Sven
Mixture of both I'm afraid.
When we were hit with RAB in about 1997 there was a lot of beancounter stuff that we ignored in an attempt to keep programmes on target and within cost, but we did spot a lot of the tasks duplicating those we knew (a) EAC did and (b) Service "Customer 2" (as they were known) should have done, but didn't.
When challenged on this, the RAB trainers (who we tried to avoid at all costs) admitted they had never heard of EAC, and were not amused especially as RAB carried out largely random sampling whereas EAC were more comprehensive with mandated annual audits of, for example, equipment on loan to companies. (At the time, the equipment we were under contractual obligation to loan on one of my smaller programmes was valued at over £400M). EAC, ourselves and the "old" system were completely on top of this, but RAB toppled at the sheer scale and picked a few items at random to monitor (not manage). They certainly never carried out any audit.
And they had no idea that MoD(PE) didn't actually "own" very much kit (B Models and the like) - that Customer 2 was meant to have a niominated "owner" of each item in the inventory and it was he, not PE, who dictated and controlled disposition. That system of "ownership" and hence accountability was still mandated, but had been ditched in another savings measure in the late 80s. Therein lies the reason why Services stopped quantifying requirements; and if you don't quantify, how can you cost accurately? Hence, you get people saying programmes are "over budget", when the budget is clearly based on a false premise. Many programmes are over budget but within a fair and reasonable cost for the actual requirement.