# DND IT takes a great leap forward



## AmmoTech90 (9 Dec 2013)

I used DWAN's search and the first hit was actually useful!


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2013)

I think you're several months early on that post.  Today isn't April 1st.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (19 Dec 2013)

We can only hope that with SSC taking over DWAN that a government wide search algorithm is in the works.

Then we have to hope it isn't worse than the current one, but that would be quite a feat!


----------



## Occam (19 Dec 2013)

I think you underestimate SSC's ability to take a barely-functioning resource and turn it into a smoking heap of silicon.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (19 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> I think you underestimate SSC's ability to take a barely-functioning resource and turn it into a smoking heap of silicon.



I'm a techno optimist. And I actually think the lofty ambitions behind SSC make sense if they do what they say they will. 

There's 3000 separate network enclaves in GOC. I think the Byzantines had a better planned communication network.


----------



## Shrek1985 (19 Dec 2013)

Aw sweet! We got the Windows-7 computers!

...

never mind, they just put a sticker on it, they still run XP and the old version of explorer...


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (19 Dec 2013)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Aw sweet! We got the Windows-7 computers!
> 
> ...
> 
> never mind, they just put a sticker on it, they still run XP and the old version of explorer...



Hey! IE 8 was just rolled out! Yes, the rest of the world is now on IE 10, but at least my bank's website won't keep suggesting I get with the times and upgrade to a newer browser.

The word I got on Windows 7 (from a reliable source) is fully rolled out by March 31, though I also recently heard from a less reliable source that the support contract was extended to July.


----------



## MJP (19 Dec 2013)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Hey! IE 8 was just rolled out! Yes, the rest of the world is now on IE 10, but at least my bank's website won't keep suggesting I get with the times and upgrade to a newer browser.
> 
> The word I got on Windows 7 (from a reliable source) is fully rolled out by March 31, though I also recently heard from a less reliable source that the support contract was extended to July.



Hopefully DRMIS will be able to work on it soon or else the CFSS side of the house is in for a rough time.


----------



## Occam (19 Dec 2013)

Just wait until everyone finds out that they won't be able to put their Outlook personal folders (the ones that are in use, anyways) on their network drive anymore, and that the personal folders will have to be stored locally.  I hope they'll have an automated backup solution in place that will at least allow the backups to the network.


----------



## MJP (19 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Just wait until everyone finds out that they won't be able to put their Outlook personal folders (the ones that are in use, anyways) on their network drive anymore, and that the personal folders will have to be stored locally.  I hope they'll have an automated backup solution in place that will at least allow the backups to the network.



The funny part is I have heard more about that, then the pending inability to use DRMIS.


----------



## Rheostatic (19 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Just wait until everyone finds out that they won't be able to put their Outlook personal folders (the ones that are in use, anyways) on their network drive anymore, and that the personal folders will have to be stored locally.  I hope they'll have an automated backup solution in place that will at least allow the backups to the network.


Why's that?


----------



## Occam (19 Dec 2013)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I work with DRMIS on a daily basis, and it still boggles me.  The simple tools I used to use (CFSS, DRP, CFSS WQT, Visual R&O Query Tool, etc.) have all been replaced by a behemoth that makes me drink from a fire hose every time I need a simple little piece of information.  Eventually it'll get fixed up as we move along and discover that DRMIS doesn't do something we need it to do, and pay a SAP programmer $$$ to rewrite something.

But I also have a need to access over 10 years of my predecessor's personal folders, as well as my own personal folders - all stored on the network (right now).  It's easy enough to move it all to my local drive, but there had better be a way to ensure that when I move it there, it can be backed up to somewhere on the network so it doesn't go *poof* if my laptop blows up.



			
				Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Why's that?



Windows 7 and/or Outlook 2010 won't allow you to access personal folders on a network share.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2013)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Why's that?



That is the way that system is designed, combined with the fact that someone in some high tower somewhere probably thought that everyone in the CF only used one workstation, or had a workstation that was highly portable.   :-\


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> But I also have a need to access over 10 years of my predecessor's personal folders, as well as my own personal folders - all stored on the network (right now).  It's easy enough to move it all to my local drive, but there had better be a way to ensure that when I move it there, it can be backed up to somewhere on the network so it doesn't go *poof* if my laptop blows up.
> 
> Windows 7 and/or Outlook 2010 won't allow you to access personal folders on a network share.



I know that the IT folk are upset with the amount of stuff we have saved on their Server Drives.  Simple solution would have been to increase the size of those Drives.  Now you need to increase the size of the Drives on all our DWAN computers or issue external Hard Drives that one can transport from location to location.........................Or everyone works on secure laptops (with large hard drives that can handle the storage necessary for one's work.)   TB is going the route of using laptops and doing away with all desktops.  I imagine they are taking the lead in encouraging other Depts to do likewise.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Dec 2013)

And if you log into a WINDOWS 7 workstation and then move back to one with WINDOWS XP, your mail profile gets screwed up.....  :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2013)

Windows 8 has been released so in two years when Windows 9 is out, we'll upgrade to 8.


 :facepalm:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Dec 2013)

Sounds about right Jim..... :christmas happy:


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Dec 2013)

It'll be a moot point soon since the storage of Outlook will increase from 90 MB to 1GB per user.  

We upgraded to Windows 7 couple weeks ago.  Way better than XP. 

Windows 8 sucks.  By the trend, we will buy Windows 9 next.  It seems every second Windows sucks.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Dec 2013)

At least we moved up the almost latest version of Microsoft office....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2013)

"The CAF...use *yesterdays technology...today!"



*not limited to Baseline computers.   8)


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (19 Dec 2013)

First, storing mail in a pst file on a network drive makes no sense, that's why it's never been supported by Microsoft, going back as far as Exchange 4.0. Pst files are for local storage, they use file commands, not network driven commands, and this causes a lot of overhead when you are working directly back and forth to a network stored pst.

Second, mail is ALREADY stored on a server, it's stored on the Exchange server AND it's usually backed up on a NAS. We don't need to download email, and then archive it back on a file and print server, only then to AGAIN back it up on the NAS. Essentially then you have 4 copies of the same email on the servers, and 1 copy on the workstation.

Third, there is PLENTY of local storage on a computer for email you are working with. If the system craps out your mailbox with the associated mail is located on the exchange server and backed up to the NAS.  DND should be increasing the mailboxes to 1 Gb soon. If your really worried about keeping your own copy of your email then download it to a usb key (DND issued, of course  )



Finally, regarding Windows 7. It is, by far, the greatest OS Microsoft has ever put out. DND is slow to move on OS, but this is a VERY good thing. Think about it, if we had jumped on the bandwagon we could have been stuck with Vista, or even worse, moving on to Windows 8. My computer now is using Windows 8. It feels like two separate OS tied together with bubblegum and shoelace. And they put the less desireable OS on top.

Hint on how Microsoft Releases OS. First they release a bad OS, then they release a server OS then they release a good desktop OS. (Millenium, Windows Server 2000, Windows Xp) (Vista, Server 2008 [+R2 upgrade], Windows 7)


----------



## Occam (19 Dec 2013)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> First, storing mail in a pst file on a network drive makes no sense, that's why it's never been supported by Microsoft, going back as far as Exchange 4.0. Pst files are for local storage, they use file commands, not network driven commands, and this causes a lot of overhead when you are working directly back and forth to a network stored pst.



Sure it's been supported, it's what is in use now.  I agree that it's not the best practice, but until we upgrade beyond Outlook 2003 you don't have many options.



> Second, mail is ALREADY stored on a server, it's stored on the Exchange server AND it's usually backed up on a NAS. We don't need to download email, and then archive it back on a file and print server, only then to AGAIN back it up on the NAS. Essentially then you have 4 copies of the same email on the servers, and 1 copy on the workstation.



That's not entirely accurate.  Mail comes in, it's in your Exchange mailbox.  That's one copy.  It gets backed up to a SAN/NAS.  That's two copies.  If you want to move it to a PST folder, you drag it from your Exchange mailbox to your Personal Folder (stored locally), causing it to be deleted from the Exchange Mailbox.  That's still two copies.  Then you back up your PST to the network, that's three copies.  The backup of the Exchange mailboxes doesn't continue forever, so the message will eventually be deleted from there as well.  You're back to two copies (one local, one backed up on a file & print).

I agree Outlook 2007/2010 have better methods of dealing with personal archive mailboxes, but I don't believe they're backward compatible with .pst files, are they?  Meaning you can't transfer your mail from the old .pst files to the new personal archive mailboxes, can you?



> Third, there is PLENTY of local storage on a computer for email you are working with. If the system craps out your mailbox with the associated mail is located on the exchange server and backed up to the NAS.  DND should be increasing the mailboxes to 1 Gb soon. If your really worried about keeping your own copy of your email then download it to a usb key (DND issued, of course  )



"Plenty" is a relative term.  The 10 years of archived mail from my predecessor(s) get accessed quite frequently, and I'm pretty sure there's at least 5-10 GB of mail there.

If they want to start saving space on the Exchange servers, they should inhibit the ability to embed bitmaps into your e-mail (some people's signature blocks are big offenders) and force people to use JPG attachments.  Nothing drives me battier than to get a 10 MB screenshot or two, and then a couple of 10-15 MB PDF files to completely fill my mailbox while I'm out of the office for a few days.

I'm looking forward to using Windows 7 at work.  I've been using it at home since it was in beta over four years ago.  I'd have to agree that it's probably the best OS that MS has released, and I've been using everything since MS-DOS v.5 or so...


----------



## Benzyme (20 Dec 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Windows 8 has been released so in two years when Windows 9 is out, we'll upgrade to 8.
> 
> 
> :facepalm:


2 Years? We've been on a 10 Year old operating system for the past... 10 years.

We will all be on Windows 7 until MS no longer supports it. Think another 10-12 years.

Windows 10 will be out by the time we switch from 7.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> 2 Years? We've been on a 10 Year old operating system for the past... 10 years.
> 
> We will all be on Windows 7 until MS no longer supports it. Think another 10-12 years.
> 
> Windows 10 will be out by the time we switch from 7.



That's pretty close to it.

My provincial IT is the same. They won't upgrade until MS stops supporting the current installation, whether it's the OS or a program like Office.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2013)

And why should DND spend millions in time and money to constantly upgrade to the latest version of solitaire?

If it works, why break it?


----------



## Benzyme (20 Dec 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And why should DND spend millions in time and money to constantly upgrade to the latest version of solitaire?
> 
> If it works, why break it?



That's a good point, and I'm not going to argue with that.


----------



## Drag (20 Dec 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And why should DND spend millions in time and money to constantly upgrade to the latest version of solitaire?
> 
> If it works, why break it?


We are almost never at the latest version of any software....  But we still need to be on call it the "next-to-latest" version because of vendor support, manly fixes and patches for known security issues problems.  Up to date patching addresses probably 70+ of the known IT security threats out there and lets us concentrate of the higher end threats.  Developing our own for a non-supported piece of software would be a nightmare and much more expensive than keeping up with the vendor releases.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2013)

D3 said:
			
		

> We are almost never at the latest version of any software....  But we still need to be on call it the "next-to-latest" version because of vendor support, manly fixes and patches for known security issues problems.  Up to date patching addresses probably 70+ of the known IT security threats out there and lets us concentrate of the higher end threats.  Developing our own for a non-supported piece of software would be a nightmare and much more expensive than keeping up with the vendor releases.



Don't forget that DND and the CAF are not the sole users of IT.  All Government Departments are at the mercy of Treasury Board when it comes to approval or not of adopting new or upgrading IT.  They control the purse strings.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2013)

D3 said:
			
		

> We are almost never at the latest version of any software....  But we still need to be on call it the "next-to-latest" version because of vendor support, manly fixes and patches for known security issues problems.  Up to date patching addresses probably 70+ of the known IT security threats out there and lets us concentrate of the higher end threats.  Developing our own for a non-supported piece of software would be a nightmare and much more expensive than keeping up with the vendor releases.



But that's still no reason to go bleeding edge.  We have a complex software ecosystem; upgrading X can break Y.  Keep the foundation stable for as long as possible.


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Dec 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> The funny part is I have heard more about that, then the pending inability to use DRMIS.



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


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2013)

My Outlook box is my main tool for communicating, I average 100-200 files at any one time, some them huge projects and receive massive amount of project related e-mails. Often it comes to fast to digest, so I move them into a unique folder for that project, which will contain various sub folders for the different issues. It's not perfect, but it's far better than any other method of quickly and efficiently receiving, storing, accessing, reviewing and forwarding large amounts of information. 

As for SSC, forget ever again getting useful support for your issues. It will become a beast who's sole purpose in life is to generate "ticket numbers" to justify it's own existence. Even now try making useful changes to your department website and you are caught in a maze that supports the "Common look, Common feel, Common suck" mantra. I should bill IT everytime I have to help a proponent navigate the crap to masquerades as our website.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2013)

Any Unit Ops WO will tell you that their life is going to be very miserable without the capacity to create and store email files.  Converting large amounts of emails to some other format for storage will become very time consuming (If that is the solution IT folk have come up with).  There are people who have to deal with large amounts of email traffic daily, and archive it for future reference.  Any loss of that capability will have a drastic affect on productivity.


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2013)

Glad to see Windows 7 is up and running in-service now. I've used it privately for years and it's a very stable platform.

Not so glad to see the continuing use of Outlook in its old fashion. My last job when I was serving was working for three years to deliver an new records management solution for JAG. Our biggest enemy was Outlook which has two major records management issues: Firstly by storing email in an individual's Outlook account, the emails (i.e. corporate records) were not transferable to an individual's successor (i.e. the records were stored by user rather than by file or project). Secondly, these emails did not become part of the corporate file for record keeping purposes dictated by Archives Canada legislation.

The work around had been that users had to print off the emails that they considered corporate records and then place them in the paper files. A cumbersome and paper wasteful system prone to many errors of duplication or omission. 

We solved the problem by requiring the use of RDIMS which provided for the ability to make files transferable from user to user and saved all electronic records associated to a file/project. RDIMS was not my favourite records management program solution but was the mandated one by ADM(IM) and was quite usable.

If some of you are wondering why it takes so long to role out software and why it's always a version behind, the answer is quite simple, it takes the IM security guys a long time to kick the programs tires to ensure it doesn't import system vulnerabilities and that it plays nicely in the box with all the other programs/servers/etc that it needs to be compatible with. We have too few security folks and too vast a system to do that quickly.

 :subbies:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Dec 2013)

I thought you could save emails to a thumb drive.?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I thought you could save emails to a thumb drive.?



You need to have a thumb drive that has been issued you by DND.  If you don't, you can't.  If you insert a USB stick that is not DND issue, you will have the Fun Police lock your acct and more fun things.   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2013)

RDMIN's the creator of which should be burned in the eternal flames of hell. Our IM is all about compliance regardless of the cost to the ability to conduct our core functions which is service to Canadians and industry in safe  and timely manner. If I followed process to the letter, it would cut my work production to a 1/4 of what I do now. In the last 15 years I have watched the steady creep of process into the system like vine strangling a tree. It is the virus.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You need to have a thumb drive that has been issued you by DND.  If you don't, you can't.  If you insert a USB stick that is not DND issue, you will have the Fun Police lock your acct and more fun things.   :nod:



Not true.  Just take your stick to the IT section so they can check it for viruses.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not true.  Just take your stick to the IT section so they can check it for viruses.



As long as they scrub it and approve it, OK.....Some IT sections are not as accommodating.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Dec 2013)

Thought most places had stand alone scrubbers? My unit has at least 3 of them....


----------



## Occam (20 Dec 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not true.  Just take your stick to the IT section so they can check it for viruses.



By the letter of the law, only DND USB sticks may be used on a DND network.  There's no latitude given in the security orders.  Some units may be turning a blind eye to it, but it's not legal.


----------



## Occam (20 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> 2 Years? We've been on a 10 Year old operating system for the past... 10 years.



Not quite.  XP didn't get widespread rollout in DND until 2007 or so.  We were using Windows 2000 until then.  I know this because my section at a small base reimaged over 1000 workstations and laptops during that timeframe.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> By the letter of the law, only DND USB sticks may be used on a DND network.  There's no latitude given in the security orders.  Some units may be turning a blind eye to it, but it's not legal.



 :dunno:

Until DND issues a USB stick to everyone, I guess people will continue to by-pass the system.


----------



## Occam (20 Dec 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> :dunno:
> 
> Until DND issues a USB stick to everyone, I guess people will continue to by-pass the system.



They will - but you have to ask and sign for it.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2013)

Yeah, I have one.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (23 Dec 2013)

Let's be clear here, no personal USB sticks are permitted on DND networks, no matter how "well scrubbed" they are. 

The reason for this is simple, DND is not so much concerned with things getting on its networks, but they are much more concerned with things getting off the network. 

This is why can always use things on a higher level network, you just can't ever use it on a lower level network. 

Any help desk that says otherwise is misinformed.


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Dec 2013)

So Rado,

Are you indirectly stating that no DND USB stick can be used on a non-DND computer?  Otherwise it would be just as easy to take things off the network on DND USB and then transfer to civilian computer.  If this is the case how do people work at home on PERs?


----------



## Journeyman (23 Dec 2013)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Any help desk that says otherwise is misinformed.


Help Desk speaks only to Monitor MASS.....and he's _never_ misinformed; he is *Zuul* -- bureaucratic demigod and minion of *Gozer*  er, *Monitor MASS!*   :bowdown:


----------



## Drag (23 Dec 2013)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So Rado,
> 
> Are you indirectly stating that no DND USB stick can be used on a non-DND computer?  Otherwise it would be just as easy to take things off the network on DND USB and then transfer to civilian computer.  If this is the case how do people work at home on PERs?



DND USB sticks are not supposed to be used on non-DND machines.  Any time that a DND USB stick was used on a non-DWAN computer it needs to be scrubbed.  For PERs we loaned out standalone laptops for pers that didn't have a DVPNI laptop issued.  Failing that, the advice was to used e-mail to send draft text, provided that it was appropriately scrubbed of all personal identifying information as per the CFPAS  guidelines.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2013)

D3 said:
			
		

> For PERs we loaned out standalone laptops for pers that didn't have a DVPNI laptop issued.  Failing that, the advice was to used e-mail to send draft text, provided that it was appropriately scrubbed of all personal identifying information as per the CFPAS  guidelines.



Rightly or wrongly, once again, this type of policy works only for those that spend all their time in some cubicle somewhere or someone, usually a siggie, that has all kinds of access to spare IT equipment.

Most people in the CAF don't inhabit cubicles, many have no choice but to take their work home and do it there.

Then there's the Reserves, who also have to produce PER and PDRs. Ever try borrow a laptop from a Reserve unit?  Or attempt to do all your PERs on a shared desktop that takes 45 minutes on a three hour parade night to change user profiles?

Rightly or wrongly, people have to use workarounds in order to do a simple aspect of their job.

I'm not defending breaking the rules, I'm saying in a lot of cases, there's no other choice and remain proficient.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2013)

D3 said:
			
		

> DND USB sticks are not supposed to be used on non-DND machines.  Any time that a DND USB stick was used on a non-DWAN computer it needs to be scrubbed.  For PERs we loaned out standalone laptops for pers that didn't have a DVPNI laptop issued.  Failing that, the advice was to used e-mail to send draft text, provided that it was appropriately scrubbed of all personal identifying information as per the CFPAS  guidelines.



unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Reserve units have nowhere near enough computers for this to work.  Sending draft text by email assumes regular access to a DWAN computer, which doesn't happen.  So the COAs get built on "Which instruction am I going to ignore - IT security, or production of PERs?"


----------



## 421_434_226 (23 Dec 2013)

Scrubbers are the old school name they are now known as Trusted Transfer Stations (TTS) (or at least this week they are) to take work home the proper way according to our Base ISSO is to;

transfer file on DWAN system to appropriate issued DWAN USB stick
transfer file on DWAN USB stick to file (desktop) of the TTS
scan file using updated AV software on the TTS
transfer file from TTS to personal USB stick
take file home work on return to work
transfer file from personal USB stick to file (desktop) of the TTS
scan with updated AV software on the TTS
transfer file from TTS to the appropriate DWAN USB stick
transfer file from the DWAN USB stick to the DWAN system
ensure that any files being transferred do not remain on the TTS by cut and paste vice copy and paste

As the TTS is not connected to any network, AV on the TTS is kept updated by local user, IT Rep or local tech, scanning software update file is usually obtained from local IT personnel or on a shared drive from the DWAN system using burnt CD or DWAN USB stick.
Use of unauthorized USB sticks on DWAN systems can result in locking of the user account.


----------



## cupper (23 Dec 2013)

I think that someone needs to go back in time and kick Bill Gates in the nuts.

Maybe even go back earlier than that and find Mr. Turing and explain the realities of 21st century computing.

Technology will be the downfall of civilization. The Luddites will rule.


----------



## DAA (23 Dec 2013)

Yup, I'd have to agree with Gizmo 421.

Whether it is an issued stick or a personal stick, once it has been used on a "non-DWAN" system, it must be scanned or processed through the "stand-alone" system or TTS, prior to going on to any "live" DWAN.

And they use "sniffers", so keep it strictly to work related issues!


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2013)

Bill Gates is not the problem.

DND's IT infrastrucutre, designed for people with regular access to said infrastructure, is the problem.

Most Army reserve units are lucky to have a 10:1 ratio of pers to computers; and all need access at the same time.  That math doesn't work (especially when a simple user change can take over half an hour - can't run many people through when you've got a 4 hour window available), and results in people using work arounds that the IT security gods abhor, but meet the operational requirement. 

Thus, yes, I've seen USB sticks moved between DND and non-DND systems.  And documents sent out to non @forces.gc.ca email addresses.  And any other number of actions taken to keep the machine creaking away because the IM/IT rules were drafted without any understanding of the user situation and reality.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Dec 2013)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The reason for this is simple, DND is not so much concerned with things getting on its networks, but they are much more concerned with things getting off the network.



Groovy.  What about the "burn it to a CD" stuff.   This "lock down USB sticks!" stuff is like locking your door while leaving the front window wide open.  



> This is why can always use things on a higher level network, you just can't ever use it on a lower level network.
> 
> Any help desk that says otherwise is misinformed.



I am not even sure what that first part means ???


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not even sure what that first part means ???



It means that if you use it on a Secure Network, you can no longer use it on DWAN or any other unsecure Intranet or Internet.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Dec 2013)

USB keys are a very efficient way for viruses and malware to spread themselve on a network.  It's not about DWAN material finding its way to non-DWAN computers.  The protection and handling of the information is the responsibility of the users.  

I try to avoid USB keys as much as possible.  For unprotected/unclassified files, I'll either email them to a civy account or burn them to a CD. Not as much chance of introducing viruses this way.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2013)

Of course this problem had been recognized and solved by at least 2004 or 05 that I know of.

There are a multitude of programs out there now that can "white list/black list" equipment that accesses the USB ports of your computer. A fresh, issue memory stick can even be "stamped" with a serial number and "hashed" so it can always be identified on the system, and also becomes encrypted so no other system can read it (go ahead, take it home....). Black listed equipment will simply be rejected by the system you try to access (and of course warnings and alerts can be sent to the network administrator as well).

But that would be a pretty simple and straightforward fix for a security problem....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It means that if you use it on a Secure Network, you can no longer use it on DWAN or any other unsecure Intranet or Internet.



Ahhhh, so much easier to understand in one of our official languages!   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Dec 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Any Unit Ops WO will tell you that their life is going to be very miserable without the capacity to create and store email files.  Converting large amounts of emails to some other format for storage will become very time consuming (If that is the solution IT folk have come up with).  There are people who have to deal with large amounts of email traffic daily, and archive it for future reference.  Any loss of that capability will have a drastic affect on productivity.



I actually found E-vault a useful tool, if you have not accessed an e-mail within 2 years it gets deleted, a fair balance. Now that they have E-vault running nicely, they are going to do away with it.


----------



## Old EO Tech (26 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Glad to see Windows 7 is up and running in-service now. I've used it privately for years and it's a very stable platform.
> 
> Not so glad to see the continuing use of Outlook in its old fashion. My last job when I was serving was working for three years to deliver an new records management solution for JAG. Our biggest enemy was Outlook which has two major records management issues: Firstly by storing email in an individual's Outlook account, the emails (i.e. corporate records) were not transferable to an individual's successor (i.e. the records were stored by user rather than by file or project). Secondly, these emails did not become part of the corporate file for record keeping purposes dictated by Archives Canada legislation.
> 
> ...



Yes I used RDIMS in my time in the NCR as well. While it has a learning curve it was designed specifically for document management and for compliance with corporate records keeping, not to mention it easily solves the problem of corporate data being passed from person to person in the same position/job.  I have no idea why the CAF/DND doesn't make RDIMS mandatory across the DWAN.

Right now as shared drives are always getting full, units are using Sharepoint as an alternative way to share files.  And while you can upload files to sharepoint the program was designed to be a collaboration tool not a document management tool, and makes a poor substitute for one.  In my experience very little collaboration(ie forum discussions) etc are being used on sharepoint and it is all about replacing shared drives which should be done with RDIMS.


----------



## Old EO Tech (26 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> By the letter of the law, only DND USB sticks may be used on a DND network.  There's no latitude given in the security orders.  Some units may be turning a blind eye to it, but it's not legal.



Yes but there is no centrally issued DND USB sticks, units simply buy and issue sticks, and place serial numbers on them and track them.  And normally they are cheap 4 gig sticks.  There are no regs that I am aware of that prevents you from buying a better larger USB stick and then handing it to your IT section for them to scan and serialize.  It then becomes DND property and a DND issued stick.  Of course you then can't use it on a non DND computer like any other DND stick.

I personally need a lot of space on a USB stick to carry around all the work files I have, my outlook pst file is now over 1 gig as it is.


----------



## FJAG (26 Dec 2013)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes I used RDIMS in my time in the NCR as well. While it has a learning curve it was designed specifically for document management and for compliance with corporate records keeping, not to mention it easily solves the problem of corporate data being passed from person to person in the same position/job.  I have no idea why the CAF/DND doesn't make RDIMS mandatory across the DWAN.
> 
> Right now as shared drives are always getting full, units are using Sharepoint as an alternative way to share files.  And while you can upload files to sharepoint the program was designed to be a collaboration tool not a document management tool, and makes a poor substitute for one.  In my experience very little collaboration(ie forum discussions) etc are being used on sharepoint and it is all about replacing shared drives which should be done with RDIMS.



Always good to see a fellow RDIMS user.

Some background. Back in 2006 RDIMS was the mandated standard for not only DND but all Fed Govt Depts but there was much drag from subordinate headquarters everywhere to its use.

Besides implementing RDIMS, our project also was the first in DND to implement SharePoint 2007. We used a linking software solution to allow SharePoint access to the RDIMS files. This was not our preferred solution as SharePoint has its own Records Management built in which at the time had US Govt certification but had not been approved by DND (who was also insisting on RDIMS). As a result we used an integrated SharePoint/RDIMS solution. Nowadays there are several superior SharePoint/RM solutions available. 

The trouble these days is that most users (and their department managers) still do not wish to do electronic records management as they see it taking extra effort when saving a file (true but for trained staff it is very little effort). They would rather just manage paper files. 

 :subbies:


----------



## Old EO Tech (27 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Always good to see a fellow RDIMS user.
> 
> Some background. Back in 2006 RDIMS was the mandated standard for not only DND but all Fed Govt Depts but there was much drag from subordinate headquarters everywhere to its use.
> 
> ...



Yes we as an organization certainly are hell-bound to cut trees down, we insist on writing paper memo's still when writing a formatted email could do the same thing, PKI has had digital signatures for ages that we never have policies to use in place of paper signatures... and on and on.


----------



## bigabe (27 Dec 2013)

This whole thread caught my eye - a refreshingly intelligent conversation on here. 

I'll chime in my $0.02 as a non-SSC, non-helpdesk, IT security & IM geek.  

So... here's the two sides of the coin:



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Not so glad to see the continuing use of Outlook in its old fashion. My last job when I was serving was working for three years to deliver an new records management solution for JAG. Our biggest enemy was Outlook which has two major records management issues: Firstly by storing email in an individual's Outlook account, the emails (i.e. corporate records) were not transferable to an individual's successor (i.e. the records were stored by user rather than by file or project). Secondly, these emails did not become part of the corporate file for record keeping purposes dictated by Archives Canada legislation.
> 
> The work around had been that users had to print off the emails that they considered corporate records and then place them in the paper files. A cumbersome and paper wasteful system prone to many errors of duplication or omission. If some of you are wondering why it takes so long to role out software and why it's always a version behind, the answer is quite simple, it takes the IM security guys a long time to kick the programs tires to ensure it doesn't import system vulnerabilities and that it plays nicely in the box with all the other programs/servers/etc that it needs to be compatible with. We have too few security folks and too vast a system to do that quickly.
> 
> :subbies:




Pretty much bull's-eyes most issues.  Except for the whole *Print it off*  ... I just about puked.  We're in the dark ages enough.

Combine the above message with this message and you can fairly well see both the cart and the horse from an IM POV.


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> My Outlook box is my main tool for communicating, I average 100-200 files at any one time, some them huge projects and receive massive amount of project related e-mails. Often it comes to fast to digest, so I move them into a unique folder for that project, which will contain various sub folders for the different issues. It's not perfect, but it's far better than any other method of quickly and efficiently receiving, storing, accessing, reviewing and forwarding large amounts of information.
> 
> As for SSC, forget ever again getting useful support for your issues. It will become a beast who's sole purpose in life is to generate "ticket numbers" to justify it's own existence. Even now try making useful changes to your department website and you are caught in a maze that supports the "Common look, Common feel, Common suck" mantra. I should bill IT everytime I have to help a proponent navigate the crap to masquerades as our website.




Outlook - is your day planner.  It is not your entire office.  Its great for personal time management, and that's how its packaged and produced as a product.  *Personal* _time management._

When you're filling 100-200 messages a day - I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, you're doing it how you're taught and how you are comfortable.... but you're doing it wrong.  We'll pretend I meant you're doing *IT* wrong in a non-funny pun way 

Now, the right answer probably doesn't work for you - I get it - I only bitch about it over a coffee and carry on.  
Let's took a look at how IM *should* work.  So, if you're dealing with that level of information - it's obviously a team/collaboration effort. Unless you actually carry out 200 orders a day.  That's _actually_ the point of SharePoint.  That level of info, should be passed on through 'group discussions', team sites, document uploads/downloads, and can be 'access-controlled' by the project administrator, managed and monitored by a much smaller network of IT guys - 1 or 2 sharepoint dudes, really (so others can do things like security audits on new software!) because SharePoint is easy to manage.  Its also easy to keep backed up - as now I only have 1 server and its datacenter to store - not the 7500 users on AD and their beautiful snowflake individualities... Just 1 SP server, or my branch of the National tree.

SharePoint, however, is a great idea that turned into a gross mess by caveman army dudes that know enough about computers to break them- It's basically turned into the same dogs breakfast of shared folders (that were partly cleaned up in the last two years ) with a shiny web interface slapped on the front - mixed with a lot of 'Updated [Insert date 6 months ago] pages.  You can also mix in the (mostly Jr. Officers trying to prove something, but only jokingly finger pointing of course) dick-measuring contest of the latest shiny embedded widget like live-weather, or (yup, its happened) the current Naval Op Map on some tiny units administrative page.

Instead of SP, though, you have 75 folders in a disgusting, non-sensical bilingual mess of folders that have Pte. Bloggins Dwyer Hill application in the same folder as your dentist reminder.... meanwhile, I'm getting work tickets requesting larger outlook storage.  See the dilemma?  When I do receive those tickets, you are pretty convinced I sent you a personal, professional letter, explaining why it can't happen at this time - when in fact, its totally canned, I don't care why because I couldn't if I wanted to, and the personal details were just outlook form fields grabbed from your work ticket, and auto-replied by keyword.  Oops... secrets out.

Let's move on to the content of those 200 messages.  If they're physical project-related - then I think SP with the proper training can be the right tool.  Now, I think there needs to be a 'collaboration' expert in most geographic locations that can set it up quickly, give everyone who needs it a 1-hour brief on how to use it, and dole out the rights to those who aren't going to completely shag it up, or fill it with high-res pictures of unicorns or something... 
Now, it gets a lot more intense if those are 'administrative', or now I'll switch to the word 'clerical' type messages.  ORs, JAGS, PSS, C Clk, ULO, PSO offices etc - Those are the usual culprits for a decade of emails spanning 5 2GB PST files that are eventually going to ask me to move them over to a predecessors mailbox.  I don't think SharePoint is the answer for these people - but Monitor Mass is getting closer.  

What ALWAYS happens, is a RIDICULOUS redundancy of data.  Not the good redundancy, like the hand of god wipes out the data stores and we bring it back online 4 hours type of redundancy.  No, the 'Here's my NOK form' for my ARV.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' for inclearance during a course.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' before a BFT.  Then 'Here's my NOK form' because its August and you asked me for one.  Yup, that's 4 NOK forms in 3 weeks.  True Story.  You all know it.  That's the redundancy that exists.  

Why isn't my personal information centrally stored, then accessible by whoever/whatever needs it?  I, as Cpl Flange Bulatron, or whoever, should be able to go on My Careers through an Emaa-ish site, and have a live offering of my options.  There's no reason, I can't add 'Apply to..... CSOR, Close Protection, UTPNCM' into a shopping cart and checkout.  My entire Pers file should be a series of table entries.  I say scrap the paper entirely.  That's the only way to clean it up and manage it properly. I can view it anytime.  Heck, it could even become accessible from home in the same sense your bank info is accessible from home.  Login from your underwear on PATA and check on your outstanding loan cards, upcoming course loadings, your notes to the CM, with an alert to renew your medical and its been 3 years since you hit the range GaraTrooper.  This isn't daydreaming - I want to make this happen in the CAF in my career.  I'm going to scream and puke simultaneously every time I fill out a duplicate form for my entire career - my hernia, not yours.  

There's no technical reason, using * what already exists* today, that loan cards should exist.  A tool crib, should have a front facing keyboard/monitor that pops up what you're borrowing, and you login with a DWAN ID and now you've borrowed that 50lb torque wrench, or signed for that AHSVS - complete, or those 30 manpacks for a comms course.  *None of this is possible*, if the mentality still exists that Outlook is how to conduct business in the information world.  It becomes too big of a task, then. It's like trying to tidy and clean up your whole house using only bleach and a snow shovel.

Lastly, one of those quotes griped about the 'common look and feel'... now, I've already stated that I think the current system isn't very functional - but the reason behind that mess, is to funnel the information into the right tables in a relational database somewhere (That means [Members NOK] is a field drawn by NOK forms, and BFT forms and everything else that cares).  Once that's happening, the above pipedream of personalized shopping cart based applications et al. becomes possible.  We could even start looking like an apple store by having you scribble your X with your finger on a tablet in the near future.

So, whats worked in the past?  Google around, and find studies of fortune 500's that have disabled email for a 1-3 months.  Its proven extremely effective for team collaboration and refacing Information Management.

Now, I think that's drastic - but I say disable attachments for the same reason.  Keep the storage to 90Mb.  Email is a 120+ character texting tool with spellcheck.  If SharePoint is too difficult, maybe there's other options.  

Now that I've chimed - I'm just looking to open discussion, not preach or profess.  

What do you think would work for Information Management?  It's a huge and daunting task, and is generally sluffed off to 'barely escaped JPSU' combat arms officers in more than a few places, but there has to be solutions that work.  Work for the reservist who's crapping himself about his USB stick at PER season and works for the JAG and the dudes in between. 

It both scares and excites me, and hopefully there's at least 1 or 2 people here who don't totally *tl;dr* the jesus out of this post.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Dec 2013)

bigabe
Your post is infocentric, people use Outlook, because it works for the real world. Like it or not data management is a secondary task and not the reason the majority of people were hired for. If you want to deal with data management issue, get rid of computers and issue typewriters and that will reduce the issue, however as I am currently cleaning up a file from the 70's that combined information from 3 vaguely related projects, don't hold your breath on typewriters solving all problems.

E-vault is a compromise that actually works for the users and deals with large quantities of data issue. The fact that for some reason we can't wait for e-vault to produce those effects is telling of the IM/IT chasing the shiny new toy syndrome. 
I have to use RDMIN's on occasion, it is sh*t, you can put as much lipstick on it as you want, it's still a 3 legged blind pig. Version control issues, editing issues, naming conventions that nothing to do with reality to name a few problems. I know it's going to be replaced by Gov.docs (or similar) which I have heard rumours is supposed to be better, I hope so. 
Another issue is that IM/IT departments want you to save stuff in RDMIN, when we are already saving the same information into our own Database, which is designed for frontline use and datastorage second. They don't like it because it makes their job harder, the fact that IM/IT will make everyone work 3 times as hard to meet their requirements is immaterial to them.
At this point I see IT/IM as the enemy, not as a resource to help me do my job.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> At this point I see IT/IM as the enemy, not as a resource to help me do my job.



A large part of the problems I've seen on IM/IT projects is a lack of engagement on the part of the requirements owner.  "I want a documents database" is not a specification.  And, when left to their own devices, the IM/IT folks design a tool for their own use - because the user is not engaged in defining their business needs and business processes.

That said, there is too often a temptation to chase the bright & shiny (both by the folks who own the requirement and those wh oare supposed to deliver it).  And too many consultants will promise the moon, under-deliver horribly, then get hired back to fix the mess that was of their own making.


Within DND, there's almost never any consideration of the part-time pers who don't have dedicated access to IM/IT resources.  It's an ongoing frustration to be told "It's on SharePoint" when access is limited to 3 hours a week; and help desk hours are outside parade hours; key information is stripped from the internet because of BS Common Look and Feel requirements...


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> bigabe
> Your post is infocentric, people use Outlook, because it works for the real world. Like it or not data management is a secondary task and not the reason the majority of people were hired for.
> ...
> I have to use RDMIN's on occasion, it is ****,
> ...



You miss bigabe's points.

1.  Outlook does not work in the real world. Anything that separates your communications from your work product and that of your co-workers is counter-productive and not just failing to meet mandated government standards. A system that delivers you 200 messages a day of which maybe a dozen are really relevant to your job is taking time away from your productivity - multiply that by fifty thousand workers and you loose hundreds of PYs a year reading and answering useless stuff.

2.  RDIMS is about fifteen years old now. It was good when it was rolled out but has been a dated product for at least a half a decade. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive replacement. There is also an underlying issue. Any comprehensive database system that will merge documents (including email and text messages) into a proper database that meets varying user business models needs to be able to operate in at least a Secret level or else project files will be scattered across various networks to meet security states. DND is working on that.

3.  If RDIMS or SharePoint is not meeting your user requirements then it is not the fault of the software but the fault of the business analysts and programmers who set up your system. Usually those folks are pretty good at their job and in my experience their failures usually stem from the fact that many departments fail to allocate the time or resources to let them do their job right. This is usually because people (like you) are so focused on what's on their desk at the moment that they simply decline to (or refuse to) put any effort into assisting with appropriate solutions to create a better system for the future. Remember "Front line use" and "database storage" are the same thing. In a properly designed system the two work together to create a seamless business solution.

4.  IT/IM is not the enemy. These people want to deliver solutions that make your job easier. They have to balance many competing interests: finite budgets, corporate policies and objectives, and "front-line" user needs. Unfortunately in an organization as large as ours that is frequently hard especially when you consider that DND IM/IT at the central level came very late to the game, after commands and even formations and units had already rolled-out their own IT solutions. Trying to keep these thousands of legacy systems operating while trying to improve basic network functionality is a very major (and frequently frustrating) job. It's not made any easier in times of financial restraint especially restraint when they are frequently not considered as part of the "bayonets" that must be protected. In fact records managers are often the first to be downsized.

Just a comment on where my viewpoint comes from. I don't belong to IM/IT. I've spent over forty years as a "front-line" user. The last three years were spent as the user's business interface with the IM/IT community on a project designed to improve our 'front-end" systems. I saw IM/IT's warts--and they do have them--but most of all I saw how the users themselves are their own worst enemy when it comes to the time and effort they put into the business transformation processes needed to truly improve their systems.

 :subbies:   op:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2013)

Totally off subject, I think.

I have no faith in an IT system that can't filter out the simplest SPAM messages from Outlook.

When I turned on my DWAN after being gone a week, I could find approx. 25 messages.

One was to me. The rest were porn and pseudo-pharmaceutical SPAM.

Even my own desktop at home can filter out that shit. Why can't the DWAN, with all their fancy programs and IT gurus?


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2013)

I think what a lot of programmers and designers fail to do is cater for the users, rather than themselve.  People don't care how awesome the functionalities are. They want something seamless, easy to use, reliable and that fits in the already established habbits.  People do not want to drastically change their way of doing things. 

Using 1, 2 or 3 different software to effectively manage documents is NOT the solution.  While it may work if used properly, people still need to... use it.  If you want people to use it, you need to cater for the masses. You cannot expect people to put extra effort in something they do not see the need for their daily job (regardless of what law xyz says), especially in a time when people are already short of PY.

If I was in charge, I would first fire every useless consultant and use that money to go and shadow big succesful companies on how they manage their information. Then implement an off-the-shelf solution.

We are not the only big organization and we are probably one of the worst on the unclass IT/IM side.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2013)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think what a lot of programmers and designers fail to do is cater for the users, rather than themselve.  People don't care how awesome the functionalities are. They want something seamless, easy to use, reliable and that fits in the already established habbits.  People do not want to drastically change their way of doing things.
> 
> Using 1, 2 or 3 different software to effectively manage documents is NOT the solution.  While it may work if used properly, people still need to... use it.  If you want people to use it, you need to cater for the masses. You cannot expect people to put extra effort in something they do not see the need for their daily job (regardless of what law xyz says), especially in a time when people are already short of PY.
> 
> ...



We agree on something


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Dec 2013)

FJag
Outlook is my most important tool for communicating with a wide variety of proponents and clients. 90% of my work is outside of the government system, so it has to work with mom and pops and Multinational companies. It's biggest limitation right now is the accepted file size, our 5mb limit is far to small for the current usage. I can save the critical e-mails as  a "Outlook Message Format" and uploaded that to my work database under the project file # in 3 easy steps without worrying about naming conventions and permissions. Anyone with access to the database can easily find it or other information grouped under that file number (the file is searchable with at least 4 fields) and will still be searchable in 40 years from now as we set those 4 basic search criteria into our first database in the early 90's and have continued on with it (this is our 3rd database and moving to a 4th in a year or 2). Within 5 years of the demise of RDMIN, no one will remember the naming conventions that were used.

One project I am working right now (Site C) likely generates about 30 relevant e-mails a day) I can't begin to digest all of them as they come in as I am working on other files. Being able to drop them into a sub folder and dealing with them when i get a chance is the only way to keep my head above water. I end up saving the most important ones or the string when it ends. E-vault would take care of the rest. Another advantage of sub folders in Outlook prior to e-vault was being able to pull up e-mails from 2002 and forward them on to HQ (who have a about a 5 minute memory on anything) to show them that they are incorrect yet again or even better to show that their bright idea has actually been tried before. 

and I agree with Supersonic Max as well.


----------



## GR66 (27 Dec 2013)

I think a BIG part of the problem is simply inefficient process.  I worked in a CR and the number of messages for course loadings and postings messages....and amendments to course loadings and posting messages...and cancellations of coarse loadings and posting messages....and re-issue of course loadings and posting messages (just as one tiny example) were enough to fill upright filing cabinets and take up several PYs to manage.  And these are just daily routing messages.  Distribution of these messages to parties that were in the need to know is another major expenditure of effort.  Reception & Dispatch, Pay & Records, Furniture and Effects, Rations and Quarters, the affected schools and units, the member's unit, a whole slew of people being copied on all these messages and having their own Orderly Rooms having to manage them as well.  

A single change to a central database could show who is going to be where and when.  Everyone that needs to know can look it up in that one location and see the recent changes highlighted so they can act if required.  But instead we kill a forest and eat up bandwidth, fill filing cabinets and have clerks that outnumber arms soldiers just to track the movements of the members.  It's silly to me.


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> FJag
> Outlook is my most important tool for communicating with a wide variety of proponents and clients.



I agree that this is a critical function and don't get me wrong I would think staying with RDIMS now that so many better products are available would be wrong.

A good system would have the following three core functions:

1  a common file system for the entire business unit so that anyone in the unit with a right of access could access the information from anywhere on the DWAN (and in my mind on a secure channel from non DWAN computers)

2. a system by which a document (an email, word document, MS Project file etc) exists in the system in only one copy under the appropriate file number. Rather than emailing within the business unit one would send an instant message notification to the recipient(s) with a link to the original document.

3. an easy way of dragging and dropping and profiling a new document into the database - whether that document comes from an originators new work product or from an outside source. One absolutely needs to communicate with folks on the outside.

These products are available now and many even still use MS Exchange as the mail server messaging core.

My complaint with Outlook is that for the vast bulk of users it becomes a personal dump for mostly redundant material that is rarely "cleaned up", rarely scoured for corporate records that by law must be either archived or destroyed, and rarely passed on to an individual's successors.

One can argue as to whether or not our current legal requirements are too onerous (please note that these requirements come from outside DND) Not only do we have problems within DND in meeting our duties but I've been at Archives Canada and the records we have sent there are mountainous (because we send too much unnecessary crap because we rarely strip files well) and of very limited value.

 :subbies:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Dec 2013)

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

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

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


----------



## PanaEng (27 Dec 2013)

Most of you guys are arguing about symptoms and not addressing the root problem: lack of unified IT policy and focus.
With focus I'm not talking about the IT org  not being customer oriented, rather the user requirements when specifying a system not clearly articulated and not guided by a unified IT policy. If the IT guys (programmers, system analyst, requirements analyst, etc. ) ask you what you need but you have no idea how to describe it or they have no idea how to elicit that from you, then you are going to buy/get crap. In the absence of clear direction the programmer will create whatever strikes him as neat.
Then there is this fixation with MS products...

I'm with Bigb and Fjag on how the system should work - and that doesn't mean that it has to be onerous on the users or preclude from emailing with outside agencies.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Journeyman (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Some of that data that we consider useless will be a treasure trove later.


LIke if the entire CF is ordered to down tools and search every document for the phrases "Somalia," "Airborne," or "OMG this could be governmentally embarrassing"  :nod:


----------



## bigabe (27 Dec 2013)

PanaEng, I agree about the lack of unification. However, there's a lack of unification at nearly aspect of the DND by the time you get down to the Cpl.

Why? My *guess* is mostly because for 20 years there's been a lack of information coming straight from the source, a lack of information that can be self-acquired in every aspect.....partly from a lack of "common look and feel" and partly from a lack of IM getting the attention of the Bayonets'. Or perhaps its the lack of 'front line user' information accessible to managers at times of consulting, which goes hand in hand with a lack of passing most flaws found in anything up to those managers. Add the lack of empathy for part timers, combat arms, SSC, or basically the other guy.....or maybe its all from a lack of money!? 

I could make this a lot longer, but I'm on a phone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Dec 2013)

_lack of unified IT policy and focus_

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


----------



## bigabe (27 Dec 2013)

I'm also fully aware of the adage, that any idiot can point out problems.... It takes talent to point out solutions.


----------



## bigabe (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

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





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


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Some of that data that we consider useless will be a treasure trove later. Many of the documents squirreled  away by the RN in the 1800 regrading Seaman's  Bloggins pay records and amount of clothing issued give historians a much deeper understanding of daily life.
> 
> For the military you have the benefit of dealing mostly inhouse. For departments like mine where 90% of incoming documents are generated by various citizens and corporations the biggest issue is compatibility with wide variety of systems generating documents for us. Common issue is .pdf that don't print or Sharepoint sites that don't play well with the government systems.
> 
> The bigger more inclusive system you attempt to create the higher likelihood of failure. I'm a firm believer that if you can't design it and implement it in one fiscal year it will almost always fail or get cut as the fiscal winds change direction.



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

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

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

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

 :subbies:


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (12 Jan 2014)

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

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

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

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


----------



## FJAG (12 Jan 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

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



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



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

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



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

 :cheers:


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (12 Jan 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sorry . You are wrong. It's legislation and regulations that say that "corporate records" must be archived or destroyed within specified time limits. Files that are held willy-nilly in individual's email spaces on a server is not archiving in any meaning of the legislation. HQ is concerned with storing information. The problem is that middle management and users don't think they have the time to do so. "Bulk" archiving does not work and does not meet the requirements of the legislation to save specified "corporate records" and destroying all the rest of the crap we have on our systems.
> 
> The DSCDS is very specific about what records to archive and which to destroy and when (perhaps too detailed for some). Someone above your pay grade has figured it out. Implementation is where the whole thing falls down. To my knowledge the only tool capable of doing the job right now is RDIMS which is not in general use. To make a long story short, there is no magic bullet for archiving. A user who knows what the record is all about must determine either at the time a record is created or when the file is closed as to how that record is to be archived. Usually the best way is to assign it to its appropriate DSCDS file number and indicating whether it is a corporate record or a transient one. If that is done archiving becomes dead simple because the RDIMS system (if properly set up by the unit's chief clerk/records manager) will tell you exactly how long the file is to be retained and then if it is to be destroyed or archived.
> 
> :cheers:



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

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


----------



## garb811 (12 Jan 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## FJAG (13 Jan 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a good one.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Have a god one


Apparently he already has one


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Apparently he already has one



A complex?


----------



## FJAG (13 Jan 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> A complex?



It was a typo! It was a typo!

 :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jan 2014)

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


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


----------



## JBP (17 Jan 2014)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Old EO Tech (26 Jun 2014)

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jun 2014)

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

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

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


----------



## JoeDos (26 Jun 2014)

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


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jun 2014)

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


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (27 Jun 2014)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (27 Jun 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------

