Need suggestions for new IMU features

[Robborsari]

I don't want to argue this with you but I want to point out that this item was in response to the complaint that it causes more work, not that it takes longer.  By that I mean requires you to do more than the manual process.  It does not cause more work, it requires you to do everything that you are required to do anyway.  I agree that it will take longer to use a program you are not familiar with than a paper form you are not familiar with.  Training and practice will resolve that issue.  It is not a question of truthfulness.

We do watch new users and provide training to them while looking for areas to streamline the process and improve the gui.   I believe the feedback I get.  That does not mean I think every statement made about IMU is correct.  I am always willing to be corrected   There is a lot of room for improvement and we are trying.  It is a big responsibility and I am very grateful to the folks who use the software and help us find the areas where it needs fixing and improvement.

Zero defect is a great goal.  When M$ acheives it we will be golden.  At least we will only have the bugs we write ourselves to chase down.  Until then we do the best we can.  The failures we suffer teach us more about how to work around the defects in the os and .net framework.  We are doing the best we can to minimize the chance of data corruption and to provide the best uptime possible for the IMU system as well as providing the most fault tolerant architecture we can.

3) I have heard this a lot, and I don't think it is really true.

I doubt you are suggesting your end-users are lying to you, but why not believe them? If they say it takes them longer to use your system than it does to use paper, it is. You identified the problems:

I believe the issue is one of training.  When you first start with IMU it is bewildering, there are fields everywhere, a lot of data and a lot of buttons.  Particularly in the flight area where there is a lot of information that makes up a 104.  It does take longer to type everything in and figure out that you have to create taskings in the tasking tab and crews in the resources unit and then put them together in the 104.

As the software developer, you can resolve many of these issues. Streamline the process. Improve the GUI. Conduct usability studies. Watch brand new end users operate the software without prompting.

I suspect (but by no means know) that you are volunteering your time to maintain this software and you should receive thanks for doing so. At the same time, you've accepted the awesome responsibility of answering to the people throughout the country who are enormously dependent upon the software working correctly during mission critical situations. So when your users share their experiences with your software, you may want to believe them.

This is not something we can really control without adding a lot of overhead.  We have to trust all the M$ bits like JET and .net to do their jobs.  If it had failed on the host we would have seen it.  Silent failures are something that we will always have a problem with.  I am working on background process updating of the db but it is a major change and it will be a while before it is ready to be tested.

Sounds like who ever originally started this project chose the wrong development tools or platform. Failures should never be accepted as a cost of doing business.

[Robborsari]

Recommended Change:  Shorten the automatic verbage on the comm log.  I.E.  instead of automatically inserting "Operations Normal at 10:35" into the remarks section, use "Ops Nrml: 10:35".   Same for the other automatic insertions.  That would at least show some of the additional remarks that may be added on a mission.  This might not be an issue if the comm log screen is adjustable.

Making resize work for everything is on the list.  If you change the message type to normal it does not insert the ops normal text, only the remarks.  I will also play around with putting the remarks in front of the inserted part.  Its a good suggestion.

[Robborsari]

They are talking about getting a customer request for something like photos of 50 key sites.  They want each of the 50 sites to be identified as a task and then the PSC would group the tasks together into something they can fly - resulting in something like 3 or 4 sorties.  Currently that would be 3 or 4  CAPF 104s with matching tasks.   They want this so that if sortie 2 only photographed 8 of the 12 sites they were suppose to phtograph, then 8 mini-tasks would be closed and the 4 mini-tasks not photographed would remain active and could be reassigned to another sortie.

This is a complicated subject and I have read everyones comments.  I will reply to this one and say that it would be nice to have a seperate target tracking module that would manage the targets like the tasks.  I think this might be one area that data input time would kill us.  It takes a long time to enter 50 sets of coordinates and descriptions for targets.  Also selecting them and adding them to the tasking would be non-trivial. 

I have had the 50 target photo sortie and it is a pain to manage.  I usually use google earth to plot the targets and generate a list using gpsbabel from the kml file.  (www.gpsbabel.org)  I use the text target and I can specify the format of the coordinates to match whatever the air or ground crew needs for their GPS. 

I put the targets in the tasking in lists like: 1-5, 10, 11 and attach the printout of all plotted targets.  That way if we ned to retask them in the air they have the whole sheet.  In the debrief we cover the targests that were imaged and the ones that were not due to wx or whatever.

If I can work out a quick way to enter the targets it might be possible.  I am already looking at creating a coordinate entry parser that would make coordinate entry in different formats and even vor/radial format possible.

Its a good feature and it is being thought about if not yet actually on the list.

[Short Field]

A trick I use on large and/or complicated missions is to build the task in a word processor (MS Word) and then paste them into the Tasks on the IMU.  It makes it a lot quicker when building a lot of similar but different tasks.   This worked really well for me when we did a DR that had a lot of photo checks of various radio towers, bridges, and dams.  I could build a new tasking fairly fast by cut and pasting in the word processor to create the task then copying it to the IMU.

[Fubar]

I don't want to argue this with you but I want to point out that this item was in response to the complaint that it causes more work, not that it takes longer.  By that I mean requires you to do more than the manual process.  It does not cause more work, it requires you to do everything that you are required to do anyway.  I agree that it will take longer to use a program you are not familiar with than a paper form you are not familiar with.  Training and practice will resolve that issue.  It is not a question of truthfulness.

I stand corrected, thank you for your reply. I apologize for the confusion on my part.

[Robborsari]

Looks like this has tapered off.  Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.  Feel free to PM me if you have any more suggestions or problems.

[Capt Rivera]

We are working on a project to address internet access in limited environments.  I don't want to give too much away until we get a prototype running...That and I love doing the "Steve Jobs" rollout presentation.

So any updated on your project?

[Capt Rivera]

In a few hours last month, during a practice mission, myself and few other staffers through together a PC-based status board system that is light-years easier to use and more effective than the IMU - its based on Excel and Powerpoint, with all low-grade, easy tech.  We've already been told that anyone with a little VB experience could automate it better in a few hours and the whole thing would live on a
chip, completely portable.

I've literally already tested it and it runs on my old (5 years) Windows Mobile phone.

Eclipse could you tell me more about the current state of the status board? I would love to see it...

Thanks

[Eclipse]

In a few hours last month, during a practice mission, myself and few other staffers through together a PC-based status board system that is light-years easier to use and more effective than the IMU - its based on Excel and Powerpoint, with all low-grade, easy tech.  We've already been told that anyone with a little VB experience could automate it better in a few hours and the whole thing would live on a
chip, completely portable.

I've literally already tested it and it runs on my old (5 years) Windows Mobile phone.

Eclipse could you tell me more about the current state of the status board? I would love to see it...

Thanks

Its pretty much at a usable state but I haven't looked at it for a while.

The Powerpoint is a linked spreadsheet, the spreadsheet is the data - change something and it is reflected on the next refresh of the slide.  Using PPT makes it easy to add other info like weather slides, GPS tracks with hits and locations, etc.  Hourly "snapshots" are accomplished by printing the slides, .pdfs', etc.

Mentally my next update is to move it to Google Docs and so it could be updated by multiple people and viewed remotely.  Just haven't gotten around to it.

I used it to convert my white-board GBD status boards to electronic format, but there's no reason it could not be replicated to air and base ops, planning, etc.

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

[KyCAP]

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

If we're serious about any kind of security compliance then Google Docs is NOT an option.  It is not HIPAA, SOX, GLB, or any kind of real low level business security compliant.   If you read their terms of use you will also not that they keep backups of the data "into perpetuity" and make no assurances of it's use.

[Short Field]

Does it take care of the WIMRS flight releases and mission recording requirements or do you have to do that in addition to keeping up the spreadsheets?

[davidsinn]

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

It is not HIPAA, SOX, GLB, or any kind of real low level business security compliant.   

We're not subject to those laws.

[Spaceman3750]

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

It is not HIPAA, SOX, GLB, or any kind of real low level business security compliant.   

We're not subject to those laws.

We're subject to HIPPA if we have any information that could be remotely tied to someone's healthcare (as it was explained to me by a trusted friend). As for the rest, since OPSEC and by extension INFOSEC is such a hot button issue it stands to reason that compliance with security laws and guidelines should be important.

[wuzafuzz]

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

It is not HIPAA, SOX, GLB, or any kind of real low level business security compliant.   

We're not subject to those laws.

We're subject to HIPPA if we have any information that could be remotely tied to someone's healthcare (as it was explained to me by a trusted friend). As for the rest, since OPSEC and by extension INFOSEC is such a hot button issue it stands to reason that compliance with security laws and guidelines should be important.

No, we are not subject to HIPAA (not HIPPA).  HIPAA covers the handling of certain information in the hands of certain regulated entities.  Examples include, but are not limited to, medical service providers (physicians, medical technicians, labs, etc) and health insurers.  CAP is simply not one of those entities.

Your health data is not protected in all cases.  For instance, I work for an insurance company that offers a variety of health insurance products, along with auto and fire coverage.  If we have certain protected information on a health claim for regulated policy types it is protected by law.  If we have the same information on an auto or fire claim it is NOT covered by HIPAA because those insurance products are not regulated by HIPAA.  In fact, that information isn't even protected if it is attached to certain policies offered by our health insurance division, because those policy types are not listed in the law. 

Further, there are a variety of ways for you to legally release your protected data to third parties who are under no requirement to keep it private (READ your contracts and applications for products that may review your health data!).  Our company chooses to treat such data very carefully, even when the law doesn't cover it, because that is in the best interest of our customers. 

Similarly, CAP should be cautious with confidential data entrusted to us, however we need not be caught in the same pant soiling terror as those responsible for protected health information.  So, use what works for you within constraints that DO apply to us.

[Capt Rivera]

Its pretty much at a usable state but I haven't looked at it for a while.

The Powerpoint is a linked spreadsheet, the spreadsheet is the data - change something and it is reflected on the next refresh of the slide.  Using PPT makes it easy to add other info like weather slides, GPS tracks with hits and locations, etc.  Hourly "snapshots" are accomplished by printing the slides, .pdfs', etc.

Mentally my next update is to move it to Google Docs and so it could be updated by multiple people and viewed remotely.  Just haven't gotten around to it.

I used it to convert my white-board GBD status boards to electronic format, but there's no reason it could not be replicated to air and base ops, planning, etc.

Keeping it in Excel and PPT means it will always work locally, moving it to Google Docs means it will work globally.  Options, options.

Sounds useful and your thoughts for future versions also sound good to me. Some people fear to use Google Docs/Apps/Email, and then often they have a Yahoo/MSN/AOL e-mail address they are using for CAP communications.... (the word often does not imply every person does... lets debate Google products in another thread.)

Eclipse, mind sharing your current version? E-mail or in the thread is fine with me if your willing, you know the address.)

To not sidetrack this old thread further... I have not used any version of IMU... but will be looking at it soon. With that said...

- Any useful/helpful reviews of IMU3 from people actually using it?
- Any guides / training slides/PDFs/etc?
- Any info on the next IMU update? (Changes, new features, when will it come, BETA testing, ETC?)
- Suggestions for that next or future update past current state IMU3?
* And please keep the "get rid of it stuff away"... its not useful what so ever... Until NHQ presents us with something... we should appreciate what we have and help make it better. The better IMU is, the better product NHQ will have to create to compete with it.

[Eclipse]

We're subject to HIPPA if we have any information that could be remotely tied to someone's healthcare (as it was explained to me by a trusted friend).

HIPPA only applies to employers and healthcare providers (like Blue Cross).  It does not apply to us.

If we're serious about any kind of security compliance then Google Docs is NOT an option.  It is not HIPAA, SOX, GLB, or any kind of real low level business security compliant. 

None of those apply to us, either, and it is as secure or moreso than anything else you will do on the web, including your company's email.
We're not talking about some random webpage, we're talking about documents secured with a password and only shared with people who need the information.

We're also not necessarily talking about the freeware version of Google services, these would be and are through the Apps for Education
services.

Somehow thousands of companies and schools, etc., are able to find a way to be legally compliant using Google, yet we can't use it for finding an ELT?

[Eclipse]

Sounds useful and your thoughts for future versions also sound good to me. Some people fear to use Google Docs/Apps/Email, and then often they have a Yahoo/MSN/AOL e-mail address they are using for CAP communications.... (the word often does not imply every person does... lets debate Google products in another thread.)

Isn't that hilarious?

Eclipse, mind sharing your current version? E-mail or in the thread is fine with me if your willing, you know the address.)

I don't mind, but I need to poke it with a stick a bit before posting it - not sure when I'll get to it.

[arajca]

Eclipse, mind sharing your current version? E-mail or in the thread is fine with me if your willing, you know the address.)

I don't mind, but I need to poke it with a stick a bit before posting it - not sure when I'll get to it.

Would you mind sending to me? I'm a good sitck poker - I've crashed my company's inventory management system four times now. The last time, it took IT two days to fix. Fortunately, it was late on Fri when I worked my magic.

[KyCAP]

We're not subject to those laws.

You all ran off in a different direction than the point that I was trying to make.  I was making the point that Google isn't compliant with the "least" stringent security policies and procedures that are WIDELY held out for information sharing.   

If CAP were deemed to be "subject" to any kind of guidance it would be FISMA which is defined by as series of regulations from the Feds, specifically the NIST 800 series and others as required.   I am CERTAIN that anything in the cloud would not be compliant for all of the ones that I used as generic examples PLUS anything in the NIST/FISMA guidance.

I am also guessing that NHQ and the IT staff probably are glad to be PCI compliant for the e-commerce business and have not considered GIAC audits, OWASP compliance or other "day to day" IT security best practices, but I could be wrong.

[KyCAP]

Somehow thousands of companies and schools, etc., are able to find a way to be legally compliant using Google, yet we can't use it for finding an ELT?

I have DOZENS of clients that are LEAVING Google for these very legal issues because they were not aware of the issues until their attorneys review the agreements.

I have DOZENS of school systems where the IT administrators are flipping out because the schools are using these "free" services as a cost cutting measure.   Content in the systems belong to the student but can be accessed from the schools computers.   The students have a "private" location not monitorable by the school system on school premises and the administrations are creating new policies and procedures to start to control this because the schools can't afford to replace their now aging storage systems and have "gotten it for free" from Google and Microsoft.  Kentucky is shutting down 800 Exchange servers and moving to Microsoft's EDU live platform for example.  But the verdict is out on whether the administrators and staff email will migrate for COMPLIANCE / legal issues that they are subject to.