ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Donny

I don't know the answer you're after either, but you could try asking those from the Corps who are now CIOs. There aren't many and none of those I can think of would agree that the posts you cite equate to a CIO. I don't think that's a Corps problem - I just don't think anyone in MOD or the Army who matters has the slightest idea what a CIO does, or why the absence of one makes a difference.

Sad, but there's no sign of that situation changing that I can see.

Don

IM/IX is taken quite seriously here but in the end all it is is a TA chap that knows we're everything is saved.

Originally Posted by Donny

There aren't many and none of those I can think of would agree that the posts you cite equate to a CIO.



Don

You're right! I didn't actually think about that bit while I was typing it. I suppose the UK army is not quite mature enough yet in this area, so there is no CIO , as you point out, and the G3 Johnnies who run the show don't really have a handle on the concept.

Of course Nick Pope is working for the CGS now as Dir Communications, but I have a feeling that is more in line with the civvy use of the word than the military requirement for information management.

Originally Posted by greenbaggyskin

Of course Nick Pope is working for the CGS now as Dir Communications, but I have a feeling that is more in line with the civvy use of the word than the military requirement for information management.

I think you'll find he was working for CDS rather than CGS, and he's moved on from that job anyway. But in any event the job he was doing was about comms and media. It has/had no relation to what a CIO does, in either civilian or military interpretations of the job. Sorry, but there it is.

Don

Originally Posted by greenbaggyskin

Signals do connectivity...

The IM side of life belongs firmly in the realm of the person or element wishing to use it, with some support from the signals guys.

But do they have the skills to use it? It needs people who understand how information should/could be connected, ideally it should be the user but they don't understand IT like we do - needs to be a blend of both RSigs and relevant cap badge.

HE117 hit it on the head for me, it's what would be expected of IM&T in other government organisations.

Originally Posted by Idrach

There have been several notable pigeon trials - both South African and Israeli trials have determined that pigeons are the highest proven bandwidth carriers where local telecoms are 'difficult', as well as the actual Bergen trial of the 3 way handshake.

Although it is a 1st April RFC (1149/1990, 2549/1999, 6214/2011), it has actually had a very significant impact on the implementation of IP in very noisy (such as engineering) environments.

So are you telling me the "Syn" packets should be in upper case, so the spanner monkeys can see it?

How can a move towards information management now make the Corps a better place to be? We are dropping educational requirements all over the place, our junior officers largely struggle in a robust HQ environment and we commission a fair proportion of non communicators.

Originally Posted by MiracleBill

IM/IX is taken quite seriously here but in the end all it is is a TA chap that knows we're everything is saved.

What area do you work? I suppose this backs up the comment on CIO. In NHS the campaign for CIO is to partly to ensure clinical information between systems takes place which means using standard messaging formats and standard coding systems. It's about moving clinical information recorded on ambulance IT to hospital IT, your allergies recorded by your MO going to the casualty clearing station or field hospital, etc, etc (some of this happens in the DMS, not in the NHS).

Originally Posted by MiracleBill

How can a move towards information management now make the Corps a better place to be? We are dropping educational requirements all over the place, our junior officers largely struggle in a robust HQ environment and we commission a fair proportion of non communicators.

We're a technology-heavy institution. We sometimes forget the only purpose of the technology is to make information available to those who need it, where and when they need it (subject to all the normal security constraints). We know better than many of those who make demands on our services what they need. We can help them do their jobs if they start asking us how we can help them, and listen to the answer. For now we've handed that 'expert' role to a bunch of half-wits who can't progress in their own cap badge or service, and yet are leading commanders and staff in what they think they need.

We will either embrace the management of information and lead the way, or we'll allow the gulf between us and those we're there to serve to widen still further.