Reid Orders Review Of UK Defence Industry

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See here. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1539423,00.html)

Britain's major defence contractors, including BAE Systems, Thales, VT Group and Rolls-Royce, have been contacted by David Gould, deputy chief of defence procurement, to invite them to talks with senior officials at the Defence Procurement Agency. Gould has stressed that the MoD wants the review conducted away from the gaze of the public and the media. The aim is to determine UK forces' requirements as the nature of the conflicts they fight changes, with conventional threats being replaced by peacekeeping and anti-terrorist action.

A smokescreen for more cuts, or a needed reappraisal of procurement? Comments anyone?

[Hilife]

Evidence of reduced high street spending and poor growth in the economy is no secret but the Government has still remained upbeat about its growth forecasts.

However, some data released the week before last may suggest that even ‘Dear Prudence' himself may be suffering from the jitters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4695639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4699407.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4706749.stm

Could the two be related or is JR taking the Frank Sinatra stance?

[tucumseh]

“The aim is to determine UK forces' requirements as the nature of the conflicts they fight changes, with conventional threats being replaced by peacekeeping and anti-terrorist action”.



An interesting aim. I thought DECs determined the requirement and collectively set priorities (although admittedly they are mostly untrained in the minutiae of the process, leading to poorly articulated requirements being the primary cause of programme delays).

Who else is required to have the necessary competencies? The MoD project manager – the rules state that he/she must be able to fulfil ALL jobs on his/her project. However, CDP (or his predecessor to be more precise) has stripped the MoD of this expertise, dumbing it down to the point of incompetence in many areas.

That leaves industry, some of whom are actually very competent, employing as they do rafts of former servicemen and civilians. One assumes then that industry is to be invited to take a more proactive role in determining future defence requirements (an intelligent supplier, now we have foregone the aspiration to be an intelligent customer). Let us hope that this doesn’t mean even more blank cheques. Won’t be long before they determine policy.

In return for this “partnering” one hopes the MoD lay down some tough new ground rules, like;

1. We shall only pay once for any given contracted requirement
2. We shall no longer tolerate aircraft or their systems being delivered in an unsafe condition
3. We shall no longer pay off contracts knowing they have not been completed

Or am I being too optimistic? I can think of a few senior DPA staffs that would squirm at any or all of these rules or the thought of their competence being tested against them.

[LFFC]

tucumseh
One assumes then that industry is to be invited to take a more proactive role in determining future defence requirements (an intelligent supplier, now we have foregone the aspiration to be an intelligent customer).
You don't need to assume - it's already happening! I can think of at least one major project which is hoping to find a civilian "partner" very soon!

[KENNYR]

Would it not make more sense for Reid to talk with the users in the front line to get a "first hand" view of what is required for future conflicts.........who better to ask!!!

[tucumseh]

Kennyr

I can assure you that:

a. You are correct
b. DPA PMs are routinely castigated if they do such a thing

The detail and insight to be had from speaking to users is invaluable, because the devil is in the detail. However, you learn quickly in DPA that you can do the detail, or get promoted. Not both. What is detail? Well, I've been told it includes safety, quality, configuration control, airworthiness, systems integration, anything in the in-service phase, and so on. I've known some excellently initiated projects, which could be delivered effortlessly, to be cancelled or at best diluted by DPA on the grounds that "it includes integration, too risky, ditch it". Things will improve immeasurably for the front line when such people and their attitudes are themselves ditched. The Army, in particular, seem to suffer from this. (e.g. BOWMAN). The attitude does exist in the aircraft world, but there are usually sufficient safeguards (people who will stick their necks out) to ensure one man's drive for promotion does not result in catastrophe. (But not always).

[Bclass]

Tucumseh,

I would also like to say that in the small part of industry where I seem to spend my waking hours (but never regretting that PVR) we also attempt to ask the people on the shop floor their likes and dislikes. Invariably this exercise results in one of three things:

A request that the new system should be exactly the same as the old one

or

Lots of wildly contradictory opinions on what functionality is required

or

The user is too busy to turn up

The upshot of this is that someone in the IPT is left with decisions to make on behalf of the user (within a budget, however). I know many who try their best to meet user expectations but equally tales have been recounted of personalities displaying the DPA mentality you describe.

[tucumseh]

Bclass

“The upshot of this is that someone in the IPT is left with decisions to make on behalf of the user (within a budget, however)”.

Fully agree. This reinforces my point that, despite the old adage that a PM “makes decisions within his remit and seeks decisions outwith it”, nowadays there are fewer and fewer people willing to risk making a decision, so the management and customers fall back on the rule I quoted which says that, when someone won’t or can’t make a decision, it falls to the PM. As a PM I take this for granted as I was brought up on the rule, but I believe such responsibility should carry (a) authority and (b) rank. It doesn’t. Invariably the PM is the lesser grade these days.


To be topical in an aircraft forum, take this (real) example:

As PM, you are faced with a choice. The aircraft or system you have bought is unsafe but to rectify it will incur cost and delay. What do you do? Pay off the contract, take the promotion and hope? Or take the hit and fix it?

In the MoD, the former gets the promotion but is that the kind of person you want running the ship? The latter is more or less a disciplinary offence, given the odium you will face. What of industry (to get back to the thread)? Would you be happy with the company who knowingly deliver and demand payment for unsafe kit? I notice Westlands aren’t on the list of companies to be engaged. Well, they are ALWAYS up front and ALWAYS take the hit, which can’t be said of at least one of the four mentioned. If I were Dr Reid, I’d ignore all that’s said about “Wastelands” and invite along companies and PMs with proven integrity – they’d soon tell him what’s wrong and, more importantly, point him to prime examples of how to do it properly.

[LFFC]

tucumseh
However, you learn quickly in DPA that you can do the detail, or get promoted. Not both. I take my hat off to you for being so honest. This fits together with other posts such as on the Pay As You Dine thread, for example:Unfortunately the ultimate consequences HAVE NOT BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH!The same could be said about many other projects and initiatives. Overall, the lack of attention to detail is appalling because very senior personnel do not wish to hear the bad news that it would bring.

....and yet, "optimism bias" is apparently something that we should all guard against!

[Si Clik]

All,

As someone who used to sit across the table from the IPT, there are serious safety case issues for aircraft which IPTs cannot bypass. This is due them being personally liable if an accident is shown as due to their oversight.

We may criticise QQ but because of such awareness of litigation your average trials officer or PM will not allow a report to clear something that cannot be proven as 'saef for flight'. Hence the Chinook Mk 3 fiasco where the IPT and DEC tried to cut corners to save money.

Additionally the TP and Military Trials Officers at BD etc have the front line interests at heart and put more checks and balances/common sense in.

Si

[5206]

Si Clik,

At last, someone who can see that those at BD aren't the bad guys, but doing a good job at the sh!tty end of the stick.

cheers

5206

[tucumseh]

Si Clik


“As someone who used to sit across the table from the IPT, there are serious safety case issues for aircraft which IPTs cannot bypass. This is due them being personally liable if an accident is shown as due to their oversight”.



The example I was thinking about (one of many) was not my project, however I was to “inherit” the system/TI aircraft in question for my own projects. Boscombe Down advised the PM of an “essential” – a critical safety issue which both the PM and his contractor knew about but flatly refused to rectify, despite the MAR recommendations. The contract was paid off and both PM and company walked away. The BD trials officer, who also worked on my projects, asked if I could do anything to help. When the aircraft came under my charge I ordered that it be rectified. The cost was millions. MoD paid twice to get the job done as management refused to seek recompense either from the other Directorate (IPT) or the company. Therefore, something had to give and that, unfortunately, was from my budget and my projects.

There are contributors to this forum (including the BD trials officer) who know exactly what I’m talking about and were, I’m told, grateful that I stuck my head above the parapet when they took the aircraft to war 4 years ago. They were disgusted at both the PM and my own management. (Both since promoted despite the full details being aired at DPA XB level and above). Two whole floorplates at ABW witnessed what went on, and saw who got the bollocking and critical annual report (me) and who benefited. This, despite the intervention of a very senior RN officer on my behalf. Enough to make you think what to do next time.


Sorry Si, but IPTs CAN bypass safety issues. I don’t agree this should be possible but it is, and the increasing tendency to use grossly inexperienced PM means they treat safety as tradable, through ignorance and lack of exposure to reality. (Having to fly in the maintenance test flight on the aircraft you’ve just fixed works wonders! Don’t know if this still happens?) Trouble is, to many PMs “safety” is just something that comes before “spares” in the A-Z of project management. There’s no comprehension, to the point that I have been told on many occasions that maintaining safety is a “waste of money”. Indeed, funding for this was largely withdrawn about 14 years ago, which means the process is no longer automatic and now relies on the PM realising he has not been given money to do it, and must find it from within the budget. This requires experience. You also mention Chinook Mk3. Slightly out of context but the common denominator is the greasy pole of promotion and a willingness to cut corners and ignore good advice. That one was predictable, predicted and ignored.

[5206]

tucumseh
IPTs CAN bypass safety issues
Strictly speaking, they can't.
Having sought advice, it is for the IPTL to consider the advice. Ignoring isn't really an option, but an 'alternative' safety argument might be made.

5206

[tucumseh]

5206

Yes, that was what I was always taught. It's a nicety that BD are seen to recommend, and a PM would be mad to ignore them. However, I stand by what I said - I have experienced serial madness. The MoD have acknowledged it in at least one BOI report which is in the public domain (although you have to understand the technicalities to appreciate what they are saying), and other issues I mentioned have been noted by the Committee of Public Accounts in extremely critical reports. On the specific example I quoted, I obtained confirmation of the ruling against me via FOI (i.e there was no wrong doing by the parties I mentioned). I remain critical, but have to accept the ruling or resign. All of which made me comfortable saying what I did.

Of course, there are other ways to bypass safety "obligations", namely the Service Engineered Modification route. Very popular when cash strapped but ask Westlands how many times they have either (a) not been asked to carry out an appraisal (which is mandatory) or (b) have said "It works, but it isn't safe" - only for the MoD to approve use. Yes, I know there are times when the risk is acceptable, but it should be mitigated at the first opportunity. To follow on from this, it is common practice not to update Design Authority configuration control data when introducing a SEM, which is a fundamental component of the safety audit trail. And SEMs are routinely removed from TI aircraft (and so unseen and unappraised by BD) only to be refitted later. Another false saving, again noted by the PAC, which means that when a DA mod is contracted to the DA, he is unaware of the true build standard of the aircraft or system; and therefore signs up to the safety of a build standard which is, in practice, never used. (And this is precisely why GD have hit a brick wall on BOWMAN platform installations).

Regards

[Safeware]

tucumseh,

Indeed, funding for this was largely withdrawn about 14 years ago, which means the process is no longer automatic and now relies on the PM realising he has not been given money to do it, and must find it from within the budget. Very popular when cash strapped

Reminds me of the saying

"If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident"

sw

[BossEyed]

Si, I fully agree thatAdditionally the TP and Military Trials Officers at BD etc have the front line interests at heart and put more checks and balances/common sense in.

However, contrary to popular belief in some parts of this board, the civilian trials officers and technical authorisation chain also have the front line's interests (both operational and safety) at heart. That's what they are there for, and all of them would agree with me - I guarantee it.

The extras that the military bring to the party are the essential recent operational knowledge and role relation.

:ok: To you for your comments, and 5206 for At last, someone who can see that those at BD aren't the bad guys, but doing a good job at the sh!tty end of the stick.