Posted on Jan 23, 2019
Why doesn't eMILPO and iPERMS backup off each other?
10.3K
35
15
4
4
0
eMILPO and iPERMS are two very widely used systems in the Army. The problem I've noticed is I can have documentation in iPERMS, but eMILPO won't update and vice versa. Why? Does it not make since to coordinate the two systems so that when you update one, the other updates as well? It eliminates a step and saves time. What are your thoughts? PFC (Join to see) SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG(P) James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" LTC Stephen F. CPL Dave Hoover SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth PVT James Strait SSG (Join to see) Capt Dwayne Conyers CPT Jack Durish
Posted in these groups: 
System Administrator
Soldiers
S1 Personnel NCO
Operations (S3)
Logistics (S4)
System Administrator Soldiers S1 Personnel NCO Operations (S3) Logistics (S4)
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
Because the Army hires different contractors to build out its systems, and interoperability with older systems is seldom a consideration. Emilpo was supposed to tie all this stuff together. So was DIMHRS. Probably others.
It is the bane of HR guys existence.
It is the bane of HR guys existence.
(7)
(0)
SGM Omer Dalton
I see the word ‘DIMHRS’. Spent many days/hours working on this project knowing it would fail. Well it did. Money and other resources down the drain. SGM and civil service retired.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
They are two different systems that were developed to replace to antiquated systems, at the time, no thought was given to merging them.
iPERMS was developed in 2004 to replace the old system of mailing records to Indianapolis to get into your microfiche record.
eMILPO was developed in 2003 to replace SIDPERS3, a DOS-based program that had to run in a JRE emulator after Windows 3.1 was fielded in the Army. (the Guard still uses SIDPERS in an Oracle database environment, running in a JRE).
iPERMS allows the user to upload and index a document. Almost nothing in the index fields is of any value to update a data point in eMILPO.
For example, you get a DA 1059 for completion of BLC. The indexing information in iPERMS is your SSN, (that routes it to your record), the document name (DA 1059 in this case) and effective date (date of graduation for this one). There is nothing there to tell eMILPO in any kind of data cull that you completed BLC. For non-1059-producing schools, the name of the document is Crs Compl 40 hrs or crs compl less than 40, that does not tell you what school it is at all. Indexing an MOS or ASI order (ORD MOS ASI) does not give the MOS or ASI in the indexing, so also worthless.
There are limited cases where a data cull could work, like a DA 67 or DA 2166 effective date is the thru date of that OER and NCOER, and that would be a handy update from iPERMS to eMILPO, but that would require a new contract with the vendors that code iPERMS and eMILPO.
Another even more expensive way would be to rewrite eMILPO so that it becomes the document loading feed to your OMPF, with the indexing screen providing additional indexing fields that update your eMILPO.
For now the process is:
1. a source document goes to your iPERMS.
2. an update is coded in eMILPO in reference to a source doc in your record.
A source document can make it to your record without someone making the eMILPO update, but there should never be an update to your eMILPO without a source doc at least on its way to your record in an iPERMS batch.
iPERMS was developed in 2004 to replace the old system of mailing records to Indianapolis to get into your microfiche record.
eMILPO was developed in 2003 to replace SIDPERS3, a DOS-based program that had to run in a JRE emulator after Windows 3.1 was fielded in the Army. (the Guard still uses SIDPERS in an Oracle database environment, running in a JRE).
iPERMS allows the user to upload and index a document. Almost nothing in the index fields is of any value to update a data point in eMILPO.
For example, you get a DA 1059 for completion of BLC. The indexing information in iPERMS is your SSN, (that routes it to your record), the document name (DA 1059 in this case) and effective date (date of graduation for this one). There is nothing there to tell eMILPO in any kind of data cull that you completed BLC. For non-1059-producing schools, the name of the document is Crs Compl 40 hrs or crs compl less than 40, that does not tell you what school it is at all. Indexing an MOS or ASI order (ORD MOS ASI) does not give the MOS or ASI in the indexing, so also worthless.
There are limited cases where a data cull could work, like a DA 67 or DA 2166 effective date is the thru date of that OER and NCOER, and that would be a handy update from iPERMS to eMILPO, but that would require a new contract with the vendors that code iPERMS and eMILPO.
Another even more expensive way would be to rewrite eMILPO so that it becomes the document loading feed to your OMPF, with the indexing screen providing additional indexing fields that update your eMILPO.
For now the process is:
1. a source document goes to your iPERMS.
2. an update is coded in eMILPO in reference to a source doc in your record.
A source document can make it to your record without someone making the eMILPO update, but there should never be an update to your eMILPO without a source doc at least on its way to your record in an iPERMS batch.
(6)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Jeff, you seem to be in *almost* every post on RP I click on. I just wanted to say that this answer was very detailed... Almost disturbingly so. :)
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) - Just pointing out what we should have spent our money on instead of IPPS-A. We already have successful cases of renegotiating contracts to have systems "talk to each other"; ATRRS now feeds schools to the Record Brief, TAPDB and SIDPERS now talk to eMILPO, for NGB about a dozen systems feed DPRO.
(1)
(0)
SGM Omer Dalton
I was a major operative in the development of E-MILPO and was the Branch Chief, that managed the operation of the system for several years. Before I retired there was a major effort to develop the connection of several personnel systems to feed each other. I retired before this occurred. Now I see something called IPPS-A. Is this just an extension of that effort? Does anyone remember something call DIMHRS? A major effort that failed. Hope this succeeds.
(0)
(0)
SGM Omer Dalton
Left out some info about the above post. I was a civilian during the development and management of EMILPO. I talk to some of the folks at HRC (Ft Knox) on FB. Still the same old problems, just a different time and place.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Doubt worry, if IPPS-A ever launches you'll have a brand new system that cost millions to develop with the revolutionary idea to merge all the systems only to continue to maintain all of them as redundancies!
(5)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Then it will fail, and as a result of being a single-point-of-failure, no one will have valid record storage. Just kidding, that never happens.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
"If". Quite certain there's a UCMJ passage about swearing. I kid. They also had that grand plan with DTMS as well, but I still end up feeding information to multiple systems.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google