Took me a bit longer (several times looking) - but I got there…
Finally logged in.
It’s a step in the right direction.
Are you going to eventually display the number of VA days claimed/remaining?
Number of journeys claimed?
Number of HTD claimed?
Apologies if already asked.
1 Like
Good questions.
An ‘autoclaim’ option would be nice thankyou please 
2 Likes
Email sent this morning and I got one back near 7pm with a temp password to log in. Now I get to catch up on the courses that I have to yawn through I am no longer going through the OC, I got my big adult pants this morning haha cheers for the pointer of who to search and contact @themajor
2 Likes
Latest updates on VP/AP available at:
VP: https://rafac.sharepoint.com/sites/BADERHub/SitePages/Volunteer-Portal-Release.aspx
AP: https://rafac.sharepoint.com/sites/BADERHub/SitePages/Admin-Portal-Release.aspx
1 Like
So the Army cadets are getting online VA/HTD/Travel claims on the 10th of July.
From what I understand they have a cadet and CFAV portal similar to ours. And they seem to be moving a lot faster with the transition over to digital than we are.
This is absolutely not a criticism of the RAFAC Digital Team. I think our team is fundamentally understaffed. There’s too few people doing too much work. The work that is being done is fantastic though.
So two questions, why did we not just move over to Westminster/Cadet Portal instead of spending a lot of time and effort on our own system? And why is the other cadet portal (that the ACF/CCF/VCC (and others?) use) progressing so much faster than ours?
It seems we’ve got a group of volunteers and perms within our organisation (Digital team) that are duplicating the work that is already going on for the ACF/CCF/VCC.
3 Likes
I think because they pay for it (fundamentally).
So is it a case of them having access to more CS staff then us, and so can employ a bigger team of developers? And rely less on a voluntary led team?
My personal opinion: it’s a cultural issue.
Look at anything that goes wrong in RAFAC and we see the blame being passed down the chain. With that mindset, there is no change-led culture or any real motivation to improve the situation for the CFAV.
Astra has the potential to change this, slowly, but I don’t think Astra penetrates the lower levels of the echelons well enough to generate the mass of feedback that would be required to influence changes at the more senior levels. I’m open to any contrary information anyone would have on this.
1 Like
Isnt that two questions, Why didn’t we join Westminster back in the day? and Why don’t we switch over to Westminster now?
It’s always struck me as odd that everyone else uses Westminster, except for one half of RAFAC.
I believe there is some sort of weird licensing cost as Westminster is third party not in house.
As such if the ATC adopted it they would end up paying a lot more money & not be able to make changes in they way they can now, at least without going through the other cadet forces.
There has been numerous papers on this over the years but the most efficient & cost effective option was to develop a third brand new system for use by all the organisations (guess what won’t happen)
Given the amount of work being put into Westminster, I seriously doubt there will be any appetite to move to something else anytime this decade.
1 Like
Looking at this FoI - 20200707 FOI04929 Ashby WestminsterCadetITsystem Response.pdf
the Westminster application is an Army application that is managed by HQ Regional Command, Cadets Branch and Army Digital (formally IAS). The Marine Society and Sea Cadets are also a stakeholder in the project and work closely with Cadets Branch in HQ Regional Command. The system was designed by the Sea Cadets and Army Cadets in 2005 as part of union project between the Cadet Forces.
2 Likes
Thank you for this (I knew there had to be at least one FOI)
I wonder then that as the air cadets were not part of the union they would have to pay licensing to the army? I remember Dawn Mc saying that there was a big yearly financial impact if we did move over.
But how big is big? Is it £10000 or £1000000? Or more… As that makes a massive difference.
Plus I don’t really get why we’d need a buy in? If this has been produced by the MOD, then it shouldn’t matter which elements of the MOD get a use out of it surely?
Perhaps an FOI to RAFAC on decision naming regarding RAFAC use of the Westminster system?
It is based off of an Oracle system, so there could be potential licencing requirements there. Given the amount of users it already has though, I fail to see how it could be cheaper to do anything else. Sure, you can develop a system from scratch, but that will have its own costs in terms of developers, support, devops etc. It is usually cheaper to expand a system than to run two independently.
Looking at the source, I think it is Oracle Apex.
1 Like