DII(F) - Better or worse than the system you had?

**Alsacien** · 24-07-2007, 22:34

IT and the green military are always going to struggle, but there are some civvi equivalents at the business case/requirements level.

Problem is how are you going to attract those who can see both sides of the coin? Those who can bridge the gap would not be able to work within the structure of MOD procurement and associated BS without a big change in thinking.

I have delivered international projects for 11 years since leaving - but I would only get into bed with the UK military for the wrong reasons, and I have never been that desperate.....

**boney_m** · 24-07-2007, 22:42

Originally Posted by Alsacien

IT and the green military are always going to struggle, but there are some civvi equivalents at the business case/requirements level.

Problem is how are you going to attract those who can see both sides of the coin? Those who can bridge the gap would not be able to work within the structure of MOD procurement and associated BS without a big change in thinking.

I have delivered international projects for 11 years since leaving - but I would only get into bed with the UK military for the wrong reasons, and I have never been that desperate.....

OK, in a manner of speaking you've spelled out the problem. I would suggest that most people in Military IT can see both sides of the coin and one is far brighter than the other, and that doesnt fall on the green side.

how do we solve that?

**polar** · 24-07-2007, 22:55

...

**PoisonDwarf** · 24-07-2007, 23:04

Originally Posted by Alsacien

I would only get into bed with the UK military for the wrong reasons, and I have never been that desperate.....

That's what she said....hur hur... :P

**A2_Matelot** · 25-07-2007, 11:33

Originally Posted by monkeyspanker

And just wait, DII(FD) is coming!

Can't be worse than JOCS.

And now that JOCS is tech refreshed and has 85% infrastructure commonality with the proposed FD design, and its finally in a decent shape - we need to spend £2XX million on brand new FD hardware because?

Equally annoying waste of money - why will DII(F) not re-use all of the printers that we have in current use on DII(C). Major waste on hardware and potentially a bigger waste in all the consumables people have stockpiled.

I ask, again, the bigger question why do we need DII(F)? What Operational Capability will it deliver? What enhancement to support of operations will it deliver over and above DII(C) - its akin to replacing Office 2003 with Office 2007. 99% of users use less than 1% of the potential, why spend money of this magnitude to deliver so little tangible benefit at a time when the Defence budget can least afford it?

Keep DII(C), make JOCS better, upgrade RNCSS and the other family member - but make the real difference in the Gateway, spend some serious money on the Interoperability. Finally train the system maintainers and managers, properly, no half arsed efforts - and keep it all in house.

As for F, after all this time using C, storing all my work in Meridio I find that they cannot migrate that to F, instead there will be a new DII(F) EDMS system and also reachback to Meridio - how very cutting edge!

F- Storage is cheap, never been cheaper, but I have to rationalise all of my data down to 100Mb - because otherwise the system won't have enough capacity (good ITIL capacity planning and management) and MoD wil have to pay more?

Like using the Web, good IM practise, get ready to pay to post web pages on DII(F) because its a service.

The future will be interesting

**mysteron** · 15-08-2007, 13:11

Originally Posted by A2_Matelot

Equally annoying waste of money - why will DII(F) not re-use all of the printers that we have in current use on DII(C). Major waste on hardware and potentially a bigger waste in all the consumables people have stockpiled.

To answer your question about printer re-use and this maybe hard to swallow. MoD have looked at the cost/benefit analysis and it has proven to be more expensive to bring them onto DII(F) with the service wraps and consumbales required than it is to bin them and bring new ones that are covered under DII(F).

It is genuinely cheaper, but not in an obvious way. This is the biggest communication failure that has affected the entire program as MoD and ATLAS find it almost impossible to explain this in such a way that the layman (that is the soldier and the civvy reading the Scum) can see clearly. I am not suggesting that all soldiers are thick - I am saying that most in the Armed Forces don't understand finance in the same way that Finance people don't understand what it is to be a soldier.

**Baldrick66** · 15-08-2007, 13:23

Originally Posted by mysteron

It is genuinely cheaper, but not in an obvious way. This is the biggest communication failure that has affected the entire program as MoD and ATLAS find it almost impossible to explain this in such a way that the layman (that is the soldier and the civvy reading the Scum) can see clearly. I am not suggesting that all soldiers are thick - I am saying that most in the Armed Forces don't understand finance in the same way that Finance people don't understand what it is to be a soldier.

Feel free to explain how anything to do with DII(F) makes financial sense. Neither the DCSA as a whole nor the DII IPT can work out any benefits anymore other than it to late to pull the plug on the whole project!
The largest roll out to date is happening at the moment down in pointy head land and the horror stories are already emerging of no reach back, corrupt data or no data at all, email taking days to send or receive and the attitude of ‘tough, you’ve got what you paid for’ from Atlas

**mysteron** · 15-08-2007, 13:43

Baldrick - I am not sighted on the issue you describe on the ground. However, there is something to be said of you get what you pay for - let's put this in context.

If you pay for a computer to be of Spectrum ZX81 standard you can't expect it to be a supercomputer, you would be laughed at in PC World if you did. Why is that different in commercial land? I am not defending the attitudes of people I am defending a commercial agreement that both MoD and ATLAS have agreed!!!!!

Further, if an organisation then asks for a change to what they have asked for they must pay for it!! If so many changes are asked for - you will run out of money!!! That is why this current situation exists!!

**Baldrick66** · 15-08-2007, 14:01

I'm not gonna disagree with you over that, you get what you pay for, and no company is a charity. It gets up my nose that we are in effect paying the same money for less. (F) is at best a poor system designed to a price.
As usual the MOD has been raped by a contractor who writes a better contract. trouble is as usual the Tax payer foots the bill and there is less money for the kit the guys on the ground actually need.
As per usual under the DCSA mantra of outsource everything that moves, they have replaced systems at AW that did not need replacing purely to enable a contractor to meet his target of UAD's, enabling the next phase to be signed over with a 'look isn't this wonderful' quote. The MOD has f**ked up yet again, DII has been dubbed son of Bowman, and it’s yet another white elephant we’ll have to live with. Tail wags the dog springs to mind!

**polar** · 15-08-2007, 14:13

Originally Posted by Baldrick66

no reach back

Is that like reach around?

Seriously, decent piece on The MOD, the Army and the Failure of Digitization in last winters British Army Review.

Shocking storey of the MOD attempting to save money via IT Armed forces recruit NHS IT systems to boost care in the field

The DmicP scheme will set a significant example to other departments, says Butler Group analyst Sarah Burnett.

'The plan is the first instance of shared resources between such different organisations, previous examples have tended to be between similar departments and on a smaller scale,' said Burnett.

The scale and complexity of the public sector has traditionally made it difficult for departments to share resources, hence the tendency to duplicate technology developments. But the government is slowly changing the way IT investments are approached, and the DmicP proposal is a definite step forward, says Burnett.

'There is a lot of room for more joint working that could take shared services to a new level,' she said.

There are a number of other areas where the government could benefit from a similar approach, says Burnett.

'For example, there are multiple secure networks, such as those run by the NHS, Government Connect and Government Gateway,' she said.

**mysteron** · 15-08-2007, 14:32

Baldrick - let us put some perspective on this. ATLAS did not choose to sign up for the contract on its own, it won the bid over its competitors. It was the MoD that signed up to and awarded the ATLAS bid.

Putting aside the lowest bidder wins argument (which in this case is not true) - there must have been some governance by MoD (through contractors perhaps? I don't know on this point) to decide which was best for MoD? If not - well you only have yourselves to blame!!! That is rather like the child who keeps hitting the dog and then is surprised when the dog bites back!!!

The MoD has never learnt its lesson of getting its own people in (rather than contractors) to do its contracts that are on a decent wage with sufficient incentive to stay - again we come back to the same point of paying peanuts - get monkeys. What the MoD does which is worse, is that it gets serving personnel to get involved in commercial discussions and decisions - that is akin to asking an arsonist to look after a box of matches and a full petrol can!!!

The old argument that the consortium that is delivering a big deal for MoD rapes the public purse is misled. The whole of the public sector has never got it right in terms of asking for what it actually wants. Look at the Prison service, NHS, Education - all of whom had large contracts that have over spent and overran. MoD is not in splendid isolation here.

**rtfm-fool** · 15-08-2007, 15:31

It is very easy for everyone to blame the contractor all the time but the MOD has to accept some blame for this fiasco. The MOD still works on old school handshakes and is a dinosaur when it needs to adapt to modern business methods (however much we hate them).

**Baldrick66** · 15-08-2007, 17:44

Originally Posted by mysteron

Baldrick - let us put some perspective on this. ATLAS did not choose to sign up for the contract on its own, it won the bid over its competitors. It was the MoD that signed up to and awarded the ATLAS bid.

Putting aside the lowest bidder wins argument (which in this case is not true) - there must have been some governance by MoD (through contractors perhaps? I don't know on this point) to decide which was best for MoD? If not - well you only have yourselves to blame!!! That is rather like the child who keeps hitting the dog and then is surprised when the dog bites back!!!

The MoD has never learnt its lesson of getting its own people in (rather than contractors) to do its contracts that are on a decent wage with sufficient incentive to stay - again we come back to the same point of paying peanuts - get monkeys. What the MoD does which is worse, is that it gets serving personnel to get involved in commercial discussions and decisions - that is akin to asking an arsonist to look after a box of matches and a full petrol can!!!

The old argument that the consortium that is delivering a big deal for MoD rapes the public purse is misled. The whole of the public sector has never got it right in terms of asking for what it actually wants. Look at the Prison service, NHS, Education - all of whom had large contracts that have over spent and overran. MoD is not in splendid isolation here.

Yep you hit the nail on the head with all of that :D and I'm not going to disagree with any of it. You are 100% correct on the serviceman issue after all three guesses where half the head shed are now working for on retirement?
Atlas didn’t ‘win’ the bid as you put it, everyone else walked away from it, so they were the only bidder!
I'm not going to slate any of the techs on the ground either because they are some of the best blokes I know most are excellent at what they do. Nearly all of them incidentally happen to agree with my sentiments on the way DII has been delivered. As one of the eloquently put, “If they are stupid enough to pay the money, I’m not stupid enough to refuse it!”
The whole fiasco comes back to the DCSA trying a one size WILL fit all approach, p**s poor project management, people trying to cover their own backs, trying to enforce all three project elements on the contract (budget, deliverable, time) as opposed to one. Funny enough exactly the same as the NHS, HMPS, Inland Revenue……………. Etc, etc and we all know how well these projects have worked out…..don’t we? As for the prime contractor in all these Government projects………the same contractor the former head of DCSA now consults to?
Time and time again the MOD was advised NOT to proceed with DII both from within and by other government departments and even the US Navy! All were ignored and the corporate head was stuck in the sand. (It’s always a bad sign when the project team leader threatens his staff with disciplinary action if they don’t tow the party line)
Who blames any contractor for making 100% profit on an item of hardware and charges 10% handling and installation fee? If that was the contract then it’s the MOD’s fault for dropping its pants and taking it in the rusty sheriff’s badge.
Mean while the only people who will suffer are the guys on the ground, I wonder how many extra lines of delay have gone on projects the last couple of weeks because DPA project teams can’t communicate with the outside world, or access project data. Doesn’t bode well for any of us really,
“Sorry guys, you can have ….xyz…… for at least another 6 months because the procurement people have been (F)’d and can’t access the data to place any orders”