When the United States Army isn’t deployed fighting a war, they’re supposed to be training for it. As a part of the Executive Branch they are required by law to account for its use of authorized funding. As the fiscal times reported in March of 2015 the DoD can’t account for $8,500,000,000,000. One of the areas where the Army has tried to improve its accountability is in its training management system. In 2014 the Digital Training Management System (DTMS) received a major upgrade that turned it into a thoroughly embarrassing debacle within the Army.
Once released the new website lasted for just a few hours before software issues caused the site to go down for maintenance for several weeks. Although released in October, problems were so bad that the Army withheld its press release touting the new features until January 12th of 2015. Attention to detail was so low that when it did publish the article the press release stated it was published in 2014 because Mike Casey (the author) didn’t remember to change the date to 2015. This lack of attention to detail during the project development lifecycle doesn’t begin or end with a delayed and miss dated press release.
While the aforementioned press release mentions how the program serves commanders in conducting training management it fails to identify which level of commander. My personal opinion is that it serves commanders at BDE level and higher who would have a difficult time gathering training information on their more than 1000+ formations without the use of an automated tool such as DTMS.
The command level that is the least served by the software is at the company level, the lowest level of command, where all of the required data entry occurs. A company of approximately 100 individuals requires two full time personnel to manage the automated system. Lower level stakeholders seem to have been neglected throughout the process.
Other errors that affect lower level stakeholders include:
- A non-intuitive interface requiring a full 40 hours of training before use
- No back-button after saving an event requiring full navigation through the home screen to edit the next event.
- Built on Microsoft Silverlight, a technology that forces the site to be run on older versions of Internet Explorer and one that has been abandoned by its creator, Microsoft
- Limited resources to address issues found through feedback (some recommendations are years old with no resolution)
- Unable to upload documents en masse (feature is listed as an option and fails upon execution)
- Unable to make adjustments to the personnel assigned to the unit causing miscalculations of averages and aggregate data by including individuals no longer with the unit or misassigned
- Exports to poorly designed formats
- Exports UserID from database in Excel but hides the column with the UserID
- Website susceptible to URL code injection
- Higher echelons have more control over the data but are least familiar with it making it easy for them to misalign personnel and accidently delete crucial records with no easy method of restoration (no undo button) causing repeated efforts at lower levels to repair the mistake.
A bad system is a good thing to learn from. These issues are indicators of a project management team that failed to assess the project’s complexity and overlooked key stakeholders. My role in the project was at the lowest command level where we were told to utilize the new system only to watch it go down for several weeks due to implementation issues. Since then we’ve made efforts to assert ourselves as stakeholders using the appropriate feedback mechanisms only to have our perspective marginalized in the process.
It’s a bit easier to see how the DoD can’t account for $8,500,000,000,000 when they fail to implement good project management practices while updating their training management system.