Quote:
Oh, and it didn't have a complete nobber as a ProjO......
Not quite true there....
The man in question has put as insane amount of time and effort into trying to make BOCS work - for YOUR benifit !!
For him 14+ hr days are the norm and despite the current limitations of the system its not down to a lack of effort on his part.
At no point did I suggest he wasn't working hard enough.
As for the rest of the wingeing about BOCS posted thus far, if the system had the proper support it requires it would be fully task ready now, and giving everybody from DTMA down to the junior bod on the Sqn the synergy of information it CAN provide ( once the bugs are sorted )
It doesn't have any 'bugs' - it works just as it is supposed to! The problem is that it is entirely unsuitable for our purposes. We do not NEED a "complete synergy of information" (careful - my bingo card is filling up!) - as a section programmer, you need to know, at a glance, what each task is and how you are required to fill it. BOCS does not provide this, and only provides any useful information after wading through a plethora of menus and options and stripping out all the useless info (95% of it). It has been taking around 10 times longer to programme your section with BOCS than it did previously. It is quicker and more reliable to do it on chinagraph boards - which is what everybody has gone back to. That is a step backwards in anybody's book, and no amout of w@nk-word spouting is going to alter that fact.
As a concept, it's fine (one database tracking ALL of 2 Gp activities). It's just that each end user has greatly varying requirements - section desks do not need the same info as DTMA programmers who do not need the same info as HFHQ programmers who do not need.........etc, etc.
We had a system that was perfect for the coal-face - it was called AMS and did everything we needed. Put a new front end on BOCS that replicates exactly what AMS did, and all will be well. Until then, back to chinagraph boards it is.