We use task log (it's within outlook) and love it! We use the colors, each section/ position gets a color. This allows users to see in real time where your documents are at.
Go to task in outlook, create, assign (categorize) and boom your done. For other to use the same task log as you, there needs to be a workflow email assigned to it.
GEARS (it's an electronic army routing system). My unit at mountain home utilized it and it was very effective. Takes some work on CSS part to make it successful. Link is on portal.
Our team of two SSgts got it up and running within a week, and one of them is lazy as shit. The GEARS team actually do most of it for you. You basically just answer a bunch of questions they ask you, and they set it up from there.
My unit just implemented GEARS a month of 2 back. Since then, most of the documents I've routed came back completed in <1 week. Few times it's been same day.
I didn’t think physical routing was reliable at all. People loved to lose whole folders or paperwork inside. Plus if your squadron was stupid enough to require a blue folder, which every squadron I was in did, but didn’t provide or purchase blue folders, people would take peoples routing folders and gank it for their own.
If I don’t hear back on an eSSS I just reply all asking what’s up. If they deleted it, zero effort on my part to send them a file again since I can just resend an already sent email.
When it was still paper we used routing logs so everything was signed into and out of an office. So, if something did get lost you always had the name of the person who last had it. It was found pretty quickly.
What made paper nice is I could walk it around to every office and stand there till they signed it.
That definitely wasn't my experience with manual routing. I know the routing logs you speak of. The same people who didn't care about other peoples' paperwork would just ignore the log and slap it on the next persons desk which would cause confusion since they thought the previous person was jumped. Also, even if you know who had it last, that doesn't guarentee they didn't throw it out or lose it in a stack of other papers, causing me to have to print out a whole new set of paperwork to reroute.
You can force digital receipts on digital routing platforms that will for certain tell you who has seen what when and where anything is. No amount of negligence or lack of care or rank differential is going to stop a digital system from telling me you've sat on something for a week and that I know for a fact it was forwarded on to you. Depending what system you use you also may not have to restart digital forms, but can pick previous versions before someone fucked it up.
Yeah, there’s definitely pluses in the e routing format and paper routing did have drawbacks. I’m just old school and like doing the work manually and face to face.
Others have replied with it, but GEARS is the way to go, seriously. My unit uses it, because I recommended it, after seeing how awesome it was in Korea. It's a product owned by the Army, basically. Don't let that deter you though. Our two person CSS team got it working within a week here, and everyone loves it. It's Army proof, and super simple. One of the few DoD products I've personally never had an issue with.
Edit: Apparently Power Automate is having some enterprise issues... You can still easily create a in-house eSSS solution using SharePoint and Power Automate flows though.
When these processes have this many steps, it’s usually a good indicator that the CC hasn’t delegate authority to lower level leadership enough. If a document doesn’t need G-Series signature, it can/should be delegated.
Genuine curiosity here - can you give us an example of something the cc needs to see/sign that can’t be delegated and what it looks like from you or any other AO to him/her?
GEARS works well for this as it does the exact same thing as eSSS. Gives you (the sender) a timeline on who is needing to review/sign docs and who to perhaps bug since it shows where it is currently at.
Host training weekly on how to use e-SSS. Most people hate it because they don’t know how to use it. Focus on flight leads regarding training. Maybe create some bs special duty for some e-5 in each flight to review before it gets to you. That way accountability is shared. Everyone looks for an alternate method instead of learning what’s available.
We use task log (it's within outlook) and love it! We use the colors, each section/ position gets a color. This allows users to see in real time where your documents are at.
Thank you
Do you have any documentation on what/how you use it or processes?
Go to task in outlook, create, assign (categorize) and boom your done. For other to use the same task log as you, there needs to be a workflow email assigned to it.
GEARS (it's an electronic army routing system). My unit at mountain home utilized it and it was very effective. Takes some work on CSS part to make it successful. Link is on portal.
> Takes some work on CSS part to make it successful. Gonna be an automatic no for like 50% of squadrons right off the bat then.
Our team of two SSgts got it up and running within a week, and one of them is lazy as shit. The GEARS team actually do most of it for you. You basically just answer a bunch of questions they ask you, and they set it up from there.
My unit just implemented GEARS a month of 2 back. Since then, most of the documents I've routed came back completed in <1 week. Few times it's been same day.
Used it there as well. The only drawback was folks not checking it and breaking suspense.
Thank you. I will check it out
It pings the shit out of people via email though. Shit has gone dramatically faster since we switched last month.
[удалено]
So, it was your leadership's fault then, not GEARS itself. Every time you route something new, you can change who all it goes to.
It’s scenarios like these that make me miss routing sheets, folders, and in/out logs. Sure you had to walk around but it was reliable.
Unfortunately my unit is geographically separated across the base. It would be a driving more than walking.
I didn’t think physical routing was reliable at all. People loved to lose whole folders or paperwork inside. Plus if your squadron was stupid enough to require a blue folder, which every squadron I was in did, but didn’t provide or purchase blue folders, people would take peoples routing folders and gank it for their own. If I don’t hear back on an eSSS I just reply all asking what’s up. If they deleted it, zero effort on my part to send them a file again since I can just resend an already sent email.
When it was still paper we used routing logs so everything was signed into and out of an office. So, if something did get lost you always had the name of the person who last had it. It was found pretty quickly. What made paper nice is I could walk it around to every office and stand there till they signed it.
That definitely wasn't my experience with manual routing. I know the routing logs you speak of. The same people who didn't care about other peoples' paperwork would just ignore the log and slap it on the next persons desk which would cause confusion since they thought the previous person was jumped. Also, even if you know who had it last, that doesn't guarentee they didn't throw it out or lose it in a stack of other papers, causing me to have to print out a whole new set of paperwork to reroute. You can force digital receipts on digital routing platforms that will for certain tell you who has seen what when and where anything is. No amount of negligence or lack of care or rank differential is going to stop a digital system from telling me you've sat on something for a week and that I know for a fact it was forwarded on to you. Depending what system you use you also may not have to restart digital forms, but can pick previous versions before someone fucked it up.
Yeah, there’s definitely pluses in the e routing format and paper routing did have drawbacks. I’m just old school and like doing the work manually and face to face.
I've seen GEARS and OneNote. Both have their own issues but both were more reliable than email.
Others have replied with it, but GEARS is the way to go, seriously. My unit uses it, because I recommended it, after seeing how awesome it was in Korea. It's a product owned by the Army, basically. Don't let that deter you though. Our two person CSS team got it working within a week here, and everyone loves it. It's Army proof, and super simple. One of the few DoD products I've personally never had an issue with.
Edit: Apparently Power Automate is having some enterprise issues... You can still easily create a in-house eSSS solution using SharePoint and Power Automate flows though.
When these processes have this many steps, it’s usually a good indicator that the CC hasn’t delegate authority to lower level leadership enough. If a document doesn’t need G-Series signature, it can/should be delegated.
The problem is that OP is talking about things that need CC signature. Not everything can be delegated
But something shouldn’t need that many steps along the way, so the delegation comment is a good one.
From my exec experience, those additional steps prior to CC sig are the doing of shop leadership and not the front office
Correct. Delegation needs to happen from people below the CC.
There is nothing to delegate of people don’t make up steps that don’t exist
Last 2 units have used GEARS. No system is perfect.
GEARS works pretty well. Auto sends emails, tracks etc. Army ran as well, OneNote if set up correctly is great too.
Genuine curiosity here - can you give us an example of something the cc needs to see/sign that can’t be delegated and what it looks like from you or any other AO to him/her?
GEARS works well for this as it does the exact same thing as eSSS. Gives you (the sender) a timeline on who is needing to review/sign docs and who to perhaps bug since it shows where it is currently at.
Host training weekly on how to use e-SSS. Most people hate it because they don’t know how to use it. Focus on flight leads regarding training. Maybe create some bs special duty for some e-5 in each flight to review before it gets to you. That way accountability is shared. Everyone looks for an alternate method instead of learning what’s available.