Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[Naughty Cal]

Well maybe to you it does not matter. I might be on the move and logged then a week later go back to that location and stay for 14 days the system would then show me as having been there for 21 days so yes it is important. You just need to think about it a boat might be logged while moving go into a marina for 3 weeks go back and moor up at that place for 10 days get logged and the system would tell them they had been there for 31 days

The boat being logged at the same spot 31 days apart doesnt imply it has stayed there for 31 days. It implies it was logged there 31 days apart.

 

Most boat owners would be able to prove where they were inbetween those two dates.

 

Unless of course they were on the mooring for the full 31 days.

 

No, no, the answer to the OP' original question is 'yes'.....

 

 

....because the purpose was to shaft Tony Dunkley in court and it was perfect for that.

No doubt Tony will back up that theory

[Tony Dunkley]

 

No, no, the answer to the OP' original question is 'yes'.....

 

 

....because the purpose was to shaft Tony Dunkley in court and it was perfect for that.

 

Not just me, though.

[mayalld]

 

Don't look now . . . but it seems that C&RT have just pulled the rug out from under you.

 

Not at all.

 

My conclusions as to the data that CRT hold about your boat was proved correct.

 

I said that the reporting wasn't up to scratch.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Not at all.

 

My conclusions as to the data that CRT hold about your boat was proved correct.

 

I said that the reporting wasn't up to scratch.

A bit like narrowminded worlds?

[cotswoldsman]

The boat being logged at the same spot 31 days apart doesnt imply it has stayed there for 31 days. It implies it was logged there 31 days apart.

 

Most boat owners would be able to prove where they were inbetween those two dates.

 

No as the system logged the boat twice in the same spot and it logged them as being moored it implies they were moored there for 31 days. As the discussion is "is the system fit for purpose" in this case the answer has to be "no" because it is aging a boat is moored when it is not

[cotswoldsman]

 

Not at all.

 

My conclusions as to the data that CRT hold about your boat was proved correct.

 

I said that the reporting wasn't up to scratch.

Just to be clear ate you saying that CRT with a bit of tweaking are wasting their money on paying for all new soft ware for enforcement that someone like yourself could pop in and ensure the present system/software is all they need and instead of waiting until next year to have the type of system they need to give them all the information they need it could be done by simply changing the reports it gives? Edited September 23, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[mayalld]

No as the system logged the boat twice in the same spot and it logged them as being moored it implies they were moored there for 31 days. As the discussion is "is the system fit for purpose" in this case the answer has to be "no" because it is aging a boat is moored when it is not

 

My understanding is that the system (as presently written) contains no information as to whether a sighting relates to a moored boat or a boat under way.

 

As such, it is clearly incorrect to say that the system logged the boat as being moored.

 

It might well be that somebody chooses to INTERPET the data as saying that (on the grounds that most logged sightings are of moored boats), but the data doesn't TELL anybody that this is the case.

 

As to what has happened in the intervening time, one can of course extrapolate from a given data set and draw inferences, but they are just that, inferences.

[jenlyn]

My understanding is that the system (as presently written) contains no information as to whether a sighting relates to a moored boat or a boat under way.

 

As such, it is clearly incorrect to say that the system logged the boat as being moored.

 

It might well be that somebody chooses to INTERPET the data as saying that (on the grounds that most logged sightings are of moored boats), but the data doesn't TELL anybody that this is the case.

 

As to what has happened in the intervening time, one can of course extrapolate from a given data set and draw inferences, but they are just that, inferences.

In other words, the system is unreliable and not fit for purpose, owing to the fact it can only calculate correctly if all the factors are "inputted ".

[mayalld]

Just to be clear ate you saying that CRT with a bit of tweaking are wasting their money on paying for all new soft ware for enforcement that someone like yourself could pop in and ensure the present system/software is all they need and instead of waiting until next year to have the type of system they need to give them all the information they need it could be done by simply changing the reports it gives?

 

I am saying a number of things;

 

1) In respect of the extremely specific complaint that was raised regarding the data content of a particular report, I am very much saying that with a fairly trivial amount of effort that report could be improved to present a report that was easier to understand, based upon the same underlying data.

2) In respect of the complaint that until a boat is sighted elsewhere, it is assumed to be where it was last sighted, again the reporting on the existing system could be enhanced to provide those who interpret the data with better information.

3) In respect of the data that is captured when a boat is sighted, it has been identified that the capture of additional data regarding the vessel sighted would provide a richer dataset that would be more useful. Existing data capture isn't invalid, but it is more limited, and a richer data set would make drawing inferences easier.

4) I assume that there is no intention to replace the underlying SAP system. rather additional information will need to be added to the tables, and the data capture will need to be enhanced.

5) It is quite likely that enhancing the data capture will involve replacing the hand-held devices with new devices running new software, because the existing devices are at end of life.

 

Enhancing software doesn't happen tomorrow (If we want an enhancement to our system here, the next available slot is the end of March 2015 (actually, no it isn't that release is full, June 2015 is the next slot)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

No as the system logged the boat twice in the same spot and it logged them as being moored it implies they were moored there for 31 days. As the discussion is "is the system fit for purpose" in this case the answer has to be "no" because it is aging a boat is moored when it is not

At the moment, it would seem that the only data collected is index number, date of sighting, co-ordinates and data collector name (although other data in SAP is used - for example to provide location codes). Other information that would make the data more meaningful would be -

 

Boat name (as a cross check to ensure the correct index number).

 

Direction boat facing (this would help determine if the boat has moved or not since the last sighting)

 

Boat moving or moored (obviously if the boat moving then it is not moored!)

 

Time (together with date will give a more accurate picture).

 

There may be others.

 

More accurate boat sighting data should lead to better enforcement decisions.

 

 

[mayalld]

In other words, the system is unreliable and not fit for purpose, owing to the fact it can only calculate correctly if all the factors are "inputted ".

 

No.

 

In respect of sightings, the system is simply collating information and reporting it back.

 

It would be more useful with more information, but that doesn't make it unreliable as it stands.

 

Given the data, as it stands now, it would be perfectly possible to add a "Gone by" column to a report;

 

1)

SELECT the next sighting recorded at this Flocn. If this boat is not present, record the date in a variable var_gone_dt

 

2)

SELECT the next sighting of this boat not at this Flocn if found and the date is less that var_gone_dt then update the value of var_gone_dt

 

3)

If var_gone_dt is not null, output that date as "gone by"

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Enhancing software doesn't happen tomorrow (If we want an enhancement to our system here, the next available slot is the end of March 2015 (actually, no it isn't that release is full, June 2015 is the next slot)

Is that because all your staff are spending time posting on forums rather than working?

[bassplayer]

No.

 

Given the data, as it stands now, it would be perfectly possible to add a "Gone by" column to a report;

 

 

So where are you going to get the data to populate the 'Gone By' column?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So where are you going to get the data to populate the 'Gone By' column?

You did not understand Dave's pseudo code.

 

What he is saying is that if the next sighting of the boat indicates that the boat has moved you put 'gone by' in front of that sighting date.

 

What he really means is 'gone sometime before [date] (assuming it was actually moored when last sighted)'.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

You did not understand Dave's pseudo code.

 

What he is saying is that if the next sighting of the boat indicates that the boat has moved you put 'gone by' in front of that sighting date.

 

What he really means is 'gone sometime before [date] (assuming it was actually moored when last sighted)'.

 

 

Ah but it can not do that as the system does not tell the checker who was at a location last time visited (confirmed by CRT a few weeks ago) Edited September 23, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Ah but it can not do that as the system does not tell the checker who was at a location last time visited (confirmed by CRT a few weeks ago)

What Dave is suggesting is SAP queries/reports do this. It has nothing to do with the datachecker and is a trivial task.

 

Of course it is rather silly.

 

They might just as well, when two or more consecutive sightings of a boat are in the same place, get the query/report to say 'The boat has moored at the same place for xx days assuming the boat was actually moored and not moving at each sighting and did not move elsewhere and return within those xx days'.

 

 

 

[Paul C]

What Dave is suggesting is SAP queries/reports do this. It has nothing to do with the datachecker and is a trivial task.

 

Of course it is rather silly.

 

They might just as well, when two or more consecutive sightings of a boat are in the same place, get the query/report to say 'The boat has moored at the same place for xx days assuming the boat was actually moored and not moving at each sighting and did not move elsewhere and return within those xx days'.

 

 

 

 

Do CRT actually assume the boat has overstayed with 2 consecutive sightings in the same place, and take action based on this? I thought the criteria they use internally, was 6 consecutive sightings in the same place.

 

The argument whether they should record moving/moored is a moot one, yes it enhances the richness of the data but at the end of the day, one can be moving but only a short distance and remain in the same "place". In other words, at the same time as not assuming that a boat sighting currently, means it was moored there; with a boat sighting in the future with the additional info of its moving, one can't assume its travelled a significant distance.

[cotswoldsman]

What Dave is suggesting is SAP queries/reports do this. It has nothing to do with the datachecker and is a trivial task.

 

Of course it is rather silly.

 

They might just as well, when two or more consecutive sightings of a boat are in the same place, get the query/report to say 'The boat has moored at the same place for xx days assuming the boat was actually moored and not moving at each sighting and did not move elsewhere and return within those xx days'.

 

 

 

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here as I think we both agree the system at present is not much good.

In my recent conversation with CRT it was explained to me that the system is geared to individual boats. So when the checker enters a boat number it will tell him when it was logged and where, if you then asked the system who else was at that location last time the checker was there it can not tell you. So in my case it would not tell the checker if my boat is at a location then there is a very high chance Stan's boat was close, to that they need to enter Stan's boat number and see if he was logged at that location

[cotswoldsman]

 

Do CRT actually assume the boat has overstayed with 2 consecutive sightings in the same place, and take action based on this? I thought the criteria they use internally, was 6 consecutive sightings in the same place.

 

The argument whether they should record moving/moored is a moot one, yes it enhances the richness of the data but at the end of the day, one can be moving but only a short distance and remain in the same "place". In other words, at the same time as not assuming that a boat sighting currently, means it was moored there; with a boat sighting in the future with the additional info of its moving, one can't assume its travelled a significant distance.

Nothing to do with the number of sightings it is the number of days between sightings

what they do in London now is send a text telling the boater they have been sighted at the same place for more than xx number of days and advising them to move or contact CRT if they have a good reason for staying or if they do not agree with the information. This system will be rolled out over the entire system if it proves successful in London the only slight flaw is that it relies on CRT having the boaters mobile number

[Paul C]

Nothing to do with the number of sightings it is the number of days between sightings

what they do in London now is send a text telling the boater they have been sighted at the same place for more than xx number of days and advising them to move or contact CRT if they have a good reason for staying or if they do not agree with the information. This system will be rolled out over the entire system if it proves successful in London the only slight flaw is that it relies on CRT having the boaters mobile number

 

The criteria to send a text will be different to the criteria to commence enforcement action.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The criteria to send a text will be different to the criteria to commence enforcement action.

Yes hopefully the text will help reduce action and the issuing of enforcement notices initial reports from CRT indicate it is having some success

[mayalld]

Ah but it can not do that as the system does not tell the checker who was at a location last time visited (confirmed by CRT a few weeks ago)

You are confusing "the system does not", being a statement of what reporting functionality has been built, with "the system cannot", which implies that the suggested query is impossible to satisfy from the given data.

 

The fact that the system doesn't churn out this information doesn't mean that the information cannot be provided from the data.

[bassplayer]

I was a senior software engineer for 20 years after having had a systems integration and customer support background. I found the biggest problem was trying to get software engineers to see the 'big picture'....

[mayalld]

I was a senior software engineer for 20 years after having had a systems integration and customer support background. I found the biggest problem was trying to get software engineers to see the 'big picture'....

Any code monkey can deliver exactly what the customer PM specifies.

 

However the skilled analyst realises that the customer doesn't actually know what he wants (if he is unlucky he gets a customer who doesn't know but thinks he does), and works from the customers initial requirements, suggesting what the customer should actually be asking for.

 

Unfortunately, there are some in IT who take a perverse pleasure in giving people exactly what they asked for to "teach the PM a lesson".

[MtB]

I was a senior software engineer for 20 years after having had a systems integration and customer support background. I found the biggest problem was trying to get software engineers to see the 'big picture'....

 

And now you spend nearly as much time posting rubbish on here as me. How the mighty are fallen....

 

 

MtB