The single most amusing thing IMO is that old days of paper, ammedments and changes came out and although pain at times and generally months after they were supposedly issued, at least we knew what the changes were and we had to record the change on this strange animal called an ammendment list.
I also feel that only things that needed changing were changed, whereas now because they are held and promulgated electronically, a change in wind direction or a bored admin wallah making work for themselves seems to be reason to change something. I used to use alerts for some things but stopped as most of the changes seemed to be cosmetic and of no substance, and if they weren’t I didn’t have the time to compare the old and new to see where the change was. The overall convenience of doing things electronically is in this case resulting in lazy and sloppy working practices, by those on high.
As of the 24/09/2014 (date on SharePoint) there is a new TG21 form. It is al on one side of A4. Not very good for the older eyes and not much space for adding info about an illness etc.
I only found out while taking in TG21 forms off cadets on a wing event from one Sqn. Of the 12 sqns present from the wing only cadets from 1 sqn had the new forms.
Bad admin from Sqns or poor dissemination of changes from on high?
I like that it is all on one side of A4 as it prevents wasteful printing of 2 sheets by those who can’t/won’t to duplex.
I only wish I’d stop receiving blank TG23s when none are needed.
[quote=“the silverback” post=22556]As of the 24/09/2014 (date on SharePoint) there is a new TG21 form. It is al on one side of A4. Not very good for the older eyes and not much space for adding info about an illness etc.
I only found out while taking in TG21 forms off cadets on a wing event from one Sqn. Of the 12 sqns present from the wing only cadets from 1 sqn had the new forms.
Bad admin from Sqns or poor dissemination of changes from on high?[/quote]
As it’s the first I’ve heard of it, I’d say the latter.
So you don’t have an alert set on the forms folder in sharepoint then?
As they assume that we will all get forms (and no doubt all manner of other things) directly off sharepoint whenever we need them there would seem to be little reason to promulgate changes to said forms.
Have I received training for that? Nope, didn’t think so…[/quote]
I don’t think anyone’s received proper training on any of SMS so don’t feel like you’ve missed out. All we got was a few pages of vagueness 5/6 years ago and other than that it’s been a case of finding your way in a strange building in the dark where the lights don’t work.
You can set alerts for parts of SMS which tell you if things have changed, using the “actions” drop down in the top left hand corner of a page on sharepoint. This then results in an email with a link to whatever has changed in that part of s/point. However the changes you get alerted to are in my experience mainly cosmetic/administrative tinkering by bored individuals. Another however is you sense something has changed have no idea what has changed, is it something meaty or just formatting? Unless you have the time to compare old and new you’ll never know, given there is no amendment control.
The current version is 1.09; that’s the one that was updated in Sep 14. Funny that sqns don’t realise the change as we had an event of the weekend involving several sqns, some cadets turned up with old (and I mean two sided) version of the TG21…
The current version is 1.09; that’s the one that was updated in Sep 14. Funny that sqns don’t realise the change as we had an event of the weekend involving several sqns, some cadets turned up with old (and I mean two sided) version of the TG21…[/quote]
yes i am aware of that, my point being Revision 1.09 is not the first to have a single page format which is Silverbacks point…
I am highlighting as you are that there are units not aware of revisions…the “single page” format has been in use for at least two previous revisions…
So let me get this straight.
there is a new TG21 form that we all should use.
It has been out for 4 months.
SMS generates TG21 for activities.
SMS has not been updated with the new form.
Questions,
Are we still allowed to use the old form?
Can we use the new TG21 for flying/gliding so we do not need two different consent forms (admin reduction)?
IS SMS going to be updated?
Why are we not told when thing get updated?
Why does the ATC need 145 forms to operate?
Because as the ATC we are dealing with MoD ergo the public sector. Lots of forms means lots of people doing jobs associated with those forms. However trying to reduce the paperwork, would upset the Unions as it would, in all probability, mean losing jobs.
It’s only when you look at them and after quick scan, you could lose probably 50-60 and not actually lose anything intrinsic to the organisation. I would need the addition of “delete if not appropriate” bits. When looking you have to wonder; why are there different forms for VGS and AEF staff cadet applications, similarly advance pay request could be on one form with normal pay, numerous forms for travelling and subsistence could be done as one, staff applications could all be done using one form as could “board reports”, plus a load of redundant forms scattered throughout. There must be a lot of these get used so infrequently as to make them effectively redundant. Why we still use paper forms for staff applications is a bizarre notion. A quick look around at many companies/businesses etc and job applications are done online (ours are) and if it’s a document style, unless you have access to the full version of Acrobat you can’t be able to sign them. How much easier to have A form that either they download or you email to someone and they email back.
And the MoD must be about the only big organisation still using paper forms for DBS (CRB). I did one for a local secondary school where we get involved in a mentoring scheme; took some ID into the school, was sent an email link, certificate on my doorstep 4 working days later. It takes Wing longer than that to think about sending a form and there wouldn’t need to be all this faff 6 months in advance and similarly staff extensions. One of our neighbours is a community nurse and the NHS do DBS online, she was a little bemused when I said the ATC still use paper forms.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=22613]
And the MoD must be about the only big organisation still using paper forms for DBS (CRB). I did one for a local secondary school where we get involved in a mentoring scheme; took some ID into the school, was sent an email link, certificate on my doorstep 4 working days later. It takes Wing longer than that to think about sending a form and there wouldn’t need to be all this faff 6 months in advance and similarly staff extensions. One of our neighbours is a community nurse and the NHS do DBS online, she was a little bemused when I said the ATC still use paper forms.[/quote]
I’ve noticed this too, and who wants to bet if it was all online they would be able to easily query those with near expiring/expired CRBs/DBSs easily as well.
While no fan of many of the ATC/MOD admin systems as I understand it many of the current ATC admin problems were/ are caused by RAF decisions to exclude the ATC when computer based systems were introduced. The ATC then attempted to solve the problem by developing BADER but on a minimum funding/ non funded/ voluntary basis. As a result the system is certainly sub optimal.
As far as DBS/CRB is concerned my fading memory seems to remember that the military opted for a single gate system through which all military / military related applications must pass - with all the related problems of delay etc.
It doesn’t matter what computer system you have, as Silverback says it doesn’t explain the number of forms, especially when there is so much duplication. You don’t have different expenses forms or application forms based on what category of “employee” you are at work, so why have them for us in the ATC. I think that having never worked in the public sector I see this sort of thing as a nonsense, whereas working in it having umpteen forms all doing effectively the same things seems perfectly sensible.
I would imagine the main reason the RAF didn’t involve the ATC is purely cost. The hardware and peripherals cost would be prohibitive, which is why HQAC ducked out and passed that to squadrons when using Bader was made mandatory, infrastructure (which I gather causes us problems even now from time to time) and the technical support, so we could get support of an evening would be prohibitively expensive.
The DBS debacle is just a MoD money pit and would better serve all concerned if it was farmed out to individuals to oversee (as it seems in schools), rather than a central office, but that might see a few senior types out of a job, so they are bound to not like the idea. The experience of a huge number of people requiring these now is one of a process that is measured in days, not weeks or months, which is far more efficient. I can imagine if you went for a job in a school, based on my experience, and a clear DBS was required, you’d know within a week. In the ATC and other CF, even at the quickest it would be is a month if Wing were on the ball, but normally much much longer.