook does not work in the real world. Anything that separates your communications from your work product and that of your co-workers is counter-productive and not just failing to meet mandated government standards. A system that delivers you 200 messages a day of which maybe a dozen are really relevant to your job is taking time away from your productivity - multiply that by fifty thousand workers and you loose hundreds of PYs a year reading and answering useless stuff.

2.  RDIMS is about fifteen years old now. It was good when it was rolled out but has been a dated product for at least a half a decade. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive replacement. There is also an underlying issue. Any comprehensive database system that will merge documents (including email and text messages) into a proper database that meets varying user business models needs to be able to operate in at least a Secret level or else project files will be scattered across various networks to meet security states. DND is working on that.

3.  If RDIMS or SharePoint is not meeting your user requirements then it is not the fault of the software but the fault of the business analysts and programmers who set up your system. Usually those folks are pretty good at their job and in my experience their failures usually stem from the fact that many departments fail to allocate the time or resources to let them do their job right. This is usually because people (like you) are so focused on what's on their desk at the moment that they simply decline to (or refuse to) put any effort into assisting with appropriate solutions to create a better system for the future. Remember "Front line use" and "database storage" are the same thing. In a properly designed system the two work together to create a seamless business solution.

4.  IT/IM is not the enemy. These people want to deliver solutions that make your job easier. They have to balance many competing interests: finite budgets, corporate policies and objectives, and "front-line" user needs. Unfortunately in an organization as large as ours that is frequently hard especially when you consider that DND IM/IT at the central level came very late to the game, after commands and even formations and units had already rolled-out their own IT solutions. Trying to keep these thousands of legacy systems operating while trying to improve basic network functionality is a very major (and frequently frustrating) job. It's not made any easier in times of financial restraint especially restraint when they are frequently not considered as part of the "bayonets" that must be protected. In fact records managers are often the first to be downsized.

Just a comment on where my viewpoint comes from. I don't belong to IM/IT. I've spent over forty years as a "front-line" user. The last three years were spent as the user's business interface with the IM/IT community on a project designed to improve our 'front-end" systems. I saw IM/IT's warts--and they do have them--but most of all I saw how the users themselves are their own worst enemy when it comes to the time and effort they put into the business transformation processes needed to truly improve their systems.

:subbies:  op:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Totally off subject, I think.

I have no faith in an IT system that can't filter out the simplest SPAM messages from Outlook.

When I turned on my DWAN after being gone a week, I could find approx. 25 messages.

One was to me. The rest were porn and pseudo-pharmaceutical SPAM.

Even my own desktop at home can filter out that shit. Why can't the DWAN, with all their fancy programs and IT gurus?

 

[SupersonicMax]

I think what a lot of programmers and designers fail to do is cater for the users, rather than themselve.  People don't care how awesome the functionalities are. They want something seamless, easy to use, reliable and that fits in the already established habbits.  People do not want to drastically change their way of doing things.

Using 1, 2 or 3 different software to effectively manage documents is NOT the solution.  While it may work if used properly, people still need to... use it.  If you want people to use it, you need to cater for the masses. You cannot expect people to put extra effort in something they do not see the need for their daily job (regardless of what law xyz says), especially in a time when people are already short of PY.

If I was in charge, I would first fire every useless consultant and use that money to go and shadow big succesful companies on how they manage their information. Then implement an off-the-shelf solution.

We are not the only big organization and we are probably one of the worst on the unclass IT/IM side.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think what a lot of programmers and designers fail to do is cater for the users, rather than themselve.  People don't care how awesome the functionalities are. They want something seamless, easy to use, reliable and that fits in the already established habbits.  People do not want to drastically change their way of doing things.

Using 1, 2 or 3 different software to effectively manage documents is NOT the solution.  While it may work if used properly, people still need to... use it.  If you want people to use it, you need to cater for the masses. You cannot expect people to put extra effort in something they do not see the need for their daily job (regardless of what law xyz says), especially in a time when people are already short of PY.

If I was in charge, I would first fire every useless consultant and use that money to go and shadow big succesful companies on how they manage their information. Then implement an off-the-shelf solution.

We are not the only big organization and we are probably one of the worst on the unclass IT/IM side.

We agree on something

 

[Colin Parkinson]

FJag
Outlook is my most important tool for communicating with a wide variety of proponents and clients. 90% of my work is outside of the government system, so it has to work with mom and pops and Multinational companies. It's biggest limitation right now is the accepted file size, our 5mb limit is far to small for the current usage. I can save the critical e-mails as  a "Outlook Message Format" and uploaded that to my work database under the project file # in 3 easy steps without worrying about naming conventions and permissions. Anyone with access to the database can easily find it or other information grouped under that file number (the file is searchable with at least 4 fields) and will still be searchable in 40 years from now as we set those 4 basic search criteria into our first database in the early 90's and have continued on with it (this is our 3rd database and moving to a 4th in a year or 2). Within 5 years of the demise of RDMIN, no one will remember the naming conventions that were used.

One project I am working right now (Site C) likely generates about 30 relevant e-mails a day) I can't begin to digest all of them as they come in as I am working on other files. Being able to drop them into a sub folder and dealing with them when i get a chance is the only way to keep my head above water. I end up saving the most important ones or the string when it ends. E-vault would take care of the rest. Another advantage of sub folders in Outlook prior to e-vault was being able to pull up e-mails from 2002 and forward them on to HQ (who have a about a 5 minute memory on anything) to show them that they are incorrect yet again or even better to show that their bright idea has actually been tried before.

and I agree with Supersonic Max as well.   

 

[GR66]

I think a BIG part of the problem is simply inefficient process.  I worked in a CR and the number of messages for course loadings and postings messages....and amendments to course loadings and posting messages...and cancellations of coarse loadings and posting messages....and re-issue of course loadings and posting messages (just as one tiny example) were enough to fill upright filing cabinets and take up several PYs to manage.  And these are just daily routing messages.  Distribution of these messages to parties that were in the need to know is another major expenditure of effort.  Reception & Dispatch, Pay & Records, Furniture and Effects, Rations and Quarters, the affected schools and units, the member's unit, a whole slew of people being copied on all these messages and having their own Orderly Rooms having to manage them as well. 

A single change to a central database could show who is going to be where and when.  Everyone that needs to know can look it up in that one location and see the recent changes highlighted so they can act if required.  But instead we kill a forest and eat up bandwidth, fill filing cabinets and have clerks that outnumber arms soldiers just to track the movements of the members.  It's silly to me.

 

[FJAG]

FJag
Outlook is my most important tool for communicating with a wide variety of proponents and clients.

I agree that this is a critical function and don't get me wrong I would think staying with RDIMS now that so many better products are available would be wrong.

A good system would have the following three core functions:

1  a common file system for the entire business unit so that anyone in the unit with a right of access could access the information from anywhere on the DWAN (and in my mind on a secure channel from non DWAN computers)

2. a system by which a document (an email, word document, MS Project file etc) exists in the system in only one copy under the appropriate file number. Rather than emailing within the business unit one would send an instant message notification to the recipient(s) with a link to the original document.

3. an easy way of dragging and dropping and profiling a new document into the database - whether that document comes from an originators new work product or from an outside source. One absolutely needs to communicate with folks on the outside.

These products are available now and many even still use MS Exchange as the mail server messaging core.

My complaint with Outlook is that for the vast bulk of users it becomes a personal dump for mostly redundant material that is rarely "cleaned up", rarely scoured for corporate records that by law must be either archived or destroyed, and rarely passed on to an individual's successors.

One can argue as to whether or not our current legal requirements are too onerous (please note that these requirements come from outside DND) Not only do we have problems within DND in meeting our duties but I've been at Archives Canada and the records we have sent there are mountainous (because we send too much unnecessary crap because we rarely strip files well) and of very limited value.

:subbies:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some of that data that we consider useless will be a treasure trove later. Many of the documents squirreled  away by the RN in the 1800 regrading Seaman's  Bloggins pay records and amount of clothing issued give historians a much deeper understanding of daily life.

For the military you have the benefit of dealing mostly inhouse. For departments like mine where 90% of incoming documents are generated by various citizens and corporations the biggest issue is compatibility with wide variety of systems generating documents for us. Common issue is .pdf that don't print or Sharepoint sites that don't play well with the government systems.

The bigger more inclusive system you attempt to create the higher likelihood of failure. I'm a firm believer that if you can't design it and implement it in one fiscal year it will almost always fail or get cut as the fiscal winds change direction.   

 

[PanaEng]

Most of you guys are arguing about symptoms and not addressing the root problem: lack of unified IT policy and focus.
With focus I'm not talking about the IT org  not being customer oriented, rather the user requirements when specifying a system not clearly articulated and not guided by a unified IT policy. If the IT guys (programmers, system analyst, requirements analyst, etc. ) ask you what you need but you have no idea how to describe it or they have no idea how to elicit that from you, then you are going to buy/get crap. In the absence of clear direction the programmer will create whatever strikes him as neat.
Then there is this fixation with MS products...

I'm with Bigb and Fjag on how the system should work - and that doesn't mean that it has to be onerous on the users or preclude from emailing with outside agencies.

cheers,
Frank

 

[Journeyman]

Some of that data that we consider useless will be a treasure trove later.

LIke if the entire CF is ordered to down tools and search every document for the phrases "Somalia," "Airborne," or "OMG this could be governmentally embarrassing"  :nod:

 

[bigabe]

PanaEng, I agree about the lack of unification. However, there's a lack of unification at nearly aspect of the DND by the time you get down to the Cpl.

Why? My *guess* is mostly because for 20 years there's been a lack of information coming straight from the source, a lack of information that can be self-acquired in every aspect.....partly from a lack of "common look and feel" and partly from a lack of IM getting the attention of the Bayonets'. Or perhaps its the lack of 'front line user' information accessible to managers at times of consulting, which goes hand in hand with a lack of passing most flaws found in anything up to those managers. Add the lack of empathy for part timers, combat arms, SSC, or basically the other guy.....or maybe its all from a lack of money!?

I could make this a lot longer, but I'm on a phone.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

lack of unified IT policy and focus

yea big picture stuff, sexy and flashy. They will spend millions and millions on it, perhaps even billions and then ditch it in 8 years as it gets surpassed by just about everything. We need simple to use systems and the best way to do that is to get rid of Executive Assistants for senior bosses. As soon as they have to use the system for real, they will demand simplicity, as long as they are insulated from reality, nothing will change.

 

[bigabe]

I'm also fully aware of the adage, that any idiot can point out problems.... It takes talent to point out solutions.