Originally Posted by
Whenurhappy
Is this in terms of developing a new capability? Could you give me a bit more information (PM if you like).
NZWP
It relates to ANY proposed expenditure, be it a pencil or an aircraft carrier. The only difference is the level of approval.
The Asst Under Secretary of State (Financial & Secretariat) issued a comprehensive questionnaire for each main domain. For example, RN aircraft and their equipment. Any negative answer stopped the process in its tracks. The very first question is 'Why is it needed?' It addresses things like War Reserves, training, contracting strategy, industrial capability, etc. It forced the Provisioning Authority to think. (A civilian engineer in a Service HQ in my day, but the work simply isn't done now).
I agree with those who have mentioned contractorisation. If one applied the RS rules, I can't see how many such proposals would get past first base. Nimrod would never have been considered for RMPA. Chinook Mk3 wouldn't have proceeded in the manner it did (access to source code is the obvious one). The list is endless.
Importantly, RS must be conducted from the User's point of view. It seldom is.
Hope this helps. I could e-mail a copy of one set of AUS(FS)'s instructions, from the last time they were used. Also, the 1996 report by the Director Internal Audit notifying PUS (the Chief Accounting Oficer) that RS wasn't being conducted properly. He didn't act and the report was scrapped. It was one of the key pieces of evidence to the MoK and Nimrod Reviews, explaining the background to the policy of savings at the expense of safety.