Ogre
Excellent post. But to qualify some of the points you made, as applied to MoD aircraft projects.
“Then the customer sees what you've built and decides he wants to change it”.
This is where firm leadership in the project team and, perhaps more importantly, oversight at Project Director level and above is important. (It’s what they’re paid for). Minigundiplomat made a perceptive post when he simply said “Chinook Mk3”. That project has been slated by the Defence Committee for “poor management oversight”. No attempt is made to actually identify that “management” (as usual), but a cursory glance tells you it’s precisely the same few people as Nimrod MRA4, particularly at 2 Star. You mention the dreaded “Change”. To change requires Configuration Control, a key component of Airworthiness. Same management – “Configuration Control Boards are unnecessary”. “Critical Design Reviews may be waived”. (This should be a criminal offence). A weak project manager or director will permit all and sundry access to the Contractor, and delegate to them authority to demand such changes, regardless of time, cost or performance issues. Control of, in effect the whole project is lost; and so maintaining the correct build standard becomes almost impossible. Same management said this was ok. This is THE fundamental weakness in MoD.
“…. then amend the drawings to record the change in design”
Same management – “not required”. If you insist on doing it, fine, but you’re not getting funds so make a cut somewhere else. Same effect – airworthiness compromised. Increasingly, as MoD’s experience has been diluted, maintaining up-to-date drawings is viewed as a waste of money. Ask BAeS.
“….fit the new parts, test them to make sure it works and it's not a hazard or a safety risk”
You must be joking! Same 2 Star completely rejected this notion. Or, to be precise, he ruled by all means fit them but Integration and Trials are unnecessary, and don’t worry about hazards and safety. If it doesn’t work, and Boscombe reject it as unsafe, ignore it, pay off the contract and run. Led indirectly to Tornado/Patriot.
“…..organising manufacture of sufficient spares for the life of the item you've just changed”
In our dreams. If you want spares, there’s plenty of potential Xmas Trees in the hangars. See Apache.
“….and finally updating the maintenance manuals”. (And I could add training).
Ditto. Read the QQ report, which merely reiterates what we’ve known since 1991, when the policy decision was made to chop this.
I say this often. It is one thing to Attain a standard or airworthiness, but quite a different matter to Maintain it. My opinion is that, if you’ve never done the latter you’re unlikely to be a success at the former; in project management terms. Compare the MoD’s success stories (of which there are many) with the cock-ups and you’ll see what I mean. Trouble is, MoD refused to drink from the well of experience, the same management referring to such people as “an embarrassment to the Department” and “tainted”. The well has run dry and the perpetrators are retired now.