Main Menu

Incident Mgt Utility

Started by RiverAux, February 28, 2007, 11:58:55 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

This was on CAP News Online today:
QuoteFla. Wing incident commanders trained in new Incident Management Utilities program

FLORIDA – Twenty Florida Wing incident commanders recently assembled to learn the new Incident Management Utilities computer program during a two-day course taught by the Oregon Wing's Lt. Col. Peter Andersen.

The session was designed to get the wing's incident commanders up to speed on the new program, which will soon become the standard tool for use during missions.   

The IMU is a powerful tool that gives incident commanders and mission base personnel direct access to National Headquarters' Mission Information Management System (MIMS) for member qualification information of those working a mission. The IMU also provides several other helpful tools, including giving mission chiefs the ability to map air and ground assets and flexbility in making assignments.

Because the IMU program pulls information directly from MIMS, it's important for members to ensure their information is correct and up to date.

Participants in the class were presented with different scenarios that simulated real mission assignments and resolutions. As they worked through the missions, new situations were presented, along with demonstrations of how the new IMU would make resolution much easier and faster.

Anyone seen this work?  A few years ago everyone was talking about how that Satellite Took Kit software was going to help us plan and execute missions, but I never saw that happen. 

It says that this is going to be required nationally.  Great.  We're still trying to deal with the oddities of a WMIRS software that changes daily and they're going to give us another program to use. 

Now, I'm not an old fuddy-duddy scared of the computer keyboard, but I'm not sure we want to become too dependent on software to run our missions.  Not much that we're doing is so terribly complicated that you can't do it just as well the old-fashioned way. 

There are definetely areas where using computers makes things easier in running a mission, but I'd rather have the base staff figuring out the best strategy rather than trying to understand why they can't get an email to the NOC.

SarDragon

IMU is just a beefed-up version of the MMU. More here.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

lordmonar

We use the IMU here in Nevada.  Seems to work good.  There is some quirks to it such as no live update with MIMS, no function to send people to crew rest.  But as far as a good tool for managing a mission base it is pretty good.  MUCH better than paper.  The networking function is really good for dispersed operations.  We often run SAREX with the IC at another base.  They can manage all the air and ground assets, see the status of all the missions as they check in, take off, do their bi-hourly check ins, and return to base and then check out to go home.

I am surprised it is NOT already mandated nationally.

The only really bad thing about it, is that the database is not updated live.  You have download it from national and the each terminal has to get the same copy of this down load.  That can make things a little difficult getting all the terminal talking to each other.  Also if the master database is downloaded on say Wednesday and someone updates their 101 in MIMS after that....it will not be in the data base....this caused us a little trouble about 2 SAREXs ago.

Other than that one problem it is pretty good.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Chris Jacobs

i am from Oregon wing where we have been using it for a long time.  col Andersen wrote the program and has been working hard to fix any issues that ever come up.  i used to think it was more trouble than it was worth but that was back in the day when it was unstable.  Today it is a really good program, and as long as you know a couple of the little details about it, it works almost flawlessly.  we can show up anywhere with wireless access, pull out our laptops, run a quick up date and get a new data base and be ready to run a mission in a mater of 15 minuets.  It takes longer to set up the radios than it does to set up the computers now. 

Also it is really cool to run distributed missions.  you can have an IC in one area, Mission radio operators in key locations, and rest of your staff working form work, school or other places.  they all enter the information into the same set of paper work and never have to see each other.  It is a great program for running distributed missions.

i would like to see it go nationally.  It forces people to not fudge on things, and takes some of the bad decision options away form people.  i think it would also be a great tool for any really big national missions.  it would allow us to all see each others business and would make it so that each wing could work somewhat independently but all for a common mission.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

RiverAux

I'll withhold official "judgement" until I get a chance to play with it myself.  However, I am skeptical at this moment as I am one of the more tech savvy persons around our mission bases.  I don't claim any special level of competence, but just happen to know more than most others, including almost all our ICs.  I'm not a REAL tech guy by any means.   Therefore right now I do not see us using computers to manage a mission, especially one requiring any internet access, at more than a couple of sites within our Wing -- and that is under ideal conditions where we've had the chance to get there ahead of time and set things up.   

Over the last few SAREXs I've just been seeing our ICs and OPs focus more and more on feeding WMIRS with data and concurrently less time running the actual missions. 

Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of benefits to a computerized mission base, especially in regards to distribution of messages from radio and other sources. 

arajca

Feeding WMIRS is something that MSA's should be doing, not IC's or SC's.

Chris Jacobs

i will have to say that when we first started using computers there was a lot of problems.  A lot of people didn't (some times still) enter things right(some times people still don't), or forgot to do things and it messed some things up.  Although once the majority of people learned how to use it properly the missions started to flow very easily.  When it is used correctly it cuts down on a lot of the things that one has to do.  I feel that it intergrates the whole mission picture very well.  as you enter radio traffic into the comm log it automatically updates a status board on the program.  as a radio operator enters actual time of arrival it takes the sortie off the board and allows the air staff to conduct the debriefing.  Each sectional also has its own log that it can use to record important mission details.

And you don't have to run it on the internet all the time.  there are several modes that you can chose to use the IMU in, only one of them requires any internet.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

sardak

It's being used in COWG, and ICs are encouraged but not mandated to use it.  We have been able to "break it" a number of times.  It, along with the operators, can get overwhelmed and stop responding.  Coffee, pop and food restore the operators but not the software, unfortunately.  Paper backup is a must on a big mission.  The IMU, MIMS and WMIRS connections don't work as they should (more than just an IMU issue).

I ran an AFRCC mission with IMU this past Friday (in local mode), and found some more bugs in it.

Our DO is going to national boards to talk with Pete Anderson and others about  problems we've found. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 28, 2007, 11:58:55 PM
Anyone seen this work?  A few years ago everyone was talking about how that Satellite Took Kit software was going to help us plan and execute missions, but I never saw that happen. 

STK?  How about the "Searchers' Edge Program?"   When was the last time you used the Virtual Computing Network laptop loaded with Boeing Battlescape and Jeppesen FliteMap?

Mike

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on March 01, 2007, 03:19:59 AM
I'll withhold official "judgement" until I get a chance to play with it myself.  However, I am skeptical at this moment as I am one of the more tech savvy persons around our mission bases.  I don't claim any special level of competence, but just happen to know more than most others, including almost all our ICs.  I'm not a REAL tech guy by any means.   Therefore right now I do not see us using computers to manage a mission, especially one requiring any internet access, at more than a couple of sites within our Wing -- and that is under ideal conditions where we've had the chance to get there ahead of time and set things up.   

Over the last few SAREXs I've just been seeing our ICs and OPs focus more and more on feeding WMIRS with data and concurrently less time running the actual missions. 

Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of benefits to a computerized mission base, especially in regards to distribution of messages from radio and other sources. 

No...you are right...IMU does take a lot of skill to get to work right and all of your personnel have to know how to use it.  But once it working it is a great tool.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteFeeding WMIRS is something that MSA's should be doing, not IC's or SC's.
MSAs can't just make up stuff on their own.  Someone has to tell them what to enter and when.  Someone else has to answer calls from National or whoever about "Where is that data????? Its been at least 5 minutes since I asked you for it last!".   Someone else also has to deal with National when stuff that has been entered hasn't been approved in a reasonable period of time.  Maybe at some point your average MSA can sit down and quietly do data entry all day long, but we're not at that point yet. 

Chris Jacobs

Quote from: RiverAux on March 01, 2007, 04:23:24 PM
QuoteFeeding WMIRS is something that MSA's should be doing, not IC's or SC's.
MSAs can't just make up stuff on their own.  Someone has to tell them what to enter and when.  Someone else has to answer calls from National or whoever about "Where is that data????? Its been at least 5 minutes since I asked you for it last!".   Someone else also has to deal with National when stuff that has been entered hasn't been approved in a reasonable period of time.  Maybe at some point your average MSA can sit down and quietly do data entry all day long, but we're not at that point yet. 

Doesn't all this paper work have to be done if it was done on the computer or hand done.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

Matt

Quote from: Chris Jacobs on March 01, 2007, 10:56:11 PM
Doesn't all this paper work have to be done if it was done on the computer or hand done.

You hit the nail on the head... Speaking of nails, IMU is a tool, just like a hammer or a screwdriver; I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I've had hammers break, and screwdrivers bend, I've just found updated versions to use in place of them.

Yes, IMU has bugs, as previously stated, quite a few more than anticipated (but it's still better than MMU).  However, LtCol Anderson is updating it regularly (about two times in the last week).

IMU is designed for larger-scale missions, i.e. area command, not local command.  So much so that, we're actually using it as a focal point for our upcoming region SARCAP...  We're running IMU in all six states and at Grissom to perform tasking and such (well... if they can get us an actual Internet connection at Grissom... but that's another story).

IMU does indeed need some more in-depth training than MMU or PAPER!  But, in the scheme of things, IMU is a useful, and worthwhile tool to have with you.
<a href=mailto:mkopp@ncr.cap.gov> Matthew Kopp</a>, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
<a href=https://www.ncrcap.us.org> North Central Region</a>

flynd94

I have been using the IMU (MMU) since I became an IC a couple of years ago.  Pete is constantly improving the product and, its come along way since the old MMU days.  In CAWG all IC's are encouraged to use.  We also use it for our large missions.   With new requirements for IC's (missions now have to be put into WMIRS) the IMU2 is a great tool.  I have ran a mission lately and, it uploaded all the info to WMIRS automatically.  No problems.

The system has its quirks, play with it, you will learn to like/love it.
KS
Keith Stason, Maj, CAP
IC3, AOBD, GBD, PSC, OSC, MP, MO, MS, GTL, GTM3, UDF, MRO
Mission Check Pilot, Check Pilot