Beagle
Gladly.
When initiating a project, which includes putting together pretty good cost estimates - within 5% these days, no such thing as 20% CB Tolerance now - one has to think of everything.
In times long gone, a set of "LTC Instructions" were issued annually, around February. They told the Customer (not PE/DPA) what the LTC parameters were. There is no equivalent under the new EP system. I can't speak for ships and bases, but on aircraft you were instructed to treat the simulator as, for all intents and purposes, a spare aircraft. That way, when checking the bid, you had to deliberately exclude training (and everything else), rather than remember to include it. When the project passed to PE, the PM similarly regarded the sim as an aircraft, typically #3.
This system died in the early 90s - to my knowledge it was last used for LTC93 (i.e Feb 92). Training became considered as part of ILS. Since then, training has been an afterthought on many project, to be considered only as an ILS deliverable, usually at the Logistic Support Date 3 months before ISD. That's no use if pilot training takes much longer (Apache is a good example). On one recent a/c project the status of the simulator was as a single item of Government Furnished Equipment requested by the contractor, because the ILSM had made a deliberate decision not to make provision for a simulator. In other words, the project received full IAB approval in the certain knowledge that the ISD (fully operational flight of x a/c) could not be attained because there would be no trained aircrew. Both the PM and the contractor recognised the error, but the Customer wouldn't budge. Straight away the project was in financial trouble, and the PM had to cut features in order to afford the sim (we ignored the Customer's requirement - sorry!). If the Customer had asked for the sim, the a/c would have all the features required in the original spec. If we had met his requirement, all a/c would now be languishing in a hangar somewhere. This is a common scenario, across all 3 services. (BTW, the ISD was achieved).
Given the above, it follows that, at the very least, a preliminary TNA needs to be conducted during the Concept phase, if only to put a ballpark cost in the plans, and to establish the principle for all time that training is actually required. Detail emerges with the design.
I've seen training ignored too many times. It may seem obvious, but the above example was a complete howler and demonstrated (if it were needed) that the bidding and scrutiny process is fundamentally flawed. This is a view supported by MoD's own internal auditors. In my experience, a great majority of funding problems on projects could have been avoided if this old process had been followed. And because it is a well known process, which has never actually been rescinded but just fallen into disuse, it is very easy to prove what I say simply by constructing a dummy "LTC" bid. But who am I to contradict MoD, who say it is unnecessary attention to detail and a waste of time? (Tell that to anyone who has had to leave expensive new kit behind when deployed, because they haven't been trained how to use it).
Sorry for the length of reply, but this is a fundamental issue. It is the reason why the fair and reasonable cost of kit often exceeds the available budget - not because of penny pinching (although that occurs) but because the Customer didn't compile a proper shopping list. You learn this basic competence long before reaching the lowest project manager grade. But nowadays very few PMs have served at these lower grades, so exacerbating the situation.
Hope this helps. Feel free to PM me. (I'll tell you what the above a/c was and you can check for yourself).