Admin Process Management Team

[xab]

Dear All,

As some of you may know, the Admin Burden Management Team led by the now OC 2FTS has ceased. It would appear that a re-badged group called the Admin Process Management Team is being stood up to carry on (or from a CFAVs perspective - start) the work again. Having spoken to the Comdt AC about admin burden during Lees Trophy inspections, I know that it is still on the radar and their is a desire to make life easier on the coalface, but they are lacking in ideas of how to actually do so easily.

You are probably aware that a lot of the previous focus was around how forms etc are processed at HQAC and doing a lot of process mapping.

I have been invited to attend the OCs sub-group of the main group which is tasked with looking at ways that admin can actually be reduced to Squadrons and Detached Flights. We are being asked to go to Cranwell in the next few months to discuss some ideas and I thought this forum would be a good place to try and collect some useful ideas that actually have a realistic chance of being implemented.

I will be presenting my Squadrons Event Management System which is used to coordinate everything to do with everything that we do from a cadets perspective. We don’t have event noticeboards and event lists any more, everything goes through EMS. We can share anything with the cadets like JIs etc securely through the site. No personal information stored on it before anyone asks. It has been suggested that it might be possible to take the EMS functionality and deliver through Bader - but I don’t believe that would happen for a very long time.

So, does anyone have any useful items or ideas that I can bring up at the OCs forum? If you want to contact me via PM instead of replying to this thread, please do so!

[Jacques]

As Training Officer, a lot of my time is spent simply finding information. When I hear about an ‘opportunity’ (sometimes by email, Sharepoint announcement, SMS, or in person) I copy the details onto a template I’ve made that includes a main POC, dates for returns/deadlines, eligibility criteria, transport information, cost, etc.

I assume that most other TOs have a similar system, as I certainly can’t store all the information accurately in my head. Most of the ‘poor admin’ I see from other squadrons is down to missing deadlines or overlooking eligibility criteria.

SMS is pretty good now, but it’s not very good for finding out about opportunities. Usually, people send out an email to draw people’s attention to an SMS activity (and often the email contains more details than the SMS activity). This duplicates effort and splits up the information.

What I propose is a Training Officers dashboard for SMS. It would have 4 columns, one each for Corps, Region, Wing and Sector (or custom selections of squadrons). The rows would be: Action Required, Engaged, and Available.

Activities would first show up in the ‘available’ box. TOs could click a button on the activity somewhere that would indicate that they were interested in participating, which would mark the unit as ‘engaged’ with that activity. The activity would then move from the ‘available’ box to the ‘engaged’ box.

‘Engaged’ activities would move to the ‘needs action’ box when appropriate. eg. bids required, consent forms required or joining instructions have been made available. Nothing in this box should be ‘standing’, all should be able to be completed and ticked off so they move back out of this box.

Activity organisers should also be able to add eligibility criteria to their apps, in a clear and structured format. If you tried to add a cadet that wasn’t eligible, you would receive a warning message and the choice either to cancel the action or to send to the activity organiser for approval. They would be able to override the criteria and approve the cadet to be added to the activity.

These two improvements would make my job a lot easier.

[Plt_Off_Prune]

1. Make processes such as changing bank details, addresses etc automatic through SMS to HQAC. Wing don’t need to know.
2. Sort out electronic pay, 1771s and Home to Duties.
3. Sort out an electronic way to process the insurance for staff
4. Sort out the whole DBS issue for renewals and new ones
5. Sort out a national staff application form, instead of 4-5 bits of paperwork

[sypland]

Steady on there.
You are talking about making things more efficient and easier to deal with !!
Surely a contradiction when it comes to anything involving the MOD, civil service and central government!!!

[Mr_OZ]

[quote=“xab” post=26370]Dear All,

As some of you may know, the Admin Burden Management Team led by the now OC 2FTS has ceased. It would appear that a re-badged group called the Admin Process Management Team is being stood up to carry on (or from a CFAVs perspective - start) the work again. [/quote]

This is a bit like what happened when they change the name of the nuclear reprocessing plant from Windscale to Sellafield. Same outcomes different name.

I think it can be safely said from the volunteers perspective the change in name is quite telling. We will now be instructed how to manage the burden and not HQAC reduce the burden. :ohmy:

[Plt_Off_Prune]

There’s an interesting issue at the heart of this. Most of the perceived burden comes from HQAC. Regions and Wings sometimes add their own layers, but in truth not much. If you look at the reason why HQAC have some many administrative controls, well simply put they should do - like most HQs, Head Offices, corporate chains or top level entities they have to set a series of national structures and controls. Otherwise 34 different ways of doing things would be quite a challenge! However, those in control are principally civil servants. One’s who’s seat in the office is secured by the virtue of there being some work to do. Reduce that work and you loose the headcount (FTE). The MoD beancounters will come a chopping. Now to some that’s fine, but these are peoples jobs, and if they have some control of their job security they will make damn sure there’s work that needs doing. The real challenge lies with the head-sheds. They need to accept a reduction but before it happens put in place some new ways of working.

Take pay for example. There will always be a need for a finance department. They do so much more than process F80’s. If i recall, there one person who processes pay claims for the whole corps. Remove the admin element and have an automatic system, well you still need someone to conduct a random counter-fraud check on 10% of the claims. So you are not really saving any money there and thus there is a lack of willing to invest money for nothing other than helping the volunteer (don’t start, please, i know already what you want to say).

[xab]

Hi All,

Many thanks for the positive contributions so far - keep them coming! I am making a list which I will be sending off as items for discussion.

I completely understand the skeptical views of some of the users on the post - I too am yet to be convinced that our input is going to make a meaningful impact on the wider organisation…that said, if you don’t try and feed into the process with constructive ideas, we will never change anything. I see the fact that a group of OCs are being brought together as a positive thing.

I am reasonably convinced that the issues around electronic remuneration etc are being looked at through Universe and other systems, but I will ask for an update and feedback where appropriate.

Cheers

[steve679]

tidy up sharepoint?

obviously it would be difficult to tackle the mess of 36 wings, but the HQAC site isn’t smooth.
folders with no files in…what is the point?
the structure is a little backward in places > can “paperwork” be filed under activity?

going shooting? find the shooting folder, that then breaks down to instruction or live fire (and drill if needed)
then all the manuals and regs relevant to that aspect

the rules and regs we have jump around between APs/ACTOs/ACPs/ACATIs etc…why shift through pages of menus to find three relevant documents when they could be grouped under the activity they refer to?
Using shooting again there is a “shooting docs” menu but then to find the ACTOs (marksmanship awards, use of ranges, shooting) it is in a separate place again…

with regard to authorisation…ie via SMS why are we wrapped in cotton wool?
if someone holds the AT qualification why do they need OC approval (who may hold NO AT qual) and then Wing approval?

if the person is qualified why do they then need permission/authorisation to use the qual?
if they mess up just >< much then start making it 100% checks until they can prove their competent…or strike them from the register.
with a NBG qual i have free reign to carry on as i see fit…yet with the ACO it is watered down
…please sir…i have committed 3 years to getting experience, another 2 years getting qualified…i have spent the last 7 years successfully using that qualification, offering out opportunities on average once a quarter, can you please check and approve i know what i am doing?
if its good enough for the NGB that the qual is held why can’t CFAVs be trusted…everyone is assumed guilty until proven otherwise…which requires reams of paperwork each time we want to go for a 5 mile stroll with map and compass!

TG forms…oh how i hate these things.
can we have in black and white when these are required?
there are some activities they are a must and i can live with the (AT/overnight/Sports, and on different forms flying) given the higher level of risk…but when else…if at all?
what was wrong with a F3822 as a list of contact details and medical status? combined with a SMS register that holds the information on a TG form. who, where, when and who to contact if things go wrong…

CROs - make them mean something. include any files that have changed/been updated. offer us formal updates on flying or fieldcraft bans, 95% are repeat orders and become meaningless…

[tmmorris]

In the unlikely event that anyone on here has a CCF-specific point to make, do please send them to me - I might even manage to make it to a meeting at some point.

I really want to engage with it, because much of the CCF admin burden comes from being forced to use ATC processes which duplicate those already imposed by Brigade HQs…

[orh197]

I found myself put forward as the sole CCF representative on the original Admin Burden Reduction Team. Once I received a long document with many different strands we were due to discuss, I realised that almost none of them had any relevance to the CCF.

Our concerns are very different to those of the ATC - mostly to do with the duplication from the Army (Brigade) side. I suggested to Wg Cdr CCF that we could really do with a CCF-specific subgroup to discuss these points, but I don’t think he went forward with the idea.

Hope the new initiative has more success than the last one!

[incubus]

I suggested to Wg Cdr CCF that we could really do with a CCF-specific subgroup to discuss these points, but I don’t think he went forward with the idea.

I don’t think he was ever actually involved!

I gave up with the ABRT when it became abundantly clear that reducing the admin burden for the volunteer was not their prime concern. It is probably wise that they have taken “reduction” out of their title as it seemed to me that most of the key (loudest, most boorish) members of the team were primarily concerned with pushing their own personal agendas and not with taking any sort of holistic view. Redefining the admin processes did happen, but most of the time these processes seemed to expand rather than reduce.

Within the organisation as a whole there appears to be too much freedom given to individual section leaders to invent processes without any thorough review as to their relevance or simplicity, or to how they may fit into the organisation as a whole. Some of the processes created by TG1 and OC2FTS in recent times have been shining examples of how to swamp people with requirements that are a genuine hassle and of questionable benefit or necessity.

Some things need to be stripped back to basics and the question asked that was suggested by CAC from the outset: "Why do we do this?what would happen if we don’t?"
This means looking from a blank sheet in some areas and laying out what is actually needed by law within the constraints of practicality and management. To some extent this means brushing aside the received wisdom of the more elderly members of the team and challenge as to why things are perceived as “needed” and what could be done better. I think there is great work to be done in the areas of consent and medical declarations as there is significant streamlining that can be achieved in those areas if we dig ourselves out of the mire and base our decisions on legislated requirements and not risk-afraid ■■■■-covering.

There is also much improvement can be done in the field of SMS activity approvals. That system has become bloated, confusing and messy and has been hijacked by permanent staff and used to micromanage activities. the idea of trusting staff and delegating responsibility appears to be dead.

[glass_half_empty_2]

We talked about the old ABRT at one of our CO’s conferences and the general consensus was it was bowlocks and some of us thought we had more chance of winning the National and euro lotteries 2 weeks on the bounce, than seeing anything positive in terms of reducing admin for us. This didn’t go down well with the ExO, especially when we pointed out that volunteer staff have and always have done a lot of running around admin wise and even more via SMS/Bader to the benefice of the paid staff. IMO I’m not entirely sure they’re all required anymore, IF the MOD weren’t so flaming anal about everything IT as whenever someone mentions something they ramble on about DII, which seems to be a metaphor for you are scum and can’t be trusted.
As for the question from CAC being poo pooed and the mindset of the ‘old timers’ at HQAC, nothing surprises me. Speaking to a different CFAV who have been involved in things at HQAC over many years, they have all said there is mentality in the ACMB and other controlling committees that if the incumbent CAC suggested something and they didn’t like it they’d put it on the pending pile for as long as they could, hopefully until a new CAC was appointed and they could forget about it. BUT if it was something they thought was the bee’s knees it was full steam ahead regardless.

As for improvements

The idea of all documentation for activities/areas in one place on Sharepoint, as suggested by Steve has to happen, commonsense dictates it. Currently a large number of staff look at Sharepoint, sigh and never darken its doors again. I doubt if I wasn’t a Sqn Cdr whether I’d bother even looking at it. Doing this one thing would make it much more relevant.

Activities on SMS need to be improved as several have mentioned and one way would be being able to change staff once it’s approved, without getting it ‘unlocked’. If they have a ‘role’ a warning message comes up before you remove them. Given we have to plan things so far in advance I put all staff down as attending just to cover all instances, because I need as little hassle as possible.
There should be a box indicating the qualified person and if their qual meets the criteria then it is automatically approved.
Whoever sets it up should be able to select the person i/c rather than it having by default to be whoever sets it up, just to advance the approval stage. I’ve been i/c many, many things I’ve not even attended. And anyone can do the completion report.

WRT health I think we should do what schools do (or what our kid’s schools did) which is an annual health declaration and details check. We would get one of these from the school in September for each child with what ‘health problems’ we had notified and contact details, with space to make any further declarations and change contact details.
We only had to fill out a ‘consent form’ for overseas trips and for UK trips only a ‘yes we agree to them attending and here’s the money to pay for it’ form. Everything else came off the school database and went with the teacher in charge. I’m sure we could be trusted to pull this information off SMS, via a wizard (like what I use on the systems at work) given we are the ones having to do any updates etc, we are more privvy to the information than any MOD / HQAC shiny. You could go on a camp etc with one sheet of A4 per cadet with all the information you need, rather than ½ a tree.
It is ironic that we got all the additional health consent forms, flying medical form etc post ABRT.

Another improvement would be all of our online admin being completely overhauled. What we have in terms of ‘electronic admin’ systems have become a mess and the way you have to do things is far from friendly. Mind you there is probably an element of being careful what you wish for among those on CFAV side of the fence who pushed for e-this and that years ago and the distance between what they expected and what was delivered. I know when I first saw SMS I knew it wasn’t what I expected and just knew it wasn’t for my benefit. IMO I got a rickety £10 camp bed when I was expecting a king size bed with nice matress with down duvet. I still can’t see the improvement over a file with forms in … oh wait a minute.

[DJRice]

@glass_half_empty_2

Mind you there is probably an element of being careful what you wish for among those on CFAV side of the fence

indeed … you might get JPA

[incubus]

I hear JPA actually works now. It may be for the best

[DJRice]

Really??? who said that!???

[themajor]

The biggest problem with SharePoint is that it’s become an unmanageable beast, the main reason for this is that people do not know how to use it correctly. Wings replicate forms that are on the HQAC site, and get updated but this isn’t the updated on the Wing’s Site. Content is not reviewed and becomes out of date but remains in place, making it harder to find what your looking for.

Some of the best opportunity’s are buried on SharePoint, and get little attention from CFAVs because we don’t actually know they exist.

One of the biggest problems is Internal Communication, at all levels. Our Wing has monthly WROs, with information that isn’t replicated on SharePoint, if it’s read by someone and then not actioned on there is no reminder or chasing in place. My OC receives so many emails, that are just sent to him, when in reality it could be sent to all, or even placed on a SharePoint and linked in a email to increase awareness.

We need to look at where current processes are placing the the admin burden, and then further examine, if it is necessary and at the correct level.

We need clear defined policy from HQAC on the correct use of SMS, and it’s various Activity Types

We need clear defined policy from HQAC on the correct use of TG forms, and their subsequent retention. How can the AV MED Form be current for 6 months, and a cadet fly based on it 5 times, but in the same time period 10 TG forms required for bag packing!!

We need to look at what processes, can be automated using data input on SMS, ordering of certificates, increasing classifications once the required exams are completed

We need to look at why we can’t complete Pay & Mileage forms electronically, and submit by email, as this would get them to the accounts team quicker, and save a forest.

[steve679]

well said the Major!!

[glass_half_empty_2]

I don’t understand why travel forms can’t be online forms that have the calculations embedded OR as excel files. I’ve used a spreadsheet for years at work to calculate fuel expenses when I use my car. I have similar for calculating HTD (inc CI fiddle) and 1771 at the sqn. I changed the HTD to show what you actually get when they take 6 miles off. There are probably some for whom it costs more to process than they get, which amuses me.
HTD and 1771s would be easy to do for someone with the most basic of spreadsheet skills to do.

Communications has increasingly been a problem since day one of using email back in the late 90s and even more so since going completely post free. The problem is they have tried to do the Corps’ IT as cheaply as possible in every single way possible.
HQAC haven’t and continue have no involvement in equipping squadrons, paying for internet or even proper training for staff.
It is ironic that for an organisation that bangs on about training, there has never been any training for CFAV on the software/systems they are supposed to use, with the exception of a couple of documents, as a result people don’t use it unless they have to. All of the IT at sqn level has been procured locally in a piecemeal fashion, with people using older and newer machines with different versions of Office and types / versions of OS and browsers. Internet connectivity is the same and I imagine there are some remote sqns and DFs (regardless of location) that don’t have it or if they do it’s via a mobile.
It’s about time HQAC removed their heads from the sand, bit the bullet and either sorts us all out with hardware, software, peripherals and broadband (£5-£6M should be enough initially) OR sorts out huge discount schemes for IT kit, broadband and stationery. So that we can turn up and buy or order things and not pay high street prices.
We desperately need to get some new laptops and projectors as the ones we have are getting on a bit (the laptops use Vista) and I have already got to over £3K without any trouble. This is as well as replacing tents and rucksacks and not to mention some of the other things staff have asked for. Also now if we buy the latest versions of Office it’s all done, as I found out for home last year, as annual licences, which is another ongoing cost for squadrons, getting new PCs.

[Plt_Off_Prune]

£5-£6 million. Hahahahhahahahaha yeah, like the MoD will actually be able to get that. Straight away you are into OJEU territory. Pull your head out of the sand more like. Discounts for software already exists my friend. A full copy of Office- yours for ~£50. What else do you need?

[themajor]

A full copy of Office- yours for ~£50. What else do you need?

Details of how to obtain published on SharePoint