# Monitor Mass



## MOOXE (28 Sep 2010)

This hellish application... god help us. Every now and then theres "initiatives" to retire the 500 Excel spreadhseets spread across the unit that manage everything from sick days to rucksack sizes. Is anyone out there using it? Its seems that due to the applications clunkyness, everyone has been slow to adopt, or only given a halfassed effort to use it. Right now, I see most people only using it to create leave passes.

Does anyone have any good queries they could share? Or maybe some useful screen setups, tips, comments..anything at all?


----------



## dangerboy (29 Sep 2010)

As a Pl WO, I use this program all the time.  Need to know what qualifications somebody has easy, how much leave they have left at my fingertips.  The problem is it requires use by all leaders.  If 1 of the Platoons in a company are using it and imputing info them the CSM does not get an accurate picture from Monitor Mass.  You mentioned leave passes, well that is how must units are getting people used to the program.  You make a police that only leave passes generated on Monitor Mass will be accepted then people will be forced to use it.  Then they will discover it is not a scary complicated program and it can be very useful.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2010)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> This hellish application... god help us. Every now and then theres "initiatives" to retire the 500 Excel spreadhseets spread across the unit that manage everything from sick days to rucksack sizes. Is anyone out there using it? Its seems that due to the applications clunkyness, everyone has been slow to adopt, or only given a halfassed effort to use it. Right now, I see most people only using it to create leave passes.
> 
> Does anyone have any good queries they could share? Or maybe some useful screen setups, tips, comments..anything at all?



Gagetown has been using MM for at least three years now. 

CFJSR is "all MM - all the time"; it's mandatory & it is the way of doing business/admin. All Parade States, trg uploads, Employment Records, appointments, position movements, sick chits, everything ... is done on MM. Once you get used to it and once you have everything input --- it actually does work properly and you should see your admin time required shrinking.

I'll see if I can locate an electronic copy of the "Idiots Guide to MM". Mine is a hard copy.


----------



## dangerboy (29 Sep 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll see if I can locate an electronic copy of the "Idiots Guide to MM". Mine is a hard copy.



That would be great as I am self taught and I am sure there is more I can do with the program or easier ways to do it.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2010)

I'm trying to get onto a course for this, and then get the password or authority to use it.  Seems to be a problem in our area wqith the lack of pers to manage the crses and authority.  I'm tired of all the spreadsheets I am maintaining with identical info such as S/N, Rank, names and dispositions that are in a constant state of change.  I update several databases, only to find I have several more to clean up several weeks later when I get into them.  Then there are the numerous spreadsheets that are included in reports to higher, Area, Branch, Army, etc.  One system to handle the majority of this info would be great to cut down on my work.  Probably clear a lot of crap off my desk as well.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Sep 2010)

We use it at my unit, too.  It's actually pretty easy, once you get into it.  I had (basically) a 10 minute briefing on it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2010)

I've been exploring Monitor Mass as well as the REO application. I was pretty shocked at the amount of Reserve employment it comes up with. 

When using REO is there a way I can narrow down the search fields? Like in CFTPO.  Specifically I'm looking to search for lowest/highest rank, element and MOS instead of everything across the board.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Sep 2010)

We use it for everything. Its a great program* IF* everyone would do their jobs and update their troops info.When looking for guys to task the query tool is golden. Lve breakdown and persona appointments of subordinates are easy to look at. No more filling in UER info just print the updated premade UER every now and then. TCAT PCAT chits its all in there and an excellent program. Parade states are automatically made taking all your leave course dates TCAT PCAT chits and makes the SSM job easier....IF he decideds to join the new century...otherwise it causes extra work for Tp Warrants going back to excel to input things...which makes me quite angry honestly.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I've been exploring Monitor Mass as well as the REO application. I was pretty shocked at the amount of Reserve employment it comes up with.
> 
> When using REO is there a way I can narrow down the search fields? Like in CFTPO.  Specifically I'm looking to search for lowest/highest rank, element and MOS instead of everything across the board.



Advanced Search on REO lets you filter by specific rank / occupation / security etc.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> .......... No more filling in UER info just print the updated premade UER every now and then. ........



WHOA!  Don't get to much in a rush to discard your UERs.  I have found that the data that is stored electronically is not always an accurate picture of what a person has done.  For instance, I am listed as being in 427 SOA Sqn for OP CADENCE, when in actual fact I was in a room without windows in Toronto, and never ever saw a helicopter, only the occasional person in a flight suit.  On some taskings what a persond does, and the posn in CFTPO often differ quite a bit.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Sep 2010)

I think the UER is my only complaint with the Monitor Mass system. It should be far easier to add entries, and not have to guess what is going to show up when you add an event to the person's calendar. Should just be a digital version of the UER, where I fill it out like a PDF document. If an entry is wrong, a supervisor should have the ability to edit it, leaving a hidden trail of the edits and who did it.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> WHOA!  Don't get to much in a rush to discard your UERs.  I have found that the data that is stored electronically is not always an accurate picture of what a person has done.  For instance, I am listed as being in 427 SOA Sqn for OP CADENCE, when in actual fact I was in a room without windows in Toronto, and never ever saw a helicopter, only the occasional person in a flight suit.  On some taskings what a persond does, and the posn in CFTPO often differ quite a bit.



Roger that. Agreed.  Iremember getting my MPRR which said my position was Sqn Clerk back in the day too lol. Our UERs are pretty accurate at our unit...however it wasnt always that way I agree.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2010)

Idiots Guide to MM, avail via email.

If you need one - PM me.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think the UER is my only complaint with the Monitor Mass system. It should be far easier to add entries, and not have to guess what is going to show up when you add an event to the person's calendar. Should just be a digital version of the UER, where I fill it out like a PDF document. If an entry is wrong, a supervisor should have the ability to edit it, leaving a hidden trail of the edits and who did it.



This comes with the "permissions". What a person is allowed to do/edit is determined by their CoC.

Here, I am the Snr Tech Advisor as well as the RQ so I can do essentially everything. Edit, Move, Add, R&D, up to Regtl level. Even at that, the UER portion needs work. If someone in the heirarchy clicks "add to UER" when entering an activity (or neglects to) I see things on UERs such as "United Way Mtg 1000hrs" while things like "PWT Lvl III" are missing.

That's not a system issue though ... that's all driver error.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Sep 2010)

I've got supervisor privileges for my troops, so I can add to the UER. There's just so many options in the drop down menu for what the event falls under, its hard to place things in the right spot. Routinely I've found categories that fit better. I do like how MITE automatically adds courses onto the UER, however.


----------



## FreeFloat (13 Dec 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Roger that. Agreed.  Iremember getting my MPRR which said my position was Sqn Clerk back in the day too lol. Our UERs are pretty accurate at our unit...however it wasnt always that way I agree.



_My_ MPRR has me once belonging to 2 Fd Engr Sqn in Toronto..... at a time I actually belonged to 64 Bty 10 Fd Regt two provinces away in Saskatchewan.  The problem is that 64 Bty has now been stood down, and its UIC was S5048 - (S for subunit I guess) - while 2 Fd Engr is U5048.  I've been trying to get this corrected for years.  I suppose the best compromise would be to have me listed as belonging to the parent unit of 10 Fd, 18 Bty (although no one ever called them 18 Bty) in a city 3 hours away from 64 Bty.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2010)

FreeFloat said:
			
		

> _My_ MPRR has me once belonging to 2 Fd Engr Sqn in Toronto..... at a time I actually belonged to 64 Bty 10 Fd Regt two provinces away in Saskatchewan.  The problem is that 64 Bty has now been stood down, and its UIC was S5048 - (S for subunit I guess) - while 2 Fd Engr is U5048.  I've been trying to get this corrected for years.  I suppose the best compromise would be to have me listed as belonging to the parent unit of 10 Fd, 18 Bty (although no one ever called them 18 Bty) in a city 3 hours away from 64 Bty.



When did they stand the Bty down in Yorkton?  That was the first unit I joined as a Reservist.  Was there anyone coming in from Melville anymore?  Yorkton had the smallest Armoury, next to Summerside, PEI, that I ever saw.


----------



## FreeFloat (13 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When did they stand the Bty down in Yorkton?  That was the first unit I joined as a Reservist.  Was there anyone coming in from Melville anymore?  Yorkton had the smallest Armoury, next to Summerside, PEI, that I ever saw.



I'm not sure when.  I was there as a Clerk in 96 (i rejoined after a year out of the reserves) and in 97 transferred down to Regina.  It was some years later when I noticed the discrepancy on my MPRR.  I verified in the CF Address Book that only 18 Bty still showed up.  []


----------



## Franko (13 Dec 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Roger that. Agreed.  Iremember getting my MPRR which said my position was Sqn Clerk back in the day too lol. Our UERs are pretty accurate at our unit...however it wasnt always that way I agree.



I've been trying to correct an issue with my own MPRR for the past 10+years. Apparently I'm fluent in Spanish/ Castilian.

Wonder if MM can actually do it...seeing as every clerk has tried and failed to change it.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I've been trying to correct an issue with my own MPRR for the past 10+years. Apparently I'm fluent in Spanish/ Castilian.



Ah! Quaidro amigo mio.  What's up Chuck?    ;D


----------



## Staff Weenie (13 Dec 2010)

MPRR problems on Monitor/MASS are most probably from bad data in HRMS - and I have a secret belief that the HRMS database spontaneously corrupts itself. People have decorations come and go, their dependants disappear, postings are gone, etc....I've even seen people have their gender change from one report to the next - no idea why this happens.

I like Monitor/MASS - the feature to show Class A parading is great. I use it every day now for a wide range of tasks. What I don't like, is that as far as I can tell, while I can input IBTS quals, it means nothing until the same data is entered into HRMS.


----------



## FreeFloat (13 Dec 2010)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I like Monitor/MASS - the feature to show Class A parading is great. I use it every day now for a wide range of tasks. What I don't like, is that as far as I can tell, while I can input IBTS quals, it means nothing until the same data is entered into HRMS.



Monitor MASS is a separate front-end database, with its own "additional" database fields - which pulls most of its data from the same backend database as HRMS uses.  Thus, you are correct in that you can enter items in Monitor MASS which will then be only visible/usable in Monitor MASS - and not within HRMS.  The data transfer works in only one direction between the two - HRMS downloads to MM, but MM *cannot* upload to HRMS.  And judging from the stories I hear of corrupt/spotty info input to MM and units not having access and/or trained personnel to use MM, this is a good thing.

Just remember that HRMS is the "virtual Pers file" and not MM, and you're golden  :nod:


----------



## 211RadOp (11 Feb 2011)

Sorry to revive something that is a couple of months old, but here is a link to the ASST site with MM for Dummies as I call it.

http://clsapp.mil.ca/cls_mil_ca/monitormass/index.html

Sorry, but it is DWAN.


----------



## agc (11 Feb 2011)

While we're bringing this thread back...



			
				Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I've been trying to correct an issue with my own MPRR for the past 10+years. Apparently I'm fluent in Spanish/ Castilian.



Probably someone else has been trying for 10 years to get their proficiency added to their MPRR. :

It's an easy enough fix, if the person you're asking has correction privileges in HRMS.  Most of us don't.  Ask the clerk at the counter to send a work ticket to HRIC if nobody in the OR has correction mode.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2011)

I think its "failing" because people have a closed mind about it. I recently did my section's March Break leave passes in 30 minutes for 10 people. Handed them out to the troops for signature and good to go. They didn't need to spend 20 minutes themselves filling out that stuff. I personally find it an awesome tool for supervisors, people just need to be a little receptive to change. Its even pretty user friendly, not like that DRMIS program....


----------



## Zoomie (12 Feb 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They didn't need to spend 20 minutes themselves filling out that stuff.



Am I the only one who thinks 20 mins for a leave pass is a bit extreme?  I average about 30 - 45 secs.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2011)

20 mins is probably a bad estimate, but I'd rather just take the dates they want and throw them all in the computer for them while they're still out working in the shop.


----------



## Help Desk (26 Feb 2011)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> This hellish application... god help us. Every now and then theres "initiatives" to retire the 500 Excel spreadhseets spread across the unit that manage everything from sick days to rucksack sizes. Is anyone out there using it? Its seems that due to the applications clunkyness, everyone has been slow to adopt, or only given a halfassed effort to use it. Right now, I see most people only using it to create leave passes.
> 
> Does anyone have any good queries they could share? Or maybe some useful screen setups, tips, comments..anything at all?



Promotion video: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=1907

Monitor MASS started out as an Army initiative and is now being use by 17,000 within DND, a new Version was rolled out on the 17 Feb 2011 with an event more User friendly look and feel. The Reserve Employment Opportunity - REO module has been improved upon quite a bit since it inception last year, you can use the filter field to narrow down the output by targeting only the opportunities you are interested in. Candidates applying for an opportunity will receive a confirmation email once they are nominated and REO Managers will receive email reminder at every step of the Employment process until the successful candidate is hired and the opportunity removed from the Web site and archived. 
The Navy has adopted Monitor MASS in Dec 2010 and are fully engage in the Trg and deployment of the application at both coast. They are now keeping track of their sea days within Monitor MASS, everyone posted or attach to a ship while the ship was at sea got credited with the equivalent sea days, some minor adjustments are needed and are been entered in the member`s record. Sailors who have a Monitor MASS accounts can now look at their own records and the Chain of Command at every level can produce reports for their respective organizations.

The Air Force has been using Monitor MASS to keep track of there IBTS - Individual Battle Trg Skills qualifications (Wpns, CBRN, etc) for the past 2 years and some Wings are encouraging it`s use to the fullest although it is not mandatory.

Take a look at the Reserve Employment Opportunity - REO Website which is Generated form the REO module within Monitor MASS
 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/reo-oer/index.aspx


----------



## Help Desk (3 Mar 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> MM has failed miserably. Units are not using it peroid.



We currently have 17,000 satisfied customers who are using Monitor MASS across DND


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2011)

Help Desk said:
			
		

> Monitor MASS started out as an Army initiative and is now ...


Having listened to some individuals involved with the project to replace HRMS, I understand that Monitor MASS will not be supported on the new system (whatever year it rolls out) and data that is currently held in the MM database will be lost under the new system.  I also understand that the CF will not be allowing various commands to develop "plug-ins" or periphery software, so there will not be a Monitor MASS 2.

... has anyone heard if the next generation HRMS will include the supervisor & managment tools that we currently get through Monitor MASS or will it be another exclusively RMS Clk piece of software?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Having listened to some individuals involved with the project to replace HRMS, I understand that Monitor MASS will not be supported on the new system (whatever year it rolls out) and data that is currently held in the MM database will be lost under the new system.  I also understand that the CF will not be allowing various commands to develop "plug-ins" or periphery software, so there will not be a Monitor MASS 2.
> 
> ... has anyone heard if the next generation HRMS will include the supervisor & managment tools that we currently get through Monitor MASS or will it be another exclusively RMS Clk piece of software?



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...)  

The ECSes and others have provided input into defining the requirements; however, one goal is to minimize the customization of the off-the-shelf software to reduce costs.  So part of the analysis is looking at how we do things and why we do things that way.  Leave is a good example - our business process, with paper forms, is a very old method that makes little sense - why do we generate forms on a computer, print them, send the paper copies around by internal mail, get them signed off, sent to the clerks who take the paper copy of the originally electronic document and input it into another computer system, then send paper copies back?  DND civilian leave is managed through a more recent version of the same software the CF uses - log on, select the type of leave and the dates, add a comment, and submit to your supervisor (default setting) - or, if they are out of the office, to someone else.  The supervisor gets an email with a link; they select "Approved" or "Disapproved"; and the submitter gets an email saying "Your leave transaction was approved".

When the current system was implemented, we largely took existing processes and added a computer to them.  This time, the goal is to streamline the system to reduce the work required.


----------



## PanaEng (4 Mar 2011)

dapaterson,
does it address "leveraging existing data"  instead of re-creating it?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2011)

Where possible I believe that's the intent - but keep in mind HRMS is intended as the HR system of record.  All the skunk works systems that have popped up are not "official".


----------



## McG (6 Mar 2011)

The leave process is a no-brainer given that we are already doing it with the civilians using a web portal.
We also need the more advanced profiles for supervisors, staff, managers and commanders to brows the database and retrieve individual data & group statistics (including things like DAG summaries & parade states).  Currently, only RMS Clks do this in HRMS while everyone else is using skunk-works (ie Monitor MASS).

MITE & CFTPO also probably need to be a fully integrated components of the new system.


----------



## Franko (6 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Having listened to some individuals involved with the project to replace HRMS, I understand that Monitor MASS will not be supported on the new system (whatever year it rolls out) and data that is currently held in the MM database will be lost under the new system.  I also understand that the CF will not be allowing various commands to develop "plug-ins" or periphery software, so there will not be a Monitor MASS 2.
> 
> ... has anyone heard if the next generation HRMS will include the supervisor & managment tools that we currently get through Monitor MASS or will it be another exclusively RMS Clk piece of software?



Glad I keep updating UERs the old fashioned way....with a pen.

Regards


----------



## armyvern (6 Mar 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Glad I keep updating UERs the old fashioned way....with a pen.
> 
> Regards



Not me; I`ve been using MM for years now to do that, then I print a hard copy of whatever updated sheet after updating to put on the UER. makes for much easier searching when I have to find someone with qualification `X`to have it electronic (& complies with the Army`s thou shalt use MM)`line too.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not me; I`ve been using MM for years now to do that, then I print a hard copy of whatever updated sheet after updating to put on the UER. makes for much easier searching when I have to find someone with qualification `X`to have it electronic (& complies with the Army`s thou shalt use MM)`line too.



Same here. If there's something missing from the UER I'll either pen amend, put it into MM, or have the Regt Trg office put it into MM. Only problem I have with it is that you have to rely on someone else to do certain additions (IBTS, etc and it may just be the way my unit does it) instead of putting the onus on the supervisor to input the data.


----------



## Franko (7 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not me; I`ve been using MM for years now to do that, then I print a hard copy of whatever updated sheet after updating to put on the UER. makes for much easier searching when I have to find someone with qualification `X`to have it electronic (& complies with the Army`s thou shalt use MM)`line too.



Seeing that the powers that be have decided to not put any of us in the lower CoC on a MM training course or even given access, it's kind of hard to do any updates at all. Hence why all updates are done by the tried and true Bic pen.

When the powers that be decide it may be in their best interest to get Tp NCOs access, not just unit clerks, maybe it'll work the way it's supposed to.

Oh, and I (along with MANY others) have asked for access and some tutelage but to deaf ears. Just thought I'd throw it out there. It's not a particular unit thing either as I've been with 3 in the past 4 years. It's systemic and it's been identified too many times.

Regards


----------



## dangerboy (7 Mar 2011)

We are in the same boat, they don't run formal training on Monitor Mass but expect you to use it.  I basically taught myself how to use it and just went over and bugged our unit Monitor Mass administrator if I had any questions.  The good thing it is fairly easy to use once you play around with it.  But it does seem at least with the Combat Arms that they love to implement programs and never really train us to use them we are just supposed to learn on our own.


----------



## dogger1936 (7 Mar 2011)

Help Desk said:
			
		

> We currently have 17,000 satisfied customers who are using Monitor MASS across DND



Why am I still send parade states to base side in a excel worksheet? Why am I still forced to use excel to formulate per's qualifications?
I personally love MM; its the fact that half of this base refuses to use it, or don't update it to make it current....which makes it pointless.


----------



## CountDC (8 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The leave process is a no-brainer given that we are already doing it with the civilians using a web portal.



Yes and they can get rid of the requirement of military members on leave to have a copy of their leave pass on them and produce it when requested by a member of the Military Police or a superior rank.  Before it is asked - yes I have been required to show my leave pass to both in the past.

Have just started on MM and am so happy the navy finally switched.  Been waiting for it ever since my first look at it.  Keeps me from having to designe a database/spreadsheet everytime I change jobs or the highers decide they want something different.


----------



## Help Desk (13 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Having listened to some individuals involved with the project to replace HRMS, I understand that Monitor MASS will not be supported on the new system (whatever year it rolls out) and data that is currently held in the MM database will be lost under the new system.  I also understand that the CF will not be allowing various commands to develop "plug-ins" or periphery software, so there will not be a Monitor MASS 2.
> 
> ... has anyone heard if the next generation HRMS will include the supervisor & managment tools that we currently get through Monitor MASS or will it be another exclusively RMS Clk piece of software?



Monitor MASS is an Army funded application and other Command like the Navy are now contibuting to its development. Everything that is developed within Monitor MASS is something that is not found in HRMS currently and will not be in the new version of HRMS. So as long as we need to maintain UER , keep track of IBTS and Unit qualifications , process Class B Reserve Employment Opportunity - REO , maintain a Live Parade State automaticaly updated as soon as a CFTPO task (one of our program as well) , MITE course, an activity or leave pass is entered in Monitor MASS, Unit Agenda, Activity management which keep track of Activities/exercises with participants and the ability to grant IBTS and Unit qualifications at the end to all participants with a few Click of the mouse, keep track of jumps, keep trak of time at sea a new feature just built within Monitor MASS and more to come in the coming year.
So you can keep dreaming that PeopleSoft/HRMS will do all this in 20 years or encourage us in developing the features you need to do your job at a fraction of the cost of HRMS and does not provide what the Units and Chain of Command require for the day to day operation. 

Monitor MASS, CFTPO tasking program and CFRIS Range Information System are 3 interlink Critical CF applications and the CF could not function without them so saying that it will not be supported in the future is nonsense.


----------



## Help Desk (13 Mar 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Seeing that the powers that be have decided to not put any of us in the lower CoC on a MM training course or even given access, it's kind of hard to do any updates at all. Hence why all updates are done by the tried and true Bic pen.
> 
> When the powers that be decide it may be in their best interest to get Tp NCOs access, not just unit clerks, maybe it'll work the way it's supposed to.
> 
> ...



Granting access to new Users in Monitor MASS is a Unit and Chain of Command responsibility, we have over 1,200 individuals who have had the 5 days Train the Trainer course throughout the CF , if you need assistance you can contact your Bde, Area OPIs or our Help Desk at +Help Desk ASST


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2011)

Wow, 1200 trained out of how many? That's not even a drop in the bucket.

Perhaps get the entire CTC training staff in to get the training when there aren't any career courses impacted or operational units to attend when there aren't priority operations ongoing.

5 days may not be a lot, to someone who doesn't go to the field except to do their IBTS training once a year, but it's damn near impossible for most units.

How about scaling it down so the minions who actually administer the troops can get on.

Regards


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2011)

I believe there's a CBT module on the Monitor Mass website, pretty sure the link is in the helpfile. I've only been there once, but I'm probably going to have to go back to it with the recent change in the software.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2011)

Five days is for the Train the Trainer course.  Then they can instruct others (ie. Users) to use it on a one day course.  We don't have to train everyone to be a "Train the Trainer".


----------



## armyvern (13 Mar 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Wow, 1200 trained out of how many? That's not even a drop in the bucket.
> 
> Perhaps get the entire CTC training staff in to get the training when there aren't any career courses impacted or operational units to attend when there aren't priority operations ongoing.
> 
> ...



George has already addressed the 'non-need' for everyone to be Train the Trainer qualified. I don't know what is up at CTC, my previous 3 Units have all had MM usage as "mandatory" (& 3ASG Tech Svcs Br was a mandatory & "entire" usage). All *MCpls *and above were given anywhere from a 1 day to 2 day orientation course by our pers qualified TTT. We all used it (MCpl & above) and it worked -- but, then again, our Unit actually gave us access.

If your "powers that be" aren't giving you guys access to and/or training, then that is a Unit problem; not a MM problem and not an Army problem. 9erD was also using it for Sqn admin at his last Unit. It's 1 day ... 1 day, and you don't have to train everyone in your Unit on the same day ... the above stated op impact is overblown at best.


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> George has already addressed the 'non-need' for everyone to be Train the Trainer qualified. I don't know what is up at CTC, my previous 3 Units have all had MM usage as "mandatory" (& 3ASG Tech Svcs Br was a mandatory & "entire" usage). All *MCpls *and above were given anywhere from a 1 day to 2 day orientation course by our pers qualified TTT. We all used it (MCpl & above) and it worked -- but, then again, our Unit actually gave us access.
> 
> If your "powers that be" aren't giving you guys access and/or training, then that is a Unit problem; not a MM problem and not an Army problem. 9erD was also using it for Sqn admin at his last Unit.



It must not be a priority then. We have 2 guys that have access and no training in my unit alone and I know of one other in another.

I still have my Bic pen. 

Regards


----------



## armyvern (13 Mar 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> It must not be a priority then.
> Regards



Apparently not, but let's put the blame where it belongs; that's not on the system itself, or the Army.

Funny thing is, we all bitched when we had to 'switch over' at the 1st unit I was with who went the way of MM; but that forced switch actually ended up being a good thing. One day on course and then using MM showed the end result to be much more time on our hands to accomplish ops and trg support tasks because our pers admin workload dropped by about 75%. At my next two Units, I argued "for" the conversion because I knew what the end-result would be in the way of time and manpower actually 'saved" by utilizing it. Interesting how that works.


----------



## McG (13 Mar 2011)

Help Desk said:
			
		

> Monitor MASS is an Army funded application and other Command like the Navy are now contibuting to its development. Everything that is developed within Monitor MASS is something that is not found in HRMS currently and will not be in the new version of HRMS. So as long as we need to [_removed list of things_] a new feature just built within Monitor MASS and more to come in the coming year.
> 
> So you can keep dreaming that PeopleSoft/HRMS will do all this in 20 years or encourage us in developing the features you need to do your job at a fraction of the cost of HRMS and does not provide what the Units and Chain of Command require for the day to day operation.


You are dreaming if you think Monitor MASS will do any of this in 20 yrs.  The current version of HRMS is being replaced in a few years.  The new program will not support Monitor MASS.  It is a great program and I believe we need most of what it does for us.  However, knowing that it will become unsupportable, at what point do we stop pumping resources (money & effort) into developing Monitor MASS and instead put those resources toward supporting the HRMS replacement that is already on the horizon?

Unique "skunk-works" solutions increase software lifecycle costs exponentially.  We have started planning for the next bound in HR software - we need to make sure all of our requirements are addressed in one platform (as mentioned, this may _will_ also require we change the way we do some pers admin).


----------



## turretmonster (15 Mar 2011)

"The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "

Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM?  Expand and define please.

TM


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2011)

HRMS provides tombstone HR and organizational data to MM.

MM then permits users to bastardize that data to no end - redrawing org charts (which requires VCDS authority, not Cpl Bloggins at 5 RCR), changing tombstone data ("Why did my T4 go to my old address?  It was changed in MM!") and others.  The classic MMism was when someone changed master data so the three Reg F infantry Bns in LFWA were labelled as "Princess Patricia's Canadian Mechanized Infantry".  When basic organizational information like that can be corrupted with no audit trail to discover what happened it means the tool is not ready for prime time - it has no data integrity.


MM does provide some functionality that is needed and some that is nice-to-have.  But to claim the CF would collapse if it were turned off tomorrow is a mis-statement of fact.


----------



## cavalryman (15 Mar 2011)

turretmonster said:
			
		

> "The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "
> 
> Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM?  Expand and define please.
> 
> TM



MM gets a weekly data dump from HRMS, flat-file style, to populate the data fields that MM duplicates.  That is all.   A much smarter approach would be to apply the old "enter data once, use many times" principle by having the functionality MM has that PeopleSoft doesn't bolted-on to HRMS so the same database gets many uses.  But as long as DND keeps turning a blind eye to inefficient IM practices, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2011)

turretmonster said:
			
		

> "The new program will not support Monitor MASS. "
> 
> Confusion from the ranks of the datatypes as to what "support" you think HRMS old or new provides to MM?


HRMS provides MM with information.  That information comes from a database.  When HRMS changes, the database will change.  Mapping information between different databases & designing gates to regularly move information between different databases is a millions of dollars effort.  The "support" is access to information in a DB that MM understands.  That will be gone.

We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.


----------



## turretmonster (15 Mar 2011)

Millions to map a database? Tell me you are kidding. 

PM me for directions to my office. Maybe if I show you how its done.    

TM


----------



## JMesh (15 Mar 2011)

Out of curiosity, if they are making a new HRMS system, why can this not incorporate Monitor Mass? Right now, we have numerous systems and we're trying to make them all work off of information from each other, and when changes are made in some they won't necessarily be uploaded to the others (depends which system they are edited in). I would think it prudent that with the development of a new system, elements from numerous existing systems (including but not limited to HRMS, MM, MITE, CFTPO, CFPAS, FMS, the supply system which I can't recall the name for, etc.). As I understand it (feel free to correct me), the information in most of these is downloaded into MM, so having it all in one system could be very beneficial. I understand that this would be a huge undertaking, but then every system is on the same page and members could have the opportunity to check their own complete information more readily, ensuring more accurate records. Furthermore, there are no issues with wondering whether or not the information is the same across the board and the CoC has complete immediate access to all records pertaining to their personnel. As with current systems, different permissions could be provided to different users.

Has an idea like this been discussed on here before?


----------



## cavalryman (15 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> HRMS provides MM with information.  That information comes from a database.  When HRMS changes, the database will change.  Mapping information between different databases & designing gates to regularly move information between different databases is a millions of dollars effort.  The "support" is access to information in a DB that MM understands.  That will be gone.
> 
> We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.



Not quite as dramatic.  What HRMS now provides MM is an extract pulled by a SQL query, just like any other report or extract provided by HRMS to other apps, such as MASIS.  To simplify, these extracts contain whatever info the receiving system needs in a given sequence that the receiving system can upload - think of it as a big text file.  No mapping (in the database admin sense) is required.  All of the queries for the various interfaces HRMS has with other apps will have to be rewritten when MPMCT rolls out PeopleSoft version 9.x, and that will likely be part of the project's mandate.  What you're referring to is more of a live connection between databases, which can indeed get very complex very fast.  But extracts built to pull the information the receiving system needs is pretty simple in comparison.  Now whether or not MM will be needed once MPMCT rolls out, is a different question, one which the folks in CMP working on the project are best placed to answer.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Mar 2011)

This whole "Monitor Mass" will die thing irks me a little bit. It'll only die if the new HR application uses something completely different than SQL databases. Yes, you'll have to modify the query to cover the new fields, but you're not re-writing the whole application. If we go to something SAP based like DRMIS, then I could see MM being made obsolete. I personally hope we don't see something SAP based... it appears to be UNIX based and not very user friendly (at least DRMIS isn't).


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2011)

turretmonster said:
			
		

> Millions to map a database? Tell me you are kidding.


I am not.  





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We would be wasting millions (or more) to build a new Monitor MASS & re-engineer the mapping of information between databases when we could instead put all neccessary functionalities into the new core system.


If you take all the costs of re-building monitor MASS to function from a new database then you are getting there.  Throw on the cost of product/lifecycle support for two sets of HR software (HRMS next + Monitor MASS next) and the programming to keep the skunk-work compatible everytime the core system evolves ... and as part of the initial re-building and the lifecycle support, you will have to include the salaries of all the PS who would not be required if we supported a single software system.  



			
				turretmonster said:
			
		

> PM me for directions to my office. Maybe if I show you how its done.


I've been through LSEC a few times.  I've been shown what is required to data map between DBs.



			
				JMesh said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, if they are making a new HRMS system, why can this not incorporate Monitor Mass? Right now, we have numerous systems and we're trying to make them all work off of information from each other, and when changes are made in some they won't necessarily be uploaded to the others (depends which system they are edited in). I would think it prudent that with the development of a new system, elements from numerous existing systems (including but not limited to HRMS, MM, MITE, CFTPO, CFPAS, FMS, the supply system which I can't recall the name for, etc.). As I understand it (feel free to correct me), the information in most of these is downloaded into MM, so having it all in one system could be very beneficial. I understand that this would be a huge undertaking, but then every system is on the same page and members could have the opportunity to check their own complete information more readily, ensuring more accurate records. Furthermore, there are no issues with wondering whether or not the information is the same across the board and the CoC has complete immediate access to all records pertaining to their personnel. As with current systems, different permissions could be provided to different users.
> 
> Has an idea like this been discussed on here before?


It is being discussed here.  It is what I am saying we should be doing instead of investing more into MM.


----------



## JMesh (15 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is being discussed here.  It is what I am saying we should be doing instead of investing more into MM.



Seen. Don't know how I missed that.

Completely agree with your points on financial gain as well. In developing one system, we eliminate the need for extraneous systems and updating them every time we update the core system.

Additionally, I think on that point we'll also save our members a lot of time that definitely could be put to better use. The time it takes to train and re-train on a system and put the information into/verify the information within multiple systems could be better spent on any number of tasks. If it's all rolled into one, a member need only re-train on the updated area, and only if it affects them (rather than training on a new updated secondary system).


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Mar 2011)

I believe MM only had a niche market because nobody thought of giving end-user access to parts of HRMS and Peoplesoft when it came out. If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I........ If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.



Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is the norm for the Cdn Government, it does pose some very serious problems.  Do these people have the necessary Security Clearances is one of the first questions; but not as serious as: Will they document everything that they do in the development of this new program?  So often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.  Thus when 'bugs' do appear, no one is in the know as to what was done in setting up the program and thousands of man hours have to be spent deconstructing and reconstructing the contractor's work to figure out what they did.  

Monitor Mass and HRMS are only two such programs that we are using that have bugs that no one knows how to fix.  There are other programs as well that have serious bugs that can not be fixed.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Mar 2011)

It all depends on how the contract is written, and whether there is a support agreement. I'm not sure if thats a PWGSC thing, or whether the CF will state the requirements for after release support and that gets passed on to the contractor during the bidding process. For security clearances, that would be up to the company bidding to have the appropriate people.


----------



## PanaEng (16 Mar 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is the norm for the Cdn Government, it does pose some very serious problems.  Do these people have the necessary Security Clearances is one of the first questions; but not as serious as: Will they document everything that they do in the development of this new program?  So often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.  Thus when 'bugs' do appear, no one is in the know as to what was done in setting up the program and thousands of man hours have to be spent deconstructing and reconstructing the contractor's work to figure out what they did.


There are tons of SW developer contractors with TS, etc. individually or with accredited companies.
Contract should always specify the deliverables as well as the criteria for accepting the deliverable - acceptance testing.  These should obviously include any Architectural design, detailed design, unit testing, integration testing, all source code and supporting libraries and user documentation documents - not just a CD with the install script and a binary file.
Unfortunately, that doesn't usually happen.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Monitor Mass and HRMS are only two such programs that we are using that have bugs that no one knows how to fix.  There are other programs as well that have serious bugs that can not be fixed.


Maybe there are people that know how to fix them - probably know exactly what line of code should be changed - but then you have to test the whole thing, deploy, etc. all things that cost money. And with talk of budget cuts, interfaces becoming obsolete, new SW coming out, etc. the attitude may be to just let it be and wait to see what happens.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## McG (16 Mar 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although hiring "Contractors" to develop these programs is ...     ... often is the case that a contractor develops a program and six months later is gone, leaving behind no documentation of what they did.


George,
I think you are confusing the suggestion that we contract for a product (ie we buy something from a software developer company) with the prectice of contracting pseudo-employees (a practice we are infact not supposed to be doing) to work in DND and build the program as part of a DND development team.


----------



## Help Desk (22 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I believe MM only had a niche market because nobody thought of giving end-user access to parts of HRMS and Peoplesoft when it came out. If we contract a new HR platform that includes allowing Sect Comds and above to access the same level of data that MM provides (and obviously with less bugs since it will be developed from scratch), I'd be happy to throw a shovel of dirt onto the MM gravesite.



Monitor MASS was develop from Scratch by our programmers and yes there is some bugs that come up from time to time but there are usually fix quite rapidly, sometime the same day.  Almost all Org within the CF (17,000 users) are now using Monitor MASS in one form or another depending on their need and are extremely happy with it. The more you use it the more you realize how much work and precious time it can save you.


----------



## brihard (7 Dec 2011)

Gratuitously bumping this- hasn't been discussed in some time.

I'm friggin' in love with this program. I'm trainer qualified, and use it all the damned time at my unit for various ops / section administration stuff. I'm not even being a sarcastic prick, I genuinely think it's a fantastic piece of software 99% of the time.

A few things I've notice of late-

Class A reserve service now shows up on personal calendars. As a section commander I can see every day of Cl A my guys have worked back to December 2010. Helpful for diagnosing 'Where's my pay?' or seeing at a glance if a guy's been working an awful lot and may need a waiver.

Today (or in the past day or two) it also added data draw from FMS. I can see all the driver quals for my guys. Querying driver quals is still clunky to the point of dysfunctional (we need a "who can drive ___, ____ and ____?" query option), but the info is there and can be clicked through quickly if you're hunting for something specific.

I wish the PRV module could spit out a G/Y/R grid for an entire subunit- though it may be I just haven't figured out a clever way to export it yet. But the potential's there.

I really like how this is a visible 'work in progress', and how as functional as it is they keep adding new stuff. It's a tool whose value increases proportionately with the 'buy in' within the unit, but I've found it tremendously useful.


----------



## dangerboy (7 Dec 2011)

Where in MM do you go to see what driver quals a pers has?


----------



## xFusilier (8 Dec 2011)

Its in the readiness and accomplishments window there's two icons which appear to resemble a LAV.  One gives current qualifications and the other gives the qualification history.


----------



## Demosthanes (8 Dec 2011)

I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?


----------



## dangerboy (8 Dec 2011)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Its in the readiness and accomplishments window there's two icons which appear to resemble a LAV.  One gives current qualifications and the other gives the qualification history.


Thanks, this is very usefull


----------



## turretmonster (8 Dec 2011)

"I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?"

An internal to HRMS MM-like capacity or actual MM tacked on the side of the MPMCT using middleware to link the two? 

TM


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2011)

Demosthanes said:
			
		

> I am curious to know what the reaction would be to MM if the MPMCT project brings in HRMS 9.x with full MM capability?


Joy.

HRMS is currenlty a clerks tool that is largely not understood by anyone else.  MPMCT needs to deliver a single system that contains the HRMS clerk tools of old, but there also must be management tools (HRMS & MM), supervisor tools (MM) and member tools (think EMAA).

Now, where I mention "HRMS clerk tools of old" I am being more descriptive than perscriptive.  If changes to process eliminate the need for tools, or require new tools to be created, then those should be placed where needed.


----------



## Demosthanes (12 Jan 2012)

Turretmonster:
A full on replacement of MM in the new HRMS 9.x.  That is what MPMCT is going to shoot for.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jan 2012)

So if HRMS is replacing MM, how are supervisors going to have access to HRMS? We've just spent 2 years getting people up to speed on using MM properly in the Army and now they're all going to have to do HRMS courses to administer their troops?


----------



## Demosthanes (17 Jan 2012)

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..).  Specifics are not yet available in this early phase of the project.

The training for the new system will most likely be focused on the use of on-line training and coaching functions.  Admin folks will get a bit more, as can be expected.  Once again the details will become clear as we get closer to delivery.


----------



## turretmonster (17 Jan 2012)

In essence, same functionality, just a different login.  Most DL stuff for HRMS is pretty simple to learn and coach is always avail for when you forget a step. 

TM


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2012)

Of course, one hope the Primary Reserve will be considered, with limited DWAN access, but ubiquitous internet access.  Opening some access to the internet wil go a long way to supporting the part-time Reserve; keeping things in close will (again) ignore their requirements.


----------



## Demosthanes (18 Jan 2012)

Good point DA.
Nothing like getting the Iltis with Goodyear Arriva's as OEM rubber.  Fun to watch in the sand.  Those were the days.
The reserves and especially the P Res are getting a lot of consideration at MPMCT.  I will be sorely disappointed if smiles are missing from P Res RMS clerks when HRMS 9.x rolls out.  Still a watch and shoot, but expectations are high.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jan 2012)

I'm less concerend about RMS clerks (who have computers) than about the Pte/Cpls on the armoury floor who don't have regular DWAN access but who still need to maintain their HR information.

Indeed, there's a statement of capability deficiency to be written about the current DND IM/IT systems and how they fail to provide a viable backbone for the part-time Reserve.  The overly restrictive Internet policies make it a challenge to effectively communicate with troops via electronic means - at least, it's hard if you try to follow the rules.


----------



## McG (7 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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...)





			
				Demosthanes said:
			
		

> 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 (24 Feb 2012)

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 (24 Feb 2012)

clericalchronicals said:
			
		

> 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 (24 Feb 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 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 (24 Apr 2012)

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 (24 Apr 2012)

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 (25 Apr 2012)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Apr 2012)

clericalchronicals said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Apr 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (25 Apr 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> 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 (25 Apr 2012)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> 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 (28 Mar 2013)

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 (28 Mar 2013)

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


----------



## donaldk (28 Mar 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (28 Mar 2013)

donaldk said:
			
		

> 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 (29 Mar 2013)

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 (29 Mar 2013)

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 (31 Mar 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## McG (1 Apr 2013)

donaldk said:
			
		

> HRMS is a great RMS clerk tool, for the rest of us it won't do since we don't get to play with it…


That is a seperate problem.  The PS has supervisor tools within HRMS.  We need the same.

The project to update HRMS has no mandate to maintain MoniorMASS compatibility, and staff have come right out and said there will be no comparability.  It is time to account for member and supervisor requirements in the baseline system.


----------



## McG (24 Apr 2013)

Does Monitor MASS have the ability to produce a sub unit or sub-sub unit works program based on pers being assigned to activities in the unit calendar?


----------



## 392 (24 Apr 2013)

It does, but it's pretty painful and limited.


----------



## McG (24 Apr 2013)

What is the trick to doing that?


----------



## 392 (25 Apr 2013)

[Not a MM Wizard]Highlight the subunit you want to display on the left side of the screen. In the centre of the screen, click on "Agenda" tab (should be to the right of the Position and Nominal tabs, and then click "Get Data". The Gaant chart (sp?) pops up. You can manoeuvre between views, but it is really basic in all forms.[/Not a MM Wizard] 

I much prefer to use our local Excel sheet with all the pretty colours to see who's doing what when. And I make sure to leave out the arrows and double lines as that would just add confusion to those tri-service types who work for me and have never really seen the elusive works program ;D


----------

