Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2017, 05:41:37 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: eServices now automatically adding Specialty Track
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: eServices now automatically adding Specialty Track  (Read 1025 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,987

« on: August 23, 2017, 07:10:06 PM »

I appointed a member this week as Assistant Safety Officer, and when the PDO
went in to add him to the SE Specialty Track, we found that he had already been added,
apparently by the system.

Certainly about time, and would negate easily closed, nonsense discrepancies, but this
is the first time I'd seen that.

Can anyone else confirm?
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,784
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2017, 07:35:24 PM »

The Commander or personnel Officer probably beat the PDO to the punch. E-Services is not omniscient, somebody has to put it in.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
τε
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 779
Unit: PCR-CA-205

« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2017, 07:38:20 PM »

I appointed a member this week as Assistant Safety Officer, and when the PDO
went in to add him to the SE Specialty Track, we found that he had already been added,
apparently by the system.

Certainly about time, and would negate easily closed, nonsense discrepancies, but this
is the first time I'd seen that.

Can anyone else confirm?
I noticed a few months ago. It even does it with temporary duty assignments.
Logged
kcebnaes
Member

Posts: 97
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2017, 09:38:28 PM »

Can confirm! Last several times I've appointed someone, it did the work for me automatically.
Logged
Maj Sean Beck
Ohio Wing
Group VI Commander
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,819

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2017, 06:34:25 AM »

Why is this a good thing? What is gained by have a "None" rating in a Specialty Track that you'll never pursue?
Logged
Alaric
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 750

« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2017, 08:40:43 AM »

Why is this a good thing? What is gained by have a "None" rating in a Specialty Track that you'll never pursue?

It gets rid of annoying and meaningless findings during SUIs (i.e. (Is your (blank) officer enrolled in the specialty track)  Also one hopes that if you took a job you'd be at least a little interested in pursuing the specialty track
Logged
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,819

« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2017, 09:16:33 AM »

With very few exceptions, No does not mean a finding because there is no requirement to be enrolled in the Specialty Track. It just means No, move onto the next question.

Personally, I'd rather see someone enrolled in few Specialty Tracks and be a real SME, rather than be enrolled in many and not be able to answer a simple question about any of them.
Logged
Toad1168
Forum Regular

Posts: 130
Unit: NCR-MO-110

« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2017, 10:10:44 AM »

With very few exceptions, No does not mean a finding because there is no requirement to be enrolled in the Specialty Track. It just means No, move onto the next question.

Personally, I'd rather see someone enrolled in few Specialty Tracks and be a real SME, rather than be enrolled in many and not be able to answer a simple question about any of them.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I see a push by some members to get as many ratings as possible, and they expect the same from others.  It IMHO, leads to a jack of all trades and a master of none.  Even if they have a master rating in something.  It's neat to have all those silver clasps, but as stated above, I would rather see someone who truly is a SME. 
Logged
Mike Toedebusch
Spaatz Award 1168 - 1 June 1993
Alaric
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 750

« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2017, 10:15:49 AM »

With very few exceptions, No does not mean a finding because there is no requirement to be enrolled in the Specialty Track. It just means No, move onto the next question.

Personally, I'd rather see someone enrolled in few Specialty Tracks and be a real SME, rather than be enrolled in many and not be able to answer a simple question about any of them.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I see a push by some members to get as many ratings as possible, and they expect the same from others.  It IMHO, leads to a jack of all trades and a master of none.  Even if they have a master rating in something.  It's neat to have all those silver clasps, but as stated above, I would rather see someone who truly is a SME.

I don't disagree, but especially for those who are doing a current job, one would hope they would strive to become an SME in their AOR
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,677

« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2017, 07:23:25 PM »

I appointed a member this week as Assistant Safety Officer, and when the PDO
went in to add him to the SE Specialty Track, we found that he had already been added,
apparently by the system.

Certainly about time, and would negate easily closed, nonsense discrepancies, but this
is the first time I'd seen that.

Can anyone else confirm?

You may have just recently noticed it, but eServices has been doing it for some time now.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,987

« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2017, 07:49:15 PM »

You may have just recently noticed it, but eServices has been doing it for some time now.

It might be nice if there was an FAQ or RSS of feature changes like this.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,784
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2017, 08:01:07 PM »

It wasn't a change. E-services has been doing this for several years
1. Input CAPID
2. Enter Specialty track
3. enter level e-services will verify all requirements met
4. Pops up on CC's approval page
5. Appears in E-Services immediately upon approval.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Lord of the North
Forum Regular

Posts: 111

« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2017, 08:18:45 PM »

Now if we had a way to remove all of the NONE specialty ratings that have been there over two years with no advancement.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,987

« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2017, 08:37:00 PM »

It wasn't a change. E-services has been doing this for several years
1. Input CAPID
2. Enter Specialty track
3. enter level e-services will verify all requirements met
4. Pops up on CC's approval page
5. Appears in E-Services immediately upon approval.

That's not what I'm referring to - this is:

Appoint member as "x"staff position, eServices automatically adds the corresponding specialty track to the
member with a qualification of "none".

Now if we had a way to remove all of the NONE specialty ratings that have been there over two years with no advancement.

That might still cause issues with SLS credit, though it really shouldn't by the program's rules.

The "not-a-requirement-requirement" of having the respective staffer enrolled in a given track has been removed, for at
least 2 revs of the SUI checklists, however units were still getting dinged for it, even though at best it's only
supposed to be an AOC now, but frankly not even discussed because what's the point?
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: eServices now automatically adding Specialty Track
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me