Monitor Mass

[CountDC]

The leave process is a no-brainer given that we are already doing it with the civilians using a web portal.

Yes and they can get rid of the requirement of military members on leave to have a copy of their leave pass on them and produce it when requested by a member of the Military Police or a superior rank.  Before it is asked - yes I have been required to show my leave pass to both in the past.

Have just started on MM and am so happy the navy finally switched.  Been waiting for it ever since my first look at it.  Keeps me from having to designe a database/spreadsheet everytime I change jobs or the highers decide they want something different.

 

[Help Desk]

Having listened to some individuals involved with the project to replace HRMS, I understand that Monitor MASS will not be supported on the new system (whatever year it rolls out) and data that is currently held in the MM database will be lost under the new system.  I also understand that the CF will not be allowing various commands to develop "plug-ins" or periphery software, so there will not be a Monitor MASS 2.

... has anyone heard if the next generation HRMS will include the supervisor & managment tools that we currently get through Monitor MASS or will it be another exclusively RMS Clk piece of software?

Monitor MASS is an Army funded application and other Command like the Navy are now contibuting to its development. Everything that is developed within Monitor MASS is something that is not found in HRMS currently and will not be in the new version of HRMS. So as long as we need to maintain UER , keep track of IBTS and Unit qualifications , process Class B Reserve Employment Opportunity - REO , maintain a Live Parade State automaticaly updated as soon as a CFTPO task (one of our program as well) , MITE course, an activity or leave pass is entered in Monitor MASS, Unit Agenda, Activity management which keep track of Activities/exercises with participants and the ability to grant IBTS and Unit qualifications at the end to all participants with a few Click of the mouse, keep track of jumps, keep trak of time at sea a new feature just built within Monitor MASS and more to come in the coming year.
So you can keep dreaming that PeopleSoft/HRMS will do all this in 20 years or encourage us in developing the features you need to do your job at a fraction of the cost of HRMS and does not provide what the Units and Chain of Command require for the day to day operation.

Monitor MASS, CFTPO tasking program and CFRIS Range Information System are 3 interlink Critical CF applications and the CF could not function without them so saying that it will not be supported in the future is nonsense.

 

[Help Desk]

Seeing that the powers that be have decided to not put any of us in the lower CoC on a MM training course or even given access, it's kind of hard to do any updates at all. Hence why all updates are done by the tried and true Bic pen.

When the powers that be decide it may be in their best interest to get Tp NCOs access, not just unit clerks, maybe it'll work the way it's supposed to.

Oh, and I (along with MANY others) have asked for access and some tutelage but to deaf ears. Just thought I'd throw it out there. It's not a particular unit thing either as I've been with 3 in the past 4 years. It's systemic and it's been identified too many times.

Regards

Granting access to new Users in Monitor MASS is a Unit and Chain of Command responsibility, we have over 1,200 individuals who have had the 5 days Train the Trainer course throughout the CF , if you need assistance you can contact your Bde, Area OPIs or our Help Desk at +Help Desk ASST

 

[Franko]

Wow, 1200 trained out of how many? That's not even a drop in the bucket.

Perhaps get the entire CTC training staff in to get the training when there aren't any career courses impacted or operational units to attend when there aren't priority operations ongoing.

5 days may not be a lot, to someone who doesn't go to the field except to do their IBTS training once a year, but it's damn near impossible for most units.

How about scaling it down so the minions who actually administer the troops can get on.

Regards

 

[PuckChaser]

I believe there's a CBT module on the Monitor Mass website, pretty sure the link is in the helpfile. I've only been there once, but I'm probably going to have to go back to it with the recent change in the software.

 

[George Wallace]

Five days is for the Train the Trainer course.  Then they can instruct others (ie. Users) to use it on a one day course.  We don't have to train everyone to be a "Train the Trainer".

 

[armyvern]

Wow, 1200 trained out of how many? That's not even a drop in the bucket.

Perhaps get the entire CTC training staff in to get the training when there aren't any career courses impacted or operational units to attend when there aren't priority operations ongoing.

5 days may not be a lot, to someone who doesn't go to the field except to do their IBTS training once a year, but it's damn near impossible for most units.

How about scaling it down so the minions who actually administer the troops can get on.

Regards

George has already addressed the 'non-need' for everyone to be Train the Trainer qualified. I don't know what is up at CTC, my previous 3 Units have all had MM usage as "mandatory" (& 3ASG Tech Svcs Br was a mandatory & "entire" usage). All MCpls and above were given anywhere from a 1 day to 2 day orientation course by our pers qualified TTT. We all used it (MCpl & above) and it worked -- but, then again, our Unit actually gave us access.

If your "powers that be" aren't giving you guys access to and/or training, then that is a Unit problem; not a MM problem and not an Army problem. 9erD was also using it for Sqn admin at his last Unit. It's 1 day ... 1 day, and you don't have to train everyone in your Unit on the same day ... the above stated op impact is overblown at best.

 

[Franko]

George has already addressed the 'non-need' for everyone to be Train the Trainer qualified. I don't know what is up at CTC, my previous 3 Units have all had MM usage as "mandatory" (& 3ASG Tech Svcs Br was a mandatory & "entire" usage). All MCpls and above were given anywhere from a 1 day to 2 day orientation course by our pers qualified TTT. We all used it (MCpl & above) and it worked -- but, then again, our Unit actually gave us access.

If your "powers that be" aren't giving you guys access and/or training, then that is a Unit problem; not a MM problem and not an Army problem. 9erD was also using it for Sqn admin at his last Unit.

It must not be a priority then. We have 2 guys that have access and no training in my unit alone and I know of one other in another.

I still have my Bic pen.

Regards

 

[armyvern]

It must not be a priority then.
Regards

Apparently not, but let's put the blame where it belongs; that's not on the system itself, or the Army.

Funny thing is, we all bitched when we had to 'switch over' at the 1st unit I was with who went the way of MM; but that forced switch actually ended up being a good thing. One day on course and then using MM showed the end result to be much more time on our hands to accomplish ops and trg support tasks because our pers admin workload dropped by about 75%. At my next two Units, I argued "for" the conversion because I knew what the end-result would be in the way of time and manpower actually 'saved" by utilizing it. Interesting how that works.

 

[McG]

• Monitor MASS is an Army funded application and other Command like the Navy are now contibuting to its development. Everything that is developed within Monitor MASS is something that is not found in HRMS currently and will not be in the new version of HRMS. So as long as we need to [removed list of things] a new feature just built within Monitor MASS and more to come in the coming year.
  
  So you can keep dreaming that PeopleSoft/HRMS will do all this in 20 years or encourage us in developing the features you need to do your job at a fraction of the cost of HRMS and does not provide what the Units and Chain of Command require for the day to day operation.

  You are dreaming if you think Monitor MASS will do any of this in 20 yrs.  The current version of HRMS is being replaced in a few years.  The new program will not support Monitor MASS.  It is a great program and I believe we need most of what it does for us.  However, knowing that it will become unsupportable, at what point do we stop pumping resources (money & effort) into developing Monitor MASS and instead put those resources toward supporting the HRMS replacement that is already on the horizon?
  
  Unique "skunk-works" solutions increase software lifecycle costs exponentially.  We have started planning for the next bound in HR software - we need to make sure all of our requirements are addressed in one platform (as mentioned, this may will also require we change the way we do some pers admin).

 

[turretmonster]

"The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "

Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM?  Expand and define please.

TM

 

[dapaterson]

HRMS provides tombstone HR and organizational data to MM.

MM then permits users to bastardize that data to no end - redrawing org charts (which requires VCDS authority, not Cpl Bloggins at 5 RCR), changing tombstone data ("Why did my T4 go to my old address?  It was changed in MM!") and others.  The classic MMism was when someone changed master data so the three Reg F infantry Bns in LFWA were labelled as "Princess Patricia's Canadian Mechanized Infantry".  When basic organizational information like that can be corrupted with no audit trail to discover what happened it means the tool is not ready for prime time - it has no data integrity.


MM does provide some functionality that is needed and some that is nice-to-have.  But to claim the CF would collapse if it were turned off tomorrow is a mis-statement of fact.

 

[cavalryman]

"The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "

Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM?  Expand and define please.

TM

MM gets a weekly data dump from HRMS, flat-file style, to populate the data fields that MM duplicates.  That is all.  A much smarter approach would be to apply the old "enter data once, use many times" principle by having the functionality MM has that PeopleSoft doesn't bolted-on to HRMS so the same database gets many uses.  But as long as DND keeps turning a blind eye to inefficient IM practices, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[McG]

"The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "

Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM? 

HRMS provides MM with information.  That information comes from a database.  When HRMS changes, the database will change.  Mapping information between different databases & designing gates to regularly move information between different databases is a millions of dollars effort.  The "support" is access to information in a DB that MM understands.  That will be gone.

We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.

 

[turretmonster]

Millions to map a database? Tell me you are kidding.

PM me for directions to my office. Maybe if I show you how its done.   

TM

 

[JMesh]

Out of curiosity, if they are making a new HRMS system, why can this not incorporate Monitor Mass? Right now, we have numerous systems and we're trying to make them all work off of information from each other, and when changes are made in some they won't necessarily be uploaded to the others (depends which system they are edited in). I would think it prudent that with the development of a new system, elements from numerous existing systems (including but not limited to HRMS, MM, MITE, CFTPO, CFPAS, FMS, the supply system which I can't recall the name for, etc.). As I understand it (feel free to correct me), the information in most of these is downloaded into MM, so having it all in one system could be very beneficial. I understand that this would be a huge undertaking, but then every system is on the same page and members could have the opportunity to check their own complete information more readily, ensuring more accurate records. Furthermore, there are no issues with wondering whether or not the information is the same across the board and the CoC has complete immediate access to all records pertaining to their personnel. As with current systems, different permissions could be provided to different users.

Has an idea like this been discussed on here before?

 

[cavalryman]

HRMS provides MM with information.  That information comes from a database.  When HRMS changes, the database will change.  Mapping information between different databases & designing gates to regularly move information between different databases is a millions of dollars effort.  The "support" is access to information in a DB that MM understands.  That will be gone.

We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.

Not quite as dramatic.  What HRMS now provides MM is an extract pulled by a SQL query, just like any other report or extract provided by HRMS to other apps, such as MASIS.  To simplify, these extracts contain whatever info the receiving system needs in a given sequence that the receiving system can upload - think of it as a big text file.  No mapping (in the database admin sense) is required.  All of the queries for the various interfaces HRMS has with other apps will have to be rewritten when MPMCT rolls out PeopleSoft version 9.x, and that will likely be part of the project's mandate.  What you're referring to is more of a live connection between databases, which can indeed get very complex very fast.  But extracts built to pull the information the receiving system needs is pretty simple in comparison.  Now whether or not MM will be needed once MPMCT rolls out, is a different question, one which the folks in CMP working on the project are best placed to answer.

 

[PuckChaser]

This whole "Monitor Mass" will die thing irks me a little bit. It'll only die if the new HR application uses something completely different than SQL databases. Yes, you'll have to modify the query to cover the new fields, but you're not re-writing the whole application. If we go to something SAP based like DRMIS, then I could see MM being made obsolete. I personally hope we don't see something SAP based... it appears to be UNIX based and not very user friendly (at least DRMIS isn't).

 

[McG]

Millions to map a database? Tell me you are kidding.

I am not. 

We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.

If you take all the costs of re-building monitor MASS to function from a new database then you are getting there.  Throw on the cost of product/lifecycle support for two sets of HR software (HRMS next + Monitor MASS next) and the programming to keep the skunk-work compatible everytime the core system evolves ... and as part of the initial re-building and the lifecycle support, you will have to include the salaries of all the PS who would not be required if we supported a single software system. 

PM me for directions to my office. Maybe if I show you how its done.   

I've been through LSEC a few times.  I've been shown what is required to data map between DBs.

Out of curiosity, if they are making a new HRMS system, why can this not incorporate Monitor Mass? Right now, we have numerous systems and we're trying to make them all work off of information from each other, and when changes are made in some they won't necessarily be uploaded to the others (depends which system they are edited in). I would think it prudent that with the development of a new system, elements from numerous existing systems (including but not limited to HRMS, MM, MITE, CFTPO, CFPAS, FMS, the supply system which I can't recall the name for, etc.). As I understand it (feel free to correct me), the information in most of these is downloaded into MM, so having it all in one system could be very beneficial. I understand that this would be a huge undertaking, but then every system is on the same page and members could have the opportunity to check their own complete information more readily, ensuring more accurate records. Furthermore, there are no issues with wondering whether or not the information is the same across the board and the CoC has complete immediate access to all records pertaining to their personnel. As with current systems, different permissions could be provided to different users.

Has an idea like this been discussed on here before?

It is being discussed here.  It is what I am saying we should be doing instead of investing more into MM.

 

[JMesh]

It is being discussed here.  It is what I am saying we should be doing instead of investing more into MM.

Seen. Don't know how I missed that.

Completely agree with your points on financial gain as well. In developing one system, we eliminate the need for extraneous systems and updating them every time we update the core system.

Additionally, I think on that point we'll also save our members a lot of time that definitely could be put to better use. The time it takes to train and re-train on a system and put the information into/verify the information within multiple systems could be better spent on any number of tasks. If it's all rolled into one, a member need only re-train on the updated area, and only if it affects them (rather than training on a new updated secondary system).