Capability (Ground Maneuver) procurement

#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?
 
#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.
 
#10
Respell this: Arrse whole.

It's actually '********', but I suspect you already know that.

The rest of you please respond to the thread.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
 
#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.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
#16
If you change your settings to 40 posts per page, it seems like less bollocks that way, Bruce.
Fewer bollocks.

Remember if you can count them (however ridiculously high) it's fewer; if you cannot, it's less.

Thus "less rain fell on me" but "fewer raindrops fell on me".

Glad to be of service.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
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 you're 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.
One word that's always spelt wrongly is "wrongly" and if it isn't spelt this way, well it's spelt wrongly.
 
#19
#20
Is it generally spelt wrongly or incorrectly?
Yes, it is. Not invariably so, though. Sometimes it's just not spelt right.

For the OP, until about 30 years ago, Parliament voted money to the Defence budget in 'votes'. There was a 'vote' for ammunition, one for new equipment and so on and these monies had to be used in year until the next vote. This, historically, was because Parliament didn't want the Army to get any funny ideas.

That system has been modified in ways I do not understand to allow for longer term planning, but still at lower budgetary levels there remains an element of 'spend it or lose it' towards the end of the financial year, which I think you'll find in any large institution. None of this may have any relevance in your quest.

I assume you've read this sort of stuff:

RUSI - House of Commons censures defence equipment delays

A future for FRES? - Defence Management
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top