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. 

[Short Field]

I have seen signing in people at a mission base take absolutely forever using the IMU.  The reason was the person at the keyboard verbalized every command or step, talked really slow, wanted to chat personally with each person, used the slowest way possible to enter the data when shortcuts were available, and typed about 6 words a minute.  A competent person running the sign-in can process people almost as fast as just using a sign-in sheet.  Add in the additional safety consideration that the IMU is validating each person's qualifications at sign-in and not just relying on a paper 101 that may be invalid.

If you use technology, you have to train and select people who can use it.  The 87 year old Senior Member who loves to help out and use to sign in people (i.e. looked at the member's membership card and 101card, then watched them sign in on the sign-in sheet) might not be the best person running sign-in now.

[Short Field]

I am not aware of a requirement to be a IC to set up a mission to train on in the IMU.  That has to be a fairly new requirement if it exists as I have helped lots of non-ICs set up the IMU and practice on it using ONLY their CAPIDs. 

If you download a current database with existing missions on it then go into LOCAL mode on the IMU, you should be able to practice to your hearts content with no problems at all.   

[Short Field]

The IMU is RIDGED because it was designed around a checklist.  If you following the steps correctly in the IMU, you are actually following the checklist.  Some people don't like to follow checklists and that really gets them in trouble with the IMU.  Paper is really nice to use as it does not have any internal error checking routines and does not care if you are missing data, put it in the wrong block, or incorrectly add up your numbers.

[arajca]

"Should" and "Are" are two very different words.

If there is a way for a non-IC (i.e. MSA, CUL, LSC) to set-up a mission in LOCAL mode, it is well hidden.

[arajca]

The IMU is RIDGED because it was designed around a checklist.  If you following the steps correctly in the IMU, you are actually following the checklist.  Some people don't like to follow checklists and that really gets them in trouble with the IMU.  Paper is really nice to use as it does not have any internal error checking routines and does not care if you are missing data, put it in the wrong block, or incorrectly add up your numbers.

Reality - sometimes you just don't have all the data when IMU needs it. Oops. No-Go. Fine - where's the paper so I can get this show in the air.

[davidsinn]

The IMU is RIDGED because it was designed around a checklist.  If you following the steps correctly in the IMU, you are actually following the checklist.  Some people don't like to follow checklists and that really gets them in trouble with the IMU.  Paper is really nice to use as it does not have any internal error checking routines and does not care if you are missing data, put it in the wrong block, or incorrectly add up your numbers.

Reality - sometimes you just don't have all the data when IMU needs it. Oops. No-Go. Fine - where's the paper so I can get this show in the air.

I found that this states it pretty well:

In theory the difference between practice and theory is due to practical considerations that theorists find it impractical to fit into their theories. In practice, theory uses the practice of theorising about practical matters, while not noticing that the theoretical method practically distorts the theory beyond application to practice.


Theoretically then the practical facts are that the theory is in practice good for predicting what happens in theory, but impractical as a theory with direct implications for practice, except where theory states that the practice is sufficiently close to the theory to make any difference for all practical purposes theoretically zero.


In practice this does not happen very often.

To sum it up:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

[Camas]

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

In time that's probably gonna happen. But in the  WMU everyone has access to it. A spreadsheet would probably be kept a big secret by wing people unless someone took the time to post it on the group or wing website. Lots of possibilities but your point is valid.

[Short Field]

If there is a way for a non-IC (i.e. MSA, CUL, LSC) to set-up a mission in LOCAL mode, it is well hidden.

Sorry guys.  I just downloaded the latest update to the the IMU3 program and installed it on my computer.  Then I downloaded the latest version of the wing's IMU database.  I then logged into the IMU using the CAPID and birthday of a person who is ES rated as a MS, MSA, and CUL.  That person is NOT a Flight Release Officer nor do they hold a Wing position.  They are a squadron asst. PDO.

I first created a new Incident (SAR requested by the USAF).  I then signed in a crew (MP, MO, & MS) and aircraft, wrote a task (route search), created the sortie, briefed the aircrew, flight released the sortie, used the comm log to launch the sortie, updated the mission three times in flight, then landed the mission.  I then debriefed the crew. All the sortie actions were uploaded to WMIRS but hit the byte bucket because it was a practice incident.  This all took less than 20 minutes, start to finish.  That included downloading the new update and new database.

I did not do this in LOCAL mode (that is even quicker) but used the Internet Server Client mode.  If anyone in my Wing opens up the IMU now in Internet Server Client mode, they can use the Incident I just created to add additional sorties. 

If you can't do this, you need a better trained instructor to show you how to do it. 

[Short Field]

Reality - sometimes you just don't have all the data when IMU needs it. Oops. No-Go. Fine - where's the paper so I can get this show in the air.

I have NEVER had enough data to legally release a mission on paper and not be able to release it in the IMU.

If your problem is having to wait for the tasking to be entered into the IMU or the crew to be built in the IMU, then you have a different problem. 

[Spike]

Everything should be E-Services.  This should have happened years ago.  Once system, ONE Central System.  Why can't we make stuff easy for everyone in CAP?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

[Fubar]

If you can't do this, you need a better trained instructor to show you how to do it.

I would settle for an instructor, let alone a trained one.

[Short Field]

Why not have this take place years ago - money to host the system and someone willing to write the code for free.  Automation was not a priority because most people in positions to make it happen didn't see the need.  Even today we hear people moan and groan about having to use eServices.  Due to the success of WMU and IMU over the past several years, National is now moving to get us into a single system.  It is still not cheap and will take time.  But at least there is now some direction. 

[Eclipse]

Why not have this take place years ago...

All wings were directed to terminate use of the WMU during Maj. Gen. Bowling's tenure.

About 1/2 refused, some for legitimate reasons including the inability at the time to generate 101 cards, but I'd say that qualifies as "years ago".

[Short Field]

All wings were directed to terminate use of the WMU during Maj. Gen. Bowling's tenure.

Yep, that worked out really well.  Note the current address for the WMU:  http://wmu.nat.cap.gov/

[Eclipse]

What's your point?

[Short Field]

What's your point?

That it outlasted the General's tenure and is now hosted on the national CAP server (or at least linked through it).   

[Eclipse]

What's your point?

That it outlasted the General's tenure and is now hosted on the national CAP server (or at least linked through it).   

That's just a domain name - no different than any other unit website.

[Short Field]

They are all just domain names.   

The point is that Lt Col Andersen provided two products (WMU & IMU) that significantly improved how units did their business.   He did it to fill a need that was not being satisfied by National and everyone in the leadership didn't appreciate it at the time. SIMS is another example of a "outsider" building a better mousetrap that slowly starts to gain wide acceptance in the organization.  At some point in time, these products WILL go away because their functionality will have been incorporated by National in their product.  However, without them the push to add that type of functionality to the National site would not have been here.  Competition is a good thing.

[Robborsari]

Wow.  There is a lot of discussion on this thread about WMU and IMU and NHQ stuff.  I am going to try and answer some of this without turning it into a religious discussion.  In no particular order:

The server is at NHQ and backed up by NHQ staff along with the other apps. 

The interface in IMU is not intuitive but I have asked over and over for suggestions and all I get is "make it better".  If I could figure out how I would.  One of the things I am looking at is a single page 104 screen that would do the same thing as the current screen but have the brief, debrief and everything all on one page or two.  Might speed up the briefing process but it would require larger screen sizes.   Remember that when Pete started all this 640x480 was common and 800x600 was large.  If I can get a good concrete suggestion on how to improve the interface that did not involve rewriting the entire thing I will work on it.   I am a unix kernel guy, .net and interface stuff is a stretch for me.

WMU provided functions that are required to manage a large wing but not provided by NHQ in their system.  Over the years as they have added functions to eservices, Pete has removed them from WMU and taken the data from the NHQ database.  Right now things like aircraft maintenance tracking, vehicle maint tracking, aircraft scheduling roa card management, capf75 management all only exist in WMU and other member created services.  If they get into E-services they will come out of WMU.  (I only do IMU not WMU stuff)  When he started it there was no system for 101 cards or anything else.  He came up with a system that worked and kept at it for years.  Huge kudos to Pete for getting the job done on his own and keeping it going.  That does not mean that it is perfect or intuitive or whatever but at least it is there.  As others have pointed out it is a one man volunteer effort that has benefited thousands of cap members over many years.

Spreadsheets:  We used a spreadsheet for maint tracking for airplanes.  It was a great spreadsheet but the data was scattered all over the wing.  I put up an open document server that allowed people to check in and out the spreadsheet and update it.  It worked ok but was a lot more cumbersome than just using WMU.  Also WMU/IMU ties into the Form 18 system so you don't have to update more than one location.  When we finish a mission in IMU it pops up a box saying this airplane is at this airport and gives you the option of updating the form 18.  Very handy.  It also keeps you from trying to dispatch an aircraft over its maint limits.  Much better than getting a call from the ramp right before departure that a plane is at 100hr. 

IMU is rigid in places because it is designed around the regs.  If you have someone with no qualification they can't be assigned to an aircrew for example.  That is a safety measure for the member and the staff.  No qual, no insurance.  It pulls the quals from the e-services database.   If they just got qualled yesterday, you can update their record on the fly if you have internet.  If they have paper signed but it is not in the system, the IC can enter the qual and approve it.  You can assign anyone as a passenger on a transport flight.  If you can come up with a legal situation that the tool won't let you do let me know and I will add it.  We try to require anything that is required by the regs and allow more than that.  A lot of the changes over the last few years has been in keeping up with regs and changes to WMIRS.

Non-IC practice missions:  Anyone with MSA or above can sign into IMU.  Getting MSA(T) is not difficult and really needs to be the lowest qual that can access the system.  Once you are logged in anyone can create a mission just by doing file->Open Incident and typing the fake number into the box.  Fill out the form completely and click OK.  WMIRS will ignore uploads because it does not have that number in its database.  (I use 10T990x or 10M990x or whatever)  Do not upload to WMU under database management, that one will work and you will have a fake mission hanging around on the archive server.  Set up your fake mission today!  Explore all the cool stuff like CAPF106 lead tracking, The GRID Assist tool, Mission finance estimator. There is online help on just about every screen.  The Resources Unit in particular is non-intuitive unless you read the help.  Then it makes sense.  Assign some staff and send 213s back and forth.  Its fun!

training:  Yes this is a big issue.  It is hard to get people to show up and go through a practice mission.  One comment I heard recently was "The staff member got frustrated because he couldn't figure out the tool."  My response was that he should not have been trying to figure out the tool for the first time during an air force guided training exercise that has been scheduled for months. Anyone can pick up a piece of paper and put stuff on it.  There is no checking that the stuff means anything.  You have to learn to use it just like a GPS in an airplane or a radio.  If you don't train before the event you will be frustrated and slow because it requires things to be right and you will be spending a lot of time hunting for whatever is preventing you from doing what you want.  With training and practice that time goes away and you start to appreciate things like being able to duplicate a tasking and change the details on similar sorties, Automatically creating a new sortie if an airplane lands at a different airport from whats specified in the 104 for some reason.  Recycling taskings if a sortie fails to depart for maintenance reasons.  Automatically creating 106s from leads reported by aircrews on debrief, Tracking of pilot duty day,  Automatically timestamped logs for the IC, PIO, LO, OPS and so on, Member qualifications tool for finding a new MSo or LO or whatever, route search generator, asset summary that shows how long you have on each airplane till 50 or 100 hour that gets updated every time a sortie debriefs,  Incident cost estimator that projects costs associated with every planned sortie and tracks actual expenditures.  All stuff that requires some training (even self study) to be used effectively.  It does a lot more than just fill out 109s and 104s.

Volunteer membership at HQ:  I believe that the IT folks are paid staff.  They will develop whatever they are directed to develop.  Someone with better information please correct me.  right now the IT folks do E-services and Ops does Wmirs.  I believe the focus of the merge is to get WMIRS and E-services integrated. 

If anyone is listening I would be happy to serve on a team that integrates IMU or an IMU replacement.  The requirements stage is critical to the success of a software project.  One of the things I hear a lot is that IMU would be better as a web based application.  It is true that a zero install web based app would be easier to get up and running and be platform agnostic.   The downside is, what do you do when you lose internet?  You have no access to flight status and tasking info even for the flights in the air.  With IMUs distributed database system every computer participating in the mission has a complete copy of the database.  Any one of them can be used in local mode or even become a server for a local network.  We even distribute an http server with the software.  I hope that nhq is not contemplating a web based replacement for IMU.  A Java client that has a similar distributed database but is not tied to windows I can see.  .NET is a pain and I have not yet gotten IMU to run on mono. 

Training offer:  I will do online training and if you can get me an inbound sortie or plane ticket I will come and do training in your area.  I hope to have IMU champions who are trained and can provide training in every group in every wing that is using it.  Right now I am working on TN.  Anyone who wants my Cell number PM me.  I can help when I have time. 

Sorry this went on for so long.  There is a lot to cover in this thread. 

Executive summary:  IMU is not perfect.  We are working on it and taking suggestions.

[Short Field]

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

[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   

[davidsinn]

AS400

Do not use such foul language on this board sir!

I have to use one of those at work.

[Al Sayre]

We have a system at my work(to remain nameless in public for my job security) that couldn't be more unfriendly unless the keyboard shocked you when you typed...