What technology that was supposed to help is actually hurting us?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:54:55 -0400

The Department of the Army is relooking everything. From top to bottom it is looking for systems that were supposed to help us that jsut haven't panned out. Things that cause more harm than good. Things that waste time just for the sake of having more digitalia. A few come to mind, but I want to hear what the consensus is. What technology is actually holding you back. What burns your time? What is not doing what it was supposed to? If we can identify them from the bottom up, maybe...we can unburden ourselves.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 11:56 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:56:57 -0400

Sir,
I know personally I hate how much I look at my cell phone. It is definitely addictive. I loathe the fact I pull my phone out of my pocket so often and feel it has hurt my attention span. That's why I try to stay as busy as possible and focus on task at hand.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 3:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:03:10 -0400

#1 Propaganda

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 23 at 2014 7:48 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:48:12 -0400

All of it. We're building things that pretty much think for us to the point where if we lose it, we're lost. No one takes notes, writes letters, sends cards its all eThis and iThat. Is there a retail clerk out there who can actually make change without looking at the register screen? Does anyone know when their next doctor appointment is if they forget there cell phone? Other than mostly grocery stores, how often do people go to a store, let alone buy anything? You don't need to carry a quarter to make a pay phone call but you need 3 of them in case your tire starts running low - and how do you know when this happens - when your car tells you.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 7:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:58:02 -0400

Online Learning
The F-35
"Universal" Camoflage
Most of our commo systems..

just off the top of my head

Response by COL Randall C. made Jul 23 at 2014 9:04 PM

COL Randall C. — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:04:07 -0400

Avoiding a general condemnation on technology (email/cell phones/etc sucks!!) and speaking just to COL Private RallyPoint Member's question of those technological programs/systems within DoD that are actually worse than what we had before :

DTS - for those that have used it more than a few times, it's not bad. For those that travel once in a great while -- it's more of a resource drain than it's worth (rough guess based on experience is that the later group far outweighs the former group)

New OER system for Army officers - royal pain ... but I have to give it the benefit of the doubt because it's so new ... but it's still a royal pain.

USB Drives - http://www.eventtracker.com/2014-01-16-operation-buckshot-yankee-agent-btz/ ... now we have HBSS (along with senior leadership with false feelings of security that HBSS protects against everything), Snowden, etc.

Saw LTC Paul Mullins's post and just had to add it in ... I can not begin to tell you how many times I've been NMC because I left that @$#@ CAC plugged into the reader at home. I add that to the list because the capability to use a LOA1 credential (little or no confidence in the asserted identity - like your FaceBook or Google login) and elevate it to a LOA4 credential (very high confidence in the asserted identity - your CAC) exists ... we just have to put it in our business practices.

Looking back: Operation Buckshot Yankee & agent.btz

Lessons learned from Operation Buckshot Yankee and the agent.btz worm that infected U.S. military networks.

Response by LTC Paul Mullins made Jul 23 at 2014 9:17 PM

LTC Paul Mullins — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:17:16 -0400

I say this as a cyber soldier who started programming, hacking, and using a computer in 1980...

Computers. They were a tool that now needs to be treated as a weapons system. I can not do my job now without it. But, I need a working CAC card with current Information Assurance training and a local account to use my Enterprise Email with a good image on my computer with current updates on a port that is active with connectivity to the rest of the Army and no one has "popped port security" in order to use it. That would be ok if that solar system aligned completely. But, all too frequently one of these things goes wrong and it only takes one to stop me from logging on and doing my work.

We have not taken that tool and weaponized it so that it actually provides a service vice causing you as much work to use it as it does to do the work you leadership wants you to do. We need to quit driving around Toyota pickups with steel plating welded on while the shocks, tires, and frame are collapsing in our effort to protect ourselves early in the IED fight, and design a network and computers that actually create a weapon system hardened for military use.

And then there are all the other things that you guys have already mentioned and many, many more...

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 1:33 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:33:12 -0400

SIR

This is a great question. Most of the responses are spot on. As far as technology hurting us, in my opinion, anything that is web related from web based training and education to ON LINE MANDATORY TRAINING!!! (my own personal pet peeve). Also any type of survey that hits my in box is a time waster. I also have to agree with MSG Carl Cunningham digital navigation may have it's place but, map reading and land navigation are fundamentals that must be mastered. I've never had a compass or map that ran out of batteries of failed to load information. Take care SIR and best to you.
CSM REED

Response by COL Jonas Vogelhut made Jul 24 at 2014 9:25 AM

COL Jonas Vogelhut — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:25:53 -0400

Let me offer a counter opinion to most of these posts. Sure, online training and GPS might have some impact to an individual Soldier, but what about as an Army? Are we ensuring that all Soldiers get the training when we can track progress? Doesn’t face to face training depend on the quality of the instructor? Is the Army not following the commercial/academic model with more online universities, online homework in high schools, etc? As for GPS, sure individual skills may diminish, but cannot the Commander now visualize his troops based on that GPS feed, reducing fratricide and quickening the pace of battle? Technology is not a cure all, but I see more pros for corporate Army will these technologies then cons.

As for what technology I see hurting us, it is the online unsecure file storage sites that likely gave our adversaries more information about us after they crack the firewalls than the customers that use the site. People sending work information to their personal gmail accounts. Didn’t we learn from Napster?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 9:58 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:58:45 -0400

It is my belief that one of the most destructive things affecting our society is this:

CHAIRS.

People are sitting more than they have ever sat before in history. We aren't meant to sit at the rates we are now. It is a major detriment to our society and can be labeled as an attributable factor in the obesity epidemic which is also reaching into our current service members. It also messes with the our muscles. Life was not meant to be lived "comfortably" at the rate we are. Yes, we should enjoy comforts of life, but the rate at which society is enjoying the comfort is dangerous.

-------------

I want to highlight that I believe Computer Based Training (CBT) can be amazing. When done with high production quality, expert level instructors and not made to look/sound like a 1980's VHS tape - it can have profound effects. Many universities and colleges have undertaken online degree programs and some of them are outstanding. Rather than redesign the wheel, DOD and other federal agencies should learn from the institutions who have been doing online/CBT for years and implement best business practices. Odds of that happening are miniscule, so I defer further comment.

Excellent question!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 11:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:51:55 -0400

Sir, I say most of the Army online systems, I can start with ALMS try to find a training there or print a simple certificate, it times out after a few minutes and does not gives you credit for what you done, you start registering on ALMS and have to go to ATTRS and then to another website to complete it and I can go on and on about ALMS.

Another failure is AKO, all the money that they spent on that thing and it seems like it was programmed by morons, try using their search function and see where that gets you.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 1:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:52:48 -0400

Sir, I think CPOF is another system that doesn't truly work...at least at the Squadron/Battalion level. All it seems to do is generate more work for the battle staff in an effort that doesn't provide a common operating picture for subordinate units. This then requires the battle staff to create a separate common operating picture on JCR/BFT/FBCB2/acetate overlays that the subordinate commanders can use. It may help Brigades get a better picture, but it significantly increases the work load of a smaller staff.

I won't get into the issues with online training but just say that I don't think I've seen a more colossal waste of time than all the mandatory online training.

As far as the discussion on DAGRs and other GPS systems, I think that those are one of the few instances where the technology has actually increased our capabilities. That being said, I recognize the problems we have with land nav. However, I think that is a leadership issue that requires officers and NCOs that are willing to ensure their Soldiers know the basics. I view this similarly to optics for our weapons. I don't think anyone would argue that we should get rid of ACOGs simply because Soldiers aren't as good with iron sights. Instead, we would ensure our Soldiers know the fundamentals of BRM and are proficient with iron sights before moving them on to optics that enhance their capabilities. Likewise, knowing land nav is important, but using GPS greatly enhances our units' abilities to move quickly and provides commanders much greater situational awareness.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 3:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:10:18 -0400

Email....it's the communication everyone uses and yet it is so unreliable!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 3:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:35:07 -0400

Spell check.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2014 4:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:35:50 -0400

I saw an 0-6 from APG on Lt Col Halverson's "excellent question" string! I recall something about quick-release mounting of Yamaha 250cc dirt bikes for Scouts on the UH-60, and my all time 'personal favorite suggestion', "let's patrol Afghanistan on Horses". Someone in procurement said both were stupid ideas. So, how did this work out?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2014 1:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:32:38 -0400

I don’t know that tech is the problem. Don’t get me wrong, as a Signal Soldier I have seen some ignorant implementations of signal systems. SNAP terminals come to mind. A great technology with a horrible implementation and even worse customer service, TCS who holds the contract did everything they could to ensure they were going to be needed for its use, effectively crippling the system as a whole, but easily integrated into the WIN-T architecture (assuming your 255N knew what he was doing). A simple redesign of the programming and these were screaming machines, well worth their money. The biggest failure with their use: generators. Personnel not refilling the generators.

Harris 117G are an awesome radio platform, probably one of the single best digital systems fielded. Their robust capability giving any Commander a range of signal solutions to meet their needs, up to and including providing digital data/voice to the squad level. This comes in handy when you have a squad holding down a COP. The problem here is the Commanders themselves. Too scared to implement it, or ignorant to use it. I heard one commander say he refused to use them because he didn’t trust them, even with several years of proven ability.

Most digital systems integrate easily, and often times transparent to the user. The biggest problem with these systems is either lack of upper level Command support, and lack of training on the systems, usually driven by lack of upper level command support. I would challenge any commander to try the systems out before outright denying their use. I will even provide the white papers (if available) for them to study before making your decision.

I will say though, that the idea of implementing a "colorless" architecture to the WIN-T systems was a stupid idea that is costing the Army money hand over fist (each implementation running over 100K per) and in my opinion added an extra layer of potential failure where none needed to be. Further, most of the units who have it are not using it, even some of the Divisions who have it don’t use it. Waste of money.

Online training is a joke. It doesn’t take into account the fact that people can screen shot and share the answers, completely degrading the concept of learning on line, but the money that the Army is pouring into it is egregious and never seems to solve the problem. Take the SSD system. It is filled with programming and design errors that often kills peoples motivation to complete them, but they are linked to promotions (great idea here, since now everyone can find the answer with a simple search engine, and not actually LEARN anything) making them critical for us to complete, but they can’t seem to find the right programmer to fix the problems so we can complete it. This is a circular problem. Pay the same techs who caused the problem an exorbitant amount of money to solve the problem, but they never quite do it. This behavior would never survive in the civilian market. Why should it survive here?

The problem could be looked at another way. SPC Jack Edison touched on it a little bit. Implementation of these technologies is huge, from the designer’s perspective. Colleges, businesses, and IT Certification providers produce CBT training and testing that is far beyond what the Federal Government in any branch is capable of doing. If the Army was to hire the right people for the job and the various Generals would keep their hands out of it, I bet most of these systems would be almost perfect. Require a “fix at the designer’s expense clause for x years” to the contract, and there is a high probability that these problems don’t even crop up. Add Command level support and decent training and a large part of the problems go away.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2014 6:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:30:45 -0400

Sir,

THIS is the kind of question I like to see on here, so first off thank you for asking something truly important and relevant!

And my answer: PowerPoint.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jul 30 at 2014 12:07 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:07:06 -0400

DTS, DISA EMail, DISA Cloud services in general (inside info), Contracted Housing, and i'm sure there are others.

On the cloud services, there great, but with the size of what DoD needs Microsoft cannot always be the answer, Microsoft will tell you that. our goals are attainable with the cloud, but right now we are trying to build a freight train out of box trucks instead of building a freight train.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2014 2:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:04:59 -0400

The more complex coms systems are, they fail. Social media, and email result in Wiki-leaks. The only near 100% effective way to distribute any order or information is first-person delivery, and acknowledgement by witnessed voice or hand written signature. Tactical Operation Center(s) manage voice NET operations with "quarter hour" responses. Core disciplines require Soldiers to SEEK information on their own accord. Lose the KISS method ... Soldiers die.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2014 2:19 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:19:13 -0400

Evaluations Entry System (EES) is the devil!

Response by MAJ Gregory M. made Aug 2 at 2014 5:14 PM

MAJ Gregory M. — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 17:14:48 -0400

Actually hurting us: separate battle command systems... DCGS-A, AFATDS, CPOF, etc. There should be one C2 tool that inherently shares information between intel, ops, and support functions without having to translate message through a BCCS server or any other mechanism. Additionally, it needs to be Joint, so Air Force ISR that's really working for the Army can actually be given to Army units without emailing powerpoint slides of ISR results.

Easy answer, Congress can consolidate the myriad of programs of record to a single funding authorization for the "Military Command Networked System" with a single PEO/PM. Yes, there will be an initial bloody fight over requirements and rice bowls going away, but in the long term the pain will be worth it to get to a single, workable solution.

Response by SPC Stephen Bobchin made Aug 13 at 2014 10:33 AM

SPC Stephen Bobchin — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:33:10 -0400

AKO.