Battle Command Knowledge System, up and running.

[SSG Rock]

BCKS is open for business, its a great collection. If you have an AKO account you can access it with your AKO login and password. Highly recommended.

[Jedburgh]

I strongly second the recommendation. I've been using BCKS for a bit now, and it is a great resource, with a tremendous amount of untapped potential.

[Hal Schyberg]

Warrior University.army.mil is set up much better than BCKS and even has a link to it on the site. Check it out I think you will find it more user friendly.
V/R
Hal Schyberg

[Jedburgh]

Warrior University.army.mil is set up much better than BCKS and even has a link to it on the site. Check it out I think you will find it more user friendly.

"User friendly" has been an issue with BCKS. Its improving. There are similar issues with other secure forums, such as the FPS Portal and Cybercop using the Extranet Secure Protocol. Again, they are tweaking the systems while maintaining their level of secure access.

Warrior University is fine as it is - but I feel the forum feature is a diversion of effort that could be better integrated into BCKS as that system matures. We should have a single multi-disciplinary information sharing and professional collaboration system at the FOUO level - not multiple sites.

But the biggest problem is the audience. If you just look at AKO forums you'll immediately notice the ignorance and juvenile nature of much that is posted - right in-line with your average message board on the civilian side (SWC is a welcome exception). BCKS maintains a much more professional standard, but it is currently at the expense of not having much in the way of participation. The Warrior University forum is also pretty sparse in active posting. How is this a reflection on Army attitudes towards collaboration and sharing of lessons learned?

[SWJED]

SWC is a welcome exception

Thank you Jedburgh, we set out with that goal and we are going to keep it that way... Might not pay the bills but it is the right thing to do for those serious about our profession.

[Hal Schyberg]

Okay Warrior University was available first and already has gone through it maturation. BCKS is the diversion and is a waste of time and resources. WU has over 10,000 members (though admittedly the National Guard makes up the bulk). The old adage of not changing horses in mid stream is applicable here. The time, money and effort put into BCKS would be better spent on something that already works. WU's only failing at this point is that is not well known, once this changes I'm sure BCKS fall away.

[Jedburgh]

Okay Warrior University was available first and already has gone through it maturation. BCKS is the diversion and is a waste of time and resources. WU has over 10,000 members (though admittedly the National Guard makes up the bulk). The old adage of not changing horses in mid stream is applicable here. The time, money and effort put into BCKS would be better spent on something that already works. WU's only failing at this point is that is not well known, once this changes I'm sure BCKS fall away.

Sorry Hal, I strongly disagree with you on that point. Warrior University is not a bad set-up, but it is a very long way from being a mature professional collaboration forum.

Also, BCKS covers nearly the entire spectrum of Army professional fields and doctrinal areas. It is head and shoulders above WU in that respect. As I stated, BCKS is still growing and maturing and has tremendous potential. It managed to absorb NCO.net without any serious issues. I don't see WU as even serious competion as regards professional collaboration - it is simply a diversion of effort.

Your reply was certainly vehement. Are you personally involved in the operation of WU?

[SSG Rock]

From my position at the CAC & Fort Leavenworth DCSRM the official correspondance 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 Arm 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.

[Jedburgh]

From my position at the CAC & Fort Leavenworth DCSRM the official correspondance 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.

CALL is more or less simply a document archive. It's still easier to use than the AKO KC files, which archives a tremendous amount of information, but is far from user friendly. WU also has a lot of info archived, and it is far more user-friendly than the AKO KC files.

What I like about BCKS is the linking of documents and discussion in the various professional "Communities". It's still not as user-friendly as it could be, i.e. when someone uploads a document in the "Knowledge" section, you can't simply initiate a discussion thread that is directly linked to the document. The current "Add a Related Discussion" feature is clumsy, at best.

However, you can upload the document in a "Discussion" thread, but in order to get it into the "Knowledge" section, you have to upload it again in that section. But its great that you can upload virtually any size document directly into the discussion thread without having to link to it. If the developers can work out the obstacles between the "Knowledge" and "Discussion" areas it will definitely make a difference.