IT Specialty Badge

[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.