An Open Letter to HQs about SMS activities


#21

They just need to email WHQ

That said people should close off past events before leaving unless they are pushed out…


#22

OK so people are getting to the point of leaving which in my experience has been when they have lost interest and you’re going to expect them to fanny around like that. Some might but the majority nah.

The ones I mention the ones that left 2 did so in a “see yer later” way.

What should happen is anyone can close it, so if people leave or move it makes no difference. Of the Wing ones that need closing there are several sport ones, courses and a parade where the “i/c” wasn’t present as they didn’t need to be.


#23

My wing Bader POC informs me that HQAC is planning a purge before a Cadet Portal events update?


#24

The activity IC is always needed, they are the staff in charge of the activity on the ground.

It’s easy enough to mark an activity complete if your transferring.

If someone is leaving altogether are they really going to be running an activity?! This is why WHQ staff are able to close it, as it’s a rare occurrence assuming people are up together on their admin that takes ~5 mins


#25

Sounds about right but knowing HQAC it will have nothing to do with sms but more about staff who don’t follow the party line… kind of like Stalin :wink::grin:

I joke but i got fed up trying to find my way through tons of activity invites to find the right one. They need to keep on top of it all properly


#26

As long as you include unit staff in that ‘They’!


#27

I included everyone in that they.


#28

62 invited for us going back as far as 2009.


#29

We are currently looking at this very thing and yes, the plan is that a purge of events that clearly have not been touched for a very long time, are in draft or meet other criteria is planned for when we implement the new SMS update which includes all of the Cadet Portal SMS functionality.


#30

The i/c doesn’t need to always be there, as bit like saying if a manager isn’t in, work stops that day or in a cadet context the OC is in, can’t open up.
If it’s a non qualification requiring activity and they hold the ‘ticket’ why do they need to be there? I know that on several sports ones the then PEdO was away on business and not at the event. Anyone could set up a “sitting in a room” course and leave it to others to run and be in charge. A former Wing TO set up things well in advance and had people to run it. Now, if you could set them up and nominate someone else as being in charge job, jobbed.


#31

One of my older colleagues referred to HQAC as becoming a sort of Violet Elizabeth as per Just William stories, as they throw a paddy to get their own way. Which isn’t really the way to get a real compliance as people do things just enough to shut people like this up, without really taking it all on board. Which is what will happen in this instance, HQAC will “chuck a Violet Elizabeth” people will do it begrudgingly and then not bother again until they get snotty again.
I will guarantee the only ones that get closed promptly will be those attracting pay once the automatic payment kicks in. I’d imagine this represents probably 10%, tops, of all activities.


#32

That is possible…

Person 1 sets it up, doesnt even need to be listed as attending its that last authorisation box which counts who from the drop down is IC


#33

If they’re not there then they’re not IC.
The ‘planning officer’ (or whatever name we might wish to give it) is not the IC Activity.
IC activity is the person actually on the ground, in charge, making sure that it doesn’t go breasts skywards. They are the responsible person.

Imagine for example that you put yourself down as IC but you don’t attend. You leave it in the hands of someone else who doesn’t read the RA, doesn’t pay attention to the safety, and as a result Cadet Bloggs ends up the victim of a serious and avoidable accident… You were IC. You are responsible.
…Don’t you now wish that you’d either attended to take charge yourself, or otherwise handed that responsibility to the person who was?


Now, the other key reason to close off SMS activities in a timely manner, which I don’t think has been mentioned, is that until they are closed the details do not appear on the Cadet or Staff records.
Cadets been on an annual camp? Not according to SMS… because nobody has closed the activity, for example.


#34

Interesting enough, our regional H&S bod says the opposite about activity commander’s and risk assessments. I can be be on Holiday in Australia, but still be the activity commander on the RA. Anyway, I digress…


#35

Aye, but then RAs are a law unto themselves anyway… At least in the RAFAC.

I am on many of our RAs as the activity commander since I wrote them. That doesn’t however mean that I am the SMS activity IC for every one of them. My job is just to ensure that the person actually running (i.e. IC) that activity is aware of the RA.


#36

Surely there must be someone in the CoC from IC Activity through CO, WSO, WExO etc… that can tick a box on these historic applications?


#37

But the way SMS works if I’m setting something up and know I’m not going to be there, due to the fact that not everyone has a named personal Bader account (I don’t regard the mickey mouse accounts OCs set up) they can’t log in and “tick” the box, which if you make them i/c they have to do. The notion that the named i/c has to be present is like saying a manager has to be at work as they are the de facto i/c whereas what happens is people are given a responsibility to do it. Our manager signs off on all RAs.

I have said since day one every single member of staff should have a name “bader” account. Every single individual we have start at work, an email account and access to business systems is a first day one requirement, if it hasn’t been done beforehand.


#38

Everyone does have access to SMS as long as you as the OC can be bothered to set them all one up, if you haven’t then who’s fault is that?


#39

Any yet we are not a workplace with adults . . .

Is there an actual issue with the Activity IC being there in charge of the activity?

Your wish will be the Bader admins command, since they are working on every cfav in RAFAC having their own account.


#40

No, it’s not.
In your example the manager is… Wait for it… “The Manager”, and the person “given responsibility” in their absence is “In Charge” - in their absence.

Umm… That is in fact EXACTLY how SMS works… If you set the event up but are not going to be there, then you appoint someone to be IC and they log in using their personal account (whether you consider it ‘Mickey Mouse’ or not) and they tick the box.

I’m sorry if the system is confusing for you. If, as the OC, you haven’t set everyone up with a personal SMS account then that is your failing, not the system’s.
How do they access SMS at all without an account? You haven’t set up just one generic “personal” account have you? That would of course be a breach of protocol since the whole point of a personal account is that it is personal for audit purposes.

Frankly, if you appoint yourself IC of activities for which you are not present then more fool you mate!