This has come up multiple times in the last couple of weeks over a few different threads. So I thought best to create its own!
I’ve only ever used Bader. And generally, find it does work well. The ‘old’ SMS was a PITA but the ‘new’ version I find very good. (I say old/new as the new version is now a number of years old!)
This report discusses some differences between the two:
I have a foot in both camps and use Bader and Westminster, but on the whole find Bader much more user friendly and intuitive. But on speaking to RC (N) about this recently, he said the argument was largely academic now as the team will be expanding the functionality of the Westminster/Bader API, such that there will be even greater exchange of data between the two systems, including the automatic creation of Stub activities for CCF(RAF) from activities logged on Westminster, so that they can easily claim VA. The one system being referred to is about a single access point to Westminster and or Bader which may use the RAFAC O365 setup - I think that’s what he said.
I mention Connect as it’s based around volunteer and qualification management. Like i have three volunteer roles and i can record hours for each role separately, but 1 login.
So question about the systems - where are they hosted?
If a cadet force leased / used the system from another who they pay for the operators license & would they store it.
If the cadets forces decided to use Marshall or Connect would the data be stored on the VPC or St John’s servers or would a version of the program be adapted for storage on MoD server space.
I had heard that dawn mc had looked on adopting Westminster but there was something regarding cost being charged by the army for the RAF to use their data servers.
So it may not be the data security of the servers but rather the leasing cost.
From a business point of view you have 5 MoD sponsored cadet forces.
4 use the same system (Westminster)
1 uses their own stand alone system (bader)
To convert the personnel records of 4 cadet forces would require a lot more work & effort than convert the stand alone.
You then have the fact that having different platforms causes issues for the single service element of the multi-service cadets who are obliged to use both.
This harms the government strategy for cadet expansion as it deters school based cadet units from expanding to multiple section due to the conflicting platforms. This is now a business risk.
Regardless of the effectiveness of the systems the path of least resistance is to harmonise the outlier with the majority rather than vice-versa.
If the safety management system aspect of both platforms are both suitable, viable & fit for purpose then you convert the minority to the majority.
Is there precedence for this?
There’s the old VHS vs Betamax example but there is one more pertinent.
The Army & the RAF use to have separate systems for managing driving quals - when the navy used the same system as the Army, the RAF was eventually ordered to convert despite RAF resistance.
The DYER report highlighted the need for a single cadet forces management platform. Since then there has been development on both platforms with development on Westminster out pacing the development of bader. This is likely to continue particularly with the introduction of mycadet & electronic parental consent on school platforms such as evolve & Edu-link.
Unfortunately for those in the ATC, it make best business sense to decommission bader regardless of its effectiveness.
Also, to get the required functionality out of BADER we have had to employ the use of volunteers (VSDT). This is a strategic risk in its self especially if the CFAV gets cheesed of and decides to leave.
I think the best for everyone could be achieved by moving to Westminster, and those two developers could either be hired onto the Westminster team, or the savings could be used to hire two more developers. I would like to see the user interface of Westminster, Cadet Portal and MyCadet improved a bit, as I think the ATC systems are a bit more ahead in terms of look and feel. It just seems silly to have two systems running, especially where one is under resourced.
Bader was a vanity project for certain personnel at the time it came in. It was always a mistake bringing it in and the more time we invest in it the more diverged we become.
Imagine how well westminster would be performing for us now if we had invested the same effort in getting it right.
