Incentivised availability based support contracting - more from less, or bol.locks?
Thread Starter
Incentivised availability based support contracting - more from less, or bol.locks?
Back in the days when RAF engineers provided first and second line servicing on station, and third line at the MU, it always seemed as though the system was well suited to the needs of a military organisation.
Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.
And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.
If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.
I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.
Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?
Are the availability targets set high enough?
Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?
Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?
I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today.
Your blue suited engineers could be called upon to work like donkeys if required for a surge, with no overtime payments required, but proud of their work, and proud to do their bit, and able to be rewarded in other ways by the intelligent SNCOs, JENGOs, SENGOs and OC Eng Wings.
And if you needed extra manpower for the Falklands, you had enough deployable blue suiters to provide a few without making the pips squeak, and without the unpopular detachments coming around too often.
If you needed to generate all 12 jets for a flypast, it could be done.
I can see that other arrangements might be appropriate for an airline, requiring steady state output, but have always wondered about the adoption of civilian practises and approaches for the military.
Quite apart from the issues with how required availability rates are decided, and how you allow for surge, are incentivised availability based support contracts ever going to be flexible enough to meet military needs?
Are the availability targets set high enough?
Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?
Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?
I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jacko, I'll give you a couple of bones:
PTC and STC as were had different approaches to contracts. The PTC one was possibly easier. One example should suffice.
The requirement was to produce 90% of X at Y. You might say this is too low. Interestingly, if the contractor failed he was given a RED. If he succeeded he was given an AMBER Caution. If he attained 99 or 100% he would be given a GREEN. Whether he got a cash incentive for target +10% I don't know but I suspect not.
That would have been a calculated judgement at contract start and potentially renegotiable during the contract and amended at contract re-let.
Irrelevant. An output based contract can have 100% of the jets u/s an our before they are required. Provided the requirement is met then the contract output has been met.
Probably irrelevant. If the the jeys were more than averagely u/s then it is the ocntractor's risk whether to pay overtime or not or even weekend working. With a tight contract there is no additional payment by the authority. However if the contractor got his bid sufficently high, and it was accepted as the best on technical merit, then he can absorb these costs.
This is the great gotcha. The contractor can only be held to account if the correct spares are provided by the authority. Fault may not therefore lie with the contractor.
The requirement was to produce 90% of X at Y. You might say this is too low. Interestingly, if the contractor failed he was given a RED. If he succeeded he was given an AMBER Caution. If he attained 99 or 100% he would be given a GREEN. Whether he got a cash incentive for target +10% I don't know but I suspect not.
Are the availability targets set high enough?
Do they work in practise, or is there too much "Don't sign that one that's just landed u/s until midnight, George, it'll spoil the stats..."?
Is there any truth in suggestions that the workforce too often slow down on Thursday to ensure a bit of overtime working?
I don't remember units being as 'strapped' for aircraft when it was all done the old fashioned, blue-suited way as they seem to be today.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well set up contract and organisation staffed by good people, leads to good results.
Bad organisation or less able or poorly motivated people leads to bad results.
IMO it matters little what suit the people wear. Good people always want to do a good job irrespective of who pays theirs salary.
However, if you wanted to find evidence you could easily find it by ignoring all the other factors such as cash constraints, increased complexity of aircraft etc.
IMHO
that does not mean that some contracts have been set up badly in the past and that caused problems from the start. We can learn...can't we?
Bad organisation or less able or poorly motivated people leads to bad results.
IMO it matters little what suit the people wear. Good people always want to do a good job irrespective of who pays theirs salary.
However, if you wanted to find evidence you could easily find it by ignoring all the other factors such as cash constraints, increased complexity of aircraft etc.
IMHO
that does not mean that some contracts have been set up badly in the past and that caused problems from the start. We can learn...can't we?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have seen the contractors seem to be telling the air force how it is going to be!
If I was running the RAF I would have my hands around the throat of one of the contractors that I have seen. it would be the only way of getting what the RAF is paying for.
If I was running the RAF I would have my hands around the throat of one of the contractors that I have seen. it would be the only way of getting what the RAF is paying for.
If I read the writings on these walls correctly, the RAF seems to be less than half way into a Part 145/M system.
When JAR 145 was introduced there was the same difficulty in getting used to the new regime - and even more when JAR-OPS and Part M recently came in.
There is bound to be some difficulty at any new contract implemention.
In any case Civvies would never be as fast as we "Old School" RAF could do things - but they would be less vunerable to litigation! Think about that.
When JAR 145 was introduced there was the same difficulty in getting used to the new regime - and even more when JAR-OPS and Part M recently came in.
There is bound to be some difficulty at any new contract implemention.
In any case Civvies would never be as fast as we "Old School" RAF could do things - but they would be less vunerable to litigation! Think about that.
