JAMES (JOINT ASSET MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS)

Discussion in 'RLC' started by captin_thunderpants, Feb 21, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. How are people getting along with the new system?
     
  2. Ask the MT Senior at our place and it will provoke a rant. Not so much the application, but it has to compete for bit rate with our other IT systems and usually loses ... spectacularly. Cue mucho swearing from Mt Offices!

    Berlin
     
  3. yeah that seems to be a big problem, piggy backing on the back of DII.
     
  4. ... although the JAMES Team IS gurus can provide empirical evidence that JAMES traffic does not use a shed load of bandwidth. In a trial conducted in a well-known 'Bleep' location in BFG, it was found that there were a number of other problems on the network before JAMES was tested, but users (and network engineers) blamed the poor performance on JAMES itself ('new kid on the block' syndrome). There are some other matters with JAMES performance, but that's for another day .... 8O :wink:
     
  5. I would argue this point. The JAMES team that come to our barracks were all infantry, yes they could work the system but when it come to the more techinical questions, fuel, generators, eg, they could not answer the Qs thrown at them by LCpls!
    I thought this was the biggest let down, would I ever go to a Infantry Battalion and teach them tactis? No, so when they come to my TRANSPORT Regt they sounded a bit out of their depth.
    The other problem was the intergration with JAMES and the LSI, it really was the blind leading the blind when the inspection team turned up, it seemed like the system was forced onto the Regt with no clear direction of its capabilities, even after the two JAMES Courses I still felt I had not learnt enough!
     
  6. I have found that there are huge problems with the JAMES system. Pity that the designers of the software didn't get some ECI team input; for one,there is nowhere to record Out of Phase Maint on the system so you have to record it manually?? Big item on ECI in 1 Div, OOPM. So we now run electronic and manual systems "just in case the IT system falls down"! I hope that all the troops under fire are recording MT management systems manually in Afghanistan, heaven forbid if they get it wrong!! :roll:
     
  7. currently an in barracks solution only
     
  8. depends on equipment, out of phase will be listed as something like 3 yearly, or 5 yearly
     
  9. [quote="Moon_Monkey_Spunk
    I would argue this point. The JAMES team that come to our barracks were all infantry, yes they could work the system but when it come to the more techinical questions, fuel, generators, eg, they could not answer the Qs thrown at them by LCpls!

    technical questions should be directed to technical personnel i.e SME's, what they were teaching is how to use the MIS,

    [quote="Moon_Monkey_Spunk
    would I ever go to a Infantry Battalion and teach them tactis? No, so when they come to my TRANSPORT Regt they sounded a bit out of their depth.

    they havent invented the system. they have been pulled into fulfill a role that needs completing by land. There are drivers within the team and reme who's knowledge is limted. does your MT run differently to someone else's then?

    there will always be questions people cant answer on a new system. Until someone has asked the question for the first time nobody has probably even looked into it.[/quote]
     
  10. Capt Thunder pants.

    I'm sorry for posting my opinion, you seem to have an answer for everyone's gripe about JAMES, if you wanted a warm fuzzy "The system is perfect and we have had no problems since roll-out" then your NOT going to get one here.
    By the way we have not got a MT, I'm in a Tpt Regt and the LSI team seem to believe that were getting it right, before and after the roll-out of your beloved system.
     
  11. If you don't like the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question!
    :oops:
     
  12. lol, no beef chief.

    same goes though, thought your posts deserved a response thats all. i'm not bothered if you slag it off.

    Plus your not ment to use the back button. How annoying is that!!!
     
  13. IMO the problem isn't directly with the JAMES system (although it's had its glitches, and the blokes who rolled it out didn't inspire confidence) but rather with the limited IT for the blokes at the coal face to get onto JAMES, poor old LCpl TMA fighting every man jack for a DII terminal so he can print off an ATUD to get a vehicle down the servicing bay or what ever. Our Tpt Troops have one DII terminal if lucky, obviuosly split between the admin and MT office, so if he's lucky enough to have a terminal in his troop and troopy has finished e-mailing his buddies and doing MS and the Admin Sgt has finished doing JPA business and checking his funnies he might get a look in.

    Why someone can't just admit more terminals are required and put their hand in the purse to ensure all offices that require a terminal to function properly get kitted out. I bet a pound to a pinch of dog doo the Senior Service and brill cream mob don't have these drama's! Creamy coloured stand alones can still be found in some offices, whats that all about? fast moving modern British Army? Mind you computers are quite expensive these days!!! but i suppose this is a totally different thread! Rant over :D
     
  14. Other 'new' applications are having similar problems, the network isn't upto it and DII is late. People just failed to understand digitisation and its impact, too many times did the person planning for DII looked at the existing requirement and ignored applications coming into service in the future.

    As an example, the medics (on ops) are to get a new ICS system. They may make little use of BOWMAN, so are RLC Driver Ops being trained in IT and installing networks??? Isn't JAMES going on the same system - DII(FD).

    I believe roll out of some application to Naval units has been delayed because the state of their networks/IT was in the stone age.
     
  15. Our Bods are trained in how to use the JAMES and JPA applications, both of which are accessed through our DII(F) terminals, which, as i said are too few, we have gained more terminals through the DII(F) upgrade but it still doesnt meet the needs at the coal face. As for installing networks, no, apart from BOWMAN by the Rad Ops.