Monitor Mass

[McG]

The Military Personnel management Capability Transformation project is intended to upgrade the current system.  Among other things, it is intended deliver increased client self-service (so things like leave will be electronic vice paper; members will be able to long on themselves to update address or PEN information...) 

One of the expected benefits of the new HRMS 9.x from MPMCT is the increased visibility of personnel data for the individual and the CoC.  It should be possible to view individual data (member) and aggregated data (section, platoon, squadron, ship, etc..). 

It looks like MonitorMASS has not more than another three years of life planned for it:  http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2012/027-12_e.asp

 

[clericalchronicals]

I love conversations such as this. Deep into my world. Ok, so here is the story:

Way back in the day when UER's were one of the primary "records of service", there was only one electronic database which held all the information (and not very reliably). In 1994, DND bought into HRMS v6.0 which was probably better suited for Windows 3.11, and only so many people in an Orderly Room had access.  The benefit, it was actual proper, customizable (ranks, deployment data, etc) desktop software that met National Defence's HR data management priorities, however it still did not meet DND's organizational HR planning requirements.

In 1998ish I believe it was (correct me if I'm wrong), enter HRMS v7.5, a version which allowed all HR personnel access, and allowed for a barrage of different data types and HR planning functions, as well as allowing for the civilian and reserve force access in order to manage their data (approx 2002), we have since migrated this software all the way to v7.58 but there is still a massive problem, the Government of Canada is completely operating on v9.1.

Sooo...the civilian workforce was mandated to be moved over to v9.1 (aka the web based one). Problem being is that the military as a whole has to get connected and the sort. The bigger problem being that the web based version requires a complete and EXACT organizational picture or it will be a pile of garbage. What I mean by that is that lets say in the current system, I am in position 13361 (random...really...lol) my supervisor is in position 13360 but because of old org management and the way things used to be, I says I actually work for position 12445...so whoever that dude is, in v9.1 would be able to see all of my "supervisor level" HR data, that he really has no reason to see.

I'm certain that you can all appreciate that the reorganization of 68,986 positions is not an overnight task.

As well, bigger bonus, the payroll management system is also integrated into HRMS v9.1...(enter v9.7 stage left). Yes, so that does mean that with the new system, when you are promoted or posted, things like pay rate or tax rate changes are automated.

So yes, the introduction of the new HRMS will certainly mean the death of MM and CFTPO, etc...but having taken the training for the new software (which is available on the DHRIM website by the way...it's called HRMS UPK, not coach anymore), here is a glimpse of some new features, and ones that I heave already heard from "the mill":

Access for all CF members (position identifies your access)
Common user ID that doesn't change everytime you move or change jobs
Improved organizational planning
Integrated payroll management
Integrated operations management
Self-service functionality (explained below)
Manager self-service (leave requests, data changes)
Web based so no desktop software to install or slow down
Advanced reporting capability
Chain of command reports (parade state, bulk MPRR, etc.)
Integrated training management (for school specific data)
Career Management Functionality (increased member input)
Etc...there are other rumored integrations, but the ones above are ones I have heard from reliable sources...in my own trade, so its a pretty sure thing.

Now, self service...it sounds great, BUT...it is "supervised" self-service. As in let's say Cpl Bloggins changes his PEN form in the new system.  That's great, but it is then transferred to an electronic "worklist", where Cpl Clerk checks it for accuracy and makes sure there is nothing wrong, then themes pen form is processed.

Either way, from all accounts, my fellow RMS clerks are still going to have a headache on our hands, but with time and patience, this software looks very very promising, and will serve the forces well for a long long time to come.

And by the way, monitor MASS has to be the most useful and innovative software that as an RMS clerk, I have seen in my career. But it, like everything else is a stepping stone towards a better way. Integration of all of the DND home grown software into one massive HR management system is the best way to go. Then data corruption becomes less of a problem.

Cheers!

 

[PuckChaser]

Now, self service...it sounds great, BUT...it is "supervised" self-service. As in let's say Cpl Bloggins changes his PEN form in the new system.  That's great, but it is then transferred to an electronic "worklist", where Cpl Clerk checks it for accuracy and makes sure there is nothing wrong, then themes pen form is processed.

How's that different from now, except the clerk doesn't have to do all the typing of the PEN into HRMS, Bloggins does it for them? I think that's going to be a slight adjustment for the clerks, but overall really lessen their workload of data entry.

 

[clericalchronicals]

How's that different from now, except the clerk doesn't have to do all the typing of the PEN into HRMS, Bloggins does it for them? I think that's going to be a slight adjustment for the clerks, but overall really lessen their workload of data entry.

That's one change, but clerks in turn are going to become more responsible for organizational data and all the "not normal" data entry in the new system, and if you take a bit of time to look at the UPK on DHRIM's website, I'm certain you'll understand that this software, meanwhile easier, is changing the face of HR management on all levels.

 

[Amqui]

Good day,
Does somebody here knows a contact for Monitor MASS ? (you can send it to me by e-mail or private message if you don't want to post on the forum) I need it since I'm currently doing a degree in Information Systems (IS) and have chosen Monitor MASS for my IS analysis. I have access to DWAN.

Also, if you know a place where I can find more information about Monitor MASS, I would appreciate.

Thanks,

 

[dangerboy]

Here is the DWAN website for Monitor Mass which has help files and other information:

http://lfcms.kingston.mil.ca/Default.aspx?sectionID=143000440006451&type=D

 

[Amqui]

Here is the DWAN website for Monitor Mass which has help files and other information:

http://lfcms.kingston.mil.ca/Default.aspx?sectionID=143000440006451&type=D

Yes, I found it soon after posting my question here. Thanks you,

 

[DAA]

And by the way, monitor MASS has to be the most useful and innovative software that as an RMS clerk, I have seen in my career. But it, like everything else is a stepping stone towards a better way. Integration of all of the DND home grown software into one massive HR management system is the best way to go. Then data corruption becomes less of a problem.

Monitor Mass is a relatively good system but it's too bad that it's "stove piped" (ie; is fed data from HRMS but doesn't feed data back).  I believe that it was designed to be used at the lowest levels, right down to Pte.  It is not friendly when unit data management is tasked to the a BOR/ROR/Base OR environment where the clerks also have HRMS access as it results in duplication of effort when it comes to data entry as the clerks have to input the data into both systems.  The main problem I see with HRMS is the "quality" of data being entered.  Far too many times I have seen clerks doing data entries based on what they "were told" as opposed to using Coach for assistance.  Such a shame but now things are a mess.  Just look at the recent data input of the new PEN and NOK information, where people were deleting dependant data.  But that is how it is.

All the money spent on COTS over the years probably could have been better used to design something internal to our organization.

 

[dapaterson]

All the money spent on COTS over the years probably could have been better used to design something internal to our organization.

Ouch.  Custom means a lot of money to maintain.  It means no support when (not if) things go wrong.  It means data exchange with outside agencies is difficult (like VAC).  And DND also has civilians, so we'd need to build complex data interfaces between the GoC system and out skunkworks system.

No, far better to go off the shelf and use the tool we purchase - and abandon many of our 1950s era paper-heavy systems. 

Compare leave for civilians to leave for military:  civilian leave is managed through an off-the shelf interface: enter it in electronic format; approving authority gets an email with a link to clock, then approve or deny, and the requester gets back an email lettign them know it's been approved.

Military leave:  Type the information into a form (or use MM to print the form).  Sign the form.  Pass the paper copy up the chain.  Paper copy is signed & sent to OR. OR enters it into HRMS & stamps it.  OR makes copy for leave file, send original back to originator.

The problem is not the tool, it's the processes.  And the CF has done a very poor job of keeping processes modernized.

 

[garb811]

The problem is not the tool, it's the processes.  And the CF has done a very poor job of keeping processes modernized.

Amen to that.  I remember when computers came in and we were told we were en route to a "paperless office".

Today, it goes like this:

Member sends email to supervisor with request.  It gets forwarded up the chain.  Hits the appropriate office and comes back down, "Sounds good, give me a memo".

Member writes memo, CoC along the way re-minutes what they had previously wrote in the email with the memo being bounced at least once for errors, killing more trees as it is reprinted.  Hits the appropriate office, realization dawns that it needs to go outside the unit.

Letter is drafted, signed by appropriate delegated authority, sent to OR to be scanned along with the original memo.  Scanned copy is sent to addressees, hard copy is photocopied at least 3 times over and above the number of addressees (general file, applicable file keyed file and Pers file) and the hard copy is sent in the mail, arriving two weeks after the scanned version which hasn't been actioned because they were waiting for the hard copy as it is the "official" version that they insist of having to take any formal action.

 

[DAA]

Ouch.  Custom means a lot of money to maintain.  It means no support when (not if) things go wrong.  It means data exchange with outside agencies is difficult (like VAC).  And DND also has civilians, so we'd need to build complex data interfaces between the GoC system and out skunkworks system.

No, far better to go off the shelf and use the tool we purchase - and abandon many of our 1950s era paper-heavy systems. 

Compare leave for civilians to leave for military:  civilian leave is managed through an off-the shelf interface: enter it in electronic format; approving authority gets an email with a link to clock, then approve or deny, and the requester gets back an email lettign them know it's been approved.

The problem is not the tool, it's the processes.  And the CF has done a very poor job of keeping processes modernized.

I agree, custom is costly to a certain extent, but at least it is in house and customizable.  As far as support, you need only look to Monitor Mass as an example.  If you have a demonstrated issue with the app, you just send your suggestion in, it gets looked at and if feasible/possible the app is updated.  Monitor Mass is not used for civilians as far as I know.  When it comes to data interfaces, I don't believe any of our HR systems interface with OGD's.  I say that with tongue in cheek based on all the letters/faxes/emails that I have seen come in from VAC requesting copies of MPRR's, etc.

But I have to totally agree with you on the civilian side of the house.  It is far too easy, point and click, point and click and your civilian staff are on leave...no fuss, no muss...

Our problem I believe is that we have the tools (electronic) but the "need to knows", regretably are not able to access these systems.

How often do we find ourselves in the position of "Where is Cpl Bloggins today?" and the first instinct is to go to the filing cabinet...  the tools are there but people are reluctant to rely on them.  :2c:

 

[dangerboy]

Our problem I believe is that we have the tools (electronic) but the "need to knows", regretably are not able to access these systems.

How often do we find ourselves in the position of "Where is Cpl Bloggins today?" and the first instinct is to go to the filing cabinet...  the tools are there but people are reluctant to rely on them.  :2c:

This is the problem I run into, I have the majority of the Coy using Monitor Mass for leave passes and stuff.  Unfortunately Higher HQ insists on using separate excel spreadsheets for leave and qualifications.  Last time I sat the CSM and OC down and showed them how you can use MM to look up courses and leave. Then as soon I was done was told "that is nice, here is the excel spreadsheet input your qualifications on this one and the clerk will input your leave on that one".  Sometimes you can not win.

 

[DAA]

This is the problem I run into, I have the majority of the Coy using Monitor Mass for leave passes and stuff.  Unfortunately Higher HQ insists on using separate excel spreadsheets for leave and qualifications.  Last time I sat the CSM and OC down and showed them how you can use MM to look up courses and leave. Then as soon I was done was told "that is nice, here is the excel spreadsheet input your qualifications on this one and the clerk will input your leave on that one".  Sometimes you can not win.

Oh boy, oh boy, do I feel your pain..........

I got hit today on a PPV for a Claims X claim.  Was told that the email authority for the TD did not approve "rental car" in advance.  But yet, the Sect 32 approved the submitted Claims X claim and the Sect 34 approved payment, so what's the problem?  They wanted to see it on paper...WTF  Hence, the reluctance to rely on electronic data...  In our unit, there is NO TD request forms.  The member is provided with a copy of the message and asked by email how they want to travel.  The claim is input, reviewed, authorized and away they go...when they return, they email their itinerary, the claim is finalized, sent for approval and paid.  All that within 48 hours of there return.....

 

[donaldk]

Replying to old thread on Monitor/MASS since the subject is the same.

I see they added PER tracking to Monitor/MASS which is a great step forward from the unit to OTtawa level.  How about they incorporate the CFPAS Forms and even the CFPAS process itself into Monitor/MASS to save haggle over stupid items things such as lack of divisional notes, incorrect tombstone data, new qualifications and signature blocks.  For PERs, Obviously the dots and narratives would still have to be done since MM does not replace the supervisor himself .  PDR Part 1s are mostly templates, and this could be stored in MM since they are tied to the position held.  If CFPAS was incorporated into MM, PKI support would have to be incorporated into the software and also rights permissions would have to be looked.  My take is that it would make the entire divisional note/CFPAS process more uniform (and actually probably save on security incidents involving Protected B divisional material neing left out).

Now for the rant that caused my suggestion for above:
I am on PERMON at a Reg Force unit and just had a Supp Res PER come through with an EMAA printout in the folder that says he is PRes and a weird NCM MOS that does not match that on the PER.  Due to this, the entire tombstone block cannot be verified except for the member's name and SN.  Some on the PERMON board were surprised that reserves even get PERs (being an ex-reservist I politely informed them of the contrary).  I have sent the file back to the Reg Force drafter with a request that the subject reservist on the PER seek from NRCC(H) advice on what goes in the tombstone blocks, and a NRIMS or HRMS reserve MPRR (as EMAA is unacceptable for PER use).  Otherwise the PER was very well written.

 

[McG]

I would rather see such integration occur directly with HRMS as opposed to using MM as a middle agent.

 

[donaldk]

I would rather see such integration occur directly with HRMS as opposed to using MM as a middle agent.

HRMS is a great RMS clerk tool (the Admin/Workforce client side I refer to), for the rest of us it won't do since we don't get to play with it / or the provided client software is extremely cumbersome to use unless you are RMS.  A frank opinion from a colleague of mine who managed NTO BTL, HRMS is useless compared to MM national level access for pers management, movements, and divisional admin.  MM already pulls from HRMS mil 7.5 & GC 8.9 databases so it is getting the correct data, its only failing in that it cannot commit entries back to HRMS.  Heck you could get DRMIS to do PERs if the right modules are programmed... I'll just shut up about that as SAP ERP from an MA&S point of view is quite the beast.

The fact that Monitor/MASS evolves with new features on a constant basis at a brisk pace is impressive for anything that I have seen in the DND/CF (thank you ASST).  The amount of work for changes required in HRMS modules to support PERs would consume an already overloaded DHRIM who STILL cannot get EMAA working right and this has been years now.

 

[-rb]

The fact that Monitor/MASS evolves with new features on a constant basis at a brisk pace is impressive for anything that I have seen in the DND/CF (thank you ASST).  The amount of work for changes required in HRMS modules to support PERs would consume an already overloaded DHRIM who STILL cannot get EMAA working right and this has been years now.

Sorry but MM evolves at a brisk pace???... Haha sorry but MM is stuck in 1996, and as such has about as much "technologically advanced" features and innovations one would expect from a piece of software 15 years ago.  Its one of the most cumbersome and least user friendly interfaces going in DND.

You are however right on the fact that the changes required would be completely overwhelming for a group that fails to get even the most basic HR software in line with today's standards.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Is not the end state to role Human Resource management into DRMIS?  The whole point of DRMIS is to have one connected database for everything.  We already have maintenance, and finance working, and supply is soon to be rolled in.  Now all we need is HR and Fleet Management and we can have a complete picture of our resources in DND and theoretically manage them better.....

I agree that we need an modern updated HR system, but even though MM might be showing it's age in terms of GUI it does still provide some very useful tools for supervisors and members.  And still beats the crap out of using a million separate spreadsheets and access databases.

 

[dapaterson]

A single ERP would be ideal; but for now, the Government of Canada has mandated the use of Peoplesoft for HR, and SAP for financials.

There is a gateway between HRMS and DRMIS, but for now, that's as good as it gets.

 

[Old EO Tech]

A single ERP would be ideal; but for now, the Government of Canada has mandated the use of Peoplesoft for HR, and SAP for financials.

There is a gateway between HRMS and DRMIS, but for now, that's as good as it gets.

Well lets hope the gateway is better than the one that linked DRMIS and CFSS, it had all sorts of bugs and limitations.