Well, I read it and there is undoubtedly some good stuff in there.
But it starts off badly. The Executive Summary contains some real howlers – I wouldn’t be surprised if many in MoD didn’t go any further. For example he clearly doesn’t understand the role of DLO (as was).
Nor does he appreciate (seemingly) that many of his recommendations are (a) reversions to old policies – he doesn’t seem to know the structure of MoD beyond 1999 and (b) are interlinked.
For example, he makes the recommendation to move to 10 year rolling costings – an excellent description of the old LTC process. Elsewhere, he calls for a top down approach, not bottom up – again a perfect description of the LTC 1st, 2nd and 3rd order assumptions (where you cannot have a 2nd OA without a complementing 1st etc), but he doesn’t mention them; and doesn’t link the two.
He also calls for better articulation of the requirement, but without mentioning the obvious; that to cost, one must first quantify. He correctly notes that programmes aren’t costed properly from the outset, but doesn’t know that the above LTC process, especially the 1/2/3 Order Assumptions process, would go a long way to solving this problem.
Here’s my suggestion – dig out the old mandated LTC Procedures (which were never actually rescinded), and IMPLEMENT them.
Ah, implementation. He talks about this, and the skills needed to do the job. Excellent stuff in the main. He calls for better and more engineering skills and training, noting that many project managers are given jobs they are ill-trained for. But he doesn’t appreciate that the main reason for the last is that most DE&S direct entrant PMs have not been required to gain experience and demonstrate competence at around 5 previous grades. He makes a recommendation that 1* and above should not attain that grade/rank unless they have the requisite project management experience (he doesn’t mention competence). He doesn’t define experience, but if it is, say, 20 successful projects and is applied retrospectively, goodbye most IPTLs and the DE&S hierarchy. Come to think of it, goodbye if it is one project, successful or otherwise.
He talks much of IPT Leaders, the need for retention, double tours, experience etc. What he completely misses is that many IPTLs in DE&S are merely doing jobs which their older staffs regard as something you do before becoming a project manager. See above. Managing a multi-disciplinary team? Look at the grade description of the most junior PM in DE&S (Grade C2). ALL must have the proven ability to manage a 200 strong team. Next step up (C1) - 600. Because he doesn’t go back far enough, he doesn’t appreciate that the first iteration of IPTs, in 1989/90, had a C2 (HPTO in those days) as leader, with roles and responsibilities far more complex and demanding than those of many current IPTLs, 3 grades higher. Gray gets it right, but perhaps for the wrong reason, or without full understanding. In practice, and this is a major problem in IPTs, the structure is often upside down. The “leader” is often grossly inexperienced with no track record. Gray does dwell on this general problem (inappropriate promotions) and makes excellent points.
All in all, an excellent paper, collating many long standing recommendations (although I’m not sure he realises this). Implementation will need to be carefully managed. For example, the recommendation to strip out the superfluous senior management must happen first, which will get rid of most of those who would otherwise scupper his plans.
A final point. He recommends PUS, as Principal Accounting Officer, be made legally liable for Defence expenditure. Excellent. This would give PUS teeth which, in theory, he already has, but in practice lacks because he is so often over-ruled and undermined by those immediately below and above him. For example, he issues strict, mandated rules on how to avoid nugatory expenditure. His senior staffs and Minister have consistently ruled that these can be ignored – in fact, it is a disciplinary offence to refuse to ignore them. Fix that problem and waste will plummet while efficiency increases – which is the whole point of the report.