Missing trades/supervisors?

#1
Just had an attack of geekness after reading http://www.arrse.co.uk/royal-signals/173051-data-communications.html

but it got me thinking does the corps have the right structure. I've never been a techie in RSigs terms but in civil service/defence contractor terms I've always been.

Using the civil service for comparison, civ IM&T tends to lean towards Information Management/reporting with the IT/ICS element contracted out - whereas the corps tends to focus on the technology (IT/ICS) with the information management contracted in (esp with regards to CSS corps).

Surely the army knows the information it needs and it would be better. To match the civilian world I'd suggest Information Management Supervisor (or new type of FofS :lol) but entry to this role isn't restricted corps, it'd try to recruit IT types from RAMC, AGC, RLC, etc with the aim of moving army (paper) administration into electronic messaging.
 
#2
DO you mean like Foreman of Signals (Information Systems)? Communications is Core R Signals business. Its why we exist. IT specialist types shouldn't exist elsewhere. RAMC, AGC, RLC etc have their own core business to concentrate on. They should be telling us what information they want and how they want to utilise it but we will provide the infrastructure and capability.
 
#3
I wholeheartedly agree with this - we should be the Army's information management specialists. I assume that the new Capability Directorate is designed to enable us to this (with our Int Corps bretheren), although who knows? Will the plan survive contact with the next Defence Review?
 
#5
DO you mean like Foreman of Signals (Information Systems)? Communications is Core R Signals business. Its why we exist. IT specialist types shouldn't exist elsewhere. RAMC, AGC, RLC etc have their own core business to concentrate on. They should be telling us what information they want and how they want to utilise it but we will provide the infrastructure and capability.
But surely their core business can't exclude IT. Maybe using a FofS as an example was wrong, should have used YofS, who has an understanding of information flows around HQ's from experience but not capbadge specific information flows. In the case of medics we won't have experience of laboratory messaging, electronic drug ordering, reporting using clinical coding, understanding of how clinicians process information, etc bread and butter stuff for IM&T trust/hospital types whereas the army/MOD brings in these skills at AMS/DMS levels and mostly utilises firms such as Logica (DMICP) but I'd suggest that's too high a level (ok for 10+ years ago)
 
#6
Whole heartedly disagree. We have civvie and mil information managers at my place. And all that happens is they get asked where stuff has been saved. IM should be a core skill for every Soldier above a set rank. I can't think of the last time marksmanship principles came in handy but I used a co
Outer every day for ten years.
 
#7
IM should be a core skill for every Soldier above a set rank.
It should be. However, we can't even get everybody up to ECDL standard. I personally believe that all those who use a computer as their primary tool of work should have the training, if not the qualification, in order to do their job efficiently. Tackle this first and then move on to IM.
 
#8
IM should be a core skill for every Soldier above a set rank.
I think we're talking at slightly cross purposes... but agree with what you've said and the following comment about ECDL - assume we're talking about the bread and butter AGC/RAMC admin types. Using Information is a bread and butter skill - it's not RSigs or IM&T role to use/teach Excel/Word/Powerpoint for end users.
Providing sharepoint/business objects and advising how best to utilise it, maybe but still partly a end user/manager skill... when you move onto workflows, configuring information resource etc corps, defence contractors, IM&T only????
 
#9
We're currently employing CA to help us in the transition to the new latest version of one their products. We are examining our procedures and information flows as part of the process. From this experience I believe we are not best placed to govern the whole IM piece. The process is not dissimilar to a single point of failure survey conducted by the Int Corps but I can't see them taking on such a nugertry task.
 
#10
I can't think of the last time marksmanship principles came in handy
On your annual ACMT. A requirement of being in the Army unless you are a Padre!
 
#15
Some good points here. I'm an IT/MOSS (SharePoint) Trainer for the MOD these days, i was REME till i got too old last year.

The AGC seem to have picked up the MOSS/SharePoint Admin role for the Army. This really isn't their bag, these guys/glas deal with pay and clerial stuff, not building th topology of sites and then creating them setting permissions ect... However there aren't even enough sigs trained personnel to do this and as trainers we are only there to show you how to do stuff.

REME hinted at an IT trade a couple of years ago, i was a supposed to test the water there i think. But you'll find quite a few REME types in IT roles in the Army. ArmyNET and ARTD to name two.
 
#16
Sharepoint is a good example. Had to laugh at your example, arrse around tit. A certain person had it right with the ArmyNet sharepoint, the topology, adding sites, etc was his bag and us - sorted out our own subsite permissions and content.
 
#17
I did the TAFMIS end. John Whittingham set up the ArmyNET MOSS, he had my job before me. Very bright boke, just abut to be a civvie as well i believe. And also Gus who managed the overall ArmyNET which although ACMS wasn't that user friendly itt was a fun place to play if you new code.

As mentioned i dont set policy at DIIF, ATLAS, Land or wherever it is set, im sure there is a big master plan. What i do do however is apply what i learnt at ARTD and a few civvie sites likes the UK KPMG website which i built and help those i train. I cant say if its working as we only ever spend a few days at each site, but i always leave my number for my own helpdesk. I joined the company not for the cash, but because i just liked working with the Military, and the RAF of course!!! ;-)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top