Acquisition review on the cards

[Cpt_Pugwash]

This is probably old news to forum members like Tucumseh and Evalu8ter, but I don't think it has appeared on these means yet, having had a very low-key announcement (http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2008/11/index.html) in December as part of a reply to an NAO report.


It has now appeared at page 5 of ithe January issue of Desider (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77E39892-7895-4D83-9C81-207BD553A06F/0/desider_09_Jan09.pdf]Desider) , text copied below with my bold ....

Acquisition review on the cards

BETTER VALUE for money in delivering major acquisition programmes will be the aim
of a new review. Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced the review to examine progress
with implementing reforms through the MOD’s Acquisition Change Programme. It will also make further
recommendations to secure better value for money in the delivery of major acquisition programmes.
The review will be led by businessman and journalist Bernard Gray.
“Tough decisions need to be made and, with future value for money in mind, I have asked Bernard Gray
to conduct a review into our processes for procuring and delivering major equipment programmes to make sure
we deliver projects on time and on budget,” he said.
The review has been welcomed by the MOD’s Permanent Under Secretary Bill Jeffrey.
“Sir Kevin O’Donoghue and I want to ensure that we take full advantage of his help and expertise to assess
the progress we have made and what more we still have to do,” he said in a message to DE&S staff.
“I am well aware of the huge amount of work put into our acquisition effort and the changes already underway.
The Secretary of State and I are clear that this review does not call into question the direction of travel and
should not divert attention from ongoing work.”
Mr Gray is a former special adviser to George Robertson and defence correspondent at the Financial Times.

So, we're alright then, a review by a journalist, with the result a foregone conclusion.

Cynical, moi?

[BEagle]

Since when did 'review' ever mean anything other than 'cuts'?

[XV277]

This Govt has a habit of commissioning 'reviews' by outsiders which funnily enough then report back with the conculsion that Gordon Brown wanted them to.

[gijoe]

Bristol needs a massive kick up the backside - whilst review may mean cuts, I am of the opinion that DE&S needs one. This opinion is gained from working there. It simply is not a customer focused organisation - more of a civil-service focused setup.

Bring it on and have the courage to carry out any recommendations is what I say.

G

[Madbob]

There's no "tough" decisions to be made - it's all very simple...

EITHER the govt gets out its cheque book, or its near cousin the very flexible govt Access, card and puts its money where its mouth is and we go on pretending that we still have an air force/navy/army with certain capabilities which used to be there.

OR, the govt puts away its soapbox at the UN, G7 (or is it G8 now?), steps out of NATO, takes up a neutral position internationally and maintain armed forces capable of a defensive role only (no force projection) and able to support humanitarian efforts abroad in so-called benign environments.

Given that GB, David Milliband, Peter Mandleson et al are unlikely to stop strutting the world stage (they enjoy the jet-set lifestyle and it helps distracts them from having to concentrate on domestic issues which polititians find ever so dull!) they will inevitably "fudge" any decision so we end up with the worst of both worlds.

Armed forces which are over-stretched, capability holidays, obsolete and knackered kit and an exodus of people who we can ill-afford to lose and who will be costly to replace......

My answer is that we need to be much more honest about what we as a country want in the 21st century. If there are threats "out there" which means that we need to retain and sustain a certain minimum force level (which we are led to believe there are) then we NEED to have credable armed forces to defend this country's interests worldwide. We also ought to know from previous experience that there is never time to prepare for a war or conflict and you fight with what you've got. This means that if the cupboard is bare, you're out of the contest before it starts.

That's fine if your talking about whether to host the next olympic games but not ok when there's been a Taliban take-over in Pakistan and you suddenly face a new treat or a friendly state gets invaded and our imported supplies of oil/gas/food etc. which we rely on now :hmm: don't arrive.

It's about time that John Hutton realised that there's a war going on and the armed forces are fed-up being under-resourced and under-valued. It's through the decisions of our illustrious political leaders that we found ourselves in Iraq and Afganistan in the first place. Having taken that decision it's hight time they showed their proper support....that means recognising the cost in accelerated consumption of fatigue-life in ac and the timely procurement of new ones and the benefits of having greater numbers of platforms in the first place. Also they need to understand the limitations of civvy air transport, fine for certain jobs, but not for tactical supply missions and the need for more support helos.....

I practically weep with frustration with news of one procurement fiasco after another, with orders being cut-back for Nimrods, Future Lynx, F35 and delays to the A400M, future carrier etc. How on earth did we even manage to design, build, test fly and introduce into service so many new ac - and engines - during WW2? We can't even replace like-for-like combat losses:{.

MB

[BEagle]

Good post, Madbob!

Given that GB, David Milliband, Peter Mandelson et al are unlikely to stop strutting the world stage (they enjoy the jet-set lifestyle and it helps distracts them from having to concentrate on domestic issues which polititians find ever so dull!) they will inevitably "fudge" any decision so we end up with the worst of both worlds.

'Mandelson' and 'fudge' in the same paragraph. How very appropriate..:ooh:!

[Jig Peter]

Since leaving the "Incredible Shrinking Air Force" many a decade ago, I've watched with interest how manufacturers deliver civil aircraft on time, on cost, on spec and the problems the military have.
I shouldn't be surprised, really, as I did my Basic training on the Prentice, having followed that odd aeroplane's history from its first flight ... The spec poor Percivals had to work to was based on some educationist's theory in the Training world that a third student behind the "working" drivers up front would "learn through listening". (he couldn't see much of what went on in any case). The long canopy led to major problems with airflow round the tail, which is another (but fascinating) story ... But the third seat space was great for filling up with holly to decorate the Messes at Yuletide, which the 3rd guy, and sometimes his instructor, picked while the other poor soul did circuits and bumps ... :ugh:
B U T I learned then that the meddling experts in Whitehall or elsewhere in the "system" who go on to another career experience before their errors come to light were (are still ?) a major problem. And then, the Pols ...

Civil airlines have people who really know their job on new equipment programmes, who work with the manufacturer, and hold said builder to his promises. They don't chop and change the guys in charge to suit some promotion escalator, it's (was) a pleasure to work with them, and they certainly don't employ people whose major "talent" is for "being an offsah".
Rant over ...
But putting a journo to head a sort-out seems as odd an idea in the best of Britain's Great Traditions ...
:8

[Double Zero]

I will straight away make it clear I am in no way a fan of our present 'Govt' but it must be pointed out that ever since the end of WWII we have been in decline, each bunch of politicians adding to the idiocy of the last lot, until we reach the state we're in today.

It should be remembered Thatcher was all for selling Invincible before, in exactly the same way as Galteiri really, the Falklands proved handy for diverting attention from domestic policies - once that was over and her arse had been saved by the Harrier ( and AIM9L ) she promptly binned the P1216 supersonic STOVL project with barely a glance.

A REAL review, not run to a pre-established agenda, might reveal the REAL wastage and where savings could be made - suppliers of ancillary kit such as for instance oxygen bottle trolleys, I seem to remember, charged silly money, truly taking the P', and were paid happily.

If, as I believe, this sort of ripping off the Ministry is normal practice by suppliers of just about all kit, THAT should be the first thing to be sorted.

A colleagues' brother is in the Navy ( though not for much longer ) - he reports ships running without accomodation heating half the time to save fuel - and I don't mean in the tropics !

SSBN crews are being given a very minimal rest then straight back out for another patrol - funnily enough good people are leaving in droves.

It'll take more than an I-Pod socket to recruit people nowadays, and I don't fancy the chances of manning CVF.

Another snag is the upper age limit - youngsters don't fancy the services, while those who might are 'too old' while every other employer in Civvy street thinks the opposite.

[NURSE]

Have to agree wit madbob. I wonder how much of the fiasco's are caused by the comittees of civil servants and military who decide thease things. Maybee cutting some of the useless mouths and layers from the procurment proceedures might improve the outcomes it would appear to work in industry?

[Not_a_boffin]

As one who has seen it from inside and out, if the review focusses on the "process" of procurement and acquisition rather than the programmes, then it might be worthwhile. The scope for delay, change of mind/spec, risk without understanding of impact on cost remains astonishingly large and in many ways "smart acquisition" has actually made it worse in that the funding buckets are vastly more complicated than they perhaps had to be. Above all, the requirement scrutiny organisation has grown to monstrous proportions with a propensity to over-elaborate requirements by linking them to a never ending stream of platforms/capabilities that cannot ever be sensibly quantified. Add a change of "scenario" every couple of years "because SAG need something to do" and it's calamity time.

That said, half of this is caused by MoD simply not having the capability to query the contractors costs (with sound evidential backing) or even understand their own.

[BossEyed]

Not_a_boffin, rather than introducing yet another new process, I'd like MOD to first see if this one actually works!

In other words, force people to follow it. :ugh: Do what the Framework says, and spend up to 15% of the through-life procurement budget pre-Main Gate on fully understanding what the Front Line needs, costing it properly (across all LODs) then writing it down in a clear, robust & comprehensive Plan. (Which, being robust, can then be properly defended from salami & beans obsessed pencil pushers).

Then - and this is the really novel bit - FOLLOW THE PLAN. :hmm:

The Acquisition & Acceptance guidance is reasonably sensible and logical when you read it, but it would appear that few follow it - in part because it's not policed.

What DE&S wants is an Enforcement Branch. :}


Ah, I can dream, can't I?

[Not_a_boffin]

I don't think most of the problem lies at the brizzel end. It tends to be at the MB end where short termism in forming the EP (or whatever it's called now) not to mention the annual SEM bunfight, rules the roost and is compounded by the desire to try and link all capabilities together. Nothing wrong with the original ideas behind SA and the spend allocations you outline, it's just that even were one to get the 15% of TLC for pre-MG activities, the current implementation of the system would spend huge amounts of it on self-licking activities rather than setting requirements and plans and most importantly committing to them. As an example, the Future Surface Combatant is currently in its Nth concept stage and people are still writing the requirement for it from scratch (it hasn't materially changed in 10 years!). FASGW is in a similar predicament, as is FASH/SABR/FRC..........

[Cpt_Pugwash]

N_a_B, BossEyed,

Some good points there, in particular ..

"That said, half of this is caused by MoD simply not having the capability to query the contractors costs (with sound evidential backing) or even understand their own."

I've mentioned before on another thread that the one department that could and did do just that, has been reduced in size, divided up and much of the remnants re-focussed on to assurance tasks. Plans are afoot to regroup and get back to something approaching the prior organisation, but much of the corporate knowledge and expertise has been lost.

As noted above, the existing processes are reasonably sound but are seldom properly implemented, and even when they are, they can be overturned " by ministerial direction" . AJT a prime example.

As ever, what goes around, comes around.

[Not_a_boffin]

CP

I know some of the guys you mention and unfortunately with the best will in the world they were always seen off (in maritime anyway) by the contractor, principally because :

a) they relied on historical data which just doesn't work with defence programmes due to the interval between projects

b) They had no independent view of world-wide benchmarking of industrial activities

Even when you get on to TLC, the ability of MoD to understand where the money is going is limited.

[Mister-T]

Just my view

Some of the blame does have to lay with Industry. There are several companies out there that screw the MoD over and in turn forces DE & S to add more levels of bureaucracy in order to combat such screwing over. That in turn adds more time and cost to the programmes and thus reduces monies available to spend on what actually is necessary. I have worked in Bristol and to be fair to the civvies there they are just as frustrated as you and I.

I also believe that the bad behaviour of some of our Industrial partners has led to complete mistrust of anyone outside of the MoD. Newer projects are now facing those dificulties and the drive toward perfect requirements, ITEA strategy and commercial intelligence all come at a price in time and manpower.

As for our Civil Service counterparts well in the particular area I have worked in I have been impressed by both their attitude and performance. Yes there are a few that steal oxygen but that happens in all walks of life.

I found myself increasingly frustrated with the requirement being whittled and whittled away for affordability reasons that often seem to stem direct from Govenment pressure nowadays. At what point should an IPT put its hands up and say that a project simply is no longer a viable option as it cannot perform its function due to enforced cuts?

Lastly the MoD has been underfunded for a long long time now and its easy from the outside looking in to blame DE & S, but when you have worked within its walls you rapidly realise that the vast majority of issues that cause such pain arrive in equal volume from both the bean counters and the manufacturers.

These days you very rarely get something for nothing and the days of Boom are long gone and manufacturers need to embrace that.

[Not_a_boffin]

Fair point. Industry will obviously try to get away with the biggest margin & lowest effort (hence cost) it can - that's generally how business works.

The trouble is we now have two-way pressure - budget cuts based on "affordability" which are often poor cost estimates (see earlier about lack of MoD costing capability), coupled with change control in contracts which are tortuous to implement and end up taking more out of the budget. All driven by Gordons desire "not to waste a penny on defence". In short, we're screwed......

[The Real Slim Shady]

You also have the intrinsic problem that the decisions are not founded on sense, but on promotion. The approver of the project will not sanction a change or cancellation because his / her next Star or Honour will go out the window and the "promotion" will be sideways.

Moreover, he / she is not answerable to a market or commercial forces as civilians are: if Joe the Flying Public doesn't like your A400 or FSTA he won't buy a seat on it more than once and you will go out of business.

Even if there is a call to answer for some failing, the incumbent of the POST who made the decision will have passed the buck to the replacement. Maybe longer tours of duty for the decision makers would encourage some caution.