So in every procurement decision, the poor, honest but simple jolly jack tar is outwitted by the clever, evil scheming crabfat? To be honest, if I had to select an organisation to defend my country, I would pick the clever one with a track record of winning.
Yes, but is entirely different. Groupthink is the problem of poor decision making in organisations, largely as a result of a need to people to conform, hence poor decisions are rationalised after the event, not all alternatives are considered. and leaders exert influence on decision making. For example, why did SDSR have to include a straight choice between Tornado and Harrier, instead of reductions to both? Why was Nimrod MRA4 axed without giving any thought to an alternative MPA - leased P-3s perhaps?
Because there was not enough money. The Groupthinkers have to deal with real world events and real world costs.
11. 8 to 10 can be clearly seen throughout the Harrier thread, right from the first page.
The picture you paint can only be seen on the Harrier thread because you keep repeating it. Yes a carrier would have been useful during Libya but it was not essential, nor was it an essential for Afghanistan and Iraq both of which required robust sustainable fleets of fast jet. As you have been told ad nauseum, sustainable fleets are a numbers game and NRCs for support of an aircraft fleet are big numbers. NRCs for 2 aircraft fleets are 2 really big numbers which would have required cutting todays wargoing numbers to achieve your target of maintaining a seedcorn capability for the future.
I am sure that you are aware of the problem of Groupthink.
Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
7. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Read your points and take a good look at yourself