• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces

Maybe it's a mellenial thing, but I much prefer navigating either a website, or a network folder structure, and SharePoint seems like a bastardization that is worth that either.
My section is trying to force a switch to a new SharePoint with no folders, just a document repository with "enterprise key words"...

The "let's modernize" crowd didn't like it when I pointed out that it's the 'What folder is that file in?" problem all over again, but with "key words" rather than folder names...
 
So can someone tell me if if if I'm being hacked?
Or are they just upgrading the system again ....
🤣
One of the places I worked . The IT department was a law unto itself.
On more then occasion during the middle of the work day the system would shut down and they would joyfully begin to update the system.
 
What is

What are "SMCs" and what is being shut down? The SharePoints or the network shared drives?

When I came back to the fleet from the reserves in 2018, EVERYONE was moving to SharePoint. The implementation was sloppy, but I understood the rationale and it made sense. I then went on course and then deployed. When I came back, it was like everyone forgot about SharePoint and was back to using network shared drives, at least for some units. Other units seem to be using SharePoint decently, but fuck if they aren't hard to navigate some times. Maybe it's a mellenial thing, but I much prefer navigating either a website, or a network folder structure, and SharePoint seems like a bastardization that is worth that either.
Back between 2006 and 2009 I was project director for a major JAG information management project. It was just as SharePoint 2007 was coming out. ADM(IM) were fairly reluctant at the time to let us use it but shortly came on board in a big way. Our objective, amongst other things was to get rid of the network shared drive systems (which were spread throughout the country and overseas and couldn't communicate with each other).

A shared network drive essentially is just a server whose hard drive(s) is(are) mapped to individual computers and allows people with access to store documents on the server rather than their local hard drive and thus make the files accessible to other people with permitted access. It's a simple system of file sharing with limited potential for growth and expansion or complexity.

SharePoint is a large toolset that can be widely deployed and has many purposes including document management. It's big advantage is that it's scalable and cloud based and highly configurable to allows you to build business applications on it which utilizes the data that the enterprise collects. Basically it allowed us to build a wide area cloud enterprise on a Protected B Windows Server backbone that allowed any one of our users to access the system from any DWAN computer or remote login to access their, their directorate or the whole system's files and applications. It allowed us to, amongst other things, set up a proper document and records management system that complied with Archives Canada's regulations as well as consolidate several dozen home-grown MS Access specialty databases into system-wide applications. It's also capable of doing case management and numerous other specialty workflow processes.

At the time we were roling it out I knew of only one other DND office that was using it but many that were turning to it. The result was we were constantly training new programmers who were being hired away by folks prepared to give them better pay. Any monkey can build a shared drive system. To build a proper SharePoint system takes talent but is worth it from a business applications point of view. What is absolutely critical when going to SharePoint is that a proper business analysis is done prior to building the system and a proper business transformation plan is in place to roll it out to the users.

🍻
 
Back between 2006 and 2009 I was project director for a major JAG information management project. It was just as SharePoint 2007 was coming out. ADM(IM) were fairly reluctant at the time to let us use it but shortly came on board in a big way. Our objective, amongst other things was to get rid of the network shared drive systems (which were spread throughout the country and overseas and couldn't communicate with each other).

A shared network drive essentially is just a server whose hard drive(s) is(are) mapped to individual computers and allows people with access to store documents on the server rather than their local hard drive and thus make the files accessible to other people with permitted access. It's a simple system of file sharing with limited potential for growth and expansion or complexity.

SharePoint is a large toolset that can be widely deployed and has many purposes including document management. It's big advantage is that it's scalable and cloud based and highly configurable to allows you to build business applications on it which utilizes the data that the enterprise collects. Basically it allowed us to build a wide area cloud enterprise on a Protected B Windows Server backbone that allowed any one of our users to access the system from any DWAN computer or remote login to access their, their directorate or the whole system's files and applications. It allowed us to, amongst other things, set up a proper document and records management system that complied with Archives Canada's regulations as well as consolidate several dozen home-grown MS Access specialty databases into system-wide applications. It's also capable of doing case management and numerous other specialty workflow processes.

At the time we were roling it out I knew of only one other DND office that was using it but many that were turning to it. The result was we were constantly training new programmers who were being hired away by folks prepared to give them better pay. Any monkey can build a shared drive system. To build a proper SharePoint system takes talent but is worth it from a business applications point of view. What is absolutely critical when going to SharePoint is that a proper business analysis is done prior to building the system and a proper business transformation plan is in place to roll it out to the users.

🍻

Most people I come across in various workplaces hate SharePoint, mainly because they don't understand it I assume ;)


1686262514381.png
 
SharePoint is a network storage system. A network drive is a network storage system.

The inability of IT folks to make the change from one to the other transparent speaks volumes about IT folks vs users.
 
Most people I come across in various workplaces hate SharePoint, mainly because they don't understand it I assume ;)

View attachment 78051

People hate it because it is extemely user unfriendly and impossible to navigate. Perhaps that's because the people setting it up and maintaining it have any idea how to properly set it up and manage it.

I don't know how many times I've been looking for contact info for person in position X. So I go looking for their unit webpage and I'm directed to their SharePoint. I go to the page, maybe even the page for the specific section/department they are in, but instead of getting any useful info, any contact lists, etc, I just get that stupid calendar in the middle that no one uses, and repository or document no one needs.

Some units have done well with it. Sea Trg's SharePoint is set up with links and pictures such that it actually looks more like a website that you can adequately navigate. CANFLTLANT's SharePoint, on the other hand, is a depressing reminder that nothing is up to date and everything gets forgotten.
 
People hate it because it is extemely user unfriendly and impossible to navigate. Perhaps that's because the people setting it up and maintaining it have any idea how to properly set it up and manage it.

I don't know how many times I've been looking for contact info for person in position X. So I go looking for their unit webpage and I'm directed to their SharePoint. I go to the page, maybe even the page for the specific section/department they are in, but instead of getting any useful info, any contact lists, etc, I just get that stupid calendar in the middle that no one uses, and repository or document no one needs.

Some units have done well with it. Sea Trg's SharePoint is set up with links and pictures such that it actually looks more like a website that you can adequately navigate. CANFLTLANT's SharePoint, on the other hand, is a depressing reminder that nothing is up to date and everything gets forgotten.
should of had microsoft manage sharepoint for us, maybe then it would be more efficient
 
SharePoint is a network storage system. A network drive is a network storage system.

The inability of IT folks to make the change from one to the other transparent speaks volumes about IT folks vs users.
That's the trouble. Most people look at it as a high-end network storage system and build it to replicate what they are familiar with (all to often as paper and filing cabinet analogues - and don't even get me started on the DSCDS) .

It uses stored data, but it's real benefit is building business processes and management applications (something like PeopleSoft but I really don't know enough about PeopleSoft - or for that matter recent versions of SharePoint - to make a valid comparison).

One of the problems within DND is that most organizations do not spend enough time or effort in analysing their business flow and then building solutions to make those as easy and seamless as possible for the end users. Applications are often clunky and generally the end-users receive little training on them. I generalize - but not too much unless there has been a radical revolution in the last 15 years..

🍻
 
And I says "pardon"
Means "making a bit of code efficient before you're sure it's the particular code that needs to be made efficient". My jibe is that MS doesn't bother with "efficient" at all. Their business model has basically been to bet on a rough approximation of Moore's Law - in effect, that computing power would outstrip their profligate use of it.
 
SharePoint is a network storage system. A network drive is a network storage system.

The inability of IT folks to make the change from one to the other transparent speaks volumes about IT folks vs users.
I have no problem with it as a network storage system. The naval fleet schools, for example, teach the same courses but on different coasts. They should be using SharePoint as their every day repository for files (everything from QSPs, to lesson plans, to memo, to the plan for the Christmas party). They are not doing that, even though there is SharePoints for all these units (all these units are just ignoring and not using their SharePoints).

That all being said, what I have an even bigger issue is with the SharePoints replacing websites as the external portal into a unit.
 
Back between 2006 and 2009 I was project director for a major JAG information management project. It was just as SharePoint 2007 was coming out. ADM(IM) were fairly reluctant at the time to let us use it but shortly came on board in a big way. Our objective, amongst other things was to get rid of the network shared drive systems (which were spread throughout the country and overseas and couldn't communicate with each other).

A shared network drive essentially is just a server whose hard drive(s) is(are) mapped to individual computers and allows people with access to store documents on the server rather than their local hard drive and thus make the files accessible to other people with permitted access. It's a simple system of file sharing with limited potential for growth and expansion or complexity.

SharePoint is a large toolset that can be widely deployed and has many purposes including document management. It's big advantage is that it's scalable and cloud based and highly configurable to allows you to build business applications on it which utilizes the data that the enterprise collects. Basically it allowed us to build a wide area cloud enterprise on a Protected B Windows Server backbone that allowed any one of our users to access the system from any DWAN computer or remote login to access their, their directorate or the whole system's files and applications. It allowed us to, amongst other things, set up a proper document and records management system that complied with Archives Canada's regulations as well as consolidate several dozen home-grown MS Access specialty databases into system-wide applications. It's also capable of doing case management and numerous other specialty workflow processes.

At the time we were roling it out I knew of only one other DND office that was using it but many that were turning to it. The result was we were constantly training new programmers who were being hired away by folks prepared to give them better pay. Any monkey can build a shared drive system. To build a proper SharePoint system takes talent but is worth it from a business applications point of view. What is absolutely critical when going to SharePoint is that a proper business analysis is done prior to building the system and a proper business transformation plan is in place to roll it out to the users.

🍻
They went with RDIMS as the document management system for that. Which was a beast in and of itself.
 
Plus MS writes code as if bandwidth and latency aren't issues, and as if RAM is unlimited.

Irony: Running the Teams client (OK wrapper) on Linux is faster and more responsive on 15 year old hardware than on a modern Windows box.

I try to avoid doing Teams when I am on the DWAN; on my home network, I have better latency and a better setup than at a desk in a DND office.
I hate doing any kind of desk work in the military.

In my career, our IT has always been shit everywhere I've been. Especially on ships, naturally.

It's so bad I prefer doing hands-on "make work" during the day, and take home the computer work. Ideally, I just work from home instead.
 
They went with RDIMS as the document management system for that. Which was a beast in and of itself.
Yeah. We were forced into that by ADM(IM). We didn't want to and argued long and hard but in the end it is what it is. It wasn't only the fact that it was RDIMS but a version of RDIMS that was dated and already superseded by other better versions. But it was the one for which DND held all the licenses at that time. It caused a big problem with the case management solution which was required to integrate with RDIMS and in testing it didn't.

RDIMS does both record and document management. Record management was key for us because at the time our record management system was, pretty much like the vast majority of DND, crappy at best.

🍻
 
SharePoint has very significant capabilities that surpass those enabled by either websites or shared local network drives.

The fact that units and formations do not as a rule have a dedicated information or knowledge management staff is on us. Units can’t assign the IMO/KMO role to the newly posted in 2Lt and expect much.

We continue to allow USB sticks, unit drives and insist on sending documents via email versus links.

I would argue since we can’t seem to do digitalization in Garrison we are going to struggle with the CA desire to digitize our operational side.

I am not sure if D365 is making things better or worse since it’s yet another system that we are not using correctly or too it’s potential.
 
SharePoint has very significant capabilities that surpass those enabled by either websites or shared local network drives.

The fact that units and formations do not as a rule have a dedicated information or knowledge management staff is on us. Units can’t assign the IMO/KMO role to the newly posted in 2Lt and expect much.
...
This was actually one of my frustrations in the JAG project.

We actually had an establishment increase of three paralegals as information/knowledge managers. They were in a very low pay classification and thus were regularly hired away by Justice.

The biggest issue, however, was getting buy-in that there had to be a supervisory structure over them which would require some supervision from the O-4 and O-5 level. My predecessor had envisioned some type of Wikipedia like system. Any one who knows law knows that you can't go to Wikipedia for black letter law.

Expecting O-5s to have the time to manage an information/knowledge base, even with para-legals, however, was seen (and probably was) unsustainable.

That's generally the problem with knowledge management. Unless you are looking at something loose and search engine based it will need a level of continuous effort to keep it authoritative. Most organizations can barely keep up with records management much less knowledge management.

🍻
 
Our IM practices are laughable at best. I have sent links to a SharePoint site that link to the direct document and received a a response "you forgot to attach the document....."

I had an Adjt who refused to accept anything e-copy or e-signature because his then boss preffered paper. Imagine his chagrin when the new boss came in and refused to accept anything paper.

We spend millions on tools to improve our workflows and productivity, then either neuter it with IM/ISS Policies or poor educate/train our folks on how to use them. Worse still, we don't enforce any of our IM Directives, so it just becomes a rat's nest of duplicate files, links, and archives that end up costing us in time and money.
 
Last edited:
Our IM practices are laughable at best. I have sent links to a SharePoint site that link to the direct document and received a a response "you forgot to attach the document....."

I had an Adjt who refused to accept anything e-copy or e-signature because his then boss preffered paper. Imagine his chagrin when the new boss came in and refused to accept anything paper.

We spend millions on tools to I prove our workflows and productivity, then either neuter it with IM/ISS Policies or poor educate/train our folks on how to use them. Worse still, we don't enforce any of our IM Directives, so it just becomes a rat's nest of duplicate files, links, and archives that end up costing us in time and money.

Now you've done it... the consultants heard you ;)

check in george clooney GIF by Paramount Movies
 
Our IM practices are laughable at best. I have sent links to a SharePoint site that link to the direct document and received a a response "you forgot to attach the document....."

I had an Adjt who refused to accept anything e-copy or e-signature because his then boss preffered paper. Imagine his chagrin when the new boss came in and refused to accept anything paper.

We spend millions on tools to improve our workflows and productivity, then either neuter it with IM/ISS Policies or poor educate/train our folks on how to use them. Worse still, we don't enforce any of our IM Directives, so it just becomes a rat's nest of duplicate files, links, and archives that end up costing us in time and money.

Wait; the CAF has IM policies and directives?

99.9% of the CAF…

Fran Healy Reaction GIF by Travis
 
Over a decade ago I had the ability to see the IM/KM cells in operation for both a US Division and a Cdn Division.

The US Division had a LCol, 2x Majors, 2x Lts and 4-5 Civilians in their KM Cell. The LTC, Majors and the civilians were all KM SMEs with Trg and experience.

The Cdn Division had a newly promoted Infantry Capt and a self taught civilian.

Nothing much has changed in our formations and higher since. It was brought up that we needed at minimum a Maj in the KM role, equal to other G staff but it went no where. The Army doesn’t see value in KM/ IM unfortunately.
 
Back
Top