It’s all over Google. Why does it need to be copied onto sharepoint. ?
Because until you said it, I wasn’t aware that was available to us, and no doubt there are certain hoops to jump through.
If it was on SharePoint in a ‘Unit IT’ folder along with User Guides for the full BADER suite, it would detail the full process, and make our lives as volunteers easier.
The point of SharePoint is to have one place to go for information.
1 Like
I’ve seen it circulated in regional correspondence and wing correspondence. It relates to a company, which the ACO can’t officially endorse due to competition rules, as many companies/agents offer it. In fact now I write, I’m convinced I’ve seen something from HQAC previously on this, possibly in something which is now on sharepoint.
The Corps’ whole admin system is now founded on using IT and as I said HQAC as the ‘head office’ rather than taking responsibility blithely / arrogantly shoved the cost at squadrons, which any CWC chairman and Sqn Cdr will testify is not inconsiderable. Ask your OC and or Chairman. And as I said because kit has been acquired in a completely piecemeal fashion, as very few squadrons will be able to completely replace things in one hit, even within squadrons there may be different versions of things being used. There are sqns in our Wing that got a number of old PCs from businesses and the squadrons were held as beacons for us all to aspire to with effectively computer suites. Speaking to a member of staff from one of the squadrons, their’s are now around 10-11 years old and take ages to do anything, but trying to get them replaced when they are saving for a new minibus is causing problems.
As a result part of the reason there are so many problems with admin at sqn level (and probably at all levels) is because of the unrealistic attitude displayed by HQAC to EWOW. If even the smallest firms acted the way HQAC does they’d be out of business.
Anything which is looking into admin across the Corps has to address this issue and make it quite clear that this is contributing to the problems. But it will need the sort of money mentioned to get something done. It might also bring to the attention how much squadrons have had to invest as a collective. I bet it wouldn’t be much less if not much, much more. So that’s several million pounds raised or acquired by squadrons for something that we didn’t ask for. Of course this doesn’t include the ongoing associated costs.
£50 for Office - unless it for a multi-user licence is not that much of a discount and even then it’s still not a huge discount. If it’s a mulit-user licence for the full business version, then that is a considerable discount. But as The Major says not much use unless we all know about it and it’s easy to get.
LibreOffice is a very effective and free word processer that functions very similarly to Microsoft Word. It’s worth considering as an alternative. There would be little need for user training and most documents are compatible anyway…
1 Like
Dear All,
Many thanks for your constructive comments - I think there are a number of themes coming out of this:
Project Bader
Streamlining of existing processes such as Form 80 and 1771 payments and other finance related issues. It sounds like we are all in search of an HR Self Service area that allows us to make a claim and submit it electronically through SMS.
Through the Self Service desk, you should also be able to update your addresses and contact details - without having to fill in a form and post it off.
We also want to make use of electronic DBS clearance - which is something I do through my actual job. Comes back with the clearance in 48 hours so I don’t know why we can’t do that.
A fresh look at Sharepoint is required and a lot of work is needed to make it into a useful resource. National rules and regulations are needed to ensure that the Sharepoint is used in a consistent manner so we can find things.
Nanny Mentality
I get the impression that we are all frustrated by being treated like children by HQAC. The latest one in our Wing is that you have to complete an SMS PIPE to move cadets from the Squadron to Wing HQ for whatever. As part of that authorisation, you must have a correct nominal role and female cover which must be in place or the application is rejected.
For me, if they want us to document everything that we are doing, Sqn Cdrs need to be given a degree of flexibility. This could be through the ‘Local Event’ functionality that doesn’t require sign off by anyone except the Sqn Cdr. Apparently, the reason we can’t use that at the moment is the Joint Casualty Clearing Centre doesn’t have access to local event applications so they can’t see a nominal role. Apparently…
There has to be a degree of trust somewhere along the line…
National Application Form
A single form that you complete to join the organisation that has everything in it instead of having to complete 5+ forms to join the ACO.
Information Communications Technology
There are clearly disgruntled people that object to being told to use a national IT system but we are not supplied with the means to access it. I am inclined to agree - there should be better provision or at the very least access to heavily discounted IT systems (software and hardware) and broadband provision.
Bring back a meaningful admin grant…
Right, I think that is the big stuff for now - what am I missing?
Cheers
1 Like
For me there are loads of issues, and I’ll revisit this when I have more time (and I’m at a PC).
Consent forms - clear defined (sensible) policy is needed.
DBS checks - process is not fit for purpose and needs improving, as covered above.
Better method of recording classifications. The books are ok but time consuming to mark. The others aren’t easy to see unless you check Ultifail.
Qualifications on SMS need updating and the expiry dates need to be checked for accuracy.
Some sense on the H&S regulations from ACP 5, including what is actually the sqn Oc’s responsibility to check (fire extinguishers and alarms in a building we don’t own, for example)
Some excellent points above… here’s some from me (some are repeats of stuff I’ve mentioned elsewhere… some are a product of work over recent months which have ground my gears!)…
Updates on any ACTO/ACTI/ACP/TLA based publications promulgated via CROs. Additionally, bring back amendment pages (or track changes) used effectively by ANYBODY WITH UPLOAD RIGHTS for SharePoint. Nail these two, and we’ll be significantly better off – probably because people will stop willynilly “formatting” updates – when most of us our looking for content/policy changes!
Internal Comms needs addressing – whether this is “tech” issue or “education” issue I can’t decide; but an absolute classic example of this week came from our Wing Shooting Officer who said “Check Bader for updates on all shooting documents” – and posted the https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/ address; it would perhaps have been useful to highlight the specific documents/ folders/ directories/ SATT pages which he eludes too – but it was apparently too much effort / he didn’t actually know / there are just too many folders on Bader where one thing is spreadout across (as Steve mentioned!).
Ultilearn – I can’t believe how far down the line we are with this – but we’re still using this awful system!!! It’s an abomination of a system and has increased squadron admin beyond all that we were promised – one of the most frequent being “what’s my password”… which does appear to be one of the most time consuming issues we face! Let’s get the training materials OFF there and on to SharePoint (or even better, bring Moodle online!). Use it for exams (if we must!) but nothing more.
HQAC/Reg/Wg courses/events should go on SMS if we have to use it to organise and manage activities, how come other “higher tier” events don’t? It’s certainly be useful for staff to be able to check Admin for higher sponsored courses via SharePoint (where it all has to be uploaded for us!) rather than finding that the Squadron/Squadron OC wasn’t copied into it originally!!!
Automation of several processes & forms (already mentioned above) should be very doable through SharePoint - getting them off SharePoint and on to other systems should also be relatively painless compared to other systems.
Things like TG forms definitely need addressing from the top down - I’ve heard a number of different interpretations of what is need for what activities and it’s doing my head in. I find it amazing that we’ve had 3 or 4 versions of the same form over the last few years - yet no definitive guidance on what (or why!) they are needed!
AvMed forms – not needed for camps? But are for a standard flying detail? O’Rly? As with TG forms – one consistent DOCUMENTED method & message please.
E Learning package for new staff – whilst some people might scream/shout/rant about the “benefits” of e-learning - for induction and as a pre-BASIC course, it’d probably not be a bad thing to invest in and also mean people can get stuck in quite quickly!
DBS checks – definitely needs addressing and streamlining. Anything over a week these days is too long on the modern world!
Block booking of events – cloning is faffy for block booking a course - for example, 4 week evening radio course from a third party provider, a 6 week AT course from an outdoor education centre or a 8 week parade evening first aid course from St John’s Ambulance – why can’t this information be pre-populated at the outset of the event? Rather than entering 4, 6 or 8 different entries with a weeks separation… do it all once at the beginning.
“STOP STOP STOP” messages – if you’re going to promulgate an urgent “STOP STOP STOP” and copy the world in, can you please also issue “GO GO GO” through the same distribution list? Make it crystal clear from the outset – and, because it comes straight from source, no need for the original message to be diluted, spun or “interpreted” by the chain of command. The Chain of Command delay see’s some cadets doing things immediately – and other cadets in neighbouring areas waiting UP TO 6 MONTHS for the same activity to happen!!!
Briefing papers –when not fielding questions about Ultifail passwords, which TG form is needed or when was my last AvMedical done, it would be VERY handy for HQAC to issue briefing notes (similar to what OC 2FTS have done (but without the “could/might”)) so we can actually properly brief cadets on the reason behinds cancellations/delays/issues with Gliding/ Flying/ Shooting/ Fieldcraft/ whatever else. Having the written word to give a briefing note – without regional/wing spin is a lot more convincing that leaving us minions to bluff our way through with new recruits, older cadets, or, even worse, cadets parents!!! It’s down to internal communications – or, in many cases, the absolute absence of this driving the rumour mill (which can do more harm than good!).
3 Likes
Chaps,
Brilliant stuff thank you - I think I need to start a spreadsheet for all of these good ideas and categorise them properly!
Cheers
I know I’ve already posted here but I wanted to second other people’s comments about the DBS paperwork.
I’ve just received my renewal and it’s an enormous block of paper about a centimeter thick.
Wing has stapled on so many different sets of guidance notes that I have no idea which to follow. I don’t know if they are different and I don’t have time to read them all. There is also another set of paperwork relating to a BSVR check that seems to duplicate most of the DBS information. Are both systems necessary? The DBS isn’t too bad as I end up applying for one every 6 months anyway, but this amount of paperwork would be very off-putting to a new staff member…
Yep ok noted mate. I will add to the expanding list!
For DBS you only need the DBS, HR Form 239 and 239a, guidance notes on filling them in and s continuation sheet. About 7-8 a4 pages in total. If you are renewing you don’t need a BSVR, or are you new to staff?
I’m renewing - been staff for 3 years now. I don’t think my wing has applied much thought to what they’ve sent out - just stapled anything and everything together and stuffed it in an envelope.
It seems to me that many of our admin problems are as a result of 4 things in no particular order.
NOT UNDERSTANDING THE VOLUNTEER STAFF : HQAC and salaried staff across the Corps do not really understand this is our hobby and all we want to do is see youngsters who join do things and we don’t want or need lots of admin hoops and or time ticking ‘administrative’ boxes so the admin wallahs can get a warm glow and we don’t want to be spending time at work or home doing these things. If the admin, be that reading emails, doing whatever on ‘Bader’ can’t be done when we are ‘working’ in the Corps, ie parade nights, then we don’t do it. I do not remember doing as much admin away from the squadron when I first took command of a unit as I seem to now, be that at home and I never did any at work. Is this in the TOR for CFAV?
COST : WRT cost HQAC have tried (and that is the correct word) and failed (another correct word) to do things on the cheap and this is why we are where we are. Everyone knows that IT and associated systems are expensive in all ways (even a basic home set up isn’t cheap to buy/maintain), but any business or other entity using IT know that if you want it to work and work well you will have to spend money on it to not do so is not going to bring a happy ending, and HQAC haven’t from day one. Also everyone who has the merest brush with IT system projects know that you have to test to crash, test to crash and test to crash again before going live, as to not do so is just courting disaster, especially when you want disperate systems to ‘talk to each other’ or there is going to be time when demand is exceedingly high, ie on a weekday between 1900 and 2100.
IIRC ‘Bader’ was developed / set up (because it was cheap/no cost) by a member of the volunteer staff whom HQAC took serious advantage of and eventually p!$$ed off and this where I can see the problems beginning. I don’t know the ins and outs but if that’s partially true, it’s not a good place to be, ie losing or just irritating your system developer.
TRAINING : It is absolute folly to give anyone some software or system to use and not provide extensive user training and supporting documentation. I’m quite happy messing around at work (where I have the time and as it’s part of what I get paid to do) looking at software and finding out what it does etc. I’m not so happy having to do that in my own time, which is what I and I and every other CFAV has had to do, no wonder there are problems. But HQAC’s default setting for introducing or just doing things is there you go get on with it and if you don’t we’ll take the ball away.
The MOD : Being attached to the MoD and we are told we can’t do and have to do things because of MoD working practices, is problem that I don’t understand. I could understand it if I was an employee of the MoD, but I’m not, we’re not.
I wonder if there is scope for the ATC to act autonomously. Do we need to be tied so closely to MoD working practices? I know that I, and I’m sure many more, could make far better use of the information WE put on cadet/staff database, given that we are the only ones to input and update information relating to cadets and staff. There’s nothing that sensitive IMO and isn’t in probably a dozen or more other systems. But as we were told at a COs meeting we couldn’t have this sort of access as we didn’t have a high enough clearance or some BS like that. I can already see the infarcts at HQAC among the poor institutionalised souls there, if this happened. Imagine that, actually thinking for themselves and allowing others to do the same.
Some other things related to things mentioned
The various ways we are nannied by HQAC and others treats us with no respect. We make decisions each and every day in our work lives and at home. Yet in the Corps we’re just about allowed to decide if we want to go to the toilet as long as we have an RA in place. The role of Squadron Commander is now little more than admin bitch, which I why I’ve started doing more subject delivery, so I can actually feel like an instructor.
For the clearance for activities we should have a local area defined (15 mile radius of the sqn HQ) and anything inside that as long as there are staff with the correct quals, paperwork done etc Sqn Cdrs should have the ability to authorise it. Most squadrons will be more than au fait with their areas. I know practically every nook and cranny campsite and place to do things within 25 miles.
I’m not so sure about ‘e-learning’ for things unless it is at a basic level, ie similar to the eDofE as a pre-cursor to something more detailed.
Why Ultilearn passwords can’t be never run out is a mystery. Surely people won’t want to look at it if they leave, as not many look at it now unless they really have to!! It can’t be security, as you would have entered the saddest of saddo walt clubs and acquired many gold stars if you wanted to look at what position badges need to be sewn on in or what gucci kit we can wear when and how, if you had no need to.
Another problem with our supposed e-learning package is how accounts are set up, ie using staff numbers.
Staff need numbers (and new staff don’t get one until they are certfied (oooops certificated)) and their Ultilearn account isn’t set up until they are set up on SMS.
If there number was issued at the point of application we could set them up on SMS and they could start using it and begin looking at the rubbish on ultilearn and delivering lessons, which at least might make them feel part of the Corps proper. They could (note could) also look at Sharepoint and emails.
Another option is accounts set by sqn up in name only () they could then access many online things and make them feel part of it straight away. Whether they use it beyond the intial login is subject to them not losing the will to live after accessing it initially.
() Issues relating to name duplication are dealt with all the time in the workplace. How many people work in places where people with the same initial and surname have personal accounts requiring an extra initial or a number after their name.
Generally wrt to comms depends how serious HQAC are about wanting it to be useful and thus far they haven’t.
Every member of staff should have an email address. Having a general squadron account for everyone to use, does nothing to encourage staff to look at it. I can guarantee if I looked at it today there would be hundreds of unread emails and nothing looked at in the last 6 months (about when I last cleared it out). What needs to be understood is that people like to regard themselves and be regarded as individuals and the general account doesn’t do this. If you look at it and someone has already read something, it’s the e-equivalent of sloppy seconds as one the squadron staff referred to it when I asked why no one looked at it. Interesting analogy but you know what they’re saying.
The sort of email BF mentions are becoming more and more prevalent. Which wouldn’t a problem if Sharepoint wasn’t standing joke and I didn’t have to logon to spend ages fruitlessly trying to find things. It makes searching the internet a joyous exepeience by comparison, at least I can find what I’m looking for relatively easily.
On SMS could we lose the little edit and save icons as it would be extremely beneficial. I wonder how many have gone to alter something, altered it and forgot to click on the save changes icon as you move between tabs or try and go to another person, just to find that you have to go back and do it again. Every other piece of software / system I use and have used over the last 25 years, doesn’t have these and either saves on entry or you get a ‘do you want to’ dialogue box.
Being able to do auto populating bulk updates based on a list you create would be much more useful and less time consuming than going into each individual and making changes. It would make imputting something like shooting details where the cadets have all gone at the same time so much easier. It works generally when you complete an activity. So surely it can’t be too much of a stretch to extend this to custom lists for an individual activity; fill in the boxes for each cadet, hit save and it records it against their record.
Certainly one of the biggest irritations for me is the duplication of information/effort.
What’s the darn point of having Bader SMS?
If I want to transfer a member of staff I’m specifically told that I’m not allowed to move them on Bader until they’ve filled in a paper form, it’s been posted to Wing, “lost in the post”, submitted again several weeks later, eventually sent to HQAC, approved, sent back to Wing, and wing finally have the courtesy to tell me so.
I had a CI transfer from my unit. By the time I was allowed to press that little “transfer” button he’d already been at the new unit for 3 months. Utterly ridiculous!
The same for updates of address/NOK/contact details/&c. We’ve got an organization wide database which contains all this information. Why the hell are we also posting hard copy A4 forms up and down the bloody country!!?
As for appointment and DBS… Ha! What a joke!
I had a new member of staff come along to be a CI. Paperwork was filed, signed for but apparently “lost in the post”, magically found again when legal action was threatened, and we’re still waiting 6 months on.
In the mean time the CI has decided to join the Reserves. They had her DBS back within two weeks and she’ll have attested before Wing HQ have even realised she’s been appointed as a CI.
To a certain degree you’re right. Except those structures and controls are far to bureaucratic, and fail to support our core objective: training cadets.
There are too many people working at HQAC just to keep the place ticking over. In my experience, very few of them seem to be working on meaningful projects to actually improve the organisation.
In my opinion, there are a lot of posts which are established in a pay grade that’s far too low for the work required of them. Some obvious examples spring to mind:
TG5, the post responsible for all shooting in the ACO is established at D grade, with pay at £24-28k (as of 2014). I’m sure this was fine when the role involved overseeing shooting competitions and the like, but since it now requires a bunch of governance work and liaison with 2* HQs at a fairly high level, it’s probably a bit too low.
Both the SO1 Policy & Plans and SO1 Training are very senior positions with strategic planning and some governance responsibility – both are established at C1 (£37-43k).
The Bader team is another good example:
- SO2 IT Manager (C2) £30-35k
- Bader System Manager (D) £24-28k
- Bader Developer (D) £24-28k
- Bader Analyst (D) £24-28k
- Helpdesk (E1) £19-21k
In other words, the person in charge of all IT & technology in the ACO (and runs our biggest business-critical IT system) is paid an equivalent salary to a Junior Software Engineer of about 2-3 years experience.
If you consider that a mid-level Software Engineer working for GDS in the Civil Service is established at Grade 7 band B (£45-65k), we should see why it’s difficult to attract and retain the right sort of personnel.
If we want effective software, we need to have a good in-house development team. If we want good strategic leadership, we need good strategic leaders. If we want driven and capable managers to push through organisational change, we need to hire the right people.
I don’t think it should be too hard to prove that the ACO needs to up its HQ staff pay grades in order to deliver our main business outputs. We’ve got pretty a poor governance model, poor information management, poor internal comms and almost no connection between the Commandant’s big ol’ strategic roadmap and the volunteers delivering the stuff that will keep us aligned with it. About the only thing we do get right is safety, which we’re generally pretty good at.
If the cost associated with hiring and increasing pay can be recouped by reducing the establishment at HQAC and providing time efficiencies, the bean counters won’t come a chopping – they’ll thank us for being one of the few parts of the MoD that’s actually efficient.
[ I’m suggesting that we start at the top (HQAC), since we’re a very hierarchical organisation. The other option is to flip the thing on its head and start at the bottom, empowering the lowest level teams (squadrons) to do their thing in their own way and removing as many restrictions as possible, with the higher levels of command acting only to guide and support them. The obvious prerequisite is that the delivery teams need highly motivated and experienced people. In business, we might ensure that with a rigorous hiring process, but that won’t work for a volunteer organisation – we’ll always have a broad range of abilities and skills among squadron staff. ]
Will any of this ever happen? Who knows.
Note to @xab: This is part of what I mean when I say we need to treat the cause not the symptoms.
What we have to remember is the people you’re suggesting to relinquish control have been brought up in a working environment founded on a strict system of rank based hierarchial control and IMO they choose to join the ACO as to leave their old jobs means leaving behind something they require to function day to day or face fading into the background. Pretty much why many former MPs go into the sort of jobs they do. I would relish not having to play 8th fiddle, but it’s unlikely to happen.
I’m not sure paying people more especially the IT side will motivate them or make things better without the budget. We have an e-admin based system which currently isn’t even a sow’s ear so we won’t even begin to get a silk purse, unless a lot of money is provided for the IT infrastructure and equipement across the Corps from the bottom to the top.
WRT shooting we are a puppet organisation to the Army who (pardon the pun) call the shots and we have in a few short years gone from an organisation where shooting was major activity to something that is very much a proverbial postcode lottery wrt delivery and largely an administrative activity. TG5 and those above let us down massively (and continue to do so) as they didn’t fight our corner on shooting and paying them more wouldn’t make any difference.
It would. When you are fighting against people three grades above you, an equivalent rank holds more water. Until then you are just shouted down. Try it: go have a discussion with your bosses bosses boss and tell them to respect your authority on something. Let us know how you get on. Remember, you can’t keep going crying to the MD when it doesn’t go your way 
as someone who has worked in both a 1x and a 2x HQ, i can promise you that neither of those august individuals will have spent much time talking about the technicalities of shooting and ammunition management…
if, as you suggest, a D band was sent to fight against people at 1x and Lt. Col level, then questions ought to be asked about who sent that unfortunate D band, and why they did not accompany their SME for a bit of hierachical support - such conversations at thet level are not going to be regular affairs, and even someone as busy as an FTRS AC could manage to fit a few hours around updating their facebook status.
shooting is one of only three - shooting, flying, and camps - critical areas of ACO activity that rely on other organisations to continue. that HQAC considered it appropriate to send a D band, and to continue sending a D band when it became apparent that all was not going well, says a great deal about HQAC and its leadership, and attitude to shooting.
when this was all going tits up, where was HQ 22Gp, where was CAC’s ‘excellent and supportive relationship with CAS’?
I don’t think it’s fair to imply that CAC’s social media involvement takes up any significant amount of time. I think the time she spends on these is definitely well spent, as the effect of her regular updates has been positive even if it makes no practical difference to the way the corps runs.