QinetiQ to be sold off
Thread Starter
QinetiQ to be sold off
HMG, short of cash again, is to sell more of QinetiQ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4604568.stm
Apart from the security concerns of Mil projects and Civvie companies, is this a bad thing? Perhaps it'll take less than 4 years to clear items of standard aircraft fit after the sale! Taking longer will have no impact compared to the length of time it takes now - by the time any clearance arrives it's already well past it's useful implementation date.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4604568.stm
Apart from the security concerns of Mil projects and Civvie companies, is this a bad thing? Perhaps it'll take less than 4 years to clear items of standard aircraft fit after the sale! Taking longer will have no impact compared to the length of time it takes now - by the time any clearance arrives it's already well past it's useful implementation date.
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Undoubtedly QQ have very good, knowledgeable staff and are the MoD's preferred source of independent technical advice. I can only see the price for this going up.
However, any DPA PM will tell you the most annoying thing about QQ is their tendency, some would say policy, to leave reports open ended with a recommendation that further work takes place. Sometimes this is down to the PM not specifying the requirement properly, but more often it is what I call the "scientist's mindset" - many have no inkling of what the customer or user want, and just want to do ever more research and development with no regard to programme timescales. Put another way, they have little or no experience of actually delivering a product into service. (Not unlike most DPA PMs nowadays!). I can honestly say I've only ever come across one instance where I was content leaving QQ to get on with the job, and deliver precisely what the contract said. Step forward Farnborough Systems Integration Dept.
I should add that I don't really regard Boscombe as QQ - the key staffs I deal with are serving officers and SNCOs who will often be the user at their next posting. They are superb.
However, any DPA PM will tell you the most annoying thing about QQ is their tendency, some would say policy, to leave reports open ended with a recommendation that further work takes place. Sometimes this is down to the PM not specifying the requirement properly, but more often it is what I call the "scientist's mindset" - many have no inkling of what the customer or user want, and just want to do ever more research and development with no regard to programme timescales. Put another way, they have little or no experience of actually delivering a product into service. (Not unlike most DPA PMs nowadays!). I can honestly say I've only ever come across one instance where I was content leaving QQ to get on with the job, and deliver precisely what the contract said. Step forward Farnborough Systems Integration Dept.
I should add that I don't really regard Boscombe as QQ - the key staffs I deal with are serving officers and SNCOs who will often be the user at their next posting. They are superb.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Apart from the security concerns of Mil projects and Civvie companies
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Personally I think it is a sad state of affairs when the people tasked to provide independent advice on military procurement are in fact a profit making organisation who will shortly be at the mercy of their shareholders. While I agree that there are many commercial aspects to QQ that warrant selling off, the fact remains that A2E2 or AT&E or JTEG or whatever they call themselves these days should remain as an government agency - responsible to the MoD for delivering the necessary clearances and advice, not some organisation who are at the mercy of shareholders.
Surely there is a potential conflict of interests: military capability vs annual profits?
SG
Surely there is a potential conflict of interests: military capability vs annual profits?
SG
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
I have worked with QQ, in its may forms, over the last 15 yrs. They have many pools of excellence (TPs boffins etc), although the organization as a whole leaves something to be desired. They were only made the 'preferred' independant saftey advisor in order to ensure a steady source of work to make it attractive to investors. I agree about the increasing tendancy to recommend 'future work'. However, one problem is that some risk averse IPTs feel obligated to take them up on it. I think it may be a good thing that the other half is being sold off, because the new owners will asset strip and maybe streamline the organization a bit. The question is, can QQ be considered an independant advisor with so many inside interests?
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
It's interesting that you guys refer to "...the increasing tendancy to recommend further work'", as this is a criticism that has been internally addressed directly over the last couple of years (at least). It is not the intention to lead an IPT in a particular direction, really it isn't.
I'm not saying that it can't be done better, or that such recommendations never make it into reports now, but I am saying that it is something the organisation is trying very hard not to do. It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).
Reading some of the comments here, one might gain the impression that report writers/reviewers and the military side of the partnership are kept carefully apart. Nothing could be further from the truth; quite apart from anything else, they are often the same people and of course the insights that the military guys bring to what the user actually requires is one of the major reasons why Boscombe can achieve what it does. Long may the partnership remain strong.
Now, at this point you may well be thinking that Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and "he would say that wouldn't he?" It's very easy to bash the place from the outside I know. But come and visit, talk to the coal face. Some, at least, of your prejudices may be modified - hopefully positively!
As for the sell-off... Comments on that are above my pay grade.
I'm not saying that it can't be done better, or that such recommendations never make it into reports now, but I am saying that it is something the organisation is trying very hard not to do. It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).
Reading some of the comments here, one might gain the impression that report writers/reviewers and the military side of the partnership are kept carefully apart. Nothing could be further from the truth; quite apart from anything else, they are often the same people and of course the insights that the military guys bring to what the user actually requires is one of the major reasons why Boscombe can achieve what it does. Long may the partnership remain strong.
Now, at this point you may well be thinking that Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and "he would say that wouldn't he?" It's very easy to bash the place from the outside I know. But come and visit, talk to the coal face. Some, at least, of your prejudices may be modified - hopefully positively!
As for the sell-off... Comments on that are above my pay grade.
Last edited by BossEyed; 13th Jan 2006 at 11:19.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists. They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them. (Especially those with big thumbs and small brains.) Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.
Southside
Are my eyes deceiving me?
Did you really just admit that your beloved Navy isn't the perfect institution that you would have us all believe?
As far as you had told us, the mighty RN is perfect in every way and beyond reproach. Please don't tell me now that you have mis-educated me. I can feel a tear welling up.
BV
Did you really just admit that your beloved Navy isn't the perfect institution that you would have us all believe?
As far as you had told us, the mighty RN is perfect in every way and beyond reproach. Please don't tell me now that you have mis-educated me. I can feel a tear welling up.
BV
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
The great QinetiQ (cr@p moniker, I always thought!) sell-off makes Page 12 of the ToryGraph this morning - the sub-headline reads 'Company would be at home in a James Bond movie'...
Except of course all the gadgets in a James Bond movie work, are delivered on time, and presumably on-budget
Except of course all the gadgets in a James Bond movie work, are delivered on time, and presumably on-budget
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
[QUOTE=BossEyed]
It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).
I think I'd like you BossEyed. Finger trouble when registering and I am forever stuck with a mis-spelt handle!
Not policy then but common practice I'm afraid. And no matter how many Channel Managers you speak to, a report writer who is under pressure to bring in more work (profit) will always want to demonstrate that he or she knows there is almost always more to be done. QQ don't have to make the decision on when to draw the line on a design, and go for it. That falls to the DPA project manager. It is frustrating for all concerned knowing that what you will deliver is largely obsolescent, but it will always be so - especally in the high tech aircraft world.
I think this sell-off will simply increase the cost of this work, and there is only one source of income - the Defence Budget. As happened when DERA started hard charging (i.e. money changed hands) projects will NOT be given compensatory extra provision, but will have to cut requirements from the project. Same happened with DARA, and all the internal MoD departments and services we now have to pay for. All it does is create jobs for people who have no direct input to the deliverable - military equipment. The Government continue to sell the crown jewels, a chosen few line their pockets, and front line suffers.
It is most decidely NOT "policy", tecumseh (Bite).
I think I'd like you BossEyed. Finger trouble when registering and I am forever stuck with a mis-spelt handle!
Not policy then but common practice I'm afraid. And no matter how many Channel Managers you speak to, a report writer who is under pressure to bring in more work (profit) will always want to demonstrate that he or she knows there is almost always more to be done. QQ don't have to make the decision on when to draw the line on a design, and go for it. That falls to the DPA project manager. It is frustrating for all concerned knowing that what you will deliver is largely obsolescent, but it will always be so - especally in the high tech aircraft world.
I think this sell-off will simply increase the cost of this work, and there is only one source of income - the Defence Budget. As happened when DERA started hard charging (i.e. money changed hands) projects will NOT be given compensatory extra provision, but will have to cut requirements from the project. Same happened with DARA, and all the internal MoD departments and services we now have to pay for. All it does is create jobs for people who have no direct input to the deliverable - military equipment. The Government continue to sell the crown jewels, a chosen few line their pockets, and front line suffers.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
The number of ex-serving people employed by QQ is slowly growing and, hopefully, this will help reduce the amount of 'boffiness' sometimes contained within QQ reports.
The scandalous bit: all of the property assets given to QQ by the Government.
What happens next ? QQ boot the government bits off of the land that the government gave them or screw them for every penny eg Malvern, West Freugh
Just remember that one thing matters to QQ : the bottom line.
The scandalous bit: all of the property assets given to QQ by the Government.
What happens next ? QQ boot the government bits off of the land that the government gave them or screw them for every penny eg Malvern, West Freugh
Just remember that one thing matters to QQ : the bottom line.
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Originally Posted by tucumseh
I think I'd like you BossEyed.
The only influence that an individual report writer has on profit is, in the vast majority of cases, solely to deliver the report on time, on cost, and to an appropriate standard. They, at least, are not under any instructions to bring in further business as part of their report writing or assessment role. Some may not believe me, but that's the way it is!
Recommendations for "Further work" nowadays should always be caveated with information for the IPTL or desk officer on what the risk is of NOT doing that work. "Risk" here includes both safety and capability, and the latter particularly is heavily informed by the expertise of the military assessors and/or reviewers.
Never forget that deliverables from Boscombe are Recommendations. It is a shame that the trend over at least the last decade has been to dilute technical expertise within the IPTs, and no doubt this has led to some of the problems that you have seen, and it may be that BD took some time to recognise this and tailor deliverables accordingly. I repeat, though, we recognise this and are a lot better and continuing with that aim. (NB: I am NOT intending to redirect flak to IPTs here in order to deflect criticism aimed at QQ).
As for Controversial Tim: Thanks for that. A reasoned debate is always a joy. Your handle clearly wasn't a random choice. I doubt that anything I can say here would remove that chip, so I repeat what I said earlier - why not visit, and see the reality in action?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N London
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
There realy should not be too many security concerns. When the Mod split up DERA they split it into two, with QinetiQ being the commercial arm and DSTL being the other. The interesting work is still in the safe hands of DSTL 
which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.
which is still under the control of the Mod and the civil servants.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
why not visit, and see the reality in action?
Thread Starter
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Although Controversial bloke is trying to be just that, he does have a point. BD seem to obstruct rather than help, and have aircrew who aren't very good at operating the aircraft!
The 'J' airframe hasn't changed since we bought it but only now are clearances to use it effectively being released. It's now 6 years old - 15% of it's way through an optimistic 40yr service life! It took over 2 years to clear it to carry DAC freight (such as a tin of paint) whilst the BD luvvies went after an in-flight refueling clearance that wasn't needed (and spectacularly messed that up with a 'trim runaway' that they then declared needed some kind of warning system).
Bring on the sale. It can't get any worse.
The 'J' airframe hasn't changed since we bought it but only now are clearances to use it effectively being released. It's now 6 years old - 15% of it's way through an optimistic 40yr service life! It took over 2 years to clear it to carry DAC freight (such as a tin of paint
) whilst the BD luvvies went after an in-flight refueling clearance that wasn't needed (and spectacularly messed that up with a 'trim runaway' that they then declared needed some kind of warning system).Bring on the sale. It can't get any worse.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Boss-Eyed, Cont Tim is a well ballanced chap so be careful. He obviously has a chip on both shoulders
As for him getting a car pass, given the state of his car, I don't think he should be allowed out to play with anything more technical / dangerous than Lego.
sw
As for him getting a car pass, given the state of his car, I don't think he should be allowed out to play with anything more technical / dangerous than Lego.
sw
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists.
So I guess the ETPS door is being knocked off its hinges by J pilots who think they can do a better job? If you think that the system is so broken then why don't you apply yourself?
SS
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Half Way Up The Stairs
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: QinetiQ to be sold off
Originally Posted by Controversial Tim
kintiQ have no experts that can fly specialist aircraft, yet they sell themselves as specialists. They have single-handedly put current mil projects back by more than any foreign power could dream of doing. They are in fact worse than the enemy. Get rid of them. (Especially those with big thumbs and small brains.) Or charge them with treason and shoot the b@st@rds.
What projects have been put back by QQ more than the enemy could do?
Propulike, whose AAR requirement were QQ try to clear? QQ don't have clearance requirements, the customer does.
5206