MoD must embrace big data to maintain international standing

Discussion in 'MoD News' started by SJRM_RN, Sep 20, 2013.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Don't get me on this subject, I will bore you to tears.

    Unless the Warfare world get serious about Information and its use as a tool and a weapon then it will continue to be engineer driven. For too long the Engineers have held sway in the Information World and as good as they are at the technical side it is only the PWOs/Warfare Commanders who knows what/when/how then want information.

    And breath
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Couldn't agree more, IM is entirely Engineer driven and as such is dressed up in engineering language that just further alienates it from the Warfare world. The way we need to handle information needs to be focused on the end user. The easiest way to sell it to warfare - point out that smart use of information will make staff work easier! Too often we are reinventing the wheel on a piece of work that has been done several times before, nor have we properly embraced collaborative ways of working.

    MOSS is not fit for purpose (in my most humble opinion) to sort that last point.

    And finally am I the only person that thinks it is bonkers that we are changing our Protective Marking system?
  3. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Big data is an enormous industry sales pitch , particularly by the engine developers HADOOP and the storage manufacturers such as EMC so excuse me if I don't immediately fall in line behind their war cry.

    That said big data analytics can deliver advantages, we use it already quite a lot - for the bulk of our processes it wouldn't add anything. In the ISTR/INT world its already being leveraged.

    To make IM/IX and IKM more user centric you first have to have users who are willing to even understand or engage, our problem is that our warfare types are happy to talk about getting involved but really would rather leave it to Engineers - been there done that to death when we tried C2 application development and rationalisation, all started off rather well then the X master race lost interest and it was left to E's to sort out.

    MOSS is entirely fit for purpose. What we have deployed is not MOSS, it is MOSS that we have let Atlas tinker with until its utterly unusable, because we let buffoons manage the contracts and industry engagement and they let industry walk over them because they don't understand the business or technology.

    The whole rational behind the Government Security Classification is to 'ease' cross Gov work and to save money, go figure.
  4. I quite like MOSS, not sure why it gets such a bad rep.

    As for IM/IX, like any "change" in the RN, it needs to be driven from the top, and that doesn't mean 1 nice article on the Defence Intranet, it means 1SL reaching into promotion boards and specifically selecting people who are SMEs in IM/IX, time and time again.

    It is painfully obvious that the RN continues to propagate a values system that is centred around creating FF/DD CO's who would do well equally well in the Second World War, Victorian era or the Cold War. Until 3*/4*s are created from bona-fide PWO(C)s (or Information Warfare Officers) who haven't necessarily Commanded a FF/DD, Information Warfare won't get traction.....
    • Like Like x 1
  5. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Pet subject...PWO(C). What is the point of them? To prevent COs kicking the WEO? So that OPS can ridicule someone else?

    To make PWO(C)'s useful they need a proper course, joint appointments and though career CPD, not a 6 week visit and powerpoint course.

    ANNNND deep breath and back to the garden!
  6. PWO(C)s, in my view, should properly take on the Int role (and the S, TA and R). Or, perhaps, there should be an Information Dominance Corps (like the USN IDC) that takes the different flavours of Computers, Communications and I, S, TA & R and makes them work properly.

    But that would involve change. So not going to happen.
  7. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Fixed that for you
    • Like Like x 2
  8. If it makes you feel any better, the Army are even worse at it and have exactly the same problems with this sort of stuff being seen as dull, boring and geeky. Hence, no-one cares and it is the kiss of career death to get involved with it.
  9. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    You get it 'more', and certainly within the RSigs, RE and RA you get a healthy career out of it, but I agree in general the same views hold and thats one reason why we're so dated compared to many nations. The others are mainly financial and political, balanced EP my chuff.....
  10. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    It makes me weep when one looks at the people employed by the Armed Forces in key posts in the IT world who are bloody clueless with regard subject knowledge in that which they supposedly manage.

    Totally agree with the ridiculous assumption that IT is part of the tail rather than the teeth in Warfare. There is a lofty arrogance by those who think they know better because their post title makes them a "subject expert".

    Even in the tail of IT management at present there is a complete ignorance of the potential power and scope of computing technology and the biggest problem is the speed of bringing cutting edge technology at the forefront. On a tri service scale you only have to look at our wholly inadequate operating systems and a complete failure of a pre-digital management workforce in recognising the need for taking risks and moving with the pace of change.

Share This Page