Elective Procurement Question

[ImageGear]

Having spent time reading the Canadian F18 and the Carrier threads, it seems that politicians are spending too much time interfering in the procurement process. in addition, defence procurement organisations seem unable to present an acceptable level of capability for the available budget.

Speaking now of the UK, various defence select committees seem to have a better handle on what is required, both from a budgetary and capability perspective. (Information possibly supplied by many parties without excessive bias?).

..and my genuine question is:

Should much more of the responsibility for actual procurement be assigned to these committees and consider the other organisations as specialist sources of information.

Imagegear

[NutLoose]

You obviously have never looked at the new carriers with their deck of the week schemes and the resulting F-35 and the to catapult or not to catapult fiascos.

[Not_a_boffin]

Far from the actualite. Those who actually know what went on with the carrier (and where the NAO and HCDC reports are at variance with the facts) treat those reports with the pinch of salt they deserve.

As for the latest HCDC report on shipbuilding, while it's heart is in the right place (courtesy of its chair), its conclusions - beyond those that are obvious - are questionable to say the least.

[ImageGear]

In my experience of managing teams of specialist consultants and designers, I would suggest that the issue seems to be more of visualising what is a large, multi-facetted technical and financial picture.

As usual, specialists and designers are narrowly focussed, but high level oversight of requirements and costs from a top down perspective seems to elude the suits. I did not want to get into the detail of what happened with deck configurations or why we do not have adequate propulsion or electrics on the T45. Rather that we try to establish where the decision making structures are failing.

Imagegear :ok:

[red admiral]

The defence select committee and NAO report after things have actually happened. Its easy to criticise after the fact - but this is useful to learn lessons.

What they don't do is balance funding across capabilities - where do you put your cash?

[Two's in]

Its easy to criticise after the fact - but this is useful to learn lessons.

Great theory, but MoD Procurement history is a sad litany of either ignoring the good lessons or repeating the bad lessons. It's a complex tale of well intentioned, but career driven short termers, versus dyed-in-the-wool specialists whose inflexibility is legend. I think when I was getting out of the pig sty it was called "Smart Procurement" but only the buzz-words and jargon ever really change.

[ImageGear]

career driven short termers, versus dyed-in-the-wool specialists whose inflexibility is legend

This suggests more of a human failing, than some sort of process problem. This situation is not likely to change unless the underlying core competencies of recruiters and managers are addressed.

In my fairly recent commercial experiences, I interviewed and selected as part of a team, based on the candidates ability to self-start and self-motivate to drive decision making and delivery. It often came about that the most tertiary qualified individuals could not operate at this level and reassignment followed quickly. It was only when a candidate was briefed adequately and given the appropriate tools in a near live environment could a decision as to suitability be made.

Through role playing a representative operational procurement plan presentation with peers playing clients and organisations, and with observers present to monitor the performance not only of the candidate but also the "actors", were we able to gain a better understanding of their true capabilities.

Even then, we selected a candidate for a position when one year later we realised that he had blagged his way past some very competent people and could not operate effectively at the executive level required.:=

Imagegear

[tucumseh]

The discussion is not about Procurement. It is about the first step - establishing and articulating the Requirement. History tells us that if this is done correctly and accurately, and there is no subsequent political or Service interference, most projects are delivered with effortless competence.

Given that, the answer is yes. The Defence Committee, or a body with the necessary authority, could act as a guard at the procurer's door, with a huge sign saying "**** off".

Regarding the new carriers, I found myself at a briefing in 2002. A young man stood up and informed us that the catapult question was cost-neutral, so there would be none initially and they could be added at any time if needed. Another slightly older gent told us that MASC (formerly FOAEW) was entirely unrelated to Sea King AEW Mk2 or ASaC Mk7, and he was starting all over again. Now, that's where we have big problems!

[Heathrow Harry]

It's frightening to compare the development, design, construction and entry-into-service of Fishers HMS Dreadnought (which was truly revolutionary) with recent programmes............

[ImageGear]

Tuc,

Agreed with most of what you say, and since we are trying look at a strategic requirement that may or may not exist anything from 10 - 15 years in the future, I can understand why this could be the cause of a requirement disappearing or changing.

So is it true to say that the global threat picture was changing so quickly that our "looking glass" is/was no longer fit for purpose or did no one react when we saw it changing? (Thereby needing to "start again")

Your more senior person would not normally have instituted a "restart" without a very significant review of requirements, alternatively, could it be that snake oil was on the menu?:E

Imagegear

[red admiral]

Great theory, but MoD Procurement history is a sad litany of either ignoring the good lessons or repeating the bad lessons. It's a complex tale of well intentioned, but career driven short termers, versus dyed-in-the-wool specialists whose inflexibility is legend. I think when I was getting out of the pig sty it was called "Smart Procurement" but only the buzz-words and jargon ever really change.

Again, it's easy to criticise but where is the actual proof? A lot of time does go into lessons learned activities, but many of the causes are human nature. Have things improved since the Levene reviews or are different mistakes being made?

The main problem is that making decisions about complicated problems in a changing environment is hard, and will always be so. There isn't a right answer.

[Saintsman]

People often talk about requirements being defined, but then you find that once they are, the next step is satisfying those requirements. However, what is missed is the step in between - defining the specifications.

The analogy is they wanted a wall, so a wall is built, thereby satisfying the requirement. The customer then says you've built a three foot wall when what they wanted was a six foot wall. Had it been specified in the first place, they would have got exactly what they wanted.

Of course they should also have specified the type of bricks and where they wanted it etc...

Then the other big problem is design change half way through, but that's another story.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Then the other big problem is design change half way through, but that's another story."

indeed - people look at what they asked for and then decide it isn't quite right so could we just add.......................... The RN has a lot of previous on this.