Capability (Ground Maneuver) procurement

Discussion in 'Tanks, planes & ships' started by brucenew, Oct 6, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Can anybody here personally involved evaluate the process of procurement for ground maneuver capabilities since 1996? The NAO said (May 2011) that the process has failed to deliver any project since 1992 to performance spec or cost. The NAO blamed resourcing and the MOD for setting unreasonably high requirements. Certainly most of the resourcing problem is political and external, but leaving that aside the MOD is to blame for setting the wrong requirements, says the NAO. What is wrong with the process of setting requirements and meeting them? The process seems highly structured: a User Requirement Document, Key User Requirements, sometimes operational analysis - yet the NAO claims that the requirements are set incorrectly. Are the wrong people involved, the documents insufficient, the analytical methods wrong...what is wrong with the process?
     
  2. Manoeuvre is spelt like I just dun it.

    Glad to be of service.
     
  3. Respell this: Arrse whole.

    The rest of you please respond to the thread.
     
  4. Bit snappy aren't you, Bruce?
     
  5. Yeah, I am. I'd like to start a thread for once without 36 pages of bollocks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. For once? This is your first thread!
     
  7. To be fair, we are arrse at setting requirements. Part of the issue is that procurement takes so long that what we thought we needed then and what we do need now are two entirely different things. Then there is the "trading out" process whereby some requirements are allowed to slip in order to come in on time/to budget but what really happens is we lose the requirement but still dont gain the time cost benefit. Then you have a completely retarded way of managing money - "spend it in year or lose it". Then there is the political element, the "not invented here" issue, uncertainty over future role, size and so on, and the Senior Officers WAGI problem. All in all the whole system is dysfunctional but that includes the NAO whose role seems to be to criticise the past rather than improving the future. Weer doomed ah tell ye.
     
  8.  
  9. Bruce, are you a Spam?
     
  10. Without the proper punctation in place, that sounds like some sort of order.

    Anger management courses, I am led to believe, can be allocated via the NHS.

    Happy to keep on helping.
     
  11. Half a dozen responses, one to the actual thread, and it's a good one, thank you.

    So I am most curious about the budgeting part: aren't procurement projects budgeted for multiple years, rather than by year? You really have to spend an annual budget within a procurement budget, knowing that your project must roll into a new year but your budget won't?
     
  12. Your curious?

    Why don't you ask the people who do this for a living? In office hours?

    Because I'm idly wondering as to why you wanted this info at 02.35 hrs. Journos often show their hand, before attempting to shortcut their homework.

    Or are you just one of those people that doesn't get out much?
     
  13. argh you vacuous little prick! You're back, still off topic and still using social media to pretend you're a bruiser. Yeah, why do we have a forum at all, when all of us could all speak freely during office hours?!

    For those who are in the forum for dialogue, not just for attention, here's the topic of this thread:

    Can anybody here personally involved evaluate the process of procurement for ground maneuver capabilities since 1996? The NAO said (May 2011) that the process has failed to deliver any project since 1992 to performance spec or cost. The NAO blamed resourcing and the MOD for setting unreasonably high requirements. Certainly most of the resourcing problem is political and external, but leaving that aside the MOD is to blame for setting the wrong requirements, says the NAO. What is wrong with the process of setting requirements and meeting them? The process seems highly structured: a User Requirement Document, Key User Requirements, sometimes operational analysis - yet the NAO claims that the requirements are set incorrectly. Are the wrong people involved, the documents insufficient, the analytical methods wrong...what is wrong with the process?
     
  14. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    'Argh' normally has at least two 'a's, thus: 'Aargh'.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. I'm starting to really not like this bloke even after his short time on the thread. He comes here, makes a post or two, doesn't like a bit of banter, cant spell properly and generally gets uppity with the good folk who reside here quite often and understand the 'rules'. What's the word i am looking for? oh yes i remember now. ****!

    Stay with it Brucie boy, you will get your answer eventually, or rather a fellow members' version of an answer, in the meantime let the rest of us play while we are bored and want to contribute the odd quip or two.