IMU and WMU being pushed out by NHQ

[c172drv]

OK, I know that NHQ never supported the use of WMU and IMU but are they pushing it out.  I was speaking to my DO for the wing and he is under the impression that NHQ is going to force them out.  I'm a big fan having used them in another wing.  I'd like to see my current one start to use them more for missions and other functions. Just currious of the collective here has heard anything official one way or the other.

John

[a2capt]

For being "pushed out", they certainly do co-operate an awful lot with each other ..

Personally, I do have issues with the way IMU feels like a hack at times, and with the rigidness at which things have to be done where as with the "paper" method you have some slack for real world happenings.

[davidsinn]

OK, I know that NHQ never supported the use of WMU and IMU but are they pushing it out.  I was speaking to my DO for the wing and he is under the impression that NHQ is going to force them out.  I'm a big fan having used them in another wing.  I'd like to see my current one start to use them more for missions and other functions. Just currious of the collective here has heard anything official one way or the other.

John

I heard it from John Desmaris himself that it will go away. IMO WMU sucks. There is no nicer way to put it. It is a very poor way to manage paperwork and eServices is much nicer. It doesn't interface very well with the new ops quals module and since that is a required program now...

[RiverAux]

WMU and IMU are totally different deals.  Last I heard NHQ was sort of encouraging IMU use though my wing hasn't been all that impressed with it. 

[lordmonar]

I understand that NHQ is putting together a tiger team to consolidate all the online systems.

IMU, WMU, WMRS, SIMS and E-services will be merged and/or replaced by one database system.

So said the E-mail I got from my wing king a few weeks back.

[lordmonar]

oooooooo a "tiger team"

Meeeooooww

I still got my TQM book around here somewhere....don't make me form a Process Action Team and Metrics you to death!

[RiverAux]

I understand that NHQ is putting together a tiger team to consolidate all the online systems.

IMU, WMU, WMRS, SIMS and E-services will be merged and/or replaced by one database system.

So said the E-mail I got from my wing king a few weeks back.

From watching the NEC, thats not what I got out of it.  They are merging eservices and ops quals, but I saw no mention of trying to merge WMIRS with them. 

[heliodoc]

You know I am no IT geek.....

CAN it be simplified?  Or does the volunteer membership at NHQ really have all this time to develop and rehash new and old systems.

There ought to be SOME kind of streamlining done and keep all theother fingers ought the pie to mess this IMU, WMU, WRMS, SIMS, WMIRS

CAP must be into all these acronyms and systems  here is one when too much of this stuff can not get organized into ONE system that is simple to the members......maybe its a case for FWA, eh??

[davidsinn]

I understand that NHQ is putting together a tiger team to consolidate all the online systems.

IMU, WMU, WMRS, SIMS and E-services will be merged and/or replaced by one database system.

So said the E-mail I got from my wing king a few weeks back.

From watching the NEC, thats not what I got out of it.  They are merging eservices and ops quals, but I saw no mention of trying to merge WMIRS with them.

I sat in a briefing by John Demaris at wing conference and I thought he said they would be rolling it all into one or two systems.

[jeders]

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Ding dong the WMU is dead, the WMU is dead, the WMU is dead, ding dong the wicked WMU is dead.

Okay, maybe it's not quite as catchy as it could be. Yes, I would absolutely love to see WMU go away and die. IMU, I'm relatively neutral on, but WMU is a terrible system that doesn't work well enough to use for anything.

[c172drv]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Ding dong the WMU is dead, the WMU is dead, the WMU is dead, ding dong the wicked WMU is dead.

Okay, maybe it's not quite as catchy as it could be. Yes, I would absolutely love to see WMU go away and die. IMU, I'm relatively neutral on, but WMU is a terrible system that doesn't work well enough to use for anything.

I'm surprised to find so many folks don't like the WMU.  I found it much easier to use than the NHQ systems.  Not everything works but it is being developed for free with growing constraints.  Back when I was using regularly for most everything I found it to be much easier to enter data and make things work.

The big problem I see with what NHQ is doing is that there is no real support for running missions.  WMIRS will track stuff but does zero for managing or streamlining.  I wish that NHQ and Pete Anderson coupld get along and put together a real system that supports the squadrons and wing, not us doing all the work for NHQ.

[arajca]

I have not had a good expereince with IMU. We have a few experts who swear by it, but many more ICs and staff who swear at it and refuse to use it. As mentioned, it is too rigid for real life.

WMU requires far too much data entry to be really useful. About the only thing I see it used for is generating ROA cards, but that will probably be changing soon - i.e. using a different system for that or doing away with the ROA cards altogether since they are optional.

[Camas]

About the only thing I see the WMU used for is generating ROA cards, but that will probably be changing soon - i.e. using a different system for that or doing away with the ROA cards altogether since they are optional.

Our wing uses the WMU for ROA data entry just to keep track who has completed either ACUT or BCUT so for that purpose it's still quite useful. Up 'til recently we also used it for ROA cards but, as pointed out, it's no longer required. We also use the WMU for keeping a data base for station licenses issued by wing.

We also find it useful for issuing CAPF's 75 for CAP licenses and the maintenance data base under the "Logistics" module is still useful for keeping track of vehicle maintenance data.

Bottom line - the WMU still has some uses though they are now far more limited than they use to be.

[Eclipse]

^ And this couldn't be done with a spreadsheet?

[vento]

I was told once that if I had nothing nice to say, then don't say it. So, I will keep quiet about the WMU.

It's a whole different story with the IMU. I've seen it in action and used it as base staff in both the shape of IMU2 and IMU3. It's really much nicer than the traditional paper way of doing things. It integrates the database and manages resources quite nicely, also keeps everybody involved informed about the status of all resources. I would argue that for a larger mission (something like 6 plus aircraft and 1 or 2 ground teams, even if just a SAREX) the IMU really works its magic. Now for smaller missions, we can probably get away without a system and do the old fashion way.

I will be the first to say that the IMU3 has a lot of room for improvements (such as user interface), but it is not a bad system to deploy in a mission. From experience, people who don't like the IMU share at least one of the following points in common: 1) Lack of proper training; 2) The system was not properly setup, especially networking; 3) Or simply lack of an open minded attitude just because he/she heard something about it.

Aircrews and ground teams will probably never come across IMU as it is more a "Base operations" support system. It'd be nice if we didn't jump to attack a system that most of us don't know it well, unless we can come up with something much better and offer it to the general membership at the same pay grade that the developer is earning (same as you and me, vonlunteers).

My two cents.

[wingnut55]

THE USAF required we go to the IMU, They enter missions into it at AFRCC. It works well except for those who can't hit return.

[davidsinn]

THE USAF required we go to the IMU, They enter missions into it at AFRCC. It works well except for those who can't hit return.

What are you talking about? We're required to use WMIRS and the new eRelease. AFRCC interfaces to WMIRS, as told to a large group at the GLR/ES conference a couple months back by one of their SARDOs.

[arajca]

THE USAF required we go to the IMU, They enter missions into it at AFRCC. It works well except for those who can't hit return.

Cite?

As one who has used IMU2 and IMU3, I am less than impressed by them. The issues mentioned - lack of training and improper set up - contribute greatly to the frustration many folks have with it. I have installed IMU3 on my personal computer to try to figure out some things and gain experience on it BUT SINCE I'M NOT AN IC I CAN'T CREATE A MISSION NOR CAN I CHANGE ANYTHING ON A MISSION I DOWNLOAD. So there is no way for me to get any expereince in using it unless I'm at a mission, which is not the time to be figuring out how some flippin' program is supposed to work. Yes, I have contact Pete about it. Got no response. OT: The only time I got a response was with font issue I had and it was basically "Never heard of it. Can't replicate it. Too bad."

When you have to spend two-three hours setting up a system that's supposed to make life easier, the system doesn't get used.

As for air and ground folks not coming into contact with IMU, when it's been used for sign in, it has taken three to four times as long to sign in with IMU. And we still used paper because IMU glitches.

[JC004]

THE USAF required we go to the IMU, They enter missions into it at AFRCC. It works well except for those who can't hit return.

...or when it crashes... 

[vento]

.....
I have installed IMU3 on my personal computer to try to figure out some things and gain experience on it BUT SINCE I'M NOT AN IC I CAN'T CREATE A MISSION NOR CAN I CHANGE ANYTHING ON A MISSION I DOWNLOAD. So there is no way for me to get any expereince in using it unless I'm at a mission, which is not the time to be figuring out how some flippin' program is supposed to work. When you have to spend two-three hours setting up a system that's supposed to make life easier, the system doesn't get used......

Valid points and I feel your pain. I am not an IC neither and I know exactly what you are talking about.
OTOH, I've seen IC qualified member setup IMU and create an "exercise mission" to train base staff. It works fairly well. As you said it is not proper to train people during an actual mission, and again that comes back to the issue of members not being able to receive proper training.

It'd be nice if people who operate the IMU can receive proper training before hand. I've witnessed in numerous occassions when IMU is setup correctly, and both air ops, ground ops, and comm people use it as it is suppossed to. And when that happens, the electronics whiteboard (or status board or whatever we call it) works much better than the traditional board.

We don't have much options unless the NHQ is willing to spend real money and come up with an alternative to the IMU. Before that happens, I am afraid the IMU is still a valid choice (maybe only choice) for large scale missions. Assuming we can get our people trained.