Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2019, 10:50:27 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: assistant duty not tracked on eservices?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Send this topic Print
Author Topic: assistant duty not tracked on eservices?  (Read 6319 times)
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:48:09 PM »

I was assigned as assistant leadership officer back in November. Switched to primary in March. I see the March assignment as the start date for leadership officer, bit any record of assistant time is not there, zero under past duties...
Report to moderator   Logged
vento
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 03:53:08 PM »

I did not even notice it until you brought it up. You are right, mine doesn't show up neither when transitioned from Assistant to Primary. I wonder if it is a bug in the system or just an overlook by the Unit CC.
Report to moderator   Logged
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2013, 03:54:36 PM »

There is a tickbox/selection to say "Assistant" when the duty is assigned in eServices. Perhaps they didn't put you in at first? At least there certainly used to be. I've seen it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,766

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 04:02:51 PM »

They are supposed to be tracked, but the whole duty assignment module seems to be somewhat flakey.

Are you sure it was properly assigned?

Regardless, you should be able to fix it with a memo to NHQ.
Report to moderator   Logged


abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,622
Unit: Classified

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 04:09:10 PM »

Mine was tracked when I was the Assistant CDC here in Tucson and it's tracked now as an assistant testing officer.
Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 04:11:37 PM »

I used to see the assistant portion with a "yes", and duty start time. Figured that when I was rolled over to primary, it would go into the bottom of past service. Instead the primary time has begun, and assistant service is gone completely. Not a real issue, I have the emails that notified me of the assignments, but had this been my first assigned duty, it could have potentially bumped me 3 months away from my CP job start, and if for some reason I could not substantiate, screw up my Senior rating requirements.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,766

« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2013, 04:17:02 PM »

I would suggest getting it fixed. I have a couple of important assignments I need to have indicated to support my Master OE rating.

As long as you can substantiate things, NHQ fixes it in a day or two.  I had issues with encampments showing properly as well.
Report to moderator   Logged


a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2013, 04:31:05 PM »

It does show it..

I needed a sample for something anyway.. :)
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2013, 05:47:40 PM »

This used to work. I can see my past duty position as Ass't Ops Officer, but my past duty positions as Ass't ES Officer and Ass't Safety Officer are gone.
Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2013, 06:00:57 PM »

Mine simply didn't rollover.
Report to moderator   Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,677

« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2013, 06:17:14 PM »

If they switch you directly from assistant to primary, it doesn't get tracked. You have to delete the assignment then re-add as primary for it to show in the history. You can backdate the assistant assignment then delete it to fix the issue.

I had this issue once as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2013, 06:28:38 PM »

It's not just the assistant position. I have a member that went from primary to assistant and his past duty position as primary is not showing up. Again, this used to work just fine. When did it break?
Report to moderator   Logged
Phil Hirons, Jr.
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 805
Unit: NER-RI-001

« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2013, 07:23:29 PM »

As the Asst / Primary is an attribute of the duty assignment I suspect there is a logic error in the e-services code when a "new" duty assignment is made that matches an existing one except for this attribute. I would submit a help desk ticket describing how it happens both going from Primary to Assistant and from Assistant to Primary.
Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »

Right. I don't know the inner workings of it, but if all it takes is the yes/no switch, it should automatically end the previous staff post and push it into past assignments...
Report to moderator   Logged
spacecommand
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 545

« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2013, 02:52:34 AM »

Same happened to me when I was first assigned as assistant CDC "It said assistant: YES" , later I changed to the be the primary CDC but eserves didn't record the assistant time, it simply changed the Assistant from YES to Assistant: NO, but no dates of my time as assistant was recorded. 

I suspect this happens when someone directly changes from assistant to primary.  Things do get reported if you are taken out of a/removed from a position and re-assigned into a position.  I have one position where I was accidentially taken out and then put back in a day later, it has two dates listed. 
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:57:11 AM by spacecommand » Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2013, 05:48:15 PM »

Has someone submitted a ticket for this issue yet?
Report to moderator   Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2013, 05:00:41 PM »

Has this been resolved? Because I do not see any problem on my end.

I am thinking it is a Unit CC issue and not a technical one.
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2013, 05:16:16 PM »

I am thinking it is a Unit CC issue and not a technical one.

Can you please explain?
Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,629
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2013, 09:16:52 PM »

I looked at my record, and there are two instances where I moved up from Assistant to Primary that do not show the Assistant time. Not a CC problem.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2013, 09:54:52 PM »

I am thinking it is a Unit CC issue and not a technical one.

Can you please explain?

Did the Unit/CC put your assignment into eservices? My present Squadron Commander tells everyone they are assigned Assistant Comm Officer, PAO (primary) Supply Officer, etc, etc. When we had an SUI turns out 50% people never were assigned according to eservices.

Now on my present Wing Staff assignment, I am IAOD from a SQ,  the Wing/CS accidently put me in eservices as Unit Staff. He cancelled it and put me in my current assignment as Wing Staff. On eservices it shows I was Unit Staff for one day. Saavy? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2013, 09:59:41 PM »

I looked at my record, and there are two instances where I moved up from Assistant to Primary that do not show the Assistant time. Not a CC problem.

My Assistant time as Prof Dev and Admin both show up as well as my primary time. So not a technical problem. Likely "Greeter" does not rate assistant time once you promote to "Primary Greeter".   >:D
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2013, 06:44:40 PM »

If they switch you directly from assistant to primary, it doesn't get tracked. You have to delete the assignment then re-add as primary for it to show in the history. You can backdate the assistant assignment then delete it to fix the issue.

I had this issue once as well.
This is the answer to everyones issues.
 
If you're switching from primary to assistant or vice versa you/DP/CC will want to remove the position entirely and readd it with the right flag (primary or assistant).  If you skipped the remove position step the date will NOT update.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2013, 10:02:44 PM »

I'd call that a bug/unfinished code.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2013, 10:04:51 PM »

I'd call that a bug/unfinished code.
Depends on what the intention was.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2013, 10:10:13 PM »

Certainly not an initiative process ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2013, 10:36:01 PM »

Certainly not an initiative process ...
initiative process?  I'm going to assume you meant intuitive, which I'll agree with.  I'm just saying, we don't have what requirements the developers were given.  We also don't have what the intended process was.  Without that we cannot actually say whether or not it is a bug or simply users using a system in such a way that was not planned to happen.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2013, 10:39:20 PM »

[darn] smartphone...

If then purpose is to track previous duties, and changing the yes/ no resets the counter, I'd say the previous job needs to automatically port into past duties. I don't think companies terminate assistant managers when they get promoted to general manager to do the switch.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2013, 11:00:19 PM »

[darn] smartphone...

If then purpose is to track previous duties, and changing the yes/ no resets the counter, I'd say the previous job needs to automatically port into past duties. I don't think companies terminate assistant managers when they get promoted to general manager to do the switch.
No they don't but their job as assistant manager IS terminated and a new one as general manager is begun.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2013, 11:18:42 PM »

Right, the records don't get burned however.
Report to moderator   Logged
spacecommand
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 545

« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2013, 06:58:51 AM »

I am thinking it is a Unit CC issue and not a technical one.

Can you please explain?

Did the Unit/CC put your assignment into eservices? My present Squadron Commander tells everyone they are assigned Assistant Comm Officer, PAO (primary) Supply Officer, etc, etc. When we had an SUI turns out 50% people never were assigned according to eservices.


In my case, Yes I was assigned into the job, in reading the other posts, the issue is not with proper assignment to a position by the CC, it is with when you change directly from Assistant: " YES" to Assistant: "NO"  the record doesn't reflect the Assistant: "YES" dates, it just records that dates  as "Assistant: NO" even though you started off as Assistant "YES". 
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2013, 03:56:53 PM »

I am thinking it is a Unit CC issue and not a technical one.

Can you please explain?

Did the Unit/CC put your assignment into eservices? My present Squadron Commander tells everyone they are assigned Assistant Comm Officer, PAO (primary) Supply Officer, etc, etc. When we had an SUI turns out 50% people never were assigned according to eservices.

Now on my present Wing Staff assignment, I am IAOD from a SQ,  the Wing/CS accidently put me in eservices as Unit Staff. He cancelled it and put me in my current assignment as Wing Staff. On eservices it shows I was Unit Staff for one day. Saavy?

Yes, the assignment was made by the commander. This is a real issue with eServices. I was originally assigned as an assistant in eServices (I can verify that, as I have an old print out) and recently appointed as primary. The primary position with the new date shows in eServices, but the old assistant position that should show under past duty position does not.
Report to moderator   Logged
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2013, 04:27:12 PM »

Because it's treating anything to an existing record as a change to that record, which is intuitively correct from many angles.

What should be happening, to be accurate with the workflow, is a change in that field should mean "make a new record, and close the old one effective today" (or whatever date is entered)
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2013, 04:28:29 PM »

Right, the records don't get burned however.
Under the procedures I mentioned above, records are not burned, so not seeing the issue.  If the system is used as designed then there are no issues.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2013, 04:38:56 PM »

Right, the records don't get burned however.
Under the procedures I mentioned above, records are not burned, so not seeing the issue.  If the system is used as designed then there are no issues.

As a software test engineer and UI designer, I can tell you it is a poor design and not intuitive at all. If the correct workflow is to remove a position and then add the new one, then the system shouldn't allow a commander to change the assistant flag by itself. As a minimum, a warning should be displayed. If I was testing this system, I would write it up as a defect.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tim Medeiros
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 709
Unit: AZ-001

« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2013, 04:59:56 PM »

Not disputing that things could have been done differently, just stating that 1) it's technically working as designed as far as I can tell, 2) we don't have the requirements that the developers were given so we cannot actually say if it is a bug or users finding a way around the intended operation of the system, which I'm sure you know happens quite frequently.
Report to moderator   Logged
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Member, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2013, 05:27:00 PM »

Perhaps it's not a software defect (bug), but a design or requirement defect. Maybe the system is as designed. Either way, there's an unintended behavior that it's easily caused by what many would consider "normal" operations. I think it should be changed or corrected.
Report to moderator   Logged
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2013, 05:30:34 PM »

It's like IMU. It does "exactly" what the paper flow does. Only, the paper method usually doesn't result in the user wanting to take a bat to the thing. ;)

The aircrew is here, in front of me, I want to use the airplane for someone else, but I can't because the debrief has not been entered. In the real world, you hand them the keys and they go.
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2013, 01:22:06 PM »

Does anyone know if this issue was resolved?
Report to moderator   Logged
SunDog
Seasoned Member

Posts: 478

« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2013, 04:13:50 AM »

Yeah, whether bug, requirements shortcoming, or design flaw, the behaviour doesn't meet the business need. Brute force a correction in the data for a called-out occurrence, leave it gacked for the rest??? Bad Ju-ju. . .good thing the paper exists, except that leaves hard-copy as the authoritative data source. Sure that was planned for and designed into the system. . .maybe not?

NHQ can base actions on the electrons, and the field can counter with the paper. Spend happy hours sorting it out. Thank goodness this is a rare, unusual, and very isolated flaw in an otherwise well designed, implemented, and maintained system. 



Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,629
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2013, 04:29:40 AM »

Yeah, whether bug, requirements shortcoming, or design flaw, the behaviour doesn't meet the business need. Brute force a correction in the data for a called-out occurrence, leave it gacked for the rest??? Bad Ju-ju. . .good thing the paper exists, except that leaves hard-copy as the authoritative data source. Sure that was planned for and designed into the system. . .maybe not?

NHQ can base actions on the electrons, and the field can counter with the paper. Spend happy hours sorting it out. Thank goodness this is a rare, unusual, and very isolated flaw in an otherwise well designed, implemented, and maintained system.

Really? Did I miss some sarcasm?

This is a problem for about half of my unit, being neither rare, unusual, nor isolated. We're doing a little catch-up in the PD area, trying to get specialty tracks correctly documented, and not having the correct data available in eServices is making that job more difficult. I'm sure my unit isn't the only one, by far, with this issue.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
SunDog
Seasoned Member

Posts: 478

« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2013, 04:57:30 AM »

Yes, sorry, 'twas sarcasm, badly done.  I've been critical of eServices, and NHQ for its long neglect.  It misses the mark by quite a bit. It is not well done, not well maintained. The will and vision aren't there to address it, nor the $$$. Also missing is the imagination and expertise to explore better approaches for far less $$$$.

But time to let it go Louie; it'll change when management changes. . .
Report to moderator   Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2013, 08:36:18 AM »

Does anyone know if this issue was resolved?

Not really sure if it was a problem. If you did anything after 2005 it should be documented "IF" it was ever entered. Like my Assistant PDO goes from N/A to 7/25/05 and primary PDO goes from 7/26/05 to 7/17/09. The "N/A" should have been 1/1/02. Apparently eServices did not consider 'ancient history' which looks like 2005.

Now on another thread we discussed the Command Speciality Track. To get credit from the "jump start" provision you really had to have documentation of your Command and Deputy Command time. Just as I am sure some Wings are exceptional book keepers, I am sure others have no clue, for example, who was Petticoat Junction Squadron Commander from 1947 to 1955.   8)
Report to moderator   Logged
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,179

« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2013, 11:56:03 AM »

Yes, sorry, 'twas sarcasm, badly done.  I've been critical of eServices, and NHQ for its long neglect.  It misses the mark by quite a bit. It is not well done, not well maintained. The will and vision aren't there to address it, nor the $$$. Also missing is the imagination and expertise to explore better approaches for far less $$$$.

But time to let it go Louie; it'll change when management changes. . .
Well, now that they've completed ORMS v2, which was such a monumental change that it was promised for over a year, and improved things so much that folks didn't even know it had been implemented, they can focus on eServices when they're not working to make it more difficult for members to build things that interface with their systems.
Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #43 on: October 02, 2013, 01:27:20 PM »

PI problem is when you get switched from assistant "yes" to "no". IMO it should end the assistant duty and make new line entry for primary. Instead it resets the clock on the line item and assistant time goes boom.
Report to moderator   Logged
Phil Hirons, Jr.
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 805
Unit: NER-RI-001

« Reply #44 on: October 02, 2013, 01:45:50 PM »

And considering our PD / Grade progression is based in part on amount of staff position time, this can only be considered a bug.
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2013, 02:16:19 PM »

I've observed this issue when swapping positions between a primary and an assistant. I suspect it has to do with the assistant 'yes' / 'no' flag. If the positions are removed first and then reassigned, this doesn't happen.

I've lost some duty position data myself. Fortunately, I had hardcopies of my CAPF 2As for the last year. Has anyone filed a ticked with NHQ/IT?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 02:19:35 PM by Storm Chaser » Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2013, 02:34:25 PM »

I've observed this issue when swapping positions between a primary and an assistant. I suspect it has to do with the assistant 'yes' / 'no' flag. If the positions are removed first and then reassigned, this doesn't happen.

I've lost some duty position data myself. Fortunately, I had hardcopies of my CAPF 2As for the last year. Has anyone filed a ticked with NHQ/IT?

Yep. At best, counter intuitive. At worst, lacking a lot of documentation.
Report to moderator   Logged
TarRiverRat
Forum Regular

Posts: 126
Unit: MER-NC-057

« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2013, 12:15:34 AM »

I just checked mine and it shows the dates of me as Assistant Historian and now shows me current as the Historian but I don't see any of my time as Assistant PDO only as the PDO.  All of that time appears to be gone.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tar River Composite Squadron "River Rats" NC-057
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,766

« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2013, 12:30:01 AM »

I just checked mine and it shows the dates of me as Assistant Historian and now shows me current as the Historian but I don't see any of my time as Assistant PDO only as the PDO.  All of that time appears to be gone.

Well, it >is< actually "gone", but the missing assignments are easily corrected  or added.
Report to moderator   Logged


SunDog
Seasoned Member

Posts: 478

« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2013, 01:30:10 AM »

Just need a way to get the word out to all affected, with the why & how. Not a good way to do business, leaves gobs of potential gaps, and xx minutes of member time, multiplied by xx affected folks. Just this issue, not thinking about any other flaws. Another xx hours of available volunteer time blown.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,766

« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2013, 01:36:38 AM »

What "word"?

Everyone is responsible for managing their own CAP information and career.  Information in eServices is easily and quickly corrected.
The problem is that a lot of members ignore it until they actually need something, and only then realize their history has gaps.
Report to moderator   Logged


a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2013, 02:02:41 AM »

Yes. That. Right there.
Report to moderator   Logged
TarRiverRat
Forum Regular

Posts: 126
Unit: MER-NC-057

« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2013, 03:43:49 AM »

What "word"?

I just have to say it.  The Bird is the word.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tar River Composite Squadron "River Rats" NC-057
SunDog
Seasoned Member

Posts: 478

« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2013, 05:53:29 AM »

What "word"?

Everyone is responsible for managing their own CAP information and career.  Information in eServices is easily and quickly corrected.
The problem is that a lot of members ignore it until they actually need something, and only then realize their history has gaps.

Even easier if it doesn't have to be corrected, though, right? If eServices worked right, this conversation doesn't take place. And a few dozen others just like it. As is, the data, in this case, is systemically wrong, worthless for aggregate reporting at any level.

Member's time can be substituted for good software design and implementation. Clearly, that's what we're doing here. Not a goid model. I think other IT pros on the forum will say substantially the same thing - eServices is a poor product by any best practice measure.

Some (many?) of us don't have a reason to look at it, until a personnel event comes up - oops, the data is wrong! Been wrong, maybe a long time. Were any management decsions/reporting done based on that data? Probably, else why collect it? Do we blast the membership for not checking on induced errors (SETS?). Is it a good practice to rely on the kindness of strangers to scrub your data, when some won't care all that much, anyway?

Report to moderator   Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2013, 08:19:22 AM »

PI problem is when you get switched from assistant "yes" to "no". IMO it should end the assistant duty and make new line entry for primary. Instead it resets the clock on the line item and assistant time goes boom.

All of mine, shows a new line entry. In one speciality I went from "yes" to "no"; another I went from "no" to "yes". I have four lines with the proper dates and chrnology. Or at least from 2005.
Report to moderator   Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2013, 08:47:08 AM »

I just checked mine and it shows the dates of me as Assistant Historian and now shows me current as the Historian but I don't see any of my time as Assistant PDO only as the PDO.  All of that time appears to be gone.

When I was doing the IG thing. One Unit I was inspecting the Safety portion. The Unit Safety Officer claimed to have been the assistant for two years and became the primary 1 1/2 years ago. But eservices showed the CC appointed him 6 weeks ago and started him on the speciality track then too. They really had no ideal what they were doing so that is a great reason why the IG should visit every Unit every two years.  8)
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: assistant duty not tracked on eservices?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.122 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me