Monitor Mass

[PuckChaser]

I believe MM only had a niche market because nobody thought of giving end-user access to parts of HRMS and Peoplesoft when it came out. If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.

 

[George Wallace]

I........ If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.

Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is the norm for the Cdn Government, it does pose some very serious problems.  Do these people have the necessary Security Clearances is one of the first questions; but not as serious as: Will they document everything that they do in the development of this new program?  So often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.  Thus when 'bugs' do appear, no one is in the know as to what was done in setting up the program and thousands of man hours have to be spent deconstructing and reconstructing the contractor's work to figure out what they did. 

Monitor Mass and HRMS are only two such programs that we are using that have bugs that no one knows how to fix.  There are other programs as well that have serious bugs that can not be fixed. 

 

[PuckChaser]

It all depends on how the contract is written, and whether there is a support agreement. I'm not sure if thats a PWGSC thing, or whether the CF will state the requirements for after release support and that gets passed on to the contractor during the bidding process. For security clearances, that would be up to the company bidding to have the appropriate people.

 

[PanaEng]

Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is the norm for the Cdn Government, it does pose some very serious problems.  Do these people have the necessary Security Clearances is one of the first questions; but not as serious as: Will they document everything that they do in the development of this new program?  So often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.  Thus when 'bugs' do appear, no one is in the know as to what was done in setting up the program and thousands of man hours have to be spent deconstructing and reconstructing the contractor's work to figure out what they did. 

There are tons of SW developer contractors with TS, etc. individually or with accredited companies.
Contract should always specify the deliverables as well as the criteria for accepting the deliverable - acceptance testing.  These should obviously include any Architectural design, detailed design, unit testing, integration testing, all source code and supporting libraries and user documentation documents - not just a CD with the install script and a binary file.
Unfortunately, that doesn't usually happen.

Monitor Mass and HRMS are only two such programs that we are using that have bugs that no one knows how to fix.  There are other programs as well that have serious bugs that can not be fixed.

Maybe there are people that know how to fix them - probably know exactly what line of code should be changed - but then you have to test the whole thing, deploy, etc. all things that cost money. And with talk of budget cuts, interfaces becoming obsolete, new SW coming out, etc. the attitude may be to just let it be and wait to see what happens.

cheers,
Frank

 

[McG]

Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is ...    ... often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.

George,
I think you are confusing the suggestion that we contract for a product (ie we buy something from a software developer company) with the prectice of contracting pseudo-employees (a practice we are infact not supposed to be doing) to work in DND and build the program as part of a DND development team.

 

[Help Desk]

I believe MM only had a niche market because nobody thought of giving end-user access to parts of HRMS and Peoplesoft when it came out. If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.

Monitor MASS was develop from Scratch by our programmers and yes there is some bugs that come up from time to time but there are usually fix quite rapidly, sometime the same day.  Almost all Org within the CF (17,000 users) are now using Monitor MASS in one form or another depending on their need and are extremely happy with it. The more you use it the more you realize how much work and precious time it can save you.

 

[brihard]

Gratuitously bumping this- hasn't been discussed in some time.

I'm friggin' in love with this program. I'm trainer qualified, and use it all the damned time at my unit for various ops / section administration stuff. I'm not even being a sarcastic prick, I genuinely think it's a fantastic piece of software 99% of the time.

A few things I've notice of late-

Class A reserve service now shows up on personal calendars. As a section commander I can see every day of Cl A my guys have worked back to December 2010. Helpful for diagnosing 'Where's my pay?' or seeing at a glance if a guy's been working an awful lot and may need a waiver.

Today (or in the past day or two) it also added data draw from FMS. I can see all the driver quals for my guys. Querying driver quals is still clunky to the point of dysfunctional (we need a "who can drive ___, ____ and ____?" query option), but the info is there and can be clicked through quickly if you're hunting for something specific.

I wish the PRV module could spit out a G/Y/R grid for an entire subunit- though it may be I just haven't figured out a clever way to export it yet. But the potential's there.

I really like how this is a visible 'work in progress', and how as functional as it is they keep adding new stuff. It's a tool whose value increases proportionately with the 'buy in' within the unit, but I've found it tremendously useful.

 

[dangerboy]

Where in MM do you go to see what driver quals a pers has?

 

[xFusilier]

Its in the readiness and accomplishments window there's two icons which appear to resemble a LAV.  One gives current qualifications and the other gives the qualification history.

 

[Demosthanes]

I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?

 

[dangerboy]

Its in the readiness and accomplishments window there's two icons which appear to resemble a LAV.  One gives current qualifications and the other gives the qualification history.

Thanks, this is very usefull

 

[turretmonster]

"I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?"

An internal to HRMS MM-like capacity or actual MM tacked on the side of the MPMCT using middleware to link the two?

TM

 

[McG]

I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?

Joy.

HRMS is currenlty a clerks tool that is largely not understood by anyone else.  MPMCT needs to deliver a single system that contains the HRMS clerk tools of old, but there also must be management tools (HRMS & MM), supervisor tools (MM) and member tools (think EMAA).

Now, where I mention "HRMS clerk tools of old" I am being more descriptive than perscriptive.  If changes to process eliminate the need for tools, or require new tools to be created, then those should be placed where needed.

 

[Demosthanes]

Turretmonster:
A full on replacement of MM in the new HRMS 9.x.  That is what MPMCT is going to shoot for.

 

[PuckChaser]

So if HRMS is replacing MM, how are supervisors going to have access to HRMS? We've just spent 2 years getting people up to speed on using MM properly in the Army and now they're all going to have to do HRMS courses to administer their troops?

 

[Demosthanes]

One of the expected benefits of the new HRMS 9.x from MPMCT is the increased visibility of personnel data for the individual and the CoC.  It should be possible to view individual data (member) and aggregated data (section, platoon, squadron, ship, etc..).  Specifics are not yet available in this early phase of the project.

The training for the new system will most likely be focused on the use of on-line training and coaching functions.  Admin folks will get a bit more, as can be expected.  Once again the details will become clear as we get closer to delivery.

 

[turretmonster]

In essence, same functionality, just a different login.  Most DL stuff for HRMS is pretty simple to learn and coach is always avail for when you forget a step.

TM

 

[dapaterson]

Of course, one hope the Primary Reserve will be considered, with limited DWAN access, but ubiquitous internet access.  Opening some access to the internet wil go a long way to supporting the part-time Reserve; keeping things in close will (again) ignore their requirements.

 

[Demosthanes]

Good point DA.
Nothing like getting the Iltis with Goodyear Arriva's as OEM rubber.  Fun to watch in the sand.  Those were the days.
The reserves and especially the P Res are getting a lot of consideration at MPMCT.  I will be sorely disappointed if smiles are missing from P Res RMS clerks when HRMS 9.x rolls out.  Still a watch and shoot, but expectations are high.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm less concerend about RMS clerks (who have computers) than about the Pte/Cpls on the armoury floor who don't have regular DWAN access but who still need to maintain their HR information.

Indeed, there's a statement of capability deficiency to be written about the current DND IM/IT systems and how they fail to provide a viable backbone for the part-time Reserve.  The overly restrictive Internet policies make it a challenge to effectively communicate with troops via electronic means - at least, it's hard if you try to follow the rules.