Updated 190-1

[johnnyb47]

Announced on eServices today.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R190_001_70FAF7B447A02.pdf

The most significant changes I see are the sections dealing with Social Media and website control.
Has anyone givent his a look?
Any thoughts on the changes?

I'm curious how this change from "Public Affairs elements of websites" to the complete website design will play out for ITO's like myself. I'm not resistant to change. I'm just not seeing the need for a Director of IT at wing or above given this new directive. Managing the hosting account and or email servers isn't really much of a job.

Thanks for any insights.
Maybe this will be the catalyst for me to shift more heavily into ES.

[Eclipse]

ITO is a lot more than websites - it's physical hardware, networks, ES IT systems, etc.

Our wing ITO manages the phones, network, and related systems at Wing HQ as well.
A hosting account for 12 people at a small unit might not seem like a big deal, but one
for a Group or wing (say 1500-3000+ people) is a fairly big undertaking.

And note that it says the PAO controls the design - that doesn't mean they have a clue as
to how to physically take their design ideas and make them work on a web server.
PAO's are content, not infrastructure, and conversely, an ITO should not, and should never
have been, involved with the majority of content.  That's why most unit websites
go dark after a few months.  AN ITO takes time to build something, then no one contributes
content.

These things don't fix themselves.

[JeffDG]

ITO is a lot more than websites - it's physical hardware, networks, ES IT systems, etc.

IT should have pretty close to zero to do with the content of the website.  IT's responsible for infrastructure, PA is responsible for content.

I do IT for a living, and do a pretty [darn]ed good job of it.  That said, I have precisely zero sense of style or aesthetics.  You ask me to put together a web page, it will be functional, and it will look like dog-crap...but it will work!

[johnnyb47]

Agreed but I thought the new "clarifications" left it a bit open to interpretation that the PAO actually has control over infrastructure by way of design, look and feel. If look and feel isn't up to exacting standards a platform change may be called for, etc.
I was really looking for thoughts on it of course.... thanks for the clarification.

Of course some of this is due to lack of direction in my current role. Much of what I'm looking at as "my job" was really just a lot of clean up from before I got here. Now that things are better (still not good but tended to regularly) I should have time to gather up everything that is required and needed of me.
That makes me feel a bit better thinking about it that way.

Thanks.

[JeffDG]

It does state that the responsibility with IT is joint, but that the PAO is ultimately responsible for appearance and content, which is as it should be (in my opinion as an ITO).

This regulation was posted as a draft for a while before closing out a comment period at the end of March...I know I have at least one requested change reflected in this final regulation.

[johnnyb47]

What intrigued me was this section:
"Website. PAOs at the wing level will create and maintain a website in accordance with CAPR 110-1 and in partnership with the information technology officer and other officers as assigned by the commander, on behalf of their unit. The PAO will have authority over the web design, usability and content of all web pages visible to the public and will keep the website accurate and current with assistance from other officers as is necessary."

The way it's worded there is only a need for a Director of IT to take part in internet operations IF the PAO isn't IT savvy. "Give me a web host and an FTP account. If I have a coding question I'll call you."

Of course I want all content to come from Public affairs. That's as it should be. The way THAT looks the PAO doesn't need an ITO for very long. Again... I'm not really worried about it. If it takes some of the web stuff off my back allowing me to focus on the other aspects I hadn't really thought of until all of you posted above I'm more than OK with it. If it doesn't then I'm still OK with it.... I just need to prioritize the work I hadn't really considered before.

I suppose an update to 110-1 and the IT Specialty Track Guide would be nice to reflect/complement the changes to 190-1.

[Eclipse]

I suppose that is fair, if anything it leaves the door open to the ITO being involved, which I could certainly see interpreted as being "closed" with the wrong personalities reading it.

Of course neither PAO not ITO is a mandatory appointment at all, so the use of the word "will" is somewhat lacking in enforceability, and if the
Commander decides he doesn't think a web presence is necessary, there won't be one.

This situation is a textbook care it ought to be a "should", not a will.

[JeffDG]

What intrigued me was this section:
"Website. PAOs at the wing level will create and maintain a website in accordance with CAPR 110-1 and in partnership with the information technology officer and other officers as assigned by the commander, on behalf of their unit. The PAO will have authority over the web design, usability and content of all web pages visible to the public and will keep the website accurate and current with assistance from other officers as is necessary."

The way it's worded there is only a need for a Director of IT to take part in internet operations IF the PAO isn't IT savvy. "Give me a web host and an FTP account. If I have a coding question I'll call you."

Of course I want all content to come from Public affairs. That's as it should be. The way THAT looks the PAO doesn't need an ITO for very long. Again... I'm not really worried about it. If it takes some of the web stuff off my back allowing me to focus on the other aspects I hadn't really thought of until all of you posted above I'm more than OK with it. If it doesn't then I'm still OK with it.... I just need to prioritize the work I hadn't really considered before.

I suppose an update to 110-1 and the IT Specialty Track Guide would be nice to reflect/complement the changes to 190-1.

That presupposes that the job of the Director of IT's job is exclusively the website.

In fact, the job of Director of IT should be very minimally about websites.  Information management is the job of IT, not websites.

[JeffDG]

Of course neither PAO not ITO is a mandatory appointment at all, so the use of the word "will" is somewhat lacking in enforceability, and if the

Read the new 190-1...PAO is now a mandatory role, and if not appointed, not only does the CC perform the role, the the CC must be appointed as the PAO specifically.

[Eclipse]

Of course neither PAO not ITO is a mandatory appointment at all, so the use of the word "will" is somewhat lacking in enforceability, and if the

Read the new 190-1...PAO is now a mandatory role, and if not appointed, not only does the CC perform the role, the the CC must be appointed as the PAO specifically.

Ugh. More meaningless, unenforceable " mandates".

I agree with the spirit, as I do with most of the "required" staff appointments.  That doesn't grow people in test tubes.

Again, the "we need more people" argument comes up.

[Short Field]

The changes make sense if you stop and think about it.   The PAO is charged with promoting CAP.  Before the internet, the PAO would be preparing newsletters, posters, handbills, flyers, ads, newspaper articles, and anything else he could find to get the word out about CAP.  Technology has changed but that just means the tools have changed.  The function remains the same.

[keystone102]

In 1994 the only people who could create web pages was the IT staff who had the knowledge to code in HTML. Now in most companies that function has been moved to Marketing from the tech staff. CAP is slowly catching up to the rest of the world. Hopefully the other departments at the Wing level will cooperate with the PAO to keep their website current.

[RADIOMAN015]

From my view point as past award winning PAO

Have a full time employee either at national or at each regional level that is responsible for maintaining a consolidated website (might even be able to be done with a part time person or a contractor at the region level).   Regions, wings, groups, and squadrons could post their information to that site.   This would ensure a consistent approach with consistent support staffing.  I'm sure we've all seen squadron (and even wing) websites not getting updated because the member who took on the project left the organization or just doesn't have the time to work on it any more

Surely regulations that deal with money, equipment, vehicles, & aircraft need to have "you will" in it because of the accountability requirements.   I'm not so sure on "soft" areas such as Public Affairs this is necessary.  Perhaps desired goals would be more appropriate.    Also even the administrative mumbo jumbo about what is required (details) to be placed in a plan.  If you look at all the wing plans they basically all say the same thing.  Why not just allow the squadron to either supplement the wing (or group) plan or just have a one page statement about our goals :angel:     Basically if you asked me I would say that our goal is to try to get external media coverage (TV & print) for every significant event we conduct.  Also any personnel earning a significant achievement would be released to the local printed media.    Additional our web page will reflect what we do as an organization as far as activities and would cross reference anything in the media about us.  Release published in the media would be placed on our website.   That's about it. 

Also I find it suprising that the generic cap 101 briefing cannot be kept up to date (monthly) by the National public affairs "paid" staff.   I would also think that this briefing needs to expanded and even a modular type arrangement (e.g. more on the history of the organization, more on ES, etc)

RM