274 replies to this topic

[Keith Roberts]

I found the statement in the list of press releases I think it was. I reckon that we just need to sit tight, having made representations, and see what Chris is able to share with us after his meeting. I suspect that there will be no immediate decision, but much heart searching before a decision on the future is reached.  If anyone has not written or emailed expressing their concerns I hope that they will get on with it, the more expressions of concern the better.

Corporate bodies are a bit like oil tankers - all changes of direction take a long time to work. There is clearly at least a willingness to consider our concerns, but some time may well be required before any outcome can be expected.


Keith

[seadog]

I found the statement in the list of press releases I think it was. I reckon that we just need to sit tight, having made representations, and see what Chris is able to share with us after his meeting. I suspect that there will be no immediate decision, but much heart searching before a decision on the future is reached.  If anyone has not written or emailed expressing their concerns I hope that they will get on with it, the more expressions of concern the better.

Corporate bodies are a bit like oil tankers - all changes of direction take a long time to work. There is clearly at least a willingness to consider our concerns, but some time may well be required before any outcome can be expected.


Keith

Thanks Keith, as for oil tankers this one responded pretty smartly to the helm when making a massive change of course, regrettably without a Pilot on board. I look forward to the ship being guided safely into Port. You are correct the statement is buried in "Press Releases" maybe it has been there all along or which is more likely the CWGC have forgotten to remove as they have with the aforementioned "Latest News" item.

Regards
Norman

[Keith Roberts]

Norman

I suspect that the recent fiasco despite the quality of its attempted installation, took a long time in planning. If the work is as suggested contracted out, then there would/should at a minimum have been some formal specifications as well as the usual financial discussions. It probably took six months of sporadic meetings and emails to decide on the "plan".  Between the lines and from the outside, as a former civil servant,  I reckon its probably pretty much dead in the water.

The combination of technical errors, and the furore raised, surely means that there is no kudos for anyone in pressing on with the original design. The most likely outcomes are either to abandon the whole thing, leaving the status quo in place, or eventually, and I mean eventually, to commission some changes which take into account many of the issues that have been raised. As this would send them back to the initial design stage I should think that it would not happen at all quickly.

Formal communication would be in the usual jargon of press officers. "An urgent review of users needs has led to ther introduction of some additional features that will blah blah blah.....

You read it first here. Check back in six months or so.


Keith

[seadog]

Thanks Keith I am much clearer now. So these experts from the software company and representatives of the CWGC who were presumably IT literate sat around a table and discussed at length the specification for an improved database search interface. When all the experts had finished and agreed a specification then the new interface was implemented presumably after thorough testing and was then found to be so full of errors and omissions that it was withdrawn. Perhaps I am being a little naive here but does this not call into question the expertise of all the parties involved and perhaps in the case of the CWGC staff their suitability for the present positions they hold. I am sure that the Governments who contribute the revenue, of which the UK is the biggest, would be interested to know how some of that money is being spent.

Best Wishes
Norman

[seadog]

I have received this from my local MP today. You will see that she has taken the matter up with the CWGC for which I am very appreciative.

Norman

Attached Files

•  dawn_cwgc.jpg   87.54K   1 downloads

[David Faulder]

Peter Francis (Head of External Communications, CWGC) is now back from his holiday and has pretty quickly got round to answering the email that I sent him.  A couple of days ago I received a reply which included the following:

...

As I am sure   you can appreciate, the Commission is motivated to improve, upgrade and develop   its Website and the Casualty Database behind the website to provide a better   facility for our users and staff. The alteration to our Search Tool was a first   step in this process which is ongoing and it should be appreciated that we have   consulted with users both individually and through user groups and acted on the   advice of consultants in implementing the changes.

  

  

However, as we   are now aware of the concerns mentioned by users like yourself, as well as the   technical issues mentioned above, we will take further advice from our IT   experts to try and seek a solution that meets CWGC aims and the aims of all   users. This can now be done with an understanding of the dependency of other   parties upon the links they have made to our casualty data and some knowledge   about how those links work.

...

That is actually beginning to sound positive - particularly the last sentence.

David

[Martin Elliget]

Yes, David, I recently received a similar response from Peter as well. It does sound positive.

Chris. Did your meeting with David Stacey eventuate or was it rescheduled until Peter Francis's return?

[Ghost]

we will take further advice from our IT experts David

Not such good news as these are the boys who implemented the cock up in the first place!

Alan

[David Faulder]

... we will take further advice from our IT experts ...

Not such good news as these are the boys who implemented the cock up in the first place!

Alan

I think this is part of their problem; they have outsourced so much that it is quite possible that their in-house IT expertise is restricted and they have to rely on the advice of consultants and outsourcing companies. (It's not unique to them; look also at the Passport agency, the ID Card Scheme, the NHS database, TNA digitialisation programme etc.)

So I wonder what he means by "our" IT experts? If "our" experts are actually external, CWGC will need to ensure that "They" (internally) are adequately briefed to ensure that they can judge external advice against user requirements.

David

[Chris_Baker]

My meeting is scheduled for late next week. And just for your info, you may be intetrested to know that in the past I have been the European Managing Director of a global software development firm and generally know my stuff in this kind of arena.

[David Faulder]

My meeting is scheduled for late next week. And just for your info, you may be intetrested to know that in the past I have been the European Managing Director of a global software development firm and generally know my stuff in this kind of arena.

Good luck, I hope you can distil a coherent view from 11 pages of posts!

[KevinBattle]

May I ask for an update on what has been put forward TO the CWGC for inclusion in these discussions?
What was the consensus of what Members here would want the database to provide?
What has been disclosed about the revamp to the new CWGC format, in other words what was it intended to ADD as improvements to the database Search function?
What happens next?

[David Faulder]

I am not sure that "GWF" has put anything forward.  Chris Baker has been invited to talk to them, but I am not sure that he is "representing us".  I may in a previous post have wished him well in distilling our views, but I don't think we can mandate him.  

Likewise, I think Martin Elliget may have posted his own summary and asked for comment.

I would though be very interested to know what was in the CWGC original specification - I don't think any of us have been told that in any of the replies that we have received.

I would also be interested (as I suspect all of us are) to hear how Chris's meeting went.

David

[Chris_Baker]

I had a positive, productive meeting with David Stacey. You will appreciate that we agreed at the outset not to treat it as a formal meeting and certainly not one that I would "report back" to this or any other Forum. I met David in a private capacity, having offered to help, and not representing any group or interest other than my own. Having said all of that you can be assured that, from what I understood, the concerns have been heard and that whatever CWGC does with its website is likely to take them properly into account.

[KevinBattle]

Thank you!

[seadog]

Thank you for your efforts Chris, much appreciated. Plus of course the same thanks to all who have made their opinions known to the Commission. Looking forward to a positive outcome and certainly one which ensures that the URLs of the individual records are available for use as at present

Regards
Norman

[Martin Elliget]

Thanks, Chris. That does sound positive.

[Martin Elliget]

Likewise, I think Martin Elliget may have posted his own summary and asked for comment.

David.

I don't know whether any collective group from within the GWF membership has put anything forward but I'm sure many members have made their thoughts known to the CWGC individually. I forwarded that 16 point list (gathered from various contributors here) to the CWGC on the 8th of Sep and received a reply from David Stacey the following day saying "Your points will be helpful in ensuring a better version is eventually introduced." So it seems that those points have been noted.

I'm not sure there's any benefit in revisiting the original spec, as surely it must now lie at the bottom of the shredding bin. From the replies people have been getting, it certainly sounds as if the CWGC now realise its inadequacies (the specification) and are taking a fresh look.

regards,

Martin

[Siege Gunner]

Thanks to Chris, and good to hear that CWGC has taken the concerns of interested parties on board. Hopefully it will now also take advantage of the wealth of technical expertise and experience in the field of commemoration that would no doubt be willingly made available to inform their design of an improved system for the future.

I continue to be puzzled by the silence on this issue of our own Terry Denham, who would surely be eminently well qualified to contribute advice to the CWGC's search facility re-design process.

[John Hartley]

I continue to be puzzled by the silence on this issue of our own Terry Denham, who would surely be eminently well qualified to contribute advice to the CWGC's search facility re-design process.

From the point of view of the In From The Cold Project, I don't think we'd have much to add to what has already been said by others.

[David Faulder]

>><< I'm not sure there's any benefit in revisiting the original spec, as surely it must now lie at the bottom of the shredding bin. From the replies people have been getting, it certainly sounds as if the CWGC now realise its inadequacies (the specification) and are taking a fresh look. >><<

Martin,

I would agree that there may be little immediate benefit given that I share your view of CWGC's probable current position.  However, it is of interest because I am puzzled as to how organisations get themselves into this sort of pickle!  Our response has generally be in reaction to the sight of the "improved version" and how the immediate problem might be solved.  I am interested also in the root cause of such issues - which in this case may possibly be the difficulty a (public sector) organisation has in adequately understanding the views of its (wide) user base - they certainly did not do this with the intention of generating a torrent of emails to them, to MPs and to Commissioners.  I suspect TNA suffer from similar problems!

(I have been pointed to http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/geoffs-search...html#post223976 by means of a PM to another forum.)

David

[Barrie Bertram]

The question of what the CWGC had done or not done with its search interface up until the point that it 'pulled' the 'new improved' version seems to be no longer relevant. It has acknowledged, explicitly or otherwise, that it got it wrong, and although we, as a loose community of 'amateur researchers' have expressed our concerns, I suspect that government organisations in the former dominions may have also had concerns.

At this point, I would suggest that comments should now be forward-looking with the aim of being pro-active in helping the CWGC reasonably consider our needs along with those of others. After all, if they do not do so, we could be faced with similar situation in the future, and this is more likely if we just 'sit on our hands' while they try to come up with something new.

I am sure many of us are members of recognised bodies such as the Royal British Legion, the Western Front Association and so forth, and perhaps our concerns should be flagged up the hierarchy of those organisations so that a coordinated front can be presented, and hopefully influence the CWGC in an appropriate way henceforth. After all, it should be in our mutual interest that a 'very new improved' version is delivered over time, with the aim that one can reduce CWGC effort in responding to queries and related matters and provide further information, while not negating the considerable effort that has been invested in the 'amateur research community's' websites to date.      

Kind Regards
Barrie Bertram

Western Front Association
Channel Islands Great War Study Group
(www.greatwarci.net)

[seadog]

Although no doubt many of you will have received something similar as this from the CWGC I thought that it would be useful to post this which I received today. The tone certainly sounds extremely positive.

Norman

Attached Files

•  letter858.jpg   92.99K   0 downloads

[Paul Reed]

Norman, that sounds very encouraging.

[seadog]

You are right Paul it does sound as though there is a greater understanding of the way that many people are utilising the database. The tone is a lot more conciliatory than some of the earlier statements, which is of course to be welcomed. Let us hope that the excellent facilities which the commission provide can be enhanced in a sensible and productive way whilst retaining the crucial facility of the links to individual records. I hope that this is not premature but I thank the commission for their willingness to listen to constructive criticism and to hopefully find a better way forward.

Regards
Norman