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

OOOOO dunno mate, [sucks air through my teeth].....looks expensive. These things ain't cheap you know...a few bob to sort this.........I'll do you an estimate and we can 'ave a chat about it over a cuppa - can't say fairer than that can I?

Now I know you've been to Corsham!

Dammit - I've been rumbled!!! :D

Originally Posted by boney_m

Originally Posted by TA_sig

Who was responsible for the distribution of the machines? Who specified that the Sp sqn required all the machines while the troops don't? Did ATLAS decide this themselves, or did someone from the customer side do it?

However much Atlas like to tell you your business need, you will have a local DII/F POC who is responsible for the unit DII planning. He cant do too much about numbers of UAD's you get, but he can do alot about where they go. Dependent of how much DII cabling infrastructure you've got - and how much ATLAS will put in for you.

Some people are better at fighting their corner than others, thats becoming obvious in the F roleout - but if the bloke planning it for you has treated it as a bone job and put no effort in, the results will be obvious to you.

This is all too much the case. In our Squadrons case it was left to the 'FofS' who then left etc etc. The Brigade also had an operational tour in between aswell so the lists of UADs including numbers and locations fell through the 'cracks' so to speak.

This has resulted in a poorly managed and implemented system with the obvious 'top brass' getting exactly what they want and fcuk the rest of us. This is especially poor when the person who was given the task of 'sorting the problem out' still hasn't got a terminal of his own.

This is a bump.

I still remain interested in what you guys have to say as it has helped to shape some thought so far. Keep it coming!!

Why has the role out been delayed at Ensleigh and where have the Atlas bods gone, their office is empty

I don't know the answer to that, but will try and find out and get back to you via PM.

Originally Posted by ukdaytona

Why has the role out been delayed at Ensleigh and where have the Atlas bods gone, their office is empty

Easy answer to that............ They quit!

Or on a serious note at least three of them have been pulled over to Abbeywood due to the problems with 'F'

So the new excuse for underperformance will be "We've been (F)'d"!!!

How apt.

Originally Posted by roadster280

So the new excuse for underperformance will be "We've been (F)'d"!!!

So, no change there, then...

Originally Posted by mysteron

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.

Please feel free to explain it to me, I am a Staff Officer with 22 years CIS experience. I am consistently involved in staffing DII F and FD documentation - including the current recycling paper which suggest a way has been found to re-use the current printers/consumables.

It is utter rubbish to suggest it is cheaper to buy new hardware and consumables rather than simply reuse existing DII(C) equipment. There is no justification in any of the DII business cases for this.

Whilst you are on please can you explain how the current DII/F system is any better or even as good as the DII/C service it is replacing. Why are Atlas staff not allowed to use the term "reach back" - why are we having to run DII/C and DII/F in order to allow DII/F users at Abbeywood any semblence of normal working.

As far as I can see the implementation of DII/F has been an unmitigated disaster made worse because we have been force fed a solution that doesn't even meet our requirements - anyone want to use EDMS, tough luck!

The only thing that Atlas and DII/F has delivered is masses of jobs at inflated rates for ex-Service personnel and consultants.

And for all of you at field units just think, Atlas have made a complete pigs ear of delivering a solution to the UK fixed environment. How stable and easy is that - just wait until they have a crack at the operational theatres, I would love to be in HERRICK or TELIC when they turn up.

DII(F) utter ficking tonk.

Seems my machine has been replaced by a Pentium 2 with 333MHZ of RAM. A3 printers replaced, like for like, by A4 printers.

Oh and it works really well with JPA - NOT!

As for my data that seems to have disappeared into the ether......

Jockster

A2-matelot.

This is obviously an emotional issue.

Printers - it is cheaper for a full service wrap to have a limited number of accredited, networked printers on the system for a service based contract that is over 5 years. Why? Because, the seat charge that is associated with also covers the software licensing, the tech re-fresh, commonality of consumables (i.e. printer cartridges), less scope for engineer support, SPOC understanding and handling and a reduced replacement pool - the list goes on.
Further - YOUR (read MoD) contract and requirements asked for this profiling of equipment. Yes, there is a clause for re-use (not recycling - a completely different thing), but only where there is a realistic case for Value for Money. Do you honestly believe that the re-use of equipment at a single site that requires the above mentioned effort is Value for Money? If so - you are misguided and are probably thinking of this year's budget - not the full life of the contract.

You say that there is no justification in any DII business case to suggest that replacement of old with new is cheaper - so why is that the case with all monitors less those specified in your re-use policy and have to be treated as consumables (i.e. throw it in the bin if it doesn't work and you get no support for it!!!).

I have no idea why you think that ATLAS staff are not allowed to say the words "Reach Back" - I do, a lot. In fact on a site I am working on - I talk about and make sure that I provide it.

I think the message that really is coming over is this:

Be careful of what you ask for - you might just get it. You cannot blame a contractor for doing the job that they are paid to do.

If there are faults with that job then we both have the ICDN and the RFC process. Tell me when you think that over 15000 RFCs is an awful lot of change and additional burden on the existing roll out? I am not here to defend ATLAS nor am I here to defend MoD.

The reality is that there is fault to be dished out on both sides - of course there is, but until the MoD learn some lessons and employ people to look after their commercial interests as well as those companies that they deal with and at the same time make their mind up as to what they want before committing millions of taxpayers money to project so that they can enforce the terms of their contract.

Originally Posted by A2_Matelot

Originally Posted by mysteron

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.

Please feel free to explain it to me, I am a Staff Officer with 22 years CIS experience. I am consistently involved in staffing DII F and FD documentation - including the current recycling paper which suggest a way has been found to re-use the current printers/consumables.

It is utter rubbish to suggest it is cheaper to buy new hardware and consumables rather than simply reuse existing DII(C) equipment. There is no justification in any of the DII business cases for this.

Whilst you are on please can you explain how the current DII/F system is any better or even as good as the DII/C service it is replacing. Why are Atlas staff not allowed to use the term "reach back" - why are we having to run DII/C and DII/F in order to allow DII/F users at Abbeywood any semblence of normal working.

As far as I can see the implementation of DII/F has been an unmitigated disaster made worse because we have been force fed a solution that doesn't even meet our requirements - anyone want to use EDMS, tough luck!

The only thing that Atlas and DII/F has delivered is masses of jobs at inflated rates for ex-Service personnel and consultants.

And for all of you at field units just think, Atlas have made a complete pigs ear of delivering a solution to the UK fixed environment. How stable and easy is that - just wait until they have a crack at the operational theatres, I would love to be in HERRICK or TELIC when they turn up.

Yes.......yes it has ;)

The further it slips, the longer I'm in job, invoicing for a rediculous amount of money each week

Oh happy days!

I might buy myself a BMW M3 next week

And good luck to you too......