UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Have they really only just noticed? 🙄🙄
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...nt-experience/
MoD project leads often without project management experience
Findings indicate that Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), accountable for substantial projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), are frequently appointed without any formal qualifications in project management and often serve in a part-time capacity.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...nt-experience/
MoD project leads often without project management experience
Findings indicate that Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), accountable for substantial projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), are frequently appointed without any formal qualifications in project management and often serve in a part-time capacity.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Token effort?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-k...ment-strategy/
UK kick-starts £125m missile defence development strategy
In a newly-released Prior Information Notice, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has unveiled its plans for a Missile Defence Research & Development Category Strategy.
The forthcoming project is aimed at establishing a strong and effective defence against evolving missile threats, such as ballistic and advanced hypersonic glide and hypersonic cruise missiles.
The initiative revolves around the five key pillars of missile defence, namely Counter-Proliferation and Arms Control, Deterrence, Counterforce, Active Defence, and Passive Defence.
The MoD, acting as the Contracting Authority, is primed to set the wheels in motion for a competitive procurement process. This will culminate in the awarding of a substantial contract for the provision of Missile Defence R&D.
The contract is categorised as a Framework (Services) contract. This long-term agreement, with a duration of six years, is estimated to be worth between £25 million and £125 million.…
The MoD has yet to release the specifics of the competitive procurement process. However, the substantial value of the contract is indicative of the importance placed on the project and its potential impact on the UK’s future defence capabilities.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-k...ment-strategy/
UK kick-starts £125m missile defence development strategy
In a newly-released Prior Information Notice, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has unveiled its plans for a Missile Defence Research & Development Category Strategy.
The forthcoming project is aimed at establishing a strong and effective defence against evolving missile threats, such as ballistic and advanced hypersonic glide and hypersonic cruise missiles.
The initiative revolves around the five key pillars of missile defence, namely Counter-Proliferation and Arms Control, Deterrence, Counterforce, Active Defence, and Passive Defence.
The MoD, acting as the Contracting Authority, is primed to set the wheels in motion for a competitive procurement process. This will culminate in the awarding of a substantial contract for the provision of Missile Defence R&D.
The contract is categorised as a Framework (Services) contract. This long-term agreement, with a duration of six years, is estimated to be worth between £25 million and £125 million.…
The MoD has yet to release the specifics of the competitive procurement process. However, the substantial value of the contract is indicative of the importance placed on the project and its potential impact on the UK’s future defence capabilities.
[QUOTE=ORAC;11437091]Have they really only just noticed? 🙄🙄
No, they acknowledged receipt of a submission stating this, dated 16 February 2012. Margaret Hodge was chair at the time.
At the request of the Defence Committee Chair (James Arbuthnot), this was followed up by a more detailed submission on 19 December 2013.
And God knows how many before that.
These individuals come and go, and the system is reset each time. Same as MoD. There's no way they're going to start their report by saying 'After over a decade thinking about this....'.
No, they acknowledged receipt of a submission stating this, dated 16 February 2012. Margaret Hodge was chair at the time.
At the request of the Defence Committee Chair (James Arbuthnot), this was followed up by a more detailed submission on 19 December 2013.
And God knows how many before that.
These individuals come and go, and the system is reset each time. Same as MoD. There's no way they're going to start their report by saying 'After over a decade thinking about this....'.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As the UK defence refresh approaches, Pinstripedline blog on the massive challenges facing the MOD and possible options to cover the huge defence cuts likely to be implemented shortly...
https://tinyurl.com/3yac3bxp
https://tinyurl.com/3yac3bxp
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
"The Secretary of State for Defence has pushed publicly for £11bn of additional funding to meet Defences needs and has been granted £5bn in the short term and a planned small rise in the budget over the next couple of years. In other words the UK is not cutting the defence budget, but it will have to cut the size, shape and ambition of the armed forces.
Why is this necessary? Simply put the declining value of the pound due to foreign currency fluctuations and stubbornly high inflation, coupled with significant cost increases on projects (for example the Type 31 project) means that everything is getting more expensive than planned. This is coupled with projects taking longer to complete or going over budget as problems are identified and resolved as well as the rise in energy bills and basic infrastructure costs means the MOD funding is not sufficient to meet all the demands placed on it."
"The armed forces are very bad at taking genuinely bold cuts to free up resources – instead they cling on to things like a drowning man clings to ever smaller bits of wreckage, without asking whether it is doing any good. "
Why is this necessary? Simply put the declining value of the pound due to foreign currency fluctuations and stubbornly high inflation, coupled with significant cost increases on projects (for example the Type 31 project) means that everything is getting more expensive than planned. This is coupled with projects taking longer to complete or going over budget as problems are identified and resolved as well as the rise in energy bills and basic infrastructure costs means the MOD funding is not sufficient to meet all the demands placed on it."
"The armed forces are very bad at taking genuinely bold cuts to free up resources – instead they cling on to things like a drowning man clings to ever smaller bits of wreckage, without asking whether it is doing any good. "
"The Secretary of State for Defence has pushed publicly for £11bn of additional funding to meet Defences needs and has been granted £5bn in the short term and a planned small rise in the budget over the next couple of years. In other words the UK is not cutting the defence budget, but it will have to cut the size, shape and ambition of the armed forces.
Why is this necessary? Simply put the declining value of the pound due to foreign currency fluctuations and stubbornly high inflation, coupled with significant cost increases on projects (for example the Type 31 project) means that everything is getting more expensive than planned. This is coupled with projects taking longer to complete or going over budget as problems are identified and resolved as well as the rise in energy bills and basic infrastructure costs means the MOD funding is not sufficient to meet all the demands placed on it."
"The armed forces are very bad at taking genuinely bold cuts to free up resources – instead they cling on to things like a drowning man clings to ever smaller bits of wreckage, without asking whether it is doing any good. "
Why is this necessary? Simply put the declining value of the pound due to foreign currency fluctuations and stubbornly high inflation, coupled with significant cost increases on projects (for example the Type 31 project) means that everything is getting more expensive than planned. This is coupled with projects taking longer to complete or going over budget as problems are identified and resolved as well as the rise in energy bills and basic infrastructure costs means the MOD funding is not sufficient to meet all the demands placed on it."
"The armed forces are very bad at taking genuinely bold cuts to free up resources – instead they cling on to things like a drowning man clings to ever smaller bits of wreckage, without asking whether it is doing any good. "
https://apnews.com/article/europe-ge...4169ef92c4f386
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/currency
Brexit referendum starting gun fired Jan 2013 by Cameron (A), actual referendum June 2016 (B). The subsequent slides are not currency fluctuations that we are observing, this is what an economic disaster looks like with industry and finance quietly leaving the UK as a consequence, along with their tax base. The simple fact is that largely because of Brexit the UK cannot afford to fund the defence strategy it aspires to. This has long been a problem but Brexit has broken the camel's back. And it gets a lot worse from here on in, as the automotive industry is making painfully clear.
https://apnews.com/article/europe-ge...4169ef92c4f386
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/currency
https://apnews.com/article/europe-ge...4169ef92c4f386
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/currency
Whilst not in any way disagreeing that Brexit has been bad ( I voted remain and haven’t changed my mind) I still, in my semi retired state, do some commercial M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) due diligence and commercial terms work, and since 2021 there has been an astounding amount of inward investment in UK industry with German, French and Spanish companies opening new manufacturing operations and expanding existing facilities, along with the usual US, Japanese and Indian UK investment.
Added to a healthy investment environment from established UK majors, the UK industrial and financial scene is remarkably resilient and healthy, despite Brexit.
If that last minute trade tariff and quotas agreement had not been reached then it would indeed have been a disaster!
Industry and finance are NOT “quietly leaving the UK” in fact the opposite is true.
Whilst not in any way disagreeing that Brexit has been bad ( I voted remain and haven’t changed my mind) I still, in my semi retired state, do some commercial M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) due diligence and commercial terms work, and since 2021 there has been an astounding amount of inward investment in UK industry with German, French and Spanish companies opening new manufacturing operations and expanding existing facilities, along with the usual US, Japanese and Indian UK investment.
Added to a healthy investment environment from established UK majors, the UK industrial and financial scene is remarkably resilient and healthy, despite Brexit.
If that last minute trade tariff and quotas agreement had not been reached then it would indeed have been a disaster!
Whilst not in any way disagreeing that Brexit has been bad ( I voted remain and haven’t changed my mind) I still, in my semi retired state, do some commercial M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) due diligence and commercial terms work, and since 2021 there has been an astounding amount of inward investment in UK industry with German, French and Spanish companies opening new manufacturing operations and expanding existing facilities, along with the usual US, Japanese and Indian UK investment.
Added to a healthy investment environment from established UK majors, the UK industrial and financial scene is remarkably resilient and healthy, despite Brexit.
If that last minute trade tariff and quotas agreement had not been reached then it would indeed have been a disaster!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...companies/2021
Inwards M&A is what happens when a country's currency is cheap. The UK is on sale, starting in 2013 and accelerating in 2016. Asset stripping the real value out of the UK in the process. This is not a process that ends well for the UK.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...companies/2021
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...companies/2021
When a German automotive manufacturer commits to building a new factory in the UK to design, engineer and build lightweight vehicle chassis components and body panel fixtures for EV’s how on earth is that asset stripping?
There is massive inward investment in the UK which adds capability, jobs and Govt tax receipts.
It is not only inward investment that is happening either, companies like JCB, Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Aston Martin, Mclaren and many others are investing and adding to their UK industrial capacity.
And the UK remains a huge investor in overseas economies, in some the largest.
£ is currently 1.25 to the $ and 1.14 to €, which is hardly anywhere near its lowest.
Picture is nowhere near as you suggest.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
doesn't make much difference to the Military Budget either way
What are they going to cut next?
From the Thinpinstriped line article:-"The challenge facing the MOD is one of pure numbers and the fact that there is not enough money available to meet all of its needs. The Secretary of State for Defence has pushed publicly for £11bn of additional funding to meet Defences needs and has been granted £5bn in the short term and a planned small rise in the budget over the next couple of years. In other words the UK is not cutting the defence budget, but it will have to cut the size, shape and ambition of the armed forces."
What are they going to cut next?
From the Thinpinstriped line article:-"The challenge facing the MOD is one of pure numbers and the fact that there is not enough money available to meet all of its needs. The Secretary of State for Defence has pushed publicly for £11bn of additional funding to meet Defences needs and has been granted £5bn in the short term and a planned small rise in the budget over the next couple of years. In other words the UK is not cutting the defence budget, but it will have to cut the size, shape and ambition of the armed forces."
Hearing rumours of another cut of up to12,000 in the strength of the Army to be announced at the end of June.
No change to IR as “Ukraine proved everything in original IR to be valid.”
UK to be the defence laughing stock of Europe as EVERYBODY else increases and expands.
No change to IR as “Ukraine proved everything in original IR to be valid.”
UK to be the defence laughing stock of Europe as EVERYBODY else increases and expands.
To be honest, there are a fair few out there who would happily take redundancy if it was offered. The perks and conditions seem to be in a race to the bottom so probably worth punching out sooner rather than later if the price is right.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Francis Tusa:
A quick run through some of the Whitehall gossip about the White Paper…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...067880449.html
A quick run through some of the Whitehall gossip about the White Paper…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...067880449.html
Last edited by ORAC; 23rd May 2023 at 10:24.
Thread Starter
A quick run through some of the Whitehall gossip about the White Paper from ORAC's link
Late Friday/this Monday have been v interesting as regards the quiet, background briefs that have been going the rounds about the Defence Command White Paper, especially what will happen to the Army.
Top Line: the White Paper will say previous version was absolutely fine... ...all assumptions deductions totally right, Ukraine has changed nothing, because 2021 version had foreseen it!
However, Army White Paper Top Line: the briefings say a cut to 60,000. Yes, the "line to take" is 60,000 - the previous total talked up was 72,000...
...so going from current 80k-ish, 60k would be nearly a 30% cut.
However... I can't remember whether it was "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister", but one of these had the Whitehall strategy that you leak some dire cut, but when the actual announcement comes, it isn't as bad.
Soooo....While the talk is for a cut of over 20,000 Army troops to 60k, I'm hearing a secondary line which is that the "actual" cut will "only" be to 65,000, so not that bad!
Well, a 20% cut is still pretty heavy - it'd almost look like a punishment beating.
And when other equivalent Western European armies such as France are actively recruiting to grow their forces, a UK cut would look strange. And let's not talk about what the Nordic/Baltic States are doing with their armies' manpower...
Even if the eventual cuts are to "only" 68,000, it'll still be a pretty serious hit to the British Army. And one key issue: if the cut is this heavy, what does this do to what "The Country" expects from the Army?
It's pretty obvious that you cannot expect the same from a 64,000 Army as you do from an 82,000 one. And with all the talk of expanding the Royal Artillery, likely at the expense of the infantry and Royal Armoured Corps, how does this work with a 15-20,000 personnel cut?
One massive problem for @BritishArmy: it has cut itself off from the wider population, so it can be cut and reduced with very little political downside. When was the last time(s) that the Army actively invited a broad media pool to come and see things?
The Army's "message" has been lacking as the Service doesn't know how to communicate, though it parrots about "information manoeuvre". Well, even if such exists (it doesn't), Andover has been comprehensively out-manoeuvred in the White Paper game, and has seemingly lost, badly. Time will tell, but there is significant preparation of the ground for serious cuts to the Army. I'm not convinced that there will not be some cuts to the other two Services as well - they will just seem lesser ones compared to what could look like a bloodbath for The Khaki.
Late Friday/this Monday have been v interesting as regards the quiet, background briefs that have been going the rounds about the Defence Command White Paper, especially what will happen to the Army.
Top Line: the White Paper will say previous version was absolutely fine... ...all assumptions deductions totally right, Ukraine has changed nothing, because 2021 version had foreseen it!
However, Army White Paper Top Line: the briefings say a cut to 60,000. Yes, the "line to take" is 60,000 - the previous total talked up was 72,000...
...so going from current 80k-ish, 60k would be nearly a 30% cut.
However... I can't remember whether it was "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister", but one of these had the Whitehall strategy that you leak some dire cut, but when the actual announcement comes, it isn't as bad.
Soooo....While the talk is for a cut of over 20,000 Army troops to 60k, I'm hearing a secondary line which is that the "actual" cut will "only" be to 65,000, so not that bad!
Well, a 20% cut is still pretty heavy - it'd almost look like a punishment beating.
And when other equivalent Western European armies such as France are actively recruiting to grow their forces, a UK cut would look strange. And let's not talk about what the Nordic/Baltic States are doing with their armies' manpower...
Even if the eventual cuts are to "only" 68,000, it'll still be a pretty serious hit to the British Army. And one key issue: if the cut is this heavy, what does this do to what "The Country" expects from the Army?
It's pretty obvious that you cannot expect the same from a 64,000 Army as you do from an 82,000 one. And with all the talk of expanding the Royal Artillery, likely at the expense of the infantry and Royal Armoured Corps, how does this work with a 15-20,000 personnel cut?
One massive problem for @BritishArmy: it has cut itself off from the wider population, so it can be cut and reduced with very little political downside. When was the last time(s) that the Army actively invited a broad media pool to come and see things?
The Army's "message" has been lacking as the Service doesn't know how to communicate, though it parrots about "information manoeuvre". Well, even if such exists (it doesn't), Andover has been comprehensively out-manoeuvred in the White Paper game, and has seemingly lost, badly. Time will tell, but there is significant preparation of the ground for serious cuts to the Army. I'm not convinced that there will not be some cuts to the other two Services as well - they will just seem lesser ones compared to what could look like a bloodbath for The Khaki.
A quick run through some of the Whitehall gossip about the White Paper from ORAC's link
Late Friday/this Monday have been v interesting as regards the quiet, background briefs that have been going the rounds about the Defence Command White Paper, especially what will happen to the Army.
Top Line: the White Paper will say previous version was absolutely fine... ...all assumptions deductions totally right, Ukraine has changed nothing, because 2021 version had foreseen it!
However, Army White Paper Top Line: the briefings say a cut to 60,000. Yes, the "line to take" is 60,000 - the previous total talked up was 72,000...
...so going from current 80k-ish, 60k would be nearly a 30% cut.
However... I can't remember whether it was "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister", but one of these had the Whitehall strategy that you leak some dire cut, but when the actual announcement comes, it isn't as bad.
Soooo....While the talk is for a cut of over 20,000 Army troops to 60k, I'm hearing a secondary line which is that the "actual" cut will "only" be to 65,000, so not that bad!
Well, a 20% cut is still pretty heavy - it'd almost look like a punishment beating.
And when other equivalent Western European armies such as France are actively recruiting to grow their forces, a UK cut would look strange. And let's not talk about what the Nordic/Baltic States are doing with their armies' manpower...
Even if the eventual cuts are to "only" 68,000, it'll still be a pretty serious hit to the British Army. And one key issue: if the cut is this heavy, what does this do to what "The Country" expects from the Army?
It's pretty obvious that you cannot expect the same from a 64,000 Army as you do from an 82,000 one. And with all the talk of expanding the Royal Artillery, likely at the expense of the infantry and Royal Armoured Corps, how does this work with a 15-20,000 personnel cut?
One massive problem for @BritishArmy: it has cut itself off from the wider population, so it can be cut and reduced with very little political downside. When was the last time(s) that the Army actively invited a broad media pool to come and see things?
The Army's "message" has been lacking as the Service doesn't know how to communicate, though it parrots about "information manoeuvre". Well, even if such exists (it doesn't), Andover has been comprehensively out-manoeuvred in the White Paper game, and has seemingly lost, badly. Time will tell, but there is significant preparation of the ground for serious cuts to the Army. I'm not convinced that there will not be some cuts to the other two Services as well - they will just seem lesser ones compared to what could look like a bloodbath for The Khaki.
Late Friday/this Monday have been v interesting as regards the quiet, background briefs that have been going the rounds about the Defence Command White Paper, especially what will happen to the Army.
Top Line: the White Paper will say previous version was absolutely fine... ...all assumptions deductions totally right, Ukraine has changed nothing, because 2021 version had foreseen it!
However, Army White Paper Top Line: the briefings say a cut to 60,000. Yes, the "line to take" is 60,000 - the previous total talked up was 72,000...
...so going from current 80k-ish, 60k would be nearly a 30% cut.
However... I can't remember whether it was "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister", but one of these had the Whitehall strategy that you leak some dire cut, but when the actual announcement comes, it isn't as bad.
Soooo....While the talk is for a cut of over 20,000 Army troops to 60k, I'm hearing a secondary line which is that the "actual" cut will "only" be to 65,000, so not that bad!
Well, a 20% cut is still pretty heavy - it'd almost look like a punishment beating.
And when other equivalent Western European armies such as France are actively recruiting to grow their forces, a UK cut would look strange. And let's not talk about what the Nordic/Baltic States are doing with their armies' manpower...
Even if the eventual cuts are to "only" 68,000, it'll still be a pretty serious hit to the British Army. And one key issue: if the cut is this heavy, what does this do to what "The Country" expects from the Army?
It's pretty obvious that you cannot expect the same from a 64,000 Army as you do from an 82,000 one. And with all the talk of expanding the Royal Artillery, likely at the expense of the infantry and Royal Armoured Corps, how does this work with a 15-20,000 personnel cut?
One massive problem for @BritishArmy: it has cut itself off from the wider population, so it can be cut and reduced with very little political downside. When was the last time(s) that the Army actively invited a broad media pool to come and see things?
The Army's "message" has been lacking as the Service doesn't know how to communicate, though it parrots about "information manoeuvre". Well, even if such exists (it doesn't), Andover has been comprehensively out-manoeuvred in the White Paper game, and has seemingly lost, badly. Time will tell, but there is significant preparation of the ground for serious cuts to the Army. I'm not convinced that there will not be some cuts to the other two Services as well - they will just seem lesser ones compared to what could look like a bloodbath for The Khaki.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,995
Received 1,371 Likes
on
616 Posts
[QUOTE=tucumseh;11437135]
You will love this report, and it’s pretty damning. Something you often mention.
Notably, many of these pivotal roles are filled by senior military officers, appointed primarily based on their experience, regardless of whether they hold formal project management credentials.
This practice was initially questioned by the Public Accounts Committee in 2021, issuing a warning about potential taxpayer money wastage. More recently, Member of Parliament Kevan Jones sought further information on this matter through several Parliamentary Questions (PQs).
A particular response provided an enlightening perspective on the selection criteria: “The Infrastructure and Projects Authority Capability framework for SROs identifies typical qualifications and professional memberships but these are not mandated…On appointment, SROs are expected to complete the Major Projects Leadership Academy (MPLA) if they have not already done so.”
This response confirmed that SROs are primarily appointed based on their experience. It was also revealed that “three current GMPP SROs were appointed based on experience alone but have since undertaken or are undertaking formal training.”
The MPLA, an 18-month course, is often suggested for SROs after their appointment. However, data suggests that SRO roles are seldom full-time, with some allocating only a small fraction of their time to a specific project.
The MOD maintains that SROs are not vital for day-to-day project management, asserting that this role is performed by project managers appointed by the SRO. However, the Ajax project in 2021 presented a contrasting viewpoint.
Kevan Jones said about this issue:
“In the private sector, multi-million, multi-year projects are led by people with years of experience and qualifications in project management. There is no doubt that senior responsible owners in the Ministry of Defence are well-meaning and committed individuals. But their short-term nature and inexperience is leading to often poor procurement practises and wastage of British taxpayers’ money.”
In an effort to address the issues with the Ajax project, the MOD appointed David Williams, a full-time, qualified civil servant, thereby emphasising the importance of a full-time, qualified SRO for effective project delivery.
As of 1 March, the average tenure of current SROs is 20 months, a span considerably shorter than the median programme length of 77 months. This discrepancy may indicate a potential disconnect between the tenure of SROs and the lifespan of the projects they oversee.
The MOD’s SRO appointment process, which currently places more emphasis on experience than qualifications, could potentially explain the recurrent challenges in defence procurement.
Moving forward, it may be beneficial to reassess the criteria for such critical appointments, aligning them more closely with project durations and ensuring that appointees possess the necessary qualifications for efficient project management.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...nt-experience/
Have they really only just noticed? 🙄🙄
No, they acknowledged receipt of a submission stating this, dated 16 February 2012. Margaret Hodge was chair at the time.
At the request of the Defence Committee Chair (James Arbuthnot), this was followed up by a more detailed submission on 19 December 2013.
And God knows how many before that.
These individuals come and go, and the system is reset each time. Same as MoD. There's no way they're going to start their report by saying 'After over a decade thinking about this....'.
No, they acknowledged receipt of a submission stating this, dated 16 February 2012. Margaret Hodge was chair at the time.
At the request of the Defence Committee Chair (James Arbuthnot), this was followed up by a more detailed submission on 19 December 2013.
And God knows how many before that.
These individuals come and go, and the system is reset each time. Same as MoD. There's no way they're going to start their report by saying 'After over a decade thinking about this....'.
You will love this report, and it’s pretty damning. Something you often mention.
Findings indicate that Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), accountable for substantial projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), are frequently appointed without any formal qualifications in project management and often serve in a part-time capacity.
SROs are entrusted with overseeing key MOD procurement and development programmes such as Ajax, Dreadnought, and the future combat air system.Notably, many of these pivotal roles are filled by senior military officers, appointed primarily based on their experience, regardless of whether they hold formal project management credentials.
This practice was initially questioned by the Public Accounts Committee in 2021, issuing a warning about potential taxpayer money wastage. More recently, Member of Parliament Kevan Jones sought further information on this matter through several Parliamentary Questions (PQs).
A particular response provided an enlightening perspective on the selection criteria: “The Infrastructure and Projects Authority Capability framework for SROs identifies typical qualifications and professional memberships but these are not mandated…On appointment, SROs are expected to complete the Major Projects Leadership Academy (MPLA) if they have not already done so.”
This response confirmed that SROs are primarily appointed based on their experience. It was also revealed that “three current GMPP SROs were appointed based on experience alone but have since undertaken or are undertaking formal training.”
The MPLA, an 18-month course, is often suggested for SROs after their appointment. However, data suggests that SRO roles are seldom full-time, with some allocating only a small fraction of their time to a specific project.
The MOD maintains that SROs are not vital for day-to-day project management, asserting that this role is performed by project managers appointed by the SRO. However, the Ajax project in 2021 presented a contrasting viewpoint.
Kevan Jones said about this issue:
“In the private sector, multi-million, multi-year projects are led by people with years of experience and qualifications in project management. There is no doubt that senior responsible owners in the Ministry of Defence are well-meaning and committed individuals. But their short-term nature and inexperience is leading to often poor procurement practises and wastage of British taxpayers’ money.”
In an effort to address the issues with the Ajax project, the MOD appointed David Williams, a full-time, qualified civil servant, thereby emphasising the importance of a full-time, qualified SRO for effective project delivery.
As of 1 March, the average tenure of current SROs is 20 months, a span considerably shorter than the median programme length of 77 months. This discrepancy may indicate a potential disconnect between the tenure of SROs and the lifespan of the projects they oversee.
The MOD’s SRO appointment process, which currently places more emphasis on experience than qualifications, could potentially explain the recurrent challenges in defence procurement.
Moving forward, it may be beneficial to reassess the criteria for such critical appointments, aligning them more closely with project durations and ensuring that appointees possess the necessary qualifications for efficient project management.
The following users liked this post:
