Procurement Privatisation
NAB - Thanks
I think GOCO is a good policy for today. The time is long gone when MoD could possibly regress and become broadly competent. (Ask the MAA!). We haven’t had the necessary recruitment policy since 1990. There are a number of firms I’d happily hand such a contract to. And a few I wouldn’t. What worries me is the malign influence past and present VSOs will bring to bear. They won’t want it to be successful, because success will emphasise their failures.
But if you look at the procurement cycle (Concept to Disposal) much of it is actually operated by industry anyway, often despite MoD’s attempts to (mis) manage it. Requirements capture and management, and system design, has been contracted out in certain Army domains for 12 years, an initiative based entirely on the above 1990 Def Stan I mentioned, which even lays down the conditions upon which MoD delegates financial powers to industry (although that's in one of the parts MoD can't find, so someone will have to reinvent that wheel). Notably, the Users bought into it straight away, which makes you wonder how well DEC reflects the Users' views.
The trouble there though is part of DEC being hostile to what is trying to be achieved, and I can see that hostility being repeated if the RAF is to be Bernard Gray’s guinea pig. This raises an interesting point. Given the existing initiative, why not simply extend it to encompass a greater degree of the Contractor Operated bit? Again, this implies (to me) that he doesn’t want to admit “his” idea is actually largely based on mandated policy. My point is; none of this is new, just that MoD think it is. They should ensure it is managed by people to whom it is routine, not those who regard it as some new and highly risky undertaking.
I think GOCO is a good policy for today. The time is long gone when MoD could possibly regress and become broadly competent. (Ask the MAA!). We haven’t had the necessary recruitment policy since 1990. There are a number of firms I’d happily hand such a contract to. And a few I wouldn’t. What worries me is the malign influence past and present VSOs will bring to bear. They won’t want it to be successful, because success will emphasise their failures.
But if you look at the procurement cycle (Concept to Disposal) much of it is actually operated by industry anyway, often despite MoD’s attempts to (mis) manage it. Requirements capture and management, and system design, has been contracted out in certain Army domains for 12 years, an initiative based entirely on the above 1990 Def Stan I mentioned, which even lays down the conditions upon which MoD delegates financial powers to industry (although that's in one of the parts MoD can't find, so someone will have to reinvent that wheel). Notably, the Users bought into it straight away, which makes you wonder how well DEC reflects the Users' views.
The trouble there though is part of DEC being hostile to what is trying to be achieved, and I can see that hostility being repeated if the RAF is to be Bernard Gray’s guinea pig. This raises an interesting point. Given the existing initiative, why not simply extend it to encompass a greater degree of the Contractor Operated bit? Again, this implies (to me) that he doesn’t want to admit “his” idea is actually largely based on mandated policy. My point is; none of this is new, just that MoD think it is. They should ensure it is managed by people to whom it is routine, not those who regard it as some new and highly risky undertaking.
Last edited by tucumseh; 25th Apr 2013 at 15:58.
Thread Starter
can anyone explain how 1000s of projects - each with requirements that are vital to get right - will practically be managed at the govt interface?
what level do you actually manage the goco at? who exactly will be the intelligent customer to set the requirements and accept against them with the goco?
how many staff & what skills will that take? they are all 'in-house' and in de&s today. think the cap/flc can do it? lol!
good luck getting what you want when de&s all work for serco!
GrahamO - my point is without even the controls in place today (which you say are not good enough) the scope for cock-ups will be increased, not decreased.
what level do you actually manage the goco at? who exactly will be the intelligent customer to set the requirements and accept against them with the goco?
how many staff & what skills will that take? they are all 'in-house' and in de&s today. think the cap/flc can do it? lol!
good luck getting what you want when de&s all work for serco!
GrahamO - my point is without even the controls in place today (which you say are not good enough) the scope for cock-ups will be increased, not decreased.
GrahamO - my point is without even the controls in place today (which you say are not good enough) the scope for cock-ups will be increased, not decreased.
I've just been listening to some HMG 'security' experts waxing lyrical on how they are solving the challenges of events in 2020/2022 today, and they are spending a lot of brain power, time money and effort trying to convince themselves that they are spending wisely. The locals here are much more sensible and pragmatic , and commercially minded - their view is to come back in 2018/2020and tell me what the threat is then and we'll buy the best kit at that time, and not waste any money or effort trying to divine the future.
Sometimes 'being agile' means doing nothing until you must, rather than being constrained by historical constructs which are guaranteed to be out of date.
can anyone explain how 1000s of projects - each with requirements that are vital to get right - will practically be managed at the govt interface?
The challenge when developing the initiative I spoke of was not so much the Contractor/MoD interface, but defining and managing he interface between projects and equipments. At least MoD tries to do the former, often successfully. The latter was ditched long ago (the underlying detail in the Haddon-Cave report and many before it). Nevertheless, the Management Plan was formally approved in 2001 and works. It is a case of implementation and will. But.....
what level do you actually manage the goco at? who exactly will be the intelligent customer to set the requirements and accept against them with the goco?
However, there are certain companies I’d prefer not to have such authority and delegation, so it is important the mandated rules for selection and delegation are followed (whereby the delegated, named person at the contractor is an MoD appointment, not a company appointment). Again, this means implementing the only Def Stan covering this. I emphasise this point because it is a practical stumbling block. Once senior staff realise the contradiction, whereby this mandated Def Stan has been cancelled without replacement, they’ll procrastinate for ages to avoid any implied criticism of those who are anti-efficiency. In the 2001 initiative I mentioned, they waited a few years after approval, then changed the name of the initiative and all postholder titles. I gave the presentation at Shrivenham which led to approval, and then sat in frustration as VSOs, DEC and, especially, the MoD Integration Authority, faffed about over their own status. Anyone reading the Plans can see why they were concerned. Their very existence was called into question. There wasn’t the political will then to carry it through more widely, but Gray may just have that backing. By the way, that initiative ensures retention of key Service posts by funding them from the programme, not from central funds (or whoever pays Servicemen). That was a key aspect.
how many staff & what skills will that take?
How many depends on what skills/experience. The days are long gone when an equipment project manager in PE would have 60 projects and 500 contracts on the go at any one time. It is because of this historical fact that I agree that DE&S is grossly overstaffed, but the current cuts are not being made for the correct reason. As I said above, this initiative must go hand in hand with a fundamental change in recruitment and personnel policies.
Thread Starter
was the olympic delivery authority ever asked to save 100s of millions of early cash and slip the programme to 2014? no
and on big programmes, isn't the delay often down to baes or other big contractor? they have all the skills, no?
still no answer, who will control it, and how? 1 wc/sl in town with 10kurs will have a regular meeting/telecon with the goco to see how jsf is coming along? not enough? then who & how? multiple by 100s for each project......
and on big programmes, isn't the delay often down to baes or other big contractor? they have all the skills, no?
still no answer, who will control it, and how? 1 wc/sl in town with 10kurs will have a regular meeting/telecon with the goco to see how jsf is coming along? not enough? then who & how? multiple by 100s for each project......
was the olympic delivery authority ever asked to save 100s of millions of early cash and slip the programme to 2014? no
and on big programmes, isn't the delay often down to baes or other big contractor? they have all the skills, no?
The answer to the rest is pretty simple to do - write down what you want and stfu until its delivered. In my experience, 99.9% of problems come from the user not actually making clear what they want.
Anyone suggesting that 10k people, units, users or whatever should each have an input into anything, is asking for failure from day1.
No, because it delivered to time cost and quality
Only 4 times over budget according to the BBC
Earlier posters who claim have run MOD programmes to time and cost will almost certainly confirm they they didn't keep changing the requirement or interpretation, every week
But there are also occasions, especially in complex programmes, when the spec MUST evolve (as opposed to the requirement changing), as designs in parallel programmes, which must later be integrated, evolve. You must be able to foresee this and make allowances up front. Such foresight requires experience and knowledge.....and full circle back to MoD's most basic problem. For 20 years and more it has not been policy to employ experienced or knowledgeable people as PMs. MoD's corporate knowledge has long gone.
The answer lies with both DE&S and DEC. If DEC tries to foist changes on the PM, he must declare planning blight if it affects his time, cost or performance criteria. OK, so he's unpopular. But only once, with that DEC, because it places the onus squarely at DEC's door to get it right first time.
I appreciate events can occur which are outwith DEC's control. But, similarly, it is up to them to take the lead and declare blight, not hide away and hang the PM out to dry as so many do.
This is where GOCO (or whatever it's called today) is beneficial. A formal contract exists between the contractor and MoD, and is (obviously) enforceable in a way Service Level Agreements are not. If MoD go into this blind they're in for a shock when the contractor tables his terms and conditions. Chief among them, penalty payments for changes.
Thread Starter
Graham, lots of the delays are caused because the silt charts don't add up and crazy decisions are made to take out cash - this creates delay.
You are of course right that changing reqts causes havoc - but they still need to be set properly and managed and accepted. OK, get contractors to do it, but how are you going to effectively control those contractors given 1000s of diverse and dissimilar projects? Trust the goco as they have the skills? lol!
ignoring past mod woes for a moment, is there a vision for what govt oversight would be on e.g. a typical project?
You are of course right that changing reqts causes havoc - but they still need to be set properly and managed and accepted. OK, get contractors to do it, but how are you going to effectively control those contractors given 1000s of diverse and dissimilar projects? Trust the goco as they have the skills? lol!
ignoring past mod woes for a moment, is there a vision for what govt oversight would be on e.g. a typical project?
The advantage of a GOCO is that it can hire professionally qualified and experienced programme directors to manage complex programmes- with the greatest of respect to our Armed Forces, that isn't what you're good at. You just have to look at all the massive projects around the world that are successful and accept that one of those folks, could do what MOD cannot.
Decisions to take line items out are not crazy - they are the least worse option for an organisation that wastes cash like no other part of government. Its not some nasty bunch of folks stealing from MOD - its MOD burning a hole in the public pocket and being told there is no more money tree. MOD is the new Greece - simply n o longer trusted to be wise with money.
As the Goco doesn't exist, nobody has the right to be dismissive about what it can or cannot do as what there is now doesn't work.
Oversight is good thing, but oversight it should stay. Most problems IMO come not from oversight, but from reinterpretation and interference. I have no idea how the URS/OA guys will come up with the demands and seek oversight, but things will become far more functional IMO. Under current regimes, if there are two equally valid interpretations of a requirement, and the contractor does A and the user wants B, the project will be overbudget and delayed while arguments ensue.
In the future, our Armed Forces will have to justify every change of requirement within a fixed budget line and if there's no cash they they will get what the Goco provides as a valid interpretation. If changes are required, then its time to dig into reserved and do UOR or similar.
UORs offer great value for money as long as the main equipment is delivered on time and I suspect but cannot be certain, that if kit were delivered on time, to cost and quality but was only 80% of what the suers changed their mind into, the UOR costs would be miniscule compared to heaving the original programme all over the calendar, running a huge cost overrun and giving the supply chain the excuse for non-performance.
Decisions to take line items out are not crazy - they are the least worse option for an organisation that wastes cash like no other part of government. Its not some nasty bunch of folks stealing from MOD - its MOD burning a hole in the public pocket and being told there is no more money tree. MOD is the new Greece - simply n o longer trusted to be wise with money.
As the Goco doesn't exist, nobody has the right to be dismissive about what it can or cannot do as what there is now doesn't work.
Oversight is good thing, but oversight it should stay. Most problems IMO come not from oversight, but from reinterpretation and interference. I have no idea how the URS/OA guys will come up with the demands and seek oversight, but things will become far more functional IMO. Under current regimes, if there are two equally valid interpretations of a requirement, and the contractor does A and the user wants B, the project will be overbudget and delayed while arguments ensue.
In the future, our Armed Forces will have to justify every change of requirement within a fixed budget line and if there's no cash they they will get what the Goco provides as a valid interpretation. If changes are required, then its time to dig into reserved and do UOR or similar.
UORs offer great value for money as long as the main equipment is delivered on time and I suspect but cannot be certain, that if kit were delivered on time, to cost and quality but was only 80% of what the suers changed their mind into, the UOR costs would be miniscule compared to heaving the original programme all over the calendar, running a huge cost overrun and giving the supply chain the excuse for non-performance.
Last edited by GrahamO; 26th Apr 2013 at 17:09.
Thread Starter
de&s has already had a fair few high paid industry 'high performance' outsiders employed - and its entirely accurate to say they are far from head and shoulders above their mil and civil counterparts. infact the opposite.
it is naive to assume that cost pressures at mod are just down to internal management - cost cutting has been very real, rendering previous budgetary assumptions invalid, forcing otherwise on time projects to be delayed. the NAO reports admit this, if you can wade through their orherwise amatuerish dialogue.
so how much govt oversight of this goco again? i really want to see this explained. i really think it will really lead to anyone with any experience in this area to mutter 'oh sh*t'
it is naive to assume that cost pressures at mod are just down to internal management - cost cutting has been very real, rendering previous budgetary assumptions invalid, forcing otherwise on time projects to be delayed. the NAO reports admit this, if you can wade through their orherwise amatuerish dialogue.
so how much govt oversight of this goco again? i really want to see this explained. i really think it will really lead to anyone with any experience in this area to mutter 'oh sh*t'
You make good generic points J, but there has been nothing like the level of change coming in the pst.
Putting a new limb on a diseased and dying body, doesn't reinvigorate the body. I wouldn't put anyone up against the corporate inertia and outright stubborness of a large swathe of practically unemployable folks. The best in the world will always fail unless the good wood, has control of its destiny and that is what goco is designed to do. In my own case, I had the pleasure of effectively replacing a large number of IPT's before they were called that, plus a bunch of support command, RAFSEE, administrators and the like - and we delivered a service with half the repair at massively lower costs. We didn't play politics, we didn't care about the past, we didn't care about defending little empires and we pretty much started all over again and threw away old constructs. It can be done - but it remains to be seen if MOD is actually capable of doing its part.
While there are elements of truth in your statement, a whole lot of the truth is that MOD have overspent year on year against every estimate they ever produce, by any measure they chose and the recent situation is the first time that MOD have had to actually suffere the consequences of their actions.
Nobody knows yet but based upon MOD experience and ability, as little oversight, or as the rest of the world calls it, naked interference, as possible would be the best thing.
I wouldn't trust pretty much anyone alive in UK MOD today to do anything important to time cost and quality. Frankly there is nobody in Abbeywood even remotely competent to say what 'good oversight' looks like. Its like asking the unnumerate to run up a budget or the illiterate to write a book on writing poetry. People at Abbeywoood should no more be consulted that shoplifters should be consulted on store layouts. They may have been in a shop but know sfa about how they should be run. They may consider themselves to be competent at something but time, cost, quality and 'to spec' are none of them.
They say 'oh sh*t' so often, it should be the cap badge of the Abbeywood 'battalion'.
de&s has already had a fair few high paid industry 'high performance' outsiders employed - and its entirely accurate to say they are far from head and shoulders above their mil and civil counterparts. infact the opposite.
it is naive to assume that cost pressures at mod are just down to internal management - cost cutting has been very real, rendering previous budgetary assumptions invalid, forcing otherwise on time projects to be delayed. the NAO reports admit this, if you can wade through their orherwise amatuerish dialogue.
so how much govt oversight of this goco again? i really want to see this explained. i really think it will really lead to anyone with any experience in this area to mutter 'oh sh*t'
I wouldn't trust pretty much anyone alive in UK MOD today to do anything important to time cost and quality. Frankly there is nobody in Abbeywood even remotely competent to say what 'good oversight' looks like. Its like asking the unnumerate to run up a budget or the illiterate to write a book on writing poetry. People at Abbeywoood should no more be consulted that shoplifters should be consulted on store layouts. They may have been in a shop but know sfa about how they should be run. They may consider themselves to be competent at something but time, cost, quality and 'to spec' are none of them.
They say 'oh sh*t' so often, it should be the cap badge of the Abbeywood 'battalion'.
Last edited by GrahamO; 27th Apr 2013 at 13:51.
Thread Starter
as the op no-one has yet answered the oversight/requirement setting question with a credible scenario. Does this mean it has not been defined yet? Is there no example available? Why is that? Surprising that no-one here seems to know what oversight will even look like (or is prepared to discuss it). If you don't understand this, how can you state the goco is a good idea?
i'm not sure that just saying 'all in abbeywood are incompetent' - in itself far from true - is a reason to abandon reasonable controls over taxpayers money, though tuc raises good points about the younger skills base.
you can almost hear the 2017 statement now - "the recent procurement cock up was due to difficulties in establishing correct controls with the new goco - which was of course needed to radically shake up procurement so it wasn't really an unmitigatable f***up from day 1 as some suggested, honest."
i'm not sure that just saying 'all in abbeywood are incompetent' - in itself far from true - is a reason to abandon reasonable controls over taxpayers money, though tuc raises good points about the younger skills base.
you can almost hear the 2017 statement now - "the recent procurement cock up was due to difficulties in establishing correct controls with the new goco - which was of course needed to radically shake up procurement so it wasn't really an unmitigatable f***up from day 1 as some suggested, honest."
Last edited by JFZ90; 28th Apr 2013 at 08:04.
JFZ90
Not wishing to sound awkward, but the "oversight" procedures you speak of are laid down for existing similar "GOCO" contracts, although as alluded to before, MoD have chosen a new name this time to avoid having to admit they already have such procedures. In turn, this will ensure plenty of jobs are retained for expensive consultants who are employed to work out what to do, but of course aren't told it is already being carried out successfully. As happened with the so-called MoD Integration Authority some years ago.
The current procedures were the subject of a series of test cases in 2001/2, overseen in accordance with the procedures you ask about. I cannot publish what are probably Commercial-in-Confidence details here, mainly because MoD do not publicise them (for the reason stated above - it is too embarrassing to admit the solution is actually long standing policy). You should ask the aforesaid MIA, or his successor, about this. He refused to sanction the initiative until the name was changed to remove the word "Authority" from the body with "oversight" responsibility. That little paddy cost us 9 months, but it ate into the remaining time in his lucrative contract.
Not wishing to sound awkward, but the "oversight" procedures you speak of are laid down for existing similar "GOCO" contracts, although as alluded to before, MoD have chosen a new name this time to avoid having to admit they already have such procedures. In turn, this will ensure plenty of jobs are retained for expensive consultants who are employed to work out what to do, but of course aren't told it is already being carried out successfully. As happened with the so-called MoD Integration Authority some years ago.
The current procedures were the subject of a series of test cases in 2001/2, overseen in accordance with the procedures you ask about. I cannot publish what are probably Commercial-in-Confidence details here, mainly because MoD do not publicise them (for the reason stated above - it is too embarrassing to admit the solution is actually long standing policy). You should ask the aforesaid MIA, or his successor, about this. He refused to sanction the initiative until the name was changed to remove the word "Authority" from the body with "oversight" responsibility. That little paddy cost us 9 months, but it ate into the remaining time in his lucrative contract.
dervish:-
Amen to that, dervish. It seems to this uninformed outsider that the problem here is the MOD. Unless and until it is reformed from top to bottom, it will go on wasting lives and treasure unimpeded. I contend that of the two the former is by far the most important to stop. As a start that requires that the MAA, which boasts that:-
be made separate and independent of the MOD in order to do just that. Ditto with the MAAIB, which must in turn be separate and independent of the MAA. That will start to arrest the avoidable fatal accidents that the present incestuous system facilitates. To do that will mean exposing those who presided over the subversion of the Mandated Regulations, which have been airbrushed out of sight and out of mind as tuc says. In short the VSO Star Chamber must be stopped from covering up such illegality. That of course will be only the beginning of the beginning, but the more it is delayed the more lives the corruption will cost.
The MOD dragon needs a St George to go to work on it, not a wheelwright.
Somebody who's been there and done it answers, then others debate which wheel to reinvent first.
It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems,
The MOD dragon needs a St George to go to work on it, not a wheelwright.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 28th Apr 2013 at 16:45.
Thread Starter
as i understand it tuc the outsourced aspects you speak of still have an intelligent customer team of some form that resides in govt, not least of which manage the overall commercial approach & commitment etc.
its not impossible of course, but given the breadth of de&s tasks i'm not sure how it is practical or prudent to take that interface all the way back to cap/flc - unless there is some other organisation to be set up as a half way house - is that the plan? what will it look like? anyone any ideas or will we invite the lowest compliant bidder to 'innovate' the best way for them to tell govt how they are getting on with spending >10bn/year?
its not impossible of course, but given the breadth of de&s tasks i'm not sure how it is practical or prudent to take that interface all the way back to cap/flc - unless there is some other organisation to be set up as a half way house - is that the plan? what will it look like? anyone any ideas or will we invite the lowest compliant bidder to 'innovate' the best way for them to tell govt how they are getting on with spending >10bn/year?
I never thought of it as "outsourcing" to tell you the truth. MoD weaknesses were identified. The lack of experience I spoke of. Lack of DEC support (to DPA at the time). The complete refusal of DPA higher echelons (by which I mean most IPTLs and the entire Management Board) to support their their own staffs or DEC. A framework was needed which negated this malign influence. The solution was, as ever, implementing mandated regulations, but in this case tweaking ever so slightly beyond their original scope.
If you break down the procurement cycle, from Concept to Disposal, there are numerous examples of Industry doing most of the work for many years. It is not a great leap to combine this. In practice, you only need to look at two extant contracts.
I have no idea what structure MoD/Gray will decide upon. As I said earlier, in December 2011 Gray informed the BBC he was going to implement one of the two above frameworks (the one approved in August 2001, which is by far the more comprehensive one, covering most of the procurement cycle). Only, as I said, MoD then denied he said it. The only possible reason for this was they were caught out cribbing from this ancient policy which, as I said, was based ENTIRELY upon a Def Stan that has subsequently been cancelled without replacement in about 2009, not having been amended since Jan 1991. As Chug has alluded to, what Gray was actually admitting, without knowing it, was the perceived need for "GOCO" was driven by the deliberate waste which caused the airworthiness failings; and the acceptance of the Nimrod Review (because the same Def Stan, if implemented, would have prevented the systemic failings). I believe that as soon as this was pointed out to Minister by an MP, they foolishly denied Gray's words (it is this lie which reveals their thinking and incompetence), stopped to regroup, and 16 months later have revamped it with lots of fanny new names.
I have no doubt there are scores of people who have been beavering away trying to work this out for the past 2 or 3 years. If I remember correctly, in May 2001 it was tasked as a minor job to one person on a Monday, and the first draft approved on the Wednesday. It received 3 Star endorsement in August 2001. The test cases were run over the following 4 months, encompassing almost 190 systems; some minor, some major. The contract was let and I understand it works just fine (in that domain).
Yes, there is an MoD team at both AbbeyWood and within the Service involved. Intelligent? Now there's a question.
If you break down the procurement cycle, from Concept to Disposal, there are numerous examples of Industry doing most of the work for many years. It is not a great leap to combine this. In practice, you only need to look at two extant contracts.
I have no idea what structure MoD/Gray will decide upon. As I said earlier, in December 2011 Gray informed the BBC he was going to implement one of the two above frameworks (the one approved in August 2001, which is by far the more comprehensive one, covering most of the procurement cycle). Only, as I said, MoD then denied he said it. The only possible reason for this was they were caught out cribbing from this ancient policy which, as I said, was based ENTIRELY upon a Def Stan that has subsequently been cancelled without replacement in about 2009, not having been amended since Jan 1991. As Chug has alluded to, what Gray was actually admitting, without knowing it, was the perceived need for "GOCO" was driven by the deliberate waste which caused the airworthiness failings; and the acceptance of the Nimrod Review (because the same Def Stan, if implemented, would have prevented the systemic failings). I believe that as soon as this was pointed out to Minister by an MP, they foolishly denied Gray's words (it is this lie which reveals their thinking and incompetence), stopped to regroup, and 16 months later have revamped it with lots of fanny new names.
I have no doubt there are scores of people who have been beavering away trying to work this out for the past 2 or 3 years. If I remember correctly, in May 2001 it was tasked as a minor job to one person on a Monday, and the first draft approved on the Wednesday. It received 3 Star endorsement in August 2001. The test cases were run over the following 4 months, encompassing almost 190 systems; some minor, some major. The contract was let and I understand it works just fine (in that domain).
Yes, there is an MoD team at both AbbeyWood and within the Service involved. Intelligent? Now there's a question.
Last edited by tucumseh; 28th Apr 2013 at 18:00.
