Army Rumour Service

P: < 1, 2 :| |:

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:05 pm
Author: mumblemumble_drunk
We could fire every one but I don't think it would change anything. Civil business has a bottomline it's called PROFIT. Due to the nature of what we do, our bottom line is equiping the soldier or getting equipment that servicemen can man.

The procurement system is so far divorced/seperated from our bottom line our individual performance measures are not related to that bottom line; therefore no tangble responsibility.

So we in the military need to stand up and take responsibility for the complete process. The system is the system its not at fault, we as the military are not standing up and driving things through.

Yes that is a large statement and could very easily be picked apart. But I challange people not to do so, rather change the sytem or make i work for us.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:09 pm
Author: pombsen-armchair-warrior

oldfart:

pombsen-armchair-warrior:

A beeter start point might be with those that clock in first, and then sit in the neighbourhood cafes for breakfast, coffee, or just general leisure time.

A day in Abbeywood:

0745 Arrive by bicycle and clock in, pass by desk and switch on PC. Flash read any emails from the IPT leader so he knows you were in early.
0755 Go for a shower
0815 Go for breakfast
0845 Return to desk and read newspaper "It's part of my job to keep up on current affairs"
0915 Go for a "meeting" with a couple of colleagues in the cafe.
0945 Return to desk - Return to desk read rest of emails, write some crap on various newsgroups.
1030 Official Coffee Break
1100 Write a letter to the contractor
1200 Go to the gym
1300 Lunch
1330 Attend a meeting, contribute nothing!
1530 Return to desk - make a few phone calls.
1600 Go and get changed
1630 Clock out

You think I exagerate?

.

You forgot 'internet surfing' - at least two hours per day. Plus, attend meeting, contribute nothing, and gorge on the tea and biscuits.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:14 pm
Author: John_D Location: Risca, South Wales
To my mind, the report is a classic curate's egg.

The main good point is that it recognised the harmful stupidity of 2-year postings for every dam' thing in procurement. 20+ years ago, I was told that it takes 3 years to produce a competent infantryman. The idea that an expert defence procurement analyst/decision-maker can be adequately developed in 2 therefore sounds suspiciously like balls. Classically, new bods in post spend 6 months sorting out the debris left by their predecessor, 6 months imposing their personality on everyone as a "new broom", 6 months learning what a fcuking plank they have been until now and the last 6 months finally doing something useful and then getting ready to hand over to their relief. Given the length of time projects now last -- several times the average length of a world war to procure a single system -- this militates very strongly against the acquisition of expertise. It also prevents anyone ever having to take responsibility for anything; if ever anyone makes such a savagely insane decision that it cannot be concealed even in defence procurement, then the chickens do not come home to roost until the guilty party has moved on. With no functioning algedonic feedback loops, evolutionary improvement can never occur.

So longer times in post is a good point, well made, and people who do not accept the point should, as a minimum, be shot through the lungs until they do.

The other good point I noticed was the one about provisioning adequate spares. This is not exactly rocket surgery; when (also 20 or so years ago) I was doing fleet operational availability models (FOAMs) for helo squadrons, our boiler-plate report skeleton contained the recommendation "buy more spares" in the conclusions and executive summary, because every study without exception found that this would be a very good thing to do. So it's hardly a new point, but it would really be quite a good idea if someone were finally to take notice.

Two less good points, contrapuntally, were the unwillingness to attribute blame, and the call for more project management skills. On the first point, I am fully seized of the necessity for confidential safety reporting, egoless programming, blame-free technical review and all that good stuff. However, even for a bearded sandal-wearing hippy like myself, there comes a time when this "nobody is to blame for anything" stuff has to stop. When someone has made a succession of harmfully stupid decisions with potentially soldier-killing consequences, and pissed the time and money of the nation up the wall when there's a war on, it really will not do for them to retire on a generous index-linked pension with the thanks of grateful nation. And, going back to my earlier point about algedonic feedback loops, people who never receive negative feedback are unlikely ever to learn their jobs adequately.

Finally, project management. There must come a point when calling for "up-skilling" of project management ceases to be anything other than a mindless mantra. I really don't know of any projects that failed because of a lack of project management; rather the reverse, they suffered from a good deal too much. Last year, I was seconded to Niteworks, and on what I like to think was a successful project. The PM culture was noticeably lighter-touch than what I am accustomed to from my normal employer, too. Yet even here, we a had a project manager, a project technical manager, a project information architect, and one person (muggins here) actually cutting code. Let us at least for a while try having fewer chiefs and more Indians.

All the best,

John.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:27 pm
Author: jim30 Location: Sitting on a comfy chair comparing equivalent ranks...
I think we do need to address the culture of 2 year postings and then move on, lest your career be seen to be fouled. Over the last few weeks, I've seen a large number of first rate military officers, who were doing brilliant work on various procurement projects move on and be replaced, just as they were really hitting their stride. We're now back to square one, as well meaning and good officers struggle to get the subtlties and nuances of their portfolio, and end up making agreements to cut out a project line, or reduce funding because they don't have the depth required yet to see their projects through the planning round.

One of the reasons projects take so long is that as people move on, the Planning Round then takes options on their kit, things get delayed, projects stretch out and as people are permanently in flux, no one is ever really concious of how bad things are getting.

The other problem is the weakness of the top team (both Mil and Civ) in taking serious 'major pain' options, and instead of having the moral courage to chop a Cat A project, instead seek ever diminishing returns from squeezing smaller, but no less vital, projects while the golden elephants continue to suck up funds.

The final problem is the political dimension that won't accept the answers, as they are politically unacceptable, and forces us to do it all over again...

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:51 pm
Author: whitecity

jim30:

The final problem is the political dimension that won't accept the answers, as they are politically unacceptable, and forces us to do it all over again...

Agreed.

The uniform staff certainly have their 'issues' in this nonsense, but it's small beer relatively speaking and generally as a direct consequence of the problems falling from above. The main in-house deficiency is the short-termism of the procurement posting. Even the inter-service rivalry is a by-product of political short-changing. And some would even say that the politicians deliberately stoke it for their own selfish needs.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:55 pm
Author: whitecity

oldfart:

whitecity:

The officer is not at fault. The system is.

Whilst I very much agree with the second statement I cannot accept the first - where is the integrity in accepting you can't make a difference?

Because the BIG decisions are already made and the odds are stacked against the officers when it comes to having their voices heard around the conference table. The switched-on officer can spot this immediatly (if they weren't already aware).

If the dice were not impossibly loaded. I would be more inclined to push your point.

Where is the integrity in motoring through a built up areas at 50. But we all do it!

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:58 pm
Author: whitecity

John_D:

The main good point is that it recognised the harmful stupidity of 2-year postings for every dam' thing in procurement. 20+ years ago, I was told that it takes 3 years to produce a competent infantryman. The idea that an expert defence procurement analyst/decision-maker can be adequately developed in 2 therefore sounds suspiciously like balls.

Pointy-end officers are deliberatly placed into the procurement chain to provide the allusion that the military has a say in what its getting and the equipment is being procured for them, and at their wish.

Give the boys (or girls) more than 2 years in post, and they might actually learn enough to debunk the entire system. Can't have that now, can we?

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:01 pm
Author: oldfart

whitecity:

oldfart:

whitecity:

The officer is not at fault. The system is.

Whilst I very much agree with the second statement I cannot accept the first - where is the integrity in accepting you can't make a difference?

Whilst it's not good form to concede that the other guy might have a point in an internet debate.............you might well be right (which is rather sad)

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:03 pm
Author: whitecity

oldfart:

whitecity:

oldfart:

whitecity:

The officer is not at fault. The system is.

Whilst I very much agree with the second statement I cannot accept the first - where is the integrity in accepting you can't make a difference?

Whilst it's not good form to concede that the other guy might have a point in an internet debate.............you might well be right (which is rather sad)

We old farts should stick together.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:35 pm
Author: gijoe
Oldfart, you missed the bit about clocking in on the first machine that you come across on your route from the car park before then continuing to your proper place of work - thus over the course of a week, and 10 to/from journeys, securing an extra 50 mins of idleness!!

The rest is spot on! Cool

Sack the lot of them - that will save loads - and start again.

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:52 pm
Author: hairyhandbag Location: Square Leg, Deep in Devon

John_D:

To my mind, the report is a classic curate's egg.

The idea that an expert defence procurement analyst/decision-maker can be adequately developed in 2 therefore sounds suspiciously like balls.
(1) 6 months sorting out the debris left by their predecessor
(2) 6 months imposing their personality on everyone as a "new broom"
(3) 6 months learning what a fcuking plank they have been until now and the last
(4) 6 months finally doing something useful and then getting ready to hand over to their relief.

Now not being that good at maths and logic

If Point 4 rings true then point 1 is negated which means your logic is somewhat flawed

HH

Re: Bernard Gray's Review

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:37 am
Author: bakersfield

oldfart:

pombsen-armchair-warrior:

A beeter start point might be with those that clock in first, and then sit in the neighbourhood cafes for breakfast, coffee, or just general leisure time.

No, you don't, although to be fair there are many dedicated people there.

0745 - 1630? Overtime?

I remember during my mercifully short tour in one Directorate, just at the time they were changing to IPTs, one clerical guy spent most of his time running a cash and carry business. The upheaval and constant change meant he didn't have a line manager in the same building, never mind office. But the lady did spot he seemed to be buried under tons of filing, did a spot check on his phone call activity, and discovered he was making literally hundreds of calls a week to the same number.

He wasn't sacked. Redeployed I think the term was. Like I said, the exception, not the rule but it only takes a few bad eggs.

All times are GMT
Page 2 of 2 P: < 1, 2 :| |:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/