Good day ACC’ers,
I’m doing a bit of an interest project really. Looking to map where staff are, and which squadrons they attended.
Like “Sgt blogs lives in Any Town, and travels to nowhereville”, good to have as a map, with dots and lines, where I could plot for multiple units.
Does anyone know of any software that could be used?
SMS has all this built in for its own internal use.
Other than that, PerSec?
Does MS MapPoint still exist??
Don’t all units still have access to quo?
I use it in work. My customer does not allow google maps for mileage purposes.
It’s like working with Windows 95 all over again.
It’s for an internal staffing project. Won’t be to exact staff locations, but their area.
Looking to see where we have staff, how far staff are travelling, and if there are units in the area struggling, but have staff who already live there.
Currently, it’s going to be buying a map of the local county and sticking pins in it…
I understand, staff have a right to volunteer for what squadrons they like, just doing some strategic planning.
How does this fit in with GDPR and using people’s personal info for seems quite a nefarious reason?
When you get some website saying it’s wants your location you can say sod off. Will staff have the option to say don’t include me in your plan? I’d be less than happy if someone said “oh we’ve been doing this, and we think you could go here or there”. The answer would be quite short and sharp.
It’s good you realise people volunteer where they choose, not where the organisation thinks they should.
Firstly - and not as a pop at Teflon but as a worthwhile point for everyone to consider - none of us should be concerning ourselves with “GDPR” any more… We need to concern ourselves with the Data Protection Act 2018 which includes the EU requirements but may indeed go beyond the original GDPR scope.
In this case I’d say that since the staff have already given their consent by supplying the information then we don’t have a concern about holding it. So the likening to some random website which asks for location is rather obtuse.
Our only concern is that we use their information appropriately and store it safely.
I’d say that using it to work out the geographic staffing within a Wing is a perfectly fair business use. The regulations say that staff cannot be moved to a different unit without their consent - but it does not say that the organisation can’t look into it and even request or incentivise a move.
The concern then becomes storage. Something electronic stored securely within the Bader system is fine. A map with pins may very well not be.
But did they give consent for it to be processed in whatever way a WSO (I’m presuming) wants to use it? Essentially, you’re saying you’re going to process the data to target individuals you think could benefit the Wing by moving units?
Surely all the staff know the locations of all of the squadrons in the Wing? Perhaps you would be better off advertising spare slots at units, rather than approaching individuals?
CONSENT IS NOT THE ONLY GATEWAY TO PROCESSING DATA. Sorry for shouting, not directed at you, more towards the misleading press coverage in the run up to the implementation of the act.
How do you incentivise a move in a voluntary organisation? Especially one like the ATC which is bound by the constraints of the MOD, RAF and HQAC. I imagine there are some organisations where volunteers can be given something to make a change to where they volunteer more palatable. Also It’s not like work, where a move can involve promotion or upgrading of your job which equals more money in the bank and if it means a house move, assistance with costs. I cannot think if anything which would be an incentive to move squadrons on an arbitrary basis. Most moves I’ve known have been due to becoming CO, house move or job move not just fancy a change. It should be accepted that we all know where the local squadrons are and we make our choice.
The onus should be on HQAC to make the notion of volunteering as adult staff an easy one and a pleasant experience, so people actually volunteer. Not fannying around with a finite number of people who have already made a choice. The problem with this sort of idea is that once the seed is sown, there would be people who wouldn’t leave it alone and potentially end up on losing a member of staff, who just get the ache with being hounded.
How would you advertise slots and what are the T&Cs to make it look like a good idea? Our Wing does adverts for WSOs and COs, as yet it has only been the ones they were thinking of apply which means 1 person, or the one everyone knew would get it if there are interviews. So a completely pointless exercise for all concerned.
One could, for example, offer a new role… If someone is stagnating at their current unit they might consider moving to another local unit where they will have a different role; Or they where their existing skills will be better utilised.
“There’s a requirement for an SNCO Discip at 1234 Sqn… Would you be interested?” might be an incentive for someone keen on the role but currently on a unit with an active Sqn WO.
You say that as thought it doesn’t already happen…
As is pretty usual Teflon you seem to approach everything as a negative “you can’t do ‘abc’ because ‘xyz’ will happen… grumble, grumble…”
Seriously, how are you in a leadership position in the organisation exactly?
I was asked if i would consider a move as it would offer me training in an area i was interested in (being a OC) - i later took command of that unit.
the same could be offered for SNCOs who perhaps want to be the Sqn WO/Top Dog SNCO, or perhaps they have aspirations to be a DI but there are already 3 on their current Squadron and although would get chance to use the skills and knowledge, would have to share the responsibility.
these are two easy pigeon hole examples, there are other examples others can share i am sure.
i have been on 8 different units, and only half were my closest unit, in at least two cases three others were closer than the one i attended.
precisely, one of my moves was because 123 Squadron could better use my skills than were i was.
upon approaching a time served promotion i volunteered to move Squadron. I had been on the same unit for years and wished for a new experience and improved understanding of the role i was going into in how others did it not just how the Squadron i was on had done it for years and years…
(although accept four of the moves i made were a down to a change in location due to job or simply moving house)
although i don’t disagree with the concept, this is not just down to HQAC - it must also be key for the existing CFAVs on a unit.
I was once on a Unit with a CO with poisonous attitude towards CIs, particularly new ones. either throwing them into the deep end, or ignoring them altogether.
we lost at least one, if not two CIs every 12 months because of the failure in the CO to engage and incorporate them into the team
not pointless, transparent.
everyone had a fair crack of of whip, if someone else did want a chance that was their opportunity, and it isn’t simply a case of “jobs for my mates”
It looks like I’ve caused a very big upset on here, by asking a simple question.
For me the fact that you spend time sourcing staff and getting them up to speed and then someone comes along almost saying you’ve got enough or even too many staff, but someone else needs some and then seeking to coerce them elsewhere, undoing the hard work you’ve put in and leaving you short. There is no such thing as too many staff on a sqn IMO, given that not everyone turns up every night or is available for every activity.
As I said someone can make a suggestion to a member of staff they could move and it almost becomes what will happen and becomes a constant in any conservation and if they don’t succumb it’s effectively held against them. I’m not much into redistribution of wealth so to speak, except on my terms.
I think the onus and focus should be on making volunteering in the ATC a pleasant and easy experience, so something as suggested which is verging on social engineering is not required. Which is beyond HQAC.
Blah blah blah me me blah blah selfishness blah blah bore
Is it, though?
All Sqn commanders want to provide the best experience for their cadets. Part of that is developing and encouraging staff to gain skills and qualifications that can be utilised on the units. What’s the point in me developing staff, and upskilling them, if all that happens is that they are moves on to another Sqn, whose OC hasn’t been as proactive as me?
If an individual requests a move for whatever reason, then I have no truck with that. But to approach staff and move them around because it suits the Wing is wrong IMO.
As a sqn commander, my loyalties are Sqn>Wing>Region>Corps, not any other way around.
If that’s selfishness, then so be it. But what’s the point in having squadrons if all we’re going to do is pass staff from area to area?
I agree.
But there is such thing as too few. If other Squadrons are struggling that means that, ultimately, cadets are going to be missing out and since the Wing loyalty is supposed to be to all the cadets in the Wing then why shouldn’t they seek for volunteers to help fill gaps where they exist?
I was thinking more of the “I’m not into redistribution of wealth, except on my terms”. (Predominantly the last part of that)
And whilst I agree it’s annoying to train someone up and see them go, if I had sufficient staff and they asked one of them to go somewhere where they were on the verge of folding I would look at the bigger picture across the cadet movement (and also take some pride that they want people I’ve trained).