CT,
And when have QinetiQ used their 'expertise' to get something out on time and to the users requirements?
That's where I have my beef.
As has been pointed out already, BD don't have requirements of their own, the aim is to meet the customer's requirements (ie the IPT) with one eye (JTEG personnel and those with relevant service experience) on what the end user would be after. Sometimes the constraints placed by the customer in getting some form of capability into service may make it seem as if BD are holding back, but that isn't the case - the aim is always to exceed expectations. However, if the end user has an issue with what they receive, then that needs to be directed back up the line (eg through RMs).
As for the use of expertise, timing and satisfaction, I only have to think back to GWII and the flurry of UORs across a multitude of platforms that required a significant effort (in all senses) from a lot of people in a short space of time to deliver previously unavailable capability.
As for today, our customer satisfaction is measured and the MOD have appropriate big sticks. Satisfaction levels are above the bar (and it isn't a low one) and the timeliness of milestones, while not perfect across the board (see 5206's last post for some idea of reasons) don't indicate the cr@p organisation you imply. Your bad experience is regrettable, but don't drag the whole place down because of it.
Soiled Glove,
One worry I have about the float is that QinetiQ will become even more of a 'safety sam' outfit as there advice will be so squeaky clean for fear of liability over the advice they give. It is one thing having MOD liability when you are an agency, but a whole different matter when you are a public company.
Your concern is well understood and, as above, there is one eye on what the advice means at the sharp end. The advice that will be given is always aimed to be best advice given the evidence available and making clear the risks involved. If a customer were to think that this advice was over cautious, they should be well armed in making their own decision as duty holder.
edited to respond to S_G
sw