IMU and WMU being pushed out by NHQ

[vento]

:clap:  :clap:  :clap: Very nicely said.

Indeed.

Thanks Capt Borsari for the posting. It cleared a few questions that I didn't have answers for.
The idea of IMU champions in different places to train members is nice. Hopefully NHQ will hear about the need and allocate some funding to allow for travelling expenses for proper training. It is critical for ICs, Branch directors, and base staff to know the system in order to take full advantage of it.

[RiverAux]

Didn't we have a large thread on suggested changes to the IMU a while back?

[Short Field]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!". 

[Eclipse]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!".

[ELTHunter]

Group 1, Tennessee Wing has been using IMU successfully for a year or more now.  We have a tremendous benefit in that we have Capt. Borsari in our area to assist us with both training and incorporating updates more-or-less as we we come across the need for them. 

Yes, IMU has it's limitations and can be "clunky" or "cumbersome" at times, and it tends to be more oriented to air ops than ground ops, so there are still changes to be made for it to work better for ground ops.  However, having said that, I have used it on several SARX's and find it to be a great tool.  I think that the people that complain about it the most have (1) not been trained on it well enough, or (2) are not comfortable with computers in the first place, or (3) not had enough hands on experience working with it.

It's benefit may not be in running a small one or two sortie mission in the middle of the night, but for anything much bigger than that, it increases visibility for all of the mission staff and let's the Branch Director's and the IC close out the paperwork almost an the end of the mission.

As a former semi-skeptic, I give it a thumbs up in most cases.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!".

Used that book, didn't help much. People who do technical things, don't do good writing otherwise.

[Eclipse]

How about this?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Actually the Dummies series is usually real good. Ha.

[Short Field]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!".

Real helpful - about on par with the major of suggestions he received.   He was looking to make changes in that program - not redesign and then rewrite the program in a more useful and powerful programming language.  Most of the IMU stuff is actually fairly intuitive but the parts that are not can really screw you up.   

[Eclipse]

Real helpful - about on par with the major of suggestions he received.   He was looking to make changes in that program - not redesign and then rewrite the program in a more useful and powerful programming language.  Most of the IMU stuff is actually fairly intuitive but the parts that are not can really screw you up.

Missed the point completely - nothing about the IMU's interface is intuitive. which is its major drawback.

[RiverAux]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!".

I just reviewed the first page of that 5 page thread and saw 2 solid specific suggestions (and yes a lot of generally bellyaching). 

[Eclipse]

Yes, but it had a lot more of "make it easier" or "it is just too hard to use" suggestions than specific items like "move the tab to the left and add this to the drop down" or "put a warning on that to stop people before it is too late!".

I just reviewed the first page of that 5 page thread and saw 2 solid specific suggestions (and yes a lot of generally bellyaching).

What "suggestions" are necessary?

Both systems have been, or are being, obsoleted, that's not going to change, especially considering the "divided" opinion about them.

Write some decorations for the people who have given up so much time and effort to the cause and move on.

Its not like some last minute feature tweaks or user training is going to change the fact that both are going away.  The end result will likely be a far more usable and accessible web-based addition or re-write to eServices, including components that obsolete SIMS as well.

Kay-Sara-Sara

[RiverAux]

Its not like some last minute feature tweaks or user training is going to change the fact that both are going away. 

Says who?  The guy who designed IMU doesn't seem to have gotten the word that its being dumped so we've got a few "I heard that someone said that it might.." type statements.  WMU is certainly on the way out or at least becoming unnecessary, but there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that IMU is going to be superceded by a system designed by NHQ.  And if you think that the guys who brought us the eservices are likely to come up with a usable mission management system, you're much more optimistics than I thought you were. 

[Short Field]

WMU is certainly on the way out or at least becoming unnecessary, but there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that IMU is going to be superceded by a system designed by NHQ. 

I agree that the WMU is becoming unnecessary and will be going away as the functions get transferred to eServices. That is a good thing - not because I have problems with the WMU but the fewer systems we have to train people on, the better off we will be.

I don't see the IMU going away anytime soon.  There is NOTHING to replace it.  If you don't like doing briefings, flight releases, and debriefings on the IMU, then go to WMIRS and do it.  You will not get away from computers.  At least with the IMU, you can work off-line and then later upload the mission data to WMIRS. 

[Short Field]

I just reviewed the first page of that 5 page thread and saw 2 solid specific suggestions

I looked at all five pages and there were about 8 good suggestions.  Over half of them have been implemented in the latest version of IMU. 

[Spaceman3750]

The end result will likely be a far more usable and accessible web-based addition or re-write to eServices, including components that obsolete SIMS as well.

As has been brought up before, what happens when there's no network/internet access at mission base? Even under the best of conditions and on enterprise networks accessibility's only guaranteed up to 99.999% of the time (we call that five nines of reliability). Under the worst of conditions - which we always train and remain prepared for - you have no access whatsoever. Then how do you release that next sortie or check in 30 ground team members? Yes, the paperwork, but if the paperwork was intuitive and easy to use there wouldn't be a need for the IMU or any other web-based application.

The bottom line is that you must have something local to a single computer if you're going to bother with computer based mission management at all. There's lots of reasons why you won't have external access during a mission, and nobody wants to be left holding the bag of check-ins or GT release forms when it happens.

[Eclipse]

The end result will likely be a far more usable and accessible web-based addition or re-write to eServices, including components that obsolete SIMS as well.

As has been brought up before, what happens when there's no network/internet access at mission base? Even under the best of conditions and on enterprise networks accessibility's only guaranteed up to 99.999% of the time (we call that five nines of reliability). Under the worst of conditions - which we always train and remain prepared for - you have no access whatsoever. Then how do you release that next sortie or check in 30 ground team members? Yes, the paperwork, but if the paperwork was intuitive and easy to use there wouldn't be a need for the IMU or any other web-based application.

The bottom line is that you must have something local to a single computer if you're going to bother with computer based mission management at all. There's lots of reasons why you won't have external access during a mission, and nobody wants to be left holding the bag of check-ins or GT release forms when it happens.

Again with Armageddon?  Really?

OK, through the numbers.

We aren't supposed to be placing the ICP in the disaster area. Good ICS principles places it where there is robust infrastructure.
Further, no professionalized agency deploys without access of some kind to the internet, and CAP does not operate in any environments
that are so pulverized as to have no access (remember we are not a first-in agency).

We have things called generators - thus the "no power" scenario is moot.  Satellite and cellular-based internet access, thus the connectivity issue is moot.

Sorties and teams can of course be launched and tracked on paper, but you don't design your systems in the year 2010 to be paper-based because "you might not have connectivity".

For the most part WMIRS is designed to be a remote tracking and history resource, not a mission management utility - when its upgraded as such it should have a stand-alone module, but if it doesn't, then we just enter things when the AOL dial-up lines come back into service and continue local tracking with whiteboards.

Staging areas, FOB's, and of course the DA itself can be wherever they need to be, but if the ICP is setup anywhere but where there is robust power and connectivity, the IC needs to take an ICS refresher.

[Robborsari]

Its not armageddon that is usually a problem at mission bases.  Its a generator that runs out of fuel or an FBO network that just dies for no reason.  Cable goes out, cell services have a bad day.  These kinds of things happen all the time.   When it does you use one machine in local mode or a local network until its restored and then push the database back up to the server.  Nothing gets lost and everything is available to the mission base while the service is out.  When the network is down everything in a web based system will be unavailable.  So you are back to keeping a paper copy of everything and doing twice the work or accepting that while the network is down you cannot access anything that has already been done.  I would push for a solution that includes a way to run offline. 

[Eclipse]

^ You're assuming a single point of failure for everything, which at least in my AOR is not the case.

[Robborsari]

LOL.  Thats funny.  I would not lay claim to the worlds worst interface though.  There are still a lot of AS400 systems out there