Originally Posted by
tucumseh
The way to avoid most problems, if not eradicate them, is to implement PUS's mandated policy on 'Requirement Scrutiny'. Less process, less oversight, fewer sign-offs. And at a much lower level (which is what really annoys those responsible today). But I've lost count of how many times the Defence Committee and various PUSs have rejected this. Typical that they mention a paltry £9M, but say nothing about Billions on Nimrod. It's all to do with WHO they can finger. This case will be at a sufficiently low level to allow seniors to distance themselves.
This was the subject of a scathing report from the Director of Internal Audit, to PUS, in June 1996. He made 17 recommendations for avoiding waste. DIA destroyed their copy after 7 years, as they were told it would not be implemented. But, as usual, MoD forgets that reports tend to be sent to other people, so other copies remain. Still got mine.
Oddly, the ONLY part of MoD to get a clean bill of health during the 3.5 year investigation, was Tornado engines. That was because they trumpeted the fact a young supply manager at Harrogate had noticed that an item had been identified with two Ref Nos, so double were being bought. At the time, someone had decided to reward admin staff with a percentage of the total saved. (But not any other specialisation). She received something like £14k if I recall, which was probably more than 2 years salary. Well done for spotting something that was buried in the supply computer. Realising this might cost half the defence budget, as hundreds of supply staff were by now spending their time searching Ref Nos and comparing descriptions, AML promptly outlawed such payments, and reverted to the 1992 policy of disciplining staff who identified Requirement Scrutiny failings. That policy remains today, upheld by the Cabinet Secy/Head of the Civil Service on the advice of DE&S secretariat. Something else the Defence Committee body swerved.
as ever, citation needed.