Design discussion could be aimed at fleet managers within my organisation who utilise the system daily with the aim to record their feedback. The end user could also be investigated, essentially, they are the ones who will capture required data from the assets for input onto JAMES, via managers, and carry out servicing, maintenance and inspection of assets which JAMES has directed them to do so. Do they feel the system over burdens their expected outputs?
Interview and discussion with managers/users may uncover shortfalls in the system which require improvement. Analysis of system data may also uncover potential improvement. The system allows capture of asset states in a qualitive manner allowing understanding of why assets are not available for task. Is the asset overdue service as maintainers cannot keep up with demand? Is the asset non-taskworthy through a system technicality which, would not impact the performance of the asset? Is the asset awaiting spares highlighting a delay or required improvement in a connected spares procurement system? Is the system completely reliant on IT? In the event of software difficulty what is the contingency plan? Surely the Armed Forces cannot stand still if a fleet managers desktop is not working?
In consideration of human systems involved with JAMES the system is only as efficient as the information which is entered into it by a human fleet manager. That fleet manager will then adhere to the organisational rank structure and task lower ranked users and maintainers