Pr12
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
The annual planning round is a dreadful waste of staff effort and contributes to the problem of defence inflation. What other organisation with a capital outlay the size of the MoD's balances its budget each and every year? Bernard Gray wanted rid of it - no progress seen on that front yet. However I think the government itself will come to regret enforcing this silly rule.
It's often said there are no votes in defence. This has been true for the last 20 years or so, a situation aided by the fact that defence cuts happened only once every 5 years and generally soon after an election - so by the time of the next election, the last round of cuts was a distant memory.
When SDSR happened, it was sold by the politicians as the re-set that the broken defence budget needed - big bold decisions like axing the Harrier and Nimrod, etc etc. I am pretty sure the electorate thought that this would be the big round of cuts for the parliament. After PR11 I think there was a degree of public surprise that more big changes were announced - like the closure of Leuchars and the intent to draw the Army back from Germany, for example.
PR12 sounds like it will draw more adverse publicity. This drip-drip-drip of cuts caused by the annual planning rounds means that the most recent round will be fresh in the memory at election time - and so, finally, it might become an issue in a general election.
I don't think that would be a good thing for the forces though - we don't want to become a political football. It would be better for the Government and the forces if a 5-year budget could be agreed early in each parliament and the associated capability delivered against a stable funding background.
It's often said there are no votes in defence. This has been true for the last 20 years or so, a situation aided by the fact that defence cuts happened only once every 5 years and generally soon after an election - so by the time of the next election, the last round of cuts was a distant memory.
When SDSR happened, it was sold by the politicians as the re-set that the broken defence budget needed - big bold decisions like axing the Harrier and Nimrod, etc etc. I am pretty sure the electorate thought that this would be the big round of cuts for the parliament. After PR11 I think there was a degree of public surprise that more big changes were announced - like the closure of Leuchars and the intent to draw the Army back from Germany, for example.
PR12 sounds like it will draw more adverse publicity. This drip-drip-drip of cuts caused by the annual planning rounds means that the most recent round will be fresh in the memory at election time - and so, finally, it might become an issue in a general election.
I don't think that would be a good thing for the forces though - we don't want to become a political football. It would be better for the Government and the forces if a 5-year budget could be agreed early in each parliament and the associated capability delivered against a stable funding background.
Last edited by Easy Street; 31st March 2012 at 21:23.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 756
Likes: 34
From: London
I'd argue that the reason for so many PRs is as much due to a failure to balance the budget and books. Once we can get things on an even keel, then we're in a better place in terms of planning, but ultimately the combination of insecure budgets, reduced funding, increasing operational tempo and ever changing requirements forces us to live in financial flux.
Its all well saying 'sort this at start of parliament' but look where we were 5 years ago, and look at the ops we're doing now and the kit we're using. Arguably its a totally different environment.
Current expectations are a post easter announcement,
Its all well saying 'sort this at start of parliament' but look where we were 5 years ago, and look at the ops we're doing now and the kit we're using. Arguably its a totally different environment.
Current expectations are a post easter announcement,
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
What JimLad said ^^^
But also, a major problem is that for 20+ years the Services have not been required to Quantify their requirement. For example, the RN stopped doing it as a matter of policy (for aircraft and aircraft equipment) in 1988 (LTC 89), but a few old hands continued meeting the regs* until they left in 1995; which explains variations in efficiency between projects. ( I never knew the RAF to do it at all!!).
* permanent LTC Instructions, never rescinded.
If you don't quantify, you can't cost accurately. Hence, "cost overruns" which are actually nothing of the sort, because the requirement has never been properly costed in the first place, so you have no valid baseline.
In 1995 the RN formally advised MoD(PE) it was not for them to state their requirement, it was for the MoD(PE) project manager. However, this was becoming increasingly impossible, because fewer and fewer PMs had worked in this lower level HQ staff post before being promoted; mainly because they were by now primarily direct entrants and had skipped these lower grades (e.g. Requirement Managers, ILSMs) and had no relevant experience.
I think most here who have done a Staff job in "acquisition" will understand the above and relate to it.
But also, a major problem is that for 20+ years the Services have not been required to Quantify their requirement. For example, the RN stopped doing it as a matter of policy (for aircraft and aircraft equipment) in 1988 (LTC 89), but a few old hands continued meeting the regs* until they left in 1995; which explains variations in efficiency between projects. ( I never knew the RAF to do it at all!!).
* permanent LTC Instructions, never rescinded.
If you don't quantify, you can't cost accurately. Hence, "cost overruns" which are actually nothing of the sort, because the requirement has never been properly costed in the first place, so you have no valid baseline.
In 1995 the RN formally advised MoD(PE) it was not for them to state their requirement, it was for the MoD(PE) project manager. However, this was becoming increasingly impossible, because fewer and fewer PMs had worked in this lower level HQ staff post before being promoted; mainly because they were by now primarily direct entrants and had skipped these lower grades (e.g. Requirement Managers, ILSMs) and had no relevant experience.
I think most here who have done a Staff job in "acquisition" will understand the above and relate to it.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Mos Eisley
the most recent round will be fresh in the memory at election time - and so, finally, it might become an issue in a general election.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 28
From: Zummerset
Tucumseh - spot on...
The endless whirl of SO1 ACSC grads flitting in/out of London for 2 reports (as close to 18mths as possible) to get an acquisition "tick" despite never doing the donkey work at SO2/3 is a consequence of our inherently "generalist" system. Post H-C it would be nice to have thought that "specialists" in acqusition and airworthiness would be A Good Thing...alas, no-one has told the appointers.
The endless whirl of SO1 ACSC grads flitting in/out of London for 2 reports (as close to 18mths as possible) to get an acquisition "tick" despite never doing the donkey work at SO2/3 is a consequence of our inherently "generalist" system. Post H-C it would be nice to have thought that "specialists" in acqusition and airworthiness would be A Good Thing...alas, no-one has told the appointers.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 253
From: London/Oxford/New York
OafOrfUxAche,
"...Your average pikey.." "...far more interested in benefits..."
With opinions like that you sound as out of touch as Cameron and Osborne.
If you are indeed typical of those in the forces then it's no wonder that most folk don't care a stuff about your inability to manage a budget, negotiate a contract or plan and forecast, and couldn't give a hoot about cutting defence expenditure. After all you don't do any actual defending these days do you?
"...Your average pikey.." "...far more interested in benefits..."
With opinions like that you sound as out of touch as Cameron and Osborne.
If you are indeed typical of those in the forces then it's no wonder that most folk don't care a stuff about your inability to manage a budget, negotiate a contract or plan and forecast, and couldn't give a hoot about cutting defence expenditure. After all you don't do any actual defending these days do you?
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: Wiltshire
I don't know, just moved to an estate where houses are 300k and it's 'pikey' due to the insistence that we are all equal - (affordable housing), that is definatly higher on 'jo public's' agenda than Defence - no matter how fresh in the mind.
The other point is: while we are constantly having a go at each other and doing the MoD willy waving thing - we don't have the capacity (or sense) to look past our pensions. We are all to busy looking after no1 to make any long-term and affordable judgments! Everyone spoken to the 'new' pension review people yet - EDP at 60 anyone??????
The other point is: while we are constantly having a go at each other and doing the MoD willy waving thing - we don't have the capacity (or sense) to look past our pensions. We are all to busy looking after no1 to make any long-term and affordable judgments! Everyone spoken to the 'new' pension review people yet - EDP at 60 anyone??????
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
Evalu8ter
Agreed, although I was talking about civvies. I wouldn't dare say Service SO2/1s are not trained for the job! Nevertheless, many "requirements" from MB have said "TBA" under "Quantity", but have come with an absolute max budget which stops the project dead in its tracks - with the procurer getting the blame. If they can't get simple concepts like that right, then Bernard Gray has either got to (a) revamp the entire system, or (b) revert to the mandated regulations that are known to work.
Experience tells me that if he adopted (a), then the result would be similar to (b). The difference is timescale.
Conversely, I look at projects delivered effortlessly to time, cost and performance (or better) and ask Why? The answer is ALWAYS that the ground work was done correctly. That is, completely ignore current practice and implement mandated regulations. Any experienced project manager will still retain his own copy of these regs (one set of instructions and one 2-part Def Stan) and just quietly implement them. Still got mine. They are the bible.
As you say, the same applies in programme elements, such as airworthiness. (Who does Programme Element Costings these days? It's the Requirement Manager's job, but I've never met one who has heard of the discipline). It isn't as if every project/aircraft is tainted. Look at the success stories and learn from them. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gray has taken this advice.
Agreed, although I was talking about civvies. I wouldn't dare say Service SO2/1s are not trained for the job! Nevertheless, many "requirements" from MB have said "TBA" under "Quantity", but have come with an absolute max budget which stops the project dead in its tracks - with the procurer getting the blame. If they can't get simple concepts like that right, then Bernard Gray has either got to (a) revamp the entire system, or (b) revert to the mandated regulations that are known to work.
Experience tells me that if he adopted (a), then the result would be similar to (b). The difference is timescale.
Conversely, I look at projects delivered effortlessly to time, cost and performance (or better) and ask Why? The answer is ALWAYS that the ground work was done correctly. That is, completely ignore current practice and implement mandated regulations. Any experienced project manager will still retain his own copy of these regs (one set of instructions and one 2-part Def Stan) and just quietly implement them. Still got mine. They are the bible.
As you say, the same applies in programme elements, such as airworthiness. (Who does Programme Element Costings these days? It's the Requirement Manager's job, but I've never met one who has heard of the discipline). It isn't as if every project/aircraft is tainted. Look at the success stories and learn from them. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gray has taken this advice.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: themightyimp
Hasn't Bernie Gray got his way? I thought that PR's were dead (or dying) and replaced by ABC (don't ask me what the TLA stands for but someone has a mild sense of humour). Problem solved no more PR's! 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 8
From: The Road to Nowhere
ABC = Annual Budgetary Cycle (well it did last Weds anyway).
This is a typical MOD response to the point made by Easy Street:
Easy Street is, of course, absolutely right about this waste of effort.
The above was originally followed up by an expression of my thoughts on FOO, Annularity and a Number of other HQ budgets issues, but just as I was about to submit, I realised it had inevitably descended into a rant and I have therefore deleted it - I have taken some tablets and am now calming down.
STH
Edited to add that I am now much calmer, but wish to confirm (as if it were necessary) that changing from PRs to ABC does not appear to have made any difference to the amount of staff work required in dealing with the issue.
This is a typical MOD response to the point made by Easy Street:
The annual planning round is a dreadful waste of staff effort and contributes to the problem of defence inflation.
The above was originally followed up by an expression of my thoughts on FOO, Annularity and a Number of other HQ budgets issues, but just as I was about to submit, I realised it had inevitably descended into a rant and I have therefore deleted it - I have taken some tablets and am now calming down.
STH
Edited to add that I am now much calmer, but wish to confirm (as if it were necessary) that changing from PRs to ABC does not appear to have made any difference to the amount of staff work required in dealing with the issue.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: scotland
Proone
A fairly typical response by someone who assumes that we go off and fight wars because we can and want to! The fact is that it is the MOD and their procurement along with politicians that cannot nor will not balance the books and expect the military to do everything with less and less. Then when the brown stuff hits the fan due to their incompetence it is the military that suffers. Yes there are a lot of folk out there who care not a jot about anything but how much they can get for doing nothing, I know because I have met enough of them over the years, in fact some only care where their next drink or fags is coming from. So please try and be balanced in your argument, the country is in difficulty but hitting the military is not the answer!
