Defence Acquisition for the Twenty-first Century
SO:_
All what? All he said was implement the regs. Seems simple enough isn't it? It isn't? Then there perhaps is where the trouble lies, there perhaps is where the culprits lie.
Name and shame and then try to reform, rebuild, and regain that lost knowledge and ability. If you simply go for:-
you will achieve neither and continue the waste of life and treasure. The last man who believed in a year zero was a certain Pol Pot...
What's the point of doing all that, tucumsuh,
Name and shame and then try to reform, rebuild, and regain that lost knowledge and ability. If you simply go for:-
a whole new way forward
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Implement the regs, identify the culprits". By all means, chug. Just don't kid yourself that by doing so you'll be ushering in a new era of defence procurement. In the civil world, those responsible for a failed project generally lose their jobs, so yes, I agree and share your disgust at the apparent lack of accountability. But will the name and shame of a few "culprits" really get us better defence equipment? It'll only ensure "the regs" are followed to the letter, no decision, however trivial without the full committee and lots of meetings and minutes to make sure everyone's covered.
Shot One
But MoD often goes too far and we see change for the sake of change. The point I made is that there are good people who have implemented perfectly good mandated regulations and procedures, producing exceptional kit to time, cost and performance - and very often bettering all 3. But they are denigrated, despised and marginalised. To do so raises the bar, and we can't have that, can we?
If this can be achieved, why do we need a fundamental change? What we need is to teach new staffs how these successes were achieved, and give that a shot.
Who is responsible in MoD? Take Chinook Mk3 for example. The "gold standard cock-up" according to the Public Accounts Committee. Read their report - MoD claimed it could not identify the person with "management oversight". There were about 6000 people at AbbeyWood who could simply look up the staff list and tell you his name and phone number. And that it was the same person who had the same responsibility on Nimrod MRA4. Certain staffs are protected species. Why?
What's the point of doing all that, tucumsuh, when the key point of this paper is that the existing system needs fundamental change? This is about a whole new way forward, not a post-mortem and a bit of tweaking for what's gone before.
If this can be achieved, why do we need a fundamental change? What we need is to teach new staffs how these successes were achieved, and give that a shot.
In the civil world, those responsible for a failed project generally lose their jobs
I'm really not sure how helpful all these clever essays are.
Grouping of SMEs? This seems based on F1=good, how do we copy that? It seems to miss the point that what F1 does (well) is build technology that lasts 5 minutes and throw it away after a week, to some tightly defined rules. Not really a model for an aircraft to last e.g. 20-30 years.
At the end of the day, if you want to replace e.g. Tornado, then you need something like e.g. a productionised Taranis. A bunch of SMEs won't knock that up in a shed - it is an expensive long term business. No real shortcuts.
Whilst expensive to do domestically, as France and Sweden show, all it takes it a decision to get on with it - and stick it out through the inevitable bumps.
See APT and TGV.
The UK spends so long agonising about how to do things, beating itself up and spending hundreds of millions on CM2Hills and Bechtels to reinvent what is basically just a project management office (abbey wood). Project management always has its ups and downs and technically risky projects can incur delay and cost growth - or are difficult to effectively estimate the cost and schedule for at the outset - depending on your point of view.
UK could make Taranis happen - if it wants to. Need some ballsy politicians to say, lets just do it and ride out the inevitable bumps. Watch as the French do just that with Neuron, smirking at the indecisive Brits squander their technology base!
Grouping of SMEs? This seems based on F1=good, how do we copy that? It seems to miss the point that what F1 does (well) is build technology that lasts 5 minutes and throw it away after a week, to some tightly defined rules. Not really a model for an aircraft to last e.g. 20-30 years.
At the end of the day, if you want to replace e.g. Tornado, then you need something like e.g. a productionised Taranis. A bunch of SMEs won't knock that up in a shed - it is an expensive long term business. No real shortcuts.
Whilst expensive to do domestically, as France and Sweden show, all it takes it a decision to get on with it - and stick it out through the inevitable bumps.
See APT and TGV.
The UK spends so long agonising about how to do things, beating itself up and spending hundreds of millions on CM2Hills and Bechtels to reinvent what is basically just a project management office (abbey wood). Project management always has its ups and downs and technically risky projects can incur delay and cost growth - or are difficult to effectively estimate the cost and schedule for at the outset - depending on your point of view.
UK could make Taranis happen - if it wants to. Need some ballsy politicians to say, lets just do it and ride out the inevitable bumps. Watch as the French do just that with Neuron, smirking at the indecisive Brits squander their technology base!
