Yeomans as Bowman system Managers

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by bullshit, Jul 4, 2004.

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. So at the formation level Bowman System Manager is going to the Yeomans. Do we think that this is the corps just looking for a job to keep the mafia employed or should it have gone to the IS Supvr?

    I recently met a Yeoman who was convinced that Bowman will be the death of IS Supvr/Engr and that we should go back to where we started (original trade). Having not seen Bowman deployed at formation level I would love to hear from those out there who are in the know if it is more suited to IS or if it overlaps. I think this bit of equipment will cause many a debate on roles, especially when they start to bring in writable databases to support the Combat system, guess the Yeoman will have to start learning DBA stuff.... :wink:
     
  2. At first glance, the systems manager role would appear more suited to the IS Supvr than the Yeoman - i would need to have a look a the exact job spec to make a more informed oppinion. At the very least this appears to be Information Systems Management, which is the role of the IS Supvr.

    As for the writeable database issue - they might want to start teaching the IS Supvr's how to be DBA's - its not in everyones skill set. Besides, its not the job of the Supvr to be in the weeds, isnt that why we employ DBA's :wink:

    Boney
     
  3. DBAs............Is the Corps information systems, or information management?

    Surely that's the AGC?

    So why the f**k have we got the DBAs?
     
  4. For exactly the same reason as we get the guards, latrine digging, pan bash, brews, china plates etc etc...

    We're there. We are so determined to provide the 'service' that we never say no and never delegate. If you want it done well then the Corp has to do it.

    I'd better stop or I'll get onto to much of a rant and completely distract the thread!

    I don't think there's anything wrong with the Yeoman being the Bowman Systems Manager. We are all having to learn more of the new technology and I'm sure the Yeomen are ready for the challenges ahead! :roll:
     
  5. I know its off-thread, but DBA will be a massive role in the Digital era, something too good for the IS community to miss. One thing with DBA is that he must have sound network and IS knowledge in addition to DBA skills (just check out Microsofts web site on DBA role) so AGC would not be suited.
     
  6. Back to the original question, the role of BSM (F) or BSM (U) is best suited to vocational signallers (dont like the term but the Inf do!), i.w. people who know comms (not all IS Supvr fit into this role)

    Before you IS guys start i mean knowing what the Commanders intent is from a G3 point of view and adjusting G6 assets to fit. Ditto the RSO/RSWO at Bn level. Bowman is an IP based CIS system using software applications as management tools, however ICS provision is not about clicking a mouse. The BSM has to be network aware and IT literate but if he does not understand what the 'Comms Plan' needs to achieve for the Comd to achieve his mission then he is wasting his time.

    IS Ops have a limited role in BOWMAN at the moment, working with IMT within the BGI environment is one area but not as system managers, sorry! :D
     
  7. Bugger it, may as well ditch the IP Calculator and apply for the job of Provost Sgt! :lol:
     
  8. Just a quick question but what is the role of the Foreman in the Bowman setup.

    Apart from the obvious of clearing up the Yeomans and IS mess that is! :lol:
     
  9. Zorro, thanks mate, you said exactly what i was trying(very badly) to say!

    And HatsRUs, the Foreman will do what he has always done. Manage and fix the kit!
     
  10. Slightly off thread but does anyone know if BSM courses will eventually be incorporated within normal courses i.e. BSM(F) will become part of the YoS course, other Bowman courses become part of RS Op training? I guess most will.
     
  11. I think steady state trg for BOWMAN courses starts next year at Blandford which should inc supervisory trg. I know RSS isnt due to 'kick' out Bownan trained pers until 2005.
     
  12. Let's not start worrying yet. There's plenty room for all the various trades in that Bowman melting pot, just you wait and see. It'll take a few years, and the right people in the right places, for the roles and responsibilities to get properly defined and work effectively.

    PD
     
  13. Let's not start worrying yet. There's plenty room for all the various trades in that Bowman melting pot, just you wait and see. It'll take a few years, and the right people in the right places, for the roles and responsibilities to get properly defined and work effectively.

    PD
     
  14. Is their? Can't see any trade other than RS Ops doing BOWMAN, just as the primary trade above bde is always going to be based on AS Ops. The two trades that need to wory is techs and IS Ops, I think IS Ops will go and merge into techs.
    Also the IS Sups will disappear when both FoS and YoS courses get modernised to meat the demands of current comms systems (bowman, comorant or falcon). But..... maybe YoS and FoS need to be renamed YoCIS and FoCIS?
     
  15. Ouch, careful Polar you might upset someone!! (have to agree totally however :wink: )