Need your Input on BCKS

[MJOCONN1]

I'm working with the team that helped to develop BCKS. I need honest opinions of BCKS; it's usefulness to the guys on the tip of the spear, where it's strong, where it's weak, what it offers, what it lacks. I work with some great guys, former soldiers, and they are supremely dedicated to making BCKS a tool that wins battles and saves lives. Tell me what you think in your gut about BCKS. If possible, can you draw on some of your contacts for opinions? Success stories, without compromising security of course, are what the team is looking for. All I can say is that the need for input from you and your brothers is important. Can you help me out?

[nichols]

I feel stupid for asking but what is BCKS?

[Stan]

Evening Nichols !

Battle Command Knowledge System (US Army). Although somewhat outdated, it relates to IT, Computers, Military and Government.

There were folks at Aberdeen working this issue, but I don't recall what became of it.

I went to Africa to work with Tom :D

BTW, Jed is already posting more recent info at COIN Seminar. Forgive me, I'm a tad outdated !

[MJOCONN1]

I feel stupid for asking but what is BCKS?

Hey Guys. It's been up and running for a while now. If you have an AKO account you can access it with your AKO login and password.

To quote SSG Rock,

"From my position at the CAC & Fort Leavenworth DCSRM the official correspondence I have seen regarding BCKS is that it ultimately will be "the" knowledge transfer point for the Army. It has ranked high on the priority list for funding along with the CALL expansion. BCKS received supplemental funding in FY 04-05 from GWOT and in formulating the 08/13 POM, BCKS is earmarked critical for funding. I think the idea is to boil many lessons learned websites into pretty much a one stop shopping site (that is my guess). Remains to be seen how the battle goes. Of all the Army Lessons Learned sites I've been to, BCKS is the best for ease of use. CALL has great information but it is hard to use."

[nichols]

Thanks Stan,

Now I have reached Nirvana.

It sounds very much like MCCL at Quantico, we're about to slam our Simulations in there (as soon as we get rid of some of these spinning plates).

About WAWA.........I hated/loved/hated/hated the time spent there. West Africa Wins Again helped explain alot of things.

Gendarme: Chef....20 men from Zaire came across the Oubangui River, stole all of the Africaid woman's belongings and took them back to Zaire......

Me: Aren't you going to go up to her house and investigate?

Gendarme: Chef...we want to, can you give us money for petrol so that we can investigate...

Me: Roger that...WAWA.

Gendarme: Oui Chef...


I do kind of miss the place.

[jcustis]

BCKS has a place, as do many other resources, but I think it is still a tad bit too constrained.

Seems like the same folks (and predominantly contractors or GS types) working inside the forums, and not much relevant commentary from boots on the ground types.

As a case in point, I posted a query in the COIN forum on a very simple Afghan Village Search TTP smartcard, at least 10 months ago IIRC. No replies thus far. The SWC smokes BCKS in a lot of areas. Now for a caveat, I haven't been there in a while, so this view may be dated.

[Jedburgh]

JC - you are absolutely right in that there is hardly any meaningful presence on BCKS of the real target audience - soldiers. It has improved a little bit over the past year, but it has a long way to go before it lives up to its potential.

For real collaborative discussion, SWC is head and shoulders beyond BCKS. However, OPSEC puts a slightly tighter restraint on many topics on SWC, where you can speak a bit more freely on BCKS - although it is still only up to FOUO.

In my personal opinion, the greatest added value of BCKS currently is the ability for any soldier to access a wide spectrum of FOUO material that he would not otherwise have ready access to. Much similar material is uploaded on the AKO KCs, but BCKS makes it easier to find and link specific subject-matter material. The IED-Defeat forum is especially valuable in this respect.

The lack of participation on BCKS is rooted in two issues - first, and the biggest problem, the word just isn't put out. NCOs and officers do not actively encourage their soldiers to use this resource, and the leadership education system also doesn't do enough to inform. Hell, doing my sentence at TRADOC the last year before I retired, only one other NCO in the company was even aware of the resources available through the AKO KCs, BCKS and CALL.

The second issue is simply that many don't give a damn. We have a lot of minimal achievers in "leadership" positions who do just what they're supposed to, and when the work is done, that's it. Initiative extends only to getting the job done faster, so that the break comes earlier. If you've ever looked at the AKO forums, you'll that it is mostly juvenile banter, cherry soldiers asking questions about job and assignments, and discussions having nothing at all to do with the military - the focused, pointed discussions on professional military subjects are few and far between.

[RTK]

BCKS is trying to be what companycommand.com and platoonleader.com were 5 years ago. They're the latest knowledge sharing platforms the Army has attempted to use to bridge the gap due to people being brought out of the schoolhouses who used to write doctrine and FMs. BCKS is attempting to be the stopgap since we typically don't write branch specific doctrine anymore.

Having said that, I regularly visit BCKS pages I'm a member of and look in on others. I don't think it will ever get the participation that cc.com or pl.com have had and agree that there is a much more operationally relevent side to COIN on SWJ than there is on BCKS.

$0.02

[jcustis]

...on what everyone has already said, if you're looking to strengthen it through the addition of content and snazzy advertising, it might not get much of a return.

I agree with Jed that a lot of folks just don't care. Trying to reach them is going to be difficult, if not impossible. The declining readership of journals like the Marine Corps Gazette is an example of a shift in paradigms. The Marine Corps Association is taking great strides to recover and regain prominence, but it is very tough.

One more concrete point to add though, and that is BCKS is a pain to navigate through for a noob, which may be an initial turn-off.

[SWCAdmin]

However, OPSEC puts a slightly tighter restraint on many topics on SWC, where you can speak a bit more freely on BCKS - although it is still only up to FOUO.

Indeed.

A very fickle mistress, this OPSEC. First, FOUO is not good for much other than exception from FOIA. Much like my 14 year old daughter was amazed when I penetrated her "private" MySpace page in about a nano-second. FOUO is a veil of pseudo security. Maybe better than nothing. But even the light official-ness that becomes the gate to FOUO turns off much of the value gleaned from a non-attirbution free-for-all.

Second, as we all know, SIPR is a great control on curtailing the "wrong" viewers. But at present throws too much chlorine into the gene pool of collaboration. Given current access to SIPR accounts, only 1% of the value comes through for the average Joe.

We have made a very conscious decision to be open and welcoming here at SWC. We MUST recognize the limitations that places on what we can discuss. But we can still do a lot of good. The larger community, though OPSEC constrained, adds a certain value of its own.

The government in general, and the military in particular, is highly sensitive to one side of the coin. For example, it will spend many man hours of redundancy, pre-approvals, and validations to ensure that we don't have $25 of stray expense, and call it a win because costs were contained. Private enterprise instead opts for revenge supervision on the $25 gone awry, as the preventative controls are too inefficient -- since lost manpower and productivity has a metric, too.

Similarly, there is a drag to SIPR and FOUO. Sure, fewer enemy get the picture. But so do fewer friendlies.

Ruthless execution and an accelerated OODA loop have a certain charm all their own.

[Rob Thornton]

I've worked with some of the BCKS forums. I've also worked/participated on CC.mil since about 2001. The BCKS format feels like "diet" Coke. What it "feels" like matters because its the difference between something that people start to help people in which other like people sign up because they are attracted to it and for whatever reason like being a part of it, and something that "feels" like somebody said, "that is a great idea, absolutley brilliant"; "mass produce it"; "it will solve all our problems". Then they said, "We don't have green suiters to do this - so hire a contractor". Then they said "We can't have everybody having access to this - put it behind a wall!"

BCKS feels antiseptic. Like going to an office where I don't really want to be. I lament the fact that my CC.mil has gone to a BCKS format (Ryan - I told Tony and Nate the same), it loads slow now and to me feels like the other BCKS. What made it successful was the "by Company Commanders for Company Commanders" feel where we hashed stuff out in a preoffessional manner and people went out of their way toimprove the proffession with relevant, fast paced, timely discussion.

LTC Tony Burgess and LTC NAte Allen along wit many other CC heroes sat down and wrote a great book with Nancy Dixon on what made CompanyCommand.mil special (originally CompanyCommand.com until gifted tothe Army then it became a .mil)

What I like about SWJ/SWC is it has the same feel as the old CC.com, but I have access to other people like Marc, JC, Slapout, etc that I would not otherwise to help me solve problems with solutions that offer "non-institutional perspectives.

I think to get to a good CoP (Community of Practice) you have to figure out how to emphasize "Community" and "Practice". LTC Burgess led a great discussion once entitled "Content is King, but Context is Queen". Take that with an audience that is dynamic and the CoP markets itself - people are attracted to such organizations. BCKS is allot of content - not much context and is a maze to move around in - we've befuddled ourselves trying to re-invent the wheel.

I don't have too many good recommendations, but I'd say instead of trying to copy what worked - BCKS needs to figure out what it needs to be in order to support a warfighter who finds him/herself in unusual circumstances in unlikely places where Internet access is often spotty. Ex. the reason I bristle at AKO is because it loads slow from where I am currently at - gives only 50 MBs of storage - G Mail gives exponentially more - why is this important - evrybody sends huge files - you can go through 50MBs in a day! Why is it relevant - its not just BCKS - its DoD IT approaches - they are archaic, confined and out of touch with the needs of a deployed force that preaches agility and adaptiveness, but sets up systems that constrain it.

Which brings us back to SWC and why people are finding work arounds because there is a need. SWC has a good format that works here. It puts people who can help each other in contact with one another. Its structure is easy to navigate and does not compartmentalize and stove pipe to the point of exhaustion. It has a kind of open format that allows useful digression and the ability to feel less like work. BCKS needs to look to the future, imagine what we might need and work towards that - BCKS is like big city public works (Atlanta comes to mind) - by the time the 4 lane road they said they need is complete - they need an 8 lane road and begin another "project/contract". Maybe what they needed was just a good bypass.

[120mm]

Just in case whoever is reading this is extra dense: BCKS is a crappy interface. It's difficult to just look around and see what's out there. It's slow-loading, but that's okay, the Army has incompetent IT and it doesn't look like they care enough to solve that.

BTW - An Army computer nulled out my CAC card this weekend, so I got a new one. Of course, my "new" CAC card is unsupported by current drivers installed on machines, and the installing the new driver requires you to uninstall the old driver, which means noone else in the unit can now use that computer.

I'm assuming a bunch of drunken monkeys could do a better job of running an IT system.

[Stan]

Jed,


The IED-Defeat forum is especially valuable in this respect.

Thanks for the info. Been checking it out all morning. It is very slow and takes a while to weed through the labyrinth to find what you need.

120's conclusions are correct: extra dense and a crappy interface

[Uboat509]

I used to visit NCOTEAM.org fairly regularly but after it became NCONET on the BCKS I pretty much stopped. As has been noted elsewhere, the interface is slow and not terribly intuitive. Even if it wasn't, the majority of the content is NCOs trying to clarify obscure parts of AR 670-1 (are we allowed to have pens showing in the pen pockets of our ACUs) or clarifying obscure PT regs (can a soldier wear a knee brace for a PT test if it was not prescribed by a doctor). In other words it is nearly all garrison related. The combat forums are almost entirely empty. I always thought that that was odd given the war and all and I lost interest in the whole thing.

SFC W

[Anlaochfhile]

...One more concrete point to add though, and that is BCKS is a pain to navigate through for a noob, which may be an initial turn-off.

Ain't that the truth! I've participated in online forums ranging from cars and Harleys to computers, as well as places like SWC. BCKS is by far the hardest to navigate through. You eventually figure it out, but it is not nearly as friendly an interface as this one.

I don't remember the name of the engine that drives SWC and many other forums on the web, but it would be great if BCKS could engineer something similar for navigation, albeit with the ability to compartmentalize viewing access and still have a way to hang and compartmentalize access to content beyond the forums.

Content-wise, there is a lot to be said for what is there, that otherwise might not be available were it not for the ability to limit access. AKO's Knowledge centers have been another approach to hang content, but they are also a pain to navigate.

[slapout9]

The SWJ/SWC has the Spirit of the Grandfather Warrior and it is powerful MOJO. Some Indians believed that all knowledge of warfare should be preserved and passed down to anyone with the warrior spirit. There was no need for firewalls because if you used that knowledge in the wrong way you would still be beaten by the superior warrior who with the help of his grandfather (History of Battle) would be given the right knowledge at the right time to protect the tribe. Because of the USMC association with the "code talkers" and the SWJED open thread to all warriors the spirit is especially strong and protected here. The warrior knowledge is great! we have more soul than we can control. If you want to learn how to fix your project read the threads on combat tracking especially by 120mm or better yet go to one of the schools. If you don't want to do that just read the passion behind some of the posts by JED,JC,Tom Odom,Marct,RTK,Rob Thornton,Bizmarc17,Rifeleman,SWJED and others I can not recall but they all have powerful MOJO. They have the spirit of the grandfather warrior. That is what you need. ;)

[marct]

Hi Folks,

There seems to be some fair agreement that the BCKS interface is cutting edge, 1995 technology - i.e. if not useless, then needlessly limiting in today's environment. Now, I should point out that I don't have access to it but, from what I have picked up just reading comments, I'm not sure I'd want access :wry:.

Just getting back to the original post for a minute, I'd like to highlight something:


Success stories, without compromising security of course, are what the team is looking for.

MJ, why success stories? I can certainly imagine that they would be useful for budget arguments, but wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on a SWOT analysis of BCKS and frame your RFI that way?

SWCAdmin makes a really good point when he noted that


We have made a very conscious decision to be open and welcoming here at SWC. We MUST recognize the limitations that places on what we can discuss. But we can still do a lot of good. The larger community, though OPSEC constrained, adds a certain value of its own.

One of the things I really like about the SWC is that very "openness" and, I think, that it does have a value add for the people on the sharp end. A couple of people have pointed out that BCKS is used by a CoP that is concerned with their careers rather than with war fighting; Jed's comments about it being "mostly juvenile banter, cherry soldiers asking questions about job and assignments, and discussions having nothing at all to do with the military" come to mind. What then was the goal for BCKS? Is it supposed to be a CoP for warfighters? If so, I'm afraid it has probably failed and become, instead, a CoP for careerists.

Let me make one other observation: BCKS is limited to American military personnel. One of the nice, "open" things about SWC is that we have posters from quite a few countries militaries - Canada, France, Germany, Britain, etc. Given that almost all US operations at the present time are part of coalition efforts, why then should the CoP be limited solely to Americans? (Yes, I know, my Canadian nationalist sentiment is showing itself :D).

My final point concerns the OPSEC issue and is in response to SWCAdmins' comment


Similarly, there is a drag to SIPR and FOUO. Sure, fewer enemy get the picture. But so do fewer friendlies.

There has been a real concern with OPSEC here, both from those in the military, and from us non-military types. In today's era of professional warfare, having a place where someone who is not in the military can help with the war effort is rare. There is a lot of rhetoric being sprayed around about a "long war" and a "total war" but, tell me, where can non-military people make their contributions? Would BCKS give me that chance? Would it give many of the posters here that chance?

Sorry to sound like I am up on a soap box, but I am :wry:. We have he technological capability to maintain OPSEC and to allow non-military people to help in this "People's War". Maybe your BCKS team should consider ways in which that can be encouraged.

Marc

[Stan]

Evening Marc !


where can non-military people make their contributions? Would BCKS give me that chance? Would it give many of the posters here that chance?


The answer is a resounding NO. Without AKO access (and my account is extremely limited), you cannot post, assist nor provide relative Bravo Sierra.

Regretfully !

Jed and JC drive a good point home. The "forum" does not contain input from the soldiers on the ground nor from the field. Essentially, we have what Tom coins as GI grumbling. There's literally tons of that to the tune of 10,000 plus posts.

I did spend several hours today on the IED links. Interesting, but access and endless PowerPoint presentations for the DC crowd left me hungry.

I think I'll stick with you folks..thank you very much :D

[jcustis]

SWJED and SWJAdmin,

You guys wouldn't gift the SWC/SWJ to any entity would you? :D I mean, I'm figuring that the cumulative brainpower here has to be worth at least half a million, in terms of the networked contacts.

At a minimum, compensation would need to be a case of steaks and beers.

Back on target though...MJO, what is the target audience? Guys preparing to go into the breach as well as those already in the breach, so that they can share share TTPs and lessons?

Or is the scope more generic, like an adjunct to formal platform instruction, but with dash of unit generated content?

[SWCAdmin]

"Convicted?" Never.

You guys wouldn't gift the SWC/SWJ to any entity would you?
"Gift" - No.

I mean, I'm figuring that the cumulative brainpower here has to be worth at least half a million, in terms of the networked contacts.
At least. But only if it keeps going. None of us are doing this to see the spark get extinguished by the wet blanket of selling out to "the man." Now me and Peter Fonda are going for a ride.

And Jane can't come.

[MJOCONN1]

All,

God I love you guys. I've been sharing your input with the team and we see it as all positive. Why? Because if we don't know what's wrong with it we can't get BCKS back on the target for which it was intended. The target audience, to quote you, is "Guys preparing to go into the breach as well as those already in the breach, so that they can share share TTPs and lessons!" I leaned that the first day on the job and was told to remember it every day after.

Not one person I spoke with today disagreed with what you any of you had to say. Hell, they thought you guys were straight on. We loved it. No, BCKS is not intended to be a career advancement forum. It's supposed to be a place where soldiers can share knowledge to increase their chances of success and survivability. It's also supposed to be a place where soldiers can talk peer-to-peer and improve their leadership abilities.

We've got former soldiers on our little team, and their beefs with the way the thing has turned out as opposed to the way we envisioned it agree pretty much what most of you had to say. They haven't been retired long, and they've still got buddies in the field, so they feel they've got something at stake in taking the stink out of BCKS. They ain't happy either, and last Friday's meeting was "spirited" to say the least. Okay, it was loud and angry, but that's what we hoped for when we invited the troops.

And that's why I invited ya'lls comments. You didn't disappoint. I've only been on this project for two weeks, and the thing that has been mentioned the least, if at all, is profit. I even asked what the value of the contract was, and I was told not to worry about it because no one else was. The thing that has been hammered on the most is the well-being of the soldier. No BS, guys. We're not that big of a company and it's pretty intimate around here. What everyone seems to be saying is that for BCKS to achieve the goals of its original mission, we all had better bust our humps to make sure we're around to make sure it happens. In a nutshell, what you guys said it should be is what it was supposed to be and what we want it to be.

So thank you all very much and please keep the gripes coming. I promise you, we are listening and taking notes.

[jonSlack]

BCKS feels antiseptic. Like going to an office where I don't really want to be. I lament the fact that my CC.mil has gone to a BCKS format (Ryan - I told Tony and Nate the same), it loads slow now and to me feels like the other BCKS. What made it successful was the "by Company Commanders for Company Commanders" feel where we hashed stuff out in a preoffessional manner and people went out of their way toimprove the proffession with relevant, fast paced, timely discussion.

I began participating in PlatoonLeader as a ROTC Cadet and continued as a 2LT. However, my activity on the site has plummented since they "made it better" by completely changing the interface. At this time, I do not see myself participating much in the CC.mil forum in the near future either.

Additionally, I do not use BCKS on a regular basis but I occasionally do pop on to follow links emailed to my AKO as part of the COIN discussion group.

[slapout9]

For SWJADMIN Peter with no Jane fonda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-073rIldKs

Ed. Schweet! -- SWC

[bismark17]

That is a cool intro. I will have to get one of those. Don't worry, I will run the VIN before purchase. :cool: