IT Specialty Badge

[JC004]

What the crap?


Looks pretty, I guess...

[ rant ] I understand now.  Vanguard was busy producing this instead of the grade slides for the parka?  At least they'll be ready for summer.  [ / rant ]   

[MIKE]

That ones actually not bad looking compared to some of the others.

Was expecting this:

[JC004]

But um...is there a specialty track to be in?  I thought it was pretty much just a proposal at the moment.

[Pylon]

But um...is there a specialty track to be in?  I thought it was pretty much just a proposal at the moment.

The National Board approved a specialty badge for IT, but no actual specialty track has been formalized nor approved.  So yeah, there's an official badge that's been designed, approved, and produced -- but no program behind it and nobody can wear it.

There was a collaborative effort and discussion forum at http://cap-it.us/ for a while, several years back.  But it fell into disuse, the discussion forum became overrun by spam bots for porn sites, and the site fell into disrepair.  It looks like somebody changed the site as of this month, but there's no real content there, all the discussions and different proposals on the track seem to be gone, and it doesn't look terribly active.

*shrug*  Form (aka: uniform bling) before substance.

[NAYBOR]

Since it seems that there is now an IT badge, Has there been an official Health Services insignia yet?

[Hammer]

Since it seems that there is now an IT badge, Has there been an official Health Services insignia yet?

You mean different from the Medical and Nurse badges?  BTW, is there a specialty track  for Legal Officer?

[Hawk200]

You mean different from the Medical and Nurse badges?  BTW, is there a specialty track  for Legal Officer?

Yes, the Medical Services would be a badge similar to all the other specialty track badges like Personnel, Safety, ES, etc.

The specialty track for Legal is 219.

[Matt]

However, here is an interesting thing I found about the IT Badge on Vanguard...  The basic and the master (although can't be used yet) have the same product ID number... who didn't see that one coming...

[DNall]

So an eagle withe a cloud behing him that's crapping lightning bols down on the whole world? Musta been some hella mexican food. 

[floridacyclist]

What it is saying is:

"Don't mess with the IT folks or we'll disappear your data"

[alamrcn]

However, here is an interesting thing I found about the IT Badge on Vanguard...  The basic and the master (although can't be used yet) have the same product ID number... who didn't see that one coming...

Does the Senior rating have "2.0" on the top in place of a star?

Can someone with some extra Google time find pics of insignia for what would be the  military equivilant to this? Wondering if some of the features are similar...

-Ace

[Hammer]

However, here is an interesting thing I found about the IT Badge on Vanguard...  The basic and the master (although can't be used yet) have the same product ID number... who didn't see that one coming...

Does the Senior rating have "2.0" on the top in place of a star?

Can someone with some extra Google time find pics of insignia for what would be the  military equivilant to this? Wondering if some of the features are similar...

-Ace

Here's the Air Force's Communications Badge:

[DNall]

^yep... you'll find a fair argument from several people that we have too many badges & that some could be consolidated to cover several specialty tracks - just liek the AF does it. Admin & Personnel as HR for instance. IT & Comm together. And it'd be cheaper & better looking to make smaller shields the same size as AF medical badges.

[Hammer]

^yep... you'll find a fair argument from several people that we have too many badges & that some could be consolidated to cover several specialty tracks - just liek the AF does it. Admin & Personnel as HR for instance. IT & Comm together. And it'd be cheaper & better looking to make smaller shields the same size as AF medical badges.

Just curious, but does the Air Force have mini-sized Medical Badges like it does for the wings and other occupational badges?

[Hawk200]

^yep... you'll find a fair argument from several people that we have too many badges & that some could be consolidated to cover several specialty tracks - just liek the AF does it. Admin & Personnel as HR for instance. IT & Comm together. And it'd be cheaper & better looking to make smaller shields the same size as AF medical badges.

Just curious, but does the Air Force have mini-sized Medical Badges like it does for the wings and other occupational badges?

No they don't. I think the concept was attempted at one time, but the detail was so small and fine that you couldn't tell the difference between the various medical badges. Either that, or the concept was never attempted in the first place for the same reason.

To answer the question that I suspect is coming, full size medical badges may be mixed with mini badges of other types. It's the only time a med badge can be worn with a full size as far as the regs go.

[Hawk200]

^yep... you'll find a fair argument from several people that we have too many badges & that some could be consolidated to cover several specialty tracks - just liek the AF does it. Admin & Personnel as HR for instance. IT & Comm together. And it'd be cheaper & better looking to make smaller shields the same size as AF medical badges.

I think there is merit to keeping them separate. You can look at a badge and know exactly what someone does. Wouldn't be any guessing as to what someone's track is.

I don't think that the track badges will change to above the ribbons anytime soon, which I think reducing them in size would probably end up occurring. Unless someone at Vanguard sees a way to make money off it. That would be a compelling reason for them, but a downside for us.

For now, I think the badges need to be left alone.

[RiverAux]

So, we've got a nice and pretty badge all approved, but haven't bothered to actually create the program for which the badge would be awarded?  Glad we have our priorities straight!

[DNall]

I think there is merit to keeping them separate. You can look at a badge and know exactly what someone does. Wouldn't be any guessing as to what someone's track is.

I don't think that the track badges will change to above the ribbons anytime soon, which I think reducing them in size would probably end up occurring. Unless someone at Vanguard sees a way to make money off it. That would be a compelling reason for them, but a downside for us.

For now, I think the badges need to be left alone.

Well, I do think they should be worn over ribbons just exactly like AF specialty badges, that's what they are after all. Find someone with a master rating & 20 years in a field & thell them hey that's just a duty badge you get for sitting in a slot, you aren't really an expert in any specialize field, that won't go over well. They aren't duty badges, the NEC badge is a duty badge. Anyway, the point of that position, which I didn't come up but do agree with, is it makes things more efficient, which eventually works its way back around.

So, we've got a nice and pretty badge all approved, but haven't bothered to actually create the program for which the badge would be awarded?  Glad we have our priorities straight!

Funny though isn't it? Not only that but you can actually order teh thing, but there is no authorization to wear it or track to qualify you to do so. Absolute genius there.

[lordmonar]

So, we've got a nice and pretty badge all approved, but haven't bothered to actually create the program for which the badge would be awarded?  Glad we have our priorities straight!

Now to be fair....from what I understand...they are working of the IT specialty track.  It's just quicker and easier to make a badge than it is to push through anysort of regulation/pamplet in this organisation.

Last I heard, they had a framework all setteled, the argument was about what sort of outside certifications the IT specialists were going to have to have.

Just take a look at the recruiting specialty track and the people who have problems with that.

[arajca]

The problem (as I see it) with the IT track is the National IT folks took over the planning and development. A group of volunteers had it about 90-95% completed. Yes, there were some dicussions about outside certs, but IIRC, they had mostly been hammered out. When national took it over, the volunteers stopped working on it. Appearently, the national IT folks haven't done anything with it either. I understand they've been busy, but if they can't finish the work on it, they should never have taken the development of the track over.

[CAP Producer]

So, we've got a nice and pretty badge all approved, but haven't bothered to actually create the program for which the badge would be awarded?  Glad we have our priorities straight!

Now to be fair....from what I understand...they are working of the IT specialty track.  It's just quicker and easier to make a badge than it is to push through anysort of regulation/pamplet in this organisation.

Last I heard, they had a framework all setteled, the argument was about what sort of outside certifications the IT specialists were going to have to have.

Just take a look at the recruiting specialty track and the people who have problems with that.

Yup the Recruiter track is tough but I was able to get my master's rating.   Had to produce lots of documentation to show I didi everything but if you want it you can do it

Let's see what the IT Track brings.

[Lancer]

Does the Senior rating have "2.0" on the top in place of a star?

Yeah, and the Master rating has "BOFH" on top. 

I talked to our wing 'IT Officer' last week, who had spoke with Col. Saile, who was *just* at Maxwell taking the Wing Commanders course. He brought back a 'draft' pamphlet regarding the ITO track. Still waiting on him to send me a copy. Time to ping him again. 

I could care less if the bling comes before or after the track is finalized, as someone who works in IT I for one am anxious to see this come to fruition.

[DNall]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

[Lancer]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

Awww.... you mean someone has to do some 'real' work in CAP? Oh fiddle sticks...

[NIN]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

Awww.... you mean someone has to do some 'real' work in CAP? Oh fiddle sticks...

Then again, some of us don't want to do our day to day jobs for another few hours for someone else and not get paid.

I run the IT department of a college.   The LAST thing I want to do when I get home at night is run ANOTHER IT department in my VOLUMINOUS (insert dripping sarcasm) spare time..   (that happened to me last year. Not even a "Hey, do you want to do this?" it was more of a "Hey, this guy is our new IT guy.." "I AM?"  I made the best of it, but changes in my personal life forced me to re prioritize my volunteer time and doing my "Real Life" job during my "Volunteer Life" time had about as much appeal as sticking my head in a blender, so I stopped that.)

No, I work wtih cadets to satisfy an entirely different part of my brain, I think.  I hope.  That's why bling-bling doesn't do much for me. I'm paid in different currency.

[Lancer]

Then again, some of us don't want to do our day to day jobs for another few hours for someone else and not get paid.

Oh, totally understandable. But Dennis asserted pretty much all positions that require some level of drudgery aren't worth doing. Someone's got to do it, that's the bottom line.

I run the IT department of a college.   The LAST thing I want to do when I get home at night is run ANOTHER IT department in my VOLUMINOUS (insert dripping sarcasm) spare time..   (that happened to me last year. Not even a "Hey, do you want to do this?" it was more of a "Hey, this guy is our new IT guy.." "I AM?"  I made the best of it, but changes in my personal life forced me to re prioritize my volunteer time and doing my "Real Life" job during my "Volunteer Life" time had about as much appeal as sticking my head in a blender, so I stopped that.)

I support 100+ users daily and like you, when I'm not here, helping other people with their computer issues comes at a price. With CAP and my other volunteer obligations, what I do is done only to insure proper operation of said organization.

No, I work wtih cadets to satisfy an entirely different part of my brain, I think.  I hope.  That's why bling-bling doesn't do much for me. I'm paid in different currency.

I'd like to say a lot of us are in CAP to work with the cadets and get some level of satisfaction knowing you helped shape their future. As we were both cadets in a previous life, I think we owe a lot to the program for making us the people we are today.

The badge is neat and all, but secondary in my mind. Although it will probably be my only claim to fame in CAP these days.

[DNall]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

Awww.... you mean someone has to do some 'real' work in CAP? Oh fiddle sticks...

Oh I do a crap load of work, 60-80 hrs a months on CAP actually, that's actually at Sq or an activity time, not homework or talking to you guys. And wile my file lists a lot of sign offs for spec ratings, I've tried over the years to keep the one at National just saying Cadet Programs. I don't want to go to an new base, walk over to the Sq & volunteer to help with cadets, then have them say 'well we're full up there right now, but I see you got this tech in personnel...' Like I said, screw that. Due respect to the people that do those jobs, I wouldn't feel like I was getting anything done & fall over dead.

[LtCol White]

I think the specialty badges are important but I dont think we should have TOO many of them. I agree with them being grouped along the same lines as how USAF designates theirs.

[TankerT]

I was told this past weekend at the National Boards is that they will be releasing the IT Specialty Track later this month.  It will go into effect on 1 April (not meant to be an April Fools joke) and that Wing CC's will have the option of evaluating people's IT qualifications (education, work experience, certifications) for the first 120 days after the release, and can award any level of the track.  (Apparently, the expectation is that there will be a few techs per wing, a handful of Seniors, and one or two master ratings...)  After that 120 day window, all personnel will have to go through the process, which will include the time lengths specified for IT service for CAP specifically.

I have not seen the requirements.  Apparently, this information was announced at the recent Wing Commander's Course at Maxwell in February.

[JC004]

Apparently, this information was announced at the recent Wing Commander's Course at Maxwell in February.

Anybody here have access to the info?

[SarDragon]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

But even if they don't see it, you get asked anyway.

[DNall]

The problem with stuff like admin, personnel, RnR, IT, PA, etc is someone is goig to see that on your record & ask you to do the job. Screw that.

But even if they don't see it, you get asked anyway.

I think we probably all floated around early on & not so much by choice. If you asked me to do logistics now 12 years after I got the tech & hadn't touched it since, I couldn't help you much. If it'd stuck to my record I might get asked though & that's a hassle. Luckily I'm pretty well experienced in my primary & secondary now so that I don't tend to have to deal with that kinda thing.

[arajca]

What the crap?


Looks pretty, I guess...

[ rant ] I understand now.  Vanguard was busy producing this instead of the grade slides for the parka?  At least they'll be ready for summer.  [ / rant ]   

The IT badge was approved a year ago. The grade slides were approved a few months ago. They have some time before you can truly compare them.

[Lancer]

This was the reply given to an e-mail request from our Wing ITO.

The IT guide (CAPP 227) is in coordination and should be published soon at www.cap.gov/pubs

VR,

John D. Sanderson
Safety Administrator and Publications Manager

[Lancer]

*BUMP*

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/P227.pdf

From: Sanderson, John [mailto:jsanderson@capnhq.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:56 AM
To: XXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXX
Subject: CAPP 227, Information Technology Officer Specialty Track Study Guide



For your attention,

CAPP 227, 22 Mar 07, is posted on the publications page at http://level2.cap.gov/documents/P227.pdf

Thank You,

John D. Sanderson
Safety Administrator and Publications Manager

Finally, something I can sink my teeth into. 

[sschwab]

Wow, I have been on a specialty track for a while, and did not know it 

I am glad to an IT support being recognized as a helpful part of squadron.


Scott Schwab
2LT Gateway Squadron
Missouri Wing

[floridacyclist]

Activities
During the training period, each Information Technology
Technician candidate must complete at least five of the following:......

7. Regularly participate in the National IT Program Discussion
Forums.

I wonder if participation in the CAPTALK IT Specialty Badge thread will satisfy this requirement?

[A.Member]

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.  After the specialty track is approved, move forward with the other stuff.  Who knows when or even if a track will ever be approved.  Nothing like putting the cart ahead of the horse.  Honestly, all this kind of stuff really makes a person wonder if there was a run on common sense.

[Lancer]

Quote
7. Regularly participate in the National IT Program Discussion
Forums.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. 

This thread, as well as this thread.

Of course I'm not suprised to not see this information on the, unofficial, CAP IT website.

[TankerT]

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.  After the specialty track is approved, move forward with the other stuff.  Who knows when or even if a track will ever be approved.  Nothing like putting the cart ahead of the horse.  Honestly, all this kind of stuff really makes a person wonder if there was a run on common sense.

Well.... lets face it... when they announce a new uniform something... and Vanguard doesn't have anything in stock... everyone complains.

So... now you're complaining because they had it in stock before it could be worn...

It's not a perfect system.  But, absurd?  I don't see it that way. 

Timing was off, but that happens when you deal with lots of projects.

[Lancer]

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.  After the specialty track is approved, move forward with the other stuff.  Who knows when or even if a track will ever be approved.  Nothing like putting the cart ahead of the horse.  Honestly, all this kind of stuff really makes a person wonder if there was a run on common sense.

Common sense would also equate to reading the recent posts about the subject before you go and say something that has been said twenty times already.

[arajca]

Quote
7. Regularly participate in the National IT Program Discussion
Forums.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. 

This thread, as well as this thread.

Of course I'm not suprised to not see this information on the, unofficial, CAP IT website.

When National took over the specialty track development, there was no involvement of the general members afterward. The 'unofficial' website no longer served a purpose, so most of the members just left it, including the mods.

[A.Member]

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.  After the specialty track is approved, move forward with the other stuff.  Who knows when or even if a track will ever be approved.  Nothing like putting the cart ahead of the horse.  Honestly, all this kind of stuff really makes a person wonder if there was a run on common sense.

Common sense would also equate to reading the recent posts about the subject before you go and say something that has been said twenty times already.

I read the entire thread and added my opinion.  Your point?

[Lancer]

When National took over the specialty track development, there was no involvement of the general members afterward.

See...this is a problem. I don't fault NHQ for taking the initiative to finally get the creation of this 'put to bed'. What I don't like is, as general membership, we're not involved in the creation of items like this.

The 'unofficial' website no longer served a purpose, so most of the members just left it, including the mods.

I don't fault the mods of that site for it not flourishing. Because it doesn't come from 'above', and there is little to no dissemination of it's existence, it's going to flounder.

In general, I'm just happy that this is finally here. It's what I do for living. The past 8 years have been spent in the industry and it's what I'm passionate about.

[Lancer]

I read the entire thread and added my opinion.  Your point?

My point is the fact that I updated the thread to say the pamphlet had been created, and you say...

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.

then you continue to bemoan how wrong it was for the process to be done bass akwards. Enough already, please.

[A.Member]

Whether the specialty track is in development or not, creating and announcing the badge before it is finalized is absurd.

then you continue to bemoan how wrong it was for the process to be done bass akwards. Enough already, please.

So, you updated your post?  The update was not completely relevant to my point and the specialty track info was only posted earlier this month.  Again, until the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed these things shouldn't be released.  This is just one example of a number of recent things that were done donkey backwards; that was my point.  

Given that IT is your profession and passion, I'm sure you understand the importance of establishing and following process.  I'll offer you these analogies (since it's exactly what happened):  It's like rolling code into production before it was signed off by QA and the customer.  Or receiving sign off on requirements before the requirements are complete. 

But I'll be sure to check with you before commenting on such issues next time. 

[Lancer]

So, you updated your post?  The update was not completely relevant to my point and the specialty track info was only posted earlier this month.  Again, until the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed these things shouldn't be released.  This is just one example of a number of recent things that were done donkey backwards; that was my point.

Right, but your point had been made by others previously...move on, the horse has been beaten enough.

And the information for the speciality track wasn't posted earlier this month, if you had looked at the e-mail from John Sanderson I quoted as well as CAPP 227, it's dated March 22nd 2007, yesterday.

What "i"'s and "t"'s remain to be dotted and crossed at this point? If it really grates your tool that much how things are done, pick up the phone and call headquarters and tell them.
  

Given that IT is your profession and passion, I'm sure you understand the importance of establishing and following process.  I'll offer you these analogies (since it's exactly what happened):  It's like rolling code into production before it was signed off by QA and the customer.  Or receiving sign off on requirements before the requirements are complete. 

Yes, I do understand. As I had replied to Capt. Rajca:

See...this is a problem. I don't fault NHQ for taking the initiative to finally get the creation of this 'put to bed'. What I don't like is, as general membership, we're not involved in the creation of items like this.

If there was more interaction between NHQ and it's membership, I would like to say that problems like this would be a thing of the past.

But I'll be sure to check with you before commenting on such issues next time. 

Just seems to me that the majority of your posts seem to exacerbate a given situation instead of finding a solution. An affliction a few other poster's around here seem to have. I guess that's the reason you don't post your real name.

[A.Member]

Right, but your point had been made by others previously...move on, the horse has been beaten enough.

And the information for the speciality track wasn't posted earlier this month, if you had looked at the e-mail from John Sanderson I quoted as well as CAPP 227, it's dated March 22nd 2007, yesterday.

What "i"'s and "t"'s remain to be dotted and crossed at this point? If it really grates your tool that much how things are done, pick up the phone and call headquarters and tell them.
  

Yes, I do understand. As I had replied to Capt. Rajca:

See...this is a problem. I don't fault NHQ for taking the initiative to finally get the creation of this 'put to bed'. What I don't like is, as general membership, we're not involved in the creation of items like this.

If there was more interaction between NHQ and it's membership, I would like to say that problems like this would be a thing of the past.

Just seems to me that the majority of your posts seem to exacerbate a given situation instead of finding a solution. An affliction a few other poster's around here seem to have. I guess that's the reason you don't post your real name.

[lordmonar]

Again, until the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed these things shouldn't be released.  This is just one example of a number of recent things that were done donkey backwards; that was my point.

Has this been officially release?  I mean just because Vanguard is selling it does not mean it is an official release.  As far as I know the NB has not voted on this issue, has not released wear criteria, has not made any official notification to anyone.  All we know is that Vanguard did what they were asked by the committee who was charged with making the badge and put it on their web site for sell.

That's not really bass ackwards but more like what we call in the USAF as "leaning forward".

Just because all the I's and T's are not done does not mean you have to stop everything in the process.  One task of many got done.  That no one can use the results of that task yet mean nothing.  That it is sitting for sell in the Vanguard site means nothing.  This is not a sign of bad leadership so much.....as a sigh being too proactive.  The sign of bad leadership is that the IT specialty track is stuck in some kind of limbo.  How long does it really take to make the stupid thing.  It has been, what, two NB's since they sent this back to committee for rework.  That's a long time for it to just be sitting there.

[arajca]

IIRC, the IT badge was approved at the 2006 winter NB. The specialty track wasn't finished then. The volunteers who were working on the track made a presentation to the NB and NHQ/IT said they'd take it over.

[Lancer]

Step 1) Make a badge. Done.

Step 2) take a few years to finally publish the specialty track pamphlet. Check.
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/P227.pdf

Step 3) Add Information Technology Officer specialty track as an available option in e-services. Done.

Step 4) Make members wait some more because the online tests that are described in the above pamphlet aren't yet published. Sure thing.

DOH! At least we're getting somewhere eh?

[Pylon]

Step 3) Add Information Technology Officer specialty track as an available option in e-services. Done.

Step 4) Make members wait some more because the online tests that are described in the above pamphlet aren't yet published. Sure thing.

The interesting thing will be to see how many people get put in for IT ratings before the requisite tests are even available...   

I bet at least 500.   

[JC004]

Step 3) Add Information Technology Officer specialty track as an available option in e-services. Done.

Step 4) Make members wait some more because the online tests that are described in the above pamphlet aren't yet published. Sure thing.

The interesting thing will be to see how many people get put in for IT ratings before the requisite tests are even available...   

I bet at least 500.   

Here's the catch...they have to be able to get them from Vanguard first.  That's a pretty major operation in a lot of cases.   

I wonder if these will be like the 117's and take eternity to roll out...

[RiverAux]

Interesting that they made the Wing IT person a "Director" as opposed to officer.  Don't they usually use "Director" when there are often other Wing level officers that could be working under them in various positions? 

IT Technician required activity:

Develop one automated information tool for use by unit leadership for analysis of measurable performance data.

Shouldn't national be the one coming up with useful tools for the units to use, or rather developing tools requested by the units to meet their needs? 

IT Technician Discussion Topics:

(4) What role should the unit Public Affairs Officer play in the
development and maintenance of a unit website?

The website should be under the direct control of the Public Affairs Officer and the webmaster should either be the PAO or work directly for the PAO.  This is especially true at the squadron level where the website isn't anything more than a PA operation.  At Wing level you tend to see more webpages have tools involved in running the Wing that aren't directly related to PA.

[arajca]

Interesting that they made the Wing IT person a "Director" as opposed to officer.  Don't they usually use "Director" when there are often other Wing level officers that could be working under them in various positions? 

I can see having the webmaster, network administrator, WSA, etc all as separate officers under the director.

IT Technician required activity:

Develop one automated information tool for use by unit leadership for analysis of measurable performance data.

Shouldn't national be the one coming up with useful tools for the units to use, or rather developing tools requested by the units to meet their needs? 

Absolutely. The other thing that comes up is how many ways you do the same thing? If another unit has already developed a tool that meets my unit's needs, I'm going to use it. Why should I spend the time and energy to duplicate someone else's work? SIMS is a perfect example.

IT Technician Discussion Topics:

(4) What role should the unit Public Affairs Officer play in the
development and maintenance of a unit website?

The website should be under the direct control of the Public Affairs Officer and the webmaster should either be the PAO or work directly for the PAO.  This is especially true at the squadron level where the website isn't anything more than a PA operation.  At Wing level you tend to see more webpages have tools involved in running the Wing that aren't directly related to PA.

I think the webpage design and management should be IT. The public content should be PAO provided. THe total effort should be a team. I have seen too many websites designed by folks who know what they are doing get messed up becuase the content provider didnt care enough to properly change the content. They just slapped it in where they wanted and deleted whatever they didn't want on the page, such as links, essential code, etc.

[RiverAux]

I agree that the PAO may not always be the best person to design and run the site, but whoever is should be working for the PAO rather than for some other department. 

In my "real" life I've never seen an IT department have any interest in supporting someone else's interests.  LThey tend to forget that they are a support branch and tend to put their own interests above that of the folks they're supposed to be helping. 

Unfortunately CAP seems to be setting itself up to get in the same situation. 

[Lancer]

In my "real" life I've never seen an IT department have any interest in supporting someone else's interests.  LThey tend to forget that they are a support branch and tend to put their own interests above that of the folks they're supposed to be helping. 

Oh no... at least no where I have worked. Especially with where I'm at now. There are a lot of thing's we implement and release and expect our end user community to be responsible for. Examples of such. Handheld PC's (Symbol branded, etc. mobile PC devices) we support from the back end, but day to day support of basic issues, user interface, hardware is their responsibility. Also, tape backups of the file and print servers in the local offices are the end users responsibility for changing the tapes. We make sure the system is there to function for them, but they have to maintain day to day operations. This helps A LOT in making end users understand they are more a part of the solution and not as much a part of the problem.

additionally, I agree that the PAO should be the content provider, in a squadron that allows for it. If a unit does not have the personnel resources for such a division of tasks, then the webmaster should be the PAO...and so on...as the need dictates. As in my unit. I'm the PAO and, right now, the asst. webmaster. But I've been a driving force for change since I've been in the unit for changes to our unit's website.

[TankerT]

In all honesty, if you have a good website, it spans a lot further than things your PAO should be involved with. 

I.E. repository for supplements, calendar, training materials, department announcements, etc.

EACH department head in your unit should have some input into the website.  (If you implement a content management system, that would make if possible and reasonable.)

A website isn't a Public Affairs tool.  It is a communications tool. (No... not as in "Communications"...)

[RiverAux]

A website isn't a Public Affairs tool.  It is a communications tool.

It can be used for a tool for more than public affairs (internal as well as external), but at the squadron level it isn't likely. 

I've had some CAP webmaster experience and you're lucky if more than 10-20% of the officers who should be sending you stuff for their departments/units ever do.   

[Lancer]

A website isn't a Public Affairs tool.  It is a communications tool. (No... not as in "Communications"...)

Ok, maybe I should have elaborated a bit more. A website more or less is a your 'public face' to the world. What your site looks like, contains, says a lot about you as a unit. How it's implemented can vary greatly from unit to unit depending on not only the number of senior staff, but the skill level of that staff.

There's nothing that says the PAO is the only person that should be putting on content on the site, but should act as the webmaster, the 'project manager' so to speak.  Depending on the site the unit is using, and skill level of those using it. The most technically apt person should be responsible for actually placing the content on the site. Now...that being said...a CMS based site makes this easier to manage.

This is why I recommend it for CAP use. We'll be transitioning our squadron website to an implementation of Joomla CMS. We've just had a staff meeting and discussed it all. The rest of the staff were happy when I told them how they could contribute content without being extremely technically apt.

[Pumbaa]

OK I am reading overthe recently released CAPP 227 Specialty Trac Study Guide for the ITO...

ANyone see the tests on the CAP Web Site?  Perhaps that is how you become ITO.. Figure out how to find the D@RN thing!

Pretty much for the last year plus I have been ITO for the squadron.. hehehe I had left my job as Chief technical Officer mainting the computers for a radio network of 12 radio stations and 40 translators.. All digital Audio too! 

Let's see I got into computers before the PCc was invented.. Been at it since 79.. Full time CTO for 15 years... ISSO for over 7 years...  Was into the internet before there was the internet as we know it..  Was designing graphic interfaces for BBS's which predated the web..  blah...

I am so glad I don't do computers day in and day out any more...

[Pylon]

ANyone see the tests on the CAP Web Site?  Perhaps that is how you become ITO.. Figure out how to find the D@RN thing!

Mark Curtis already pointed that out on the last page.  I subsequently wondered how many people would get put into E-services for IT ratings before the requisite tests are even released.

If you're really curious on when they'll be released, pester the Knowledgebase people for some answers.  They might have some insight.  (If they do divulge an expected timeline, do share with us). 

[Pumbaa]

Well based on what I have done in the computer area for the last ohhh almost 30 years, I would htink I would qualify.. But yeah.. Gotta take that invisble test!

I figure I'll put in for my Senior at least tonight...  I gave non existant answers for a non existant test, that is listed in the Qual!

I scored 100 too!! OPEN BOOK TEST!!!  What Book?? Oh yeah that is invisble too!

[TankerT]

I already talked to NHQ about this late last week.

I posed several questions to NHQ related to the new track.

One was about the tests.  They indicated that they would contact me in the next few days on the status.

They didn't have all the answers, as the "experts" were actual CAP members in the field, and not NHQ staffers.

What I do know is that the tests do exist. They just are not up yet.  And, they will be on-line only, with no paper based copy.

When I hear anything, I will post it here ASAP.

[TankerT]

I do think the tests shouldn't be hard based on the materials available.  They'll certainly have to be pretty much regulatory in nature, and not technical.  (Similar to other specialties such as finance, etc... since you get someone that already knows the professional process, just not the CAP regs...)

(I made this a separate post as this is what I think... my opinion... based on my other post... which is what was a result of my conversation with NHQ.)

My opinion  as well: NHQ was very friendly, and is working to ensure all of the tests are up and our questions are answered very soon. 

[LTC_Gadget]

Much like LtFairchild, I've been in computers in one form or another since '79, that's right, pre-PC. I've been a database programmer, I've learned how to program "Hello, world" and more, in about eight languages. I've built PCs, I've done the PC support thing. I've been a file and mailserver admin. I've written and taught computer-related classes on many topics, both beginner and advanced. I spent the last eight years in the Network Operations section for a 22K+ user population, speaking Cisco IOS and Catalyst OS, sometimes in my sleep.  I'm now in Network Security. I would think that would qualify me for the "Been there, done that" T-shirt.  We'll see.  I did try to check one of the resources today.  It seems that the glossary they reference is only available on-line, unless one pays boucoup bucks. Great..

Oh, well, we'll all see what we shall see, eh??

V/R,

[Pumbaa]

Based on the 227 I too cannot see this being too technical, but more managment and policy..

Hmmm summer of 79...  I was working at Ratheon...  Education center... on the PTS 2000.  I was drawing up the illustrations for the course, this was pre PC days before Photoshop, Draw, etc were out and about!  I was pen and paper!  HA!  Then programmin in Fortran, Assembly and some other gobby gook...

Ratheon dropped the ball on a great computer there BTW, never thought a PC would be of any commercial value.. And as they say. the rest is history!

[Tim Medeiros]

one can find the tests by figuring out NHQs way of naming things, though, after looking at it one can tell that the tests are not ready, yet.  and it seems that they are changing the design of the test system, seems decent.

[swilliams]

Nice to see some good, constructive conversation <grin>
As one of the 'mods' of the unofficial IT site, and 1/2 of the primary development team for the first 3+ years of the ITO project, I'm both pleased and not-so-pleased that the 227 has been released.

Some key things that were in the original drafts, are not included:
-Specifics on what the tests will cover (to include more technical details as you progress)
-A system to give credit to members who have pertinent experience to the CAP ITO Position
-A roadmap of other publications that would govern the CAP ITO program
-More that I can't remember right now
Hopefully these items are not forgotten, and they are forthcoming.

Now, that being said, I AM pleased that there is finally some headway. Our intention was to have more than just a pamphlet for the program when it was released, but NHQ does things their way.

I hope that this will at least get a few more ITO's involved in the active management of their programs - at all levels. As a Region IT 'Director', I hope this will help my wing IT Directors work a little more efficiently.

[TankerT]

As promised, as soon as NHQ mentioned anything... I would post it here.

NHQ just wrote me (less than 5 minutes ago.)

The tests are now available on-line.

[pixelwonk]

As promised, as soon as NHQ mentioned anything... I would post it here.

NHQ just wrote me (less than 5 minutes ago.)

The tests are now available on-line.

d00d, you've got your thumb on the pulse of the CAP IT aorta!

[Lancer]

d00d, you've got your thumb on the pulse of the CAP IT aorta!

Yeah man...he's 1337 for sure, Lyk ZOMG.

Hawt. 


All kidding aside, Thanks TankerT.

[arajca]

Well, at least one question has the wrong answer listed as correct.

[TankerT]

d00d, you've got your thumb on the pulse of the CAP IT aorta!

Hey... it's way better than where you keep your thumb...

/got nothing
//please don't send your minions after me

[Pylon]

Well, at least one question has the wrong answer listed as correct.

With regards to the Technician exam, yes - I think so, too.

[RogueLeader]

Has anybody reported it to NHQ?

[JC004]

I'm having trouble with the NHQ web site (mostly -nhq.gov) at the moment.  Agh.  Where is the link to these tests?  Do you get additional points for finding it?

[Lancer]

I'm having trouble with the NHQ web site (mostly -nhq.gov) at the moment.  Agh.  Where is the link to these tests?  Do you get additional points for finding it?

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/operations/

[Pumbaa]

Yahoo.. passed the test first try!  Didn't even need to do open book.

[JC004]

I'm having trouble with the NHQ web site (mostly -nhq.gov) at the moment.  Agh.  Where is the link to these tests?  Do you get additional points for finding it?

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/operations/

Duh.  Completely passed over it because I was looking above that.  Oh well.  Thanks.

Gr.  They should run spell check in this.

[swilliams]

is it just me, or are we missing some of the technology in Information Technology officer?

I'm not saying the tests need to be A+ or MCSE, but, I think we should require & test on basic IT knowledge.

Am I being too picky by wanting my ITO's to be able to identify computer parts 2/3 times?

[TankerT]

is it just me, or are we missing some of the technology in Information Technology officer?

I'm not saying the tests need to be A+ or MCSE, but, I think we should require & test on basic IT knowledge.

Am I being too picky by wanting my ITO's to be able to identify computer parts 2/3 times?

We don't require finance officers to be a CPA, or an AEO to be a licensed teacher, etc...  And, at the same time, their specialty track ratings do not have knowledge exams that cover those skill tasks.

The IT Officer track isn't to train CAP members to be IT professionals.  It is to train IT professionals to be familiar with CAP's processes and procedures.  (Assuming that your IT person has some rudimentary IT skills...)

If your commander is appointing a non-IT person to fill the IT slot... well... yeah... that's not ideal. 

Yes, not everyone is a skilled IT professional.  And, many IT professionals don't have a background in an area that makes them useful for our IT operations... and... as such... your unit might not have a person with the proper skills to be an ITO. 

But, to resolve that problem requires selective recruiting... and not a training program from NHQ.

[Matt]

Well, at least one question has the wrong answer listed as correct.

With regards to the Technician exam, yes - I think so, too.

That makes three, B@$7@rD$!  You'd think that when you're dealing with the geeks in CAP they'd exert a little more effort to make sure we wouldn't know that they are wrong!

[swilliams]

is it just me, or are we missing some of the technology in Information Technology officer?

I'm not saying the tests need to be A+ or MCSE, but, I think we should require & test on basic IT knowledge.

Am I being too picky by wanting my ITO's to be able to identify computer parts 2/3 times?

We don't require finance officers to be a CPA, or an AEO to be a licensed teacher, etc...  And, at the same time, their specialty track ratings do not have knowledge exams that cover those skill tasks.

The IT Officer track isn't to train CAP members to be IT professionals.  It is to train IT professionals to be familiar with CAP's processes and procedures.  (Assuming that your IT person has some rudimentary IT skills...)

If your commander is appointing a non-IT person to fill the IT slot... well... yeah... that's not ideal. 

Yes, not everyone is a skilled IT professional.  And, many IT professionals don't have a background in an area that makes them useful for our IT operations... and... as such... your unit might not have a person with the proper skills to be an ITO. 

But, to resolve that problem requires selective recruiting... and not a training program from NHQ.

I'm not suggesting that we make CAP ITO's IT Professionals, and you're right - it should be the job of the Unit CC to appoint a fairly competent IT officer. However, to be in an "operational" position, i.e. ES Specialties, etc - you do need specific skill sets. I guess I envisioned the ITO as a mix of an operational specialty (you have 30 minutes to get that network up & running) and a 'staff officer' (make sure you fill out that paperwork & provide some opsec training).

I'm not saying it's totally broken, I just expect my ITO's to be fairly competent in IT, not just CAP policies. I definitely don't think CAP needs to provide this training, but it would be nice to have some reference resources identified, and some level of knowledge assessment.

This may all be for nothing, NHQ may be working on this for the Senior & Master rating. I've not heard yet.

[floridacyclist]

Yahoo.. passed the test first try!  Didn't even need to do open book.

Same here. I went looking for the Senior and Master tests to blow away take as well (maybe try opening a book on those since hopefully they would be harder), but they weren't there yet.

We'll see how this thing goes. I still have at least a year before I can finish up Master in my current specialty tracks, and then maybe I can change to IT and PAO

[Lancer]

While I agree that an ITO does not need to be an IT professional, it certainly does help. At best, the person who is the most technologically apt in your unit should be tasked with this position. If there are deficiencies, then it should be up to the new ITO to come up to speed, double-time like.

As far as the tests are concerned, yes, there is a 'broken question' and hopefully someone is working on correcting it. The technician test was quite easy and there were no real 'technical' questions on it. As I'm sure there will not be on the senior and master tests when they appear. Due to the nature of the technology industry and how slow changes are made internally to CAP, there is no way to put any real current technology questions in the tests.

As of this past week, I've been asked to be the assistant wing ITO, and so far we have published our first 'IT' newsletter to the wing mailing list with some fairly good feedback. I look forward to providing my support in whatever way I can 'technologically' to the wing, and that this speciality track gets the focus it deserves.