DND IT takes a great leap forward

[bigabe]

lack of unified IT policy and focus

yea big picture stuff, sexy and flashy. They will spend millions and millions on it, perhaps even billions and then ditch it in 8 years as it gets surpassed by just about everything. We need simple to use systems and the best way to do that is to get rid of Executive Assistants for senior bosses. As soon as they have to use the system for real, they will demand simplicity, as long as they are insulated from reality, nothing will change.

I love it!!!!!
I'd take payoffs to ensure total runarounds for pertinent issues.

 

[FJAG]

Some of that data that we consider useless will be a treasure trove later. Many of the documents squirreled  away by the RN in the 1800 regrading Seaman's  Bloggins pay records and amount of clothing issued give historians a much deeper understanding of daily life.

For the military you have the benefit of dealing mostly inhouse. For departments like mine where 90% of incoming documents are generated by various citizens and corporations the biggest issue is compatibility with wide variety of systems generating documents for us. Common issue is .pdf that don't print or Sharepoint sites that don't play well with the government systems.

The bigger more inclusive system you attempt to create the higher likelihood of failure. I'm a firm believer that if you can't design it and implement it in one fiscal year it will almost always fail or get cut as the fiscal winds change direction. 

I think you and I have probably  :highjack: enough so I'll make this my last post on the topic.

The issue of what records we keep and which we are required to toss are governed by statute (The Library & Archives of Canada Act) and an agreement between DND and Archives Canada (as set out in the Defence Subject Classification and Disposition System). The totality of the records from the 1800s could have been kept in one fair sized room. Archives currently holds over a hundred miles of shelf space of DND records of which more than 95% shouldn't be there. That includes hundreds of reels of computer files on the Frigate Program which are deteriorating and are incapable of being read because the computer systems they were made on no longer exist.

Incompatibility and obsolescence in computer software and hardware is a given and must be planned for. Similarly there is no one all-encompassing system that will meet the needs of every single DND department--many have very specialized software system requirements. On the other hand, the baseline systems which allow for the storage of basic correspondence and project documentation data and which provide basic intercommunication must be standardized to allow for interoperability and across-the-board upgrading.

I agree that projects should be implemented more quickly than they are but not for fiscal reasons. Capital projects are not part of fiscal year planning but are funded over multiple fiscal years and as such not as susceptible to the whims of the fiscal fairies. I can tell you however that any project that would be required to sort out our current shortcomings would clearly be long term in nature.

:subbies:

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Don't worry about keeping records of your email. They are all stored on the server, and if HQ was concerned with meeting the obligations of Archive legislation they'd do it in bulk instead of having individuals printing emails. That practice smacks of something a WO that read a story about archiving thought we ought to start doing and the practice spread from there.

There is a clearly defined lack of proper archive policy, and even knowledge (no one seems to have a clear answer on how long records are kept, (0 years, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, forever?). That's for someone above our pay grade to figure out and implement, and the tools to implement are out there. Outlook is only an email client, the email system runs using MS Exchange and there are plenty of MS tools and 3rd party tools to archive email.

As far as personal USB sticks on DND computers or vice versa, it's not permitted, full stop. As far as PERs/PDRs goes, they should not be on a personal computer either. The same way that you shouldn't have personal PERs at home unless you have a DND approved filing cabinet with S&G integral combo that is changed IAW NDSP. Just nod your head and agree with me that no one would ever do that.

Does it mean people find a work around? Absolutely. Is it CoC responsibility to provide the tools for individuals to do their jobs properly? Absolutely. We all know that sometimes they rather make the rule and turn their back and pretend it's being followed than follow through with their side of the bargain.

 

[FJAG]

Don't worry about keeping records of your email. They are all stored on the server, and if HQ was concerned with meeting the obligations of Archive legislation they'd do it in bulk instead of having individuals printing emails. That practice smacks of something a WO that read a story about archiving thought we ought to start doing and the practice spread from there.

Sorry . You are wrong. It's legislation and regulations that say that "corporate records" must be archived or destroyed within specified time limits. Files that are held willy-nilly in individual's email spaces on a server is not archiving in any meaning of the legislation. HQ is concerned with storing information. The problem is that middle management and users don't think they have the time to do so. "Bulk" archiving does not work and does not meet the requirements of the legislation to save specified "corporate records" and destroying all the rest of the crap we have on our systems.

There is a clearly defined lack of proper archive policy, and even knowledge (no one seems to have a clear answer on how long records are kept, (0 years, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, forever?). That's for someone above our pay grade to figure out and implement, and the tools to implement are out there. Outlook is only an email client, the email system runs using MS Exchange and there are plenty of MS tools and 3rd party tools to archive email.

The DSCDS is very specific about what records to archive and which to destroy and when (perhaps too detailed for some). Someone above your pay grade has figured it out. Implementation is where the whole thing falls down. To my knowledge the only tool capable of doing the job right now is RDIMS which is not in general use. To make a long story short, there is no magic bullet for archiving. A user who knows what the record is all about must determine either at the time a record is created or when the file is closed as to how that record is to be archived. Usually the best way is to assign it to its appropriate DSCDS file number and indicating whether it is a corporate record or a transient one. If that is done archiving becomes dead simple because the RDIMS system (if properly set up by the unit's chief clerk/records manager) will tell you exactly how long the file is to be retained and then if it is to be destroyed or archived.

:cheers:

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Sorry . You are wrong. It's legislation and regulations that say that "corporate records" must be archived or destroyed within specified time limits. Files that are held willy-nilly in individual's email spaces on a server is not archiving in any meaning of the legislation. HQ is concerned with storing information. The problem is that middle management and users don't think they have the time to do so. "Bulk" archiving does not work and does not meet the requirements of the legislation to save specified "corporate records" and destroying all the rest of the crap we have on our systems.

The DSCDS is very specific about what records to archive and which to destroy and when (perhaps too detailed for some). Someone above your pay grade has figured it out. Implementation is where the whole thing falls down. To my knowledge the only tool capable of doing the job right now is RDIMS which is not in general use. To make a long story short, there is no magic bullet for archiving. A user who knows what the record is all about must determine either at the time a record is created or when the file is closed as to how that record is to be archived. Usually the best way is to assign it to its appropriate DSCDS file number and indicating whether it is a corporate record or a transient one. If that is done archiving becomes dead simple because the RDIMS system (if properly set up by the unit's chief clerk/records manager) will tell you exactly how long the file is to be retained and then if it is to be destroyed or archived.

:cheers:

If you honestly think we are the only organization with a requirement to archive corporate records then by all means reinvent a wheel that has already been done dozens of times. Fact is nearly any publically traded company is required to keep corporate records including emails. There are literally dozens of third party software solutions to do this. It's all been done for well over a decade in the private sector, the solutions are out there and if HQ really wanted to make it happen it could be implemented.

For your info, here's a short list of a few of the third party exchange archive software out there.
Archive Attender for Exchange
GFI MailArchiver for Exchange
Metalogix Archive Manager for Exchange
MailStore Server
Exclaimer Mail Archiver
Global Relay Archive
Symantec Enterprise Vault
Smart Information Server
Quest Archive Manager
MessageSolution Enterprise Email Archive
Netmail Archive
GWAVA Retain
CI-Archive
MailMeter
Nearpoint
ArchiveOne Enterprise
Email2DB
Mimecast Unified Email Management platform
Iron Mountain NearPoint
Sophia Email Archiver

 

[garb811]

... The same way that you shouldn't have personal PERs at home unless you have a DND approved filing cabinet with S&G integral combo that is changed IAW NDSP. Just nod your head and agree with me that no one would ever do that...

You really don't understand the concept of personal information and how security policy applies to it, do you.  What you do with YOUR personal information is YOUR business.  So if you want to take your latest PER and pin it up on the cork board in the lunch room, have at it.  Your supervisor or anyone else entrusted to safeguard your personal information in the course of their duties does that, then it is a problem.

 

[FJAG]

If you honestly think we are the only organization with a requirement to archive corporate records then by all means reinvent a wheel that has already been done dozens of times. Fact is nearly any publically traded company is required to keep corporate records including emails. There are literally dozens of third party software solutions to do this. It's all been done for well over a decade in the private sector, the solutions are out there and if HQ really wanted to make it happen it could be implemented.

Now you are just being silly. I never said that we're the only organization with a requirement to archive corporate records.

If you've followed this thread you'd know that I have a clue or two about the solutions that are available in general but that RDIMS (which is a Govt of Canada implementation of an old software solution originally rolled out by Hummingbird) is the approved and partially implemented solution within DND (Notwithstanding which there are organizations both within and outside of DND who use other solutions). What you don't seem to realize is that there is a whole section within IM Gp that is dedicated to this issue but has been at it for almost eight years without any universal acceptance by users across the board. They are constantly looking at other solutions. There are numerous factors that have gotten in the way of success with user resistance being one of the more significant ones. Another being the government's extremely dysfunctional procurement system.

Take some time to search IM Gp's websites and you'll see how the records management system is supposed to work. Once you've read through the elements of the DSCDS and understand how its supposed to work you'll perhaps get a glimmer of an understanding where the challenges are.

Publicly traded corporations have no legal requirement to archive "business" records. Their record keeping requirements are generally ones mandated by such things as the Tax Act or other financial records relating to their public share offerings. Other requirements may relate to the nature of the business (an insurance company has a whole different record archiving responsibility than a toy manufacturer.) Business related records are kept well by some companies and very poorly by others. (I have a daughter with a masters in archive studies who works at clearing up and cleaning up the hodge podge of records that some firms have - we regularly exchange horror stories)

The problem isn't that there is no software solution to move email from pst files to an archive. The problem is that there is so much garbage email being generated across the system that it has become a monstrous job to create a system that will archive those hundreds of millions of emails (and other corporate records) in the manner required by the governing legislation. There simply is no automated system that will solve our problems - either in private industry or in-house - without having a user at some point in the life cycle of the email make an effort at 1) deciding if it is a corporate record and if so 2) directing it or flagging it to the appropriate DSCDS file.

I spent three years solving one small tightly controlled department's issues and have looked in detail at the challenges IM Gp faces and generates. Quite frankly I'm happy to be out of the business but continue get great enjoyment out of listening to people who think everything can be solved by buying software X. Anyone who has ever done a software capital project will tell you quite frankly that solving the hardware/software problem is 20% of the job. The other 80% is the change management of the business transformation processes - i.e. designing the policies and procedures for people to use, getting user buy-in, thorough training of the users and rigorous management of implementation and in-service use.

Have a good one.

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

Have a god one

Apparently he already has one   

 

[PMedMoe]

Apparently he already has one   

A complex? 

 

[FJAG]

A complex? 

It was a typo! It was a typo!

:facepalm:

 

[dapaterson]

Traditionally, the joke is used for doctors, but...


What's the difference between God and a lawyer?  God doesn't think he's a lawyer.

 

[JBP]

Although there were concerns about Win7 and DRMIS, there was already a patch put in place for the rollout and it worked fine.  As it was only about half the machines in my shop got Win7 anyway as the rest were to old and have to be replaced, including all our CF 30 laptops that we take in the field for maintenance.  So a few hoops to jump threw before Win7 is deployed everywhere.

That's odd... It sure does run on them... I've seen it with my own eyes! Windows 7 runs better on a CF30 than Windows XP does... It's much more optimized and fast. Strange! Me thinks someone did not look at the minimum requirements for Windows 7 Enterprise edition and correlate that onto our current hardware. No CF30's are not new or particularly fast for a computer (CPU sucks and not enough RAM) but they do work and run well with Win 7 on them.

After working in a Brigade for years and having to 'make things work'... We've maybe seen lots of things run on CF30's...

 

[Old EO Tech]

That's odd... It sure does run on them... I've seen it with my own eyes! Windows 7 runs better on a CF30 than Windows XP does... It's much more optimized and fast. Strange! Me thinks someone did not look at the minimum requirements for Windows 7 Enterprise edition and correlate that onto our current hardware. No CF30's are not new or particularly fast for a computer (CPU sucks and not enough RAM) but they do work and run well with Win 7 on them.

After working in a Brigade for years and having to 'make things work'... We've maybe seen lots of things run on CF30's...

I missed this post earlier.  Yes Win7 runs on a CF30, but for some reason that is beyond my fathoming, the IT guys in Edmonton don't have an authorized image for a CF30.....I do now have one test case that is running fine with Win7, but I got the feeling they used an image for another laptop and it just worked out :-/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had a toughbook with Win95 it was a good computer till our IT department dropped and broke it.. :

Seems there are upgrades available http://toughruggedlaptops.com/panasonic-toughbook-cf-30-rugged-laptop/?gclid=CjkKEQjwia-dBRC07eeatYGe-78BEiQArZhbgACU8X-X8OyF3gPGoyTmQckf-MYFlnnv9CDVHB6pZGbw_wcB

My current IT upgraded all of our computers with Ram and or harddrives before the Win 7 switch. It's a good platform and likely to be around on government computers for a long time.

 

[JSoff]

Well at least they aren't using Windows Vista, or worse Windows 8......

 

[PuckChaser]

Nope, DND skip windows releases due to the time it takes to test and make images. Thankfully we're skipping the crappy ones, so if Microsoft development holds true, we'll get the good one after 8.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I missed this post earlier.  Yes Win7 runs on a CF30, but for some reason that is beyond my fathoming, the IT guys in Edmonton don't have an authorized image for a CF30.....I do now have one test case that is running fine with Win7, but I got the feeling they used an image for another laptop and it just worked out :-/

Technically the CF30s weren't designed to run Windows 7. They were based on Vista requirements. Panasonic did not support Windows 7 on the CF30s Mk1 and Mk2, which is the majority of the CF stock. We sent a couple CF30s to DIMEI to have them try and create a Windows 7 image, which did work, though not well.

It was recommended we upgrade CF30s to CF31s prior to the roll out. Obviously this wasn't done completely, but on the child domains (ie the deployed X70-X89 suites) the Windows 7 roll out was delayed. 

Creating an image isn't hard. Infact, if you already have a DWAN XP laptop, effectively you just need to put it on the Forces domain, add it to the SCCM collection and it will theoretically upgrade to Win 7 like the rest of the workstations. Then you log back in with a local admin account, check for any drivers that need to be updated (which there will be because many hardware manufacturers didn't continue to provide new drivers for XP) download the drivers online and install. Once all the drivers are updated and the device conflicts are resolved, snap an image (76 Comm Gp provides the best tool for this IMO) and apply across all laptops of the same model.

DIMEI typically doesn't even create images. Their job is to confirm that the new OS will play nicely with the backend server side, and make sure it's compatable with DND applications, or to fix the applications so they work with the new OS.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Nope, DND skip windows releases due to the time it takes to test and make images. Thankfully we're skipping the crappy ones, so if Microsoft development holds true, we'll get the good one after 8.

Typically the way it goes. MS releases a Bad OS, a good version of Server OS, then a good OS. Enterprise typically waits for a good OS to show up before converting. It's not just DND. 2000 then skip ME (but that was pre NT merge) XP then skip Vista, Win 7 then skip Win 8.

I don't think you'll see DND or any enterprise for that matter switch to Windows 8. 8 is MS's attempt at a consumer friendly OS, and it doesn't even do that well IMO.