HC,
As with all of these systems; they work better when they are someone's hobby-horse - as I have said to you many times.
You are right that its perhaps not primarily a function of money, its probably primarily a function of interest from the industry. Someone (a body or an individual) has to "own" a project like that and push it along, otherwise it stagnates with or without money.
As I said in an earlier post, the body that used to provide the focus was the Helicopter HUMS Management Group (HHMAG); when EASA became the legally competent body for airworthiness, the CAA could not progress the issue any more, and no longer had a budget for arranging, facilitating and hosting the meetings. Virtually the last act of the HHMAG was an attempt to ensure that the UK/Norway Requirement was adopted by EASA.
EASA neither adopted the group (the excuse was that their methodology did not extend to standing committees; hence the disbandment, as well, of all JAA committees - before taking advantage of their knowledge for the production of OPS Regs), nor did they take over the role of continuing to require HUMS. As I also indicated earlier (without any comment on PPRune), the EASA Ops Proposal does not contain a requirement for HUMS - which puts it out of compliance with an ICAO Recommended Practice. Without a State invoking Article 14 of the Basic Requirements, HUMS will cease to be a requirement at the time that EASA OPS comes into force.
Progress indeed!
Jim