Recording of MoDs

E

EScotia

Guest
#1
At the risk of embarrasing myself :oops: , when did it officially become a REME responsibility to maintain a regiments' mod register.

Yes I know we've nearly always done it for practical reasons, but if memory serves, Mat Regs used to say it was a QMs responsibility to demand mods and submit a 1045 to REME for them to be fitted, then record them in a register.

The latest version of the JSP now says it is a REME responsibility to maintain the mod register.
 
#2
My understanding is that it's always been a REME responsibility for equipment that the LAD/Wksp had a capability to support, so typically for vehicles and weapons systems while we didn't maintain one for Comms Eqpt as there were no 1st Line Tels Techs. That said Small Arms mods were wrapped up in the 6 monthly inspection report (AF C351) and the Comms Eqpt by the Mod Strike Plate. JAMES now provides the vehicle Mod register.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#3
Sorry but I disagree. During my 30+ years service REME always held the mod register for units because it was our responsibility to check mod status on annual inspections. It was their job to demand mods that were applicable to their eqpt because they owned the eqpt, they held their own tech publications block scale and mod instructions therefore came through the QM(T). REME also would have received mod inst through their tech pubs bin number.

Also James does not yet provide a full and proper mod register as the only mods that show up are the ones the IPTs have listed. James 2 is supposed to rectify this. The James team say there is currently no function that allows you to list all the fitted mods on a vehicle (unless someone out there can tell me how to do it?)
 
#4
This could be completed on FEMIS.
 
#7
EScotia,
I guess REME became responsible for maintaining unit mod registers when the latest JSP became live.
It was always a unit responsibility to maintain the register, however the first LEUMS AESP had it as a REME responsibility, despite DES AESP stating it was the unit's job. Just goes to show even REME didn't know who had to do it!
I raised an AESP form 10 on the issue (in about 2002 I think) and was told that the next amendment would reflect it as a unit task. I guess times have changed.

Oh, and DEME(A) said all REME units with 4 or more tradesmen were to use FEMIS - with only a couple of exceptions, I guess that's changed too now with JAMES.
 
#8
Nige,

Unfortunately we need to use both FEMIS and James until we get james 2 which will do both!! This means that there is a fair bit of double reporting


Dave
 
#9
Can I just stop this RUMOUR now.

REME units DO NOT NEED TO USE JAMES as well as FEMIS.
The only REME pers who needs access to JAMES is the MT rep.
If anyone needs any clarification on this please PM me.

EScotia, which units are not on FEMIS? If they have 5 or more tradesmen they should be on FEMIS, if not I can sort this out for them.
 
#10
Mmmmm, some slightly conflicting views here...

As far as I've always known it IS a REME and always has been responsibility to maintain the MOD Reg - there is even an extant EMER on the subject that lays it down in black and white - cant remember the ref off the top of my head, but it was only last year that I read it and it was still extant then - a quick check with the relevant SMIs confirmed that. This is all pre-james/B Veh test/cert etc so is nowt to do with all that malarky.

The comments re JAMES are correct - we steadfastly refused to use it in my last place, much to the 2i/s's annoyance, but this was backed to the hilt by DEME(A) and his mob so we were fine - dont use it - you dont need to, it doubles up on you time and in essence JAMES is just a glorified fault book - you didnt keep that for the troops did you - so why do it for JAMES, just tailor the unit fault reporting sytem to make all JAMES inputs, less for inspections a user responsibility and untill the advent of JAMES II you've halved your work-load reporting-wise..........

As for the MOD reg on FEMIS - yeah it works and can work well - but you need to be very warey of it as it needs to be tightly controlled or it spits out daft things like mods being non-applicable when they are and its easly messed up in the wrong hands. - It also shows up some holes in aspects of fleet management when you populate it as well - much to the QM(T)'s anger in past experience!

Anyhoo, enjoy, 3 months to go.
 
#12
Manic_mechanic said:
JAMES Land is not that far off and like all new things that REME adopt, it will become mandatory for everything and carears could be affected by failing to use it correctly.
2012 I heard. If your unit does the JAMES training now all your pers will have moved on by then......

Plus JAMES will have to revisit REME units to train them on JAMES land as it will be a much bigger beast than the JAMES workticket print that everyone uses it for now. :wink:
 
#13
Further to the above, just because pers will have moved on by 2012, don't put off training them. If everyone does that, then no one will be trained when JAMES comes in. Train your men for the next unit, don't have a short term, selfish view.

I am facing similar problems down here in Aus where units won't release people for eqpt courses required for next postings, leaving the receiving unit with the problem of untrained tradies arriving every January - fcuking painful!
 
#14
JAMES is not a glorified faults book at all. If used correctly it can help in planning maint events (if you bother to use JAMES you can see clearly when future ex, ops, leave or other events occur within your unit and if they effect maint/insp dates for all your equipment).

Someone needs to let the loggies I've just left know that! - the best SMI in the Regt on JAMES was in fact the Rech Mech Sgt in the LAD, so much so that the fleet manager would ring him to ask how to do stuff, along with the QM(T) dept.

MM - I see what you're saying and yes, there is merit to using the thing correctly, but if my experience of it is anything to go by (3 units now) all you end up doing is correcting input errors by the user , showing them how to do their job or actualy doing it for them as its easier/quicker. Whilst using it is as a good a substitute for training as possible, its only a stop-gap and as already mentioned, JAMES(LAND) will be an entirely different beast and will (or should) come complete with a new training regime for all of you lucky boys and girls who will still be around to use it.......

Still only 3 months to go...........
 
#15
Manic_mechanic said:
JAMES is not a glorified faults book at all. If used correctly it can help in planning maint events (if you bother to use JAMES you can see clearly when future ex, ops, leave or other events occur within your unit and if they effect maint/insp dates for all your equipment). Creating jobcards, recording repairers is easy but understandably you still have to use FEMIS at the same time so that puts people off. Inspection reports have to be generated on JAMES so you may as well get on with it. JAMES Land is not that far off and like all new things that REME adopt, it will become mandatory for everything and carears could be affected by failing to use it correctly.
M_M I totally agree, the problem we are facing with JAMES is that people on the whole have not read the JAMES SOI, therefore do not understand it. Chapter 4 of the document highlights everything it can do. If everyone takes 10 mins to scan through it and set aside their preconceptions then they may be surprised. It is a very good tool if utilised correctly. The concept of JAMES being an "MT" tool will seem flawed also after reading the SOI. The SOI's can be found on the main JAMES webpage.
 
#16
Nige said:
Further to the above, just because pers will have moved on by 2012, don't put off training them. If everyone does that, then no one will be trained when JAMES comes in. Train your men for the next unit, don't have a short term, selfish view.

I am facing similar problems down here in Aus where units won't release people for eqpt courses required for next postings, leaving the receiving unit with the problem of untrained tradies arriving every January - fcuking painful!
I never said not to train them, I am just questioning the reasoning of using a system for more than 3 years that will look and work totally different when we need to implement it. As I say above REME do not need to use JAMES just the mt rep.

However I do not see the point of training pers needlessly who are already under a lot of pressure, I would prefer to train them to use the system that will be built for them, not the QM's dept.
 
#18
It is funny how quickly this thread changed into a debate about JAMES and FEMIS... so here goes...

Personally, I like FEMIS. That is probably only because I use it daily though. However, even after a decade of getting used to FEMIS, I would still welcome change that makes it easier to use, especially the data query side of things!
 
#19
Manic_mechanic said:
All I want,

What makes you think JAMES Land is going to be so different from JAMES?

I know it will not be. It will be JAMES with additional componants as required. In our case there will be more to do, yes. The system its self remains as is in look and way you use it. Those parts you see and use today will still be there when Land becomes active.
I do not know how much input you have on JAMES but, I have quite a lot into FEMIS, so I understand a little of what is required of a management information system. It is never a simple task of just adding on components, there will be fundamental changes to the database, the interactions with other databases (i.e. spares demands) and how it is accessed i.e. permissions. If it will be just a case of adding on components then why will it take over 3 years from now (this date has been revised a few times by the way and will probably be revised again).

Manic_mechanic said:
The reason (mostly) why JAMES is in use today is so that the fleet management element is used. We did not have a complete fleet management tool in use throughout the service. More a hodge podge of databases and report forms which were not standard. Another reason was to get people using the system. The LAND part was never assured and only recently been given the go ahead.
Exactly, it is a fleet management tool, thank you. Who runs fleet management?
Another reason was to get people using the system???

Manic_mechanic said:
In house training is required in those units that have recieved the training package. If those units cannot forsee the problems they bring on themselves, by not carrying out the online training in conjunction with users being shown and mentored by those already trained. They only have themselves to blame when the 4 stars at LAND want to know why a unit is failing to use JAMES LAND correctly.
Units are presently not using JAMES correctly, this is because some of the implementation and training teams have not been given the proper direction on the use of it. They have become blinkered into the “JAMES is the future forget FEMIS” mould, units should not be advised thus until they are mandated not to use FEMIS.

Manic_mechanic said:
JAMES and subsequently JAMES LAND is driven by LAND. There are a lot of powerful carear destroying (capable) people watching this sytem and want it in place.
Why do you constantly feel the need to threaten with this?

Manic_mechanic said:
As pointed out, the SOI's on the Tech docs page on JAMES give clear instruction on its use and capabilities. JAMES is not perfect and is a thorn in my job (yes I am directly involved with JAMES).
I have had a look at the above and it is somewhat misleading to say the least.

Manic_mechanic said:
Sorry but I cannot answer as to what will happen with FEMIS and JAMES LAND. Its still undecided but work is ongoing in trying to get the two combined or something replacing FEMIS. Just think though of all the historical data on FEMIS that we cannot afford to just throw away. Its a difficult issue being looked at now.
Well I can. JAMES land will either be able to replace FEMIS or not they will never be combined. All the historical data on FEMIS is on the data repository (dr) and you could switch FEMIS off in the next minute and all the data would still be there on the dr.
I know the discussion as well about how “unreliable” FEMIS data cannot be imported to the JAMES system, maybe someone at JAMES should start looking at the data they have collected so far and see how “reliable” that is. They will find that it is as reliable as the people that are inputting it.

This discussion could and should go a lot deeper, but maybe not on arrse……..
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top