Originally Posted by
MPN11
Been there, seen that. The LTC concept was sound in parts, but open to money just falling through the cracks. If you had a low hline item in the right Budget at year-end it was open season for waste!
One of the best things about the LTC process was it required the Services to (a) know what they had, and (b) quantify what they wanted.
Lacking the first, one can't answer key Requirement Scrutiny questions, which will at best cause significant delay.
Lacking the second, one cannot cost the 'requirement', which tends to lead to a lack of funding, which is later misrepresented as a 'cost overrun' when actually the cost is fair and reasonable.
As an aside, the Defence Committee issued an interesting report yesterday recommending a return (although it didn't say 'return') to the system whereby one could take a contractor's past performance into account when considering a bid. (Now I wonder where they read that suggestion? Are they finally having a look at successful programmes?) When that authority was withdrawn (at roughly the same time as the demise of the LTC), it introduced enormous risks, which manifested immediately. Successful mitigation relied almost entirely on the programme manager having prior experience of the above Service HQ posts within the LTC process, or having managed programmes across every (e.g.) aircraft domain. Both were very rare. All these things are linked.
If the recommendation is accepted, the first logical step is to resurrect and reissue the hitherto mandatory procedures for doing this, which set out who the authority was vested in. The Services and DSA/MAA won't do this, as the authority is too low down the food chain. We can't have plebs doing important stuff! Another difficulty being (as a matter of policy) lack of SQEP. Perhaps more to the point, it would mean DSA/MAA having to rewrite many of the important (but incorrect) parts of the new Regulatory Set. And they, too, having SQEP.
It's all about people. Without the right people, implementing the correct regulations, there can be no solid foundations.