New Army recruitment campaign

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
... leading to Capita openly acknowledging that it underestimated the complexity of armed forces recruitment.
...and as they have not fulfilled their part of the contract, will be repaying the MoD due to there being a very switched on officer involved in the drawing up of the terms and conditions.
 
...and as they have not fulfilled their part of the contract, will be repaying the MoD due to there being a very switched on officer involved in the drawing up of the terms and conditions.
I.m not sure AF recruitment is complex. There's simply a set of standards that each applicant must meet in order to be recruited - what on earth can be difficult about that (apart from the normal MoD piss-poor requirement setting hindering the whole process).
 
...and as they have not fulfilled their part of the contract, will be repaying the MoD due to there being a very switched on officer involved in the drawing up of the terms and conditions.
Eh . . . ?!

They either do -or- do not, "deliver" on the contract!!

What is "switched-on" about that ?!
 

Mrsheeny

War Hero
Unfortunately not. These figures are only for voluntary withdrawals, not rejections.

I'd say it's a combination of a steadily declining suitability of the general population (obesity, snowflakery etc), the still too long time between apply and start training (getting better but never as good as the myriad of old anecdotes of starting the next day/week), the issues with current soldiers morale (retention) leaking out to put off potential applicants. Yes they are all 'being addressed', but looks like a long way to go, and it doesn't look good that these issues have all been glaringly obvious for years before we finally get round to looking at them.

My only beef with this whole thing was the message from on high to serving soldiers to STFU about the snowflake ad campaign because 'it was the most successful campaign ever', end of, no discussion. To which I and others thought was wrong, as it used the wrong metric. The metric of success that actually matters is new trained soldiers, not new applicants. Ad companies can measure the number of applicants, but as the customer we should be measuring what's important to us. And if (yet to be determined) the snowflake ad campaign led to too many unsuitable candidates applying, then it follows it was targeted at the wrong demographic.
I reckon they’d improve numbers tenfold if recruits had the option of shopping up at some sort of depot (ala FFL) and be fed, clothed and taught some basics over a period of weeks whilst they had their medical, fitness tests, cognitive tests, learn basics like drill and how to conduct themselves whilst they waited for their application to be processed and an opening for whichever cap badge they’ve picked. If there’s an opening in an infantry regiment then they get the opportunity to start basic sooner.

Eg :

May - Week 1 - little Johnny turns up at the depot, signs on the dotted line, gets given olive coveralls and some boots, gets bed to sleep in etc. Gets taught basic drill, fitness each day, etc.

May - Week 2 - Takes medical, fitness tests, cognitive tests, basically does selection and finds out if they can continue and which job choices they’ve got.

May - Week 3 - Goes into the holding troop where weapons handling is introduced, tabbing, more fitness, gets given a uniform, etc.

May - Week 4 - Continues in holding troop until opportunity shows itself. Little Johnny might want to join the REME and has to wait a month or two to start basic training or may be offered the chance to join the infantry the week after.

Could have it at Pirbright, just need a couple of empty dorms, a dozen instructors and a bit of kit.
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
...
Could have it at Pirbright, just need a couple of empty dorms, a dozen instructors and a bit of kit.
And money.What, reduce the number of VSOs you say ?
Monstrous idea !
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Eh . . . ?!

They either do -or- do not, "deliver" on the contract!!

What is "switched-on" about that ?!
Nothing, but getting the repayment clause in was a work of genius.
Well done that offr.
 
Until this year, Capita have been penalised every month of the contract in line with the KPI regime.

So far they have not made money on RPP.
 

TamH70

MIA
Published by: Dan Morris, Harrogate, Jane's Defence Weekly, on 12 February 2020

Military Capabilities

British Army set to hit recruitment target for first time in years.

The British Army is on course to reach its soldier recruitment target for the first time since signing a GBP495 million (USD641.6 million) contract with Capita in 2012 as part of the Recruiting Partnership Programme (RPP). As of February, 99% of its target for regular soldier recruits has started or been accepted and has a date to commence basic training. Capita expects to reach its target of 9,404 recruits for the year ending 31 March.

The latest figures come as a relief to Capita and the British Army after a 2018 National Audit Office (NAO) report highlighted that the RPP had not met its annual target to recruit soldiers since its inception, leading to Capita openly acknowledging that it underestimated the complexity of armed forces recruitment.

PHOTO: Recruits taking part in a graduation parade at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. (British Army/UK MoD)

View attachment 449893

Covers over their optical sights? That's luxury that is. My pass-off parade we had the bare rear carry-handle that masqueraded as a rear sight, with the attendant risk of it sawing into parts of one's anatomy when doing drill.
 
Covers over their optical sights? That's luxury that is. My pass-off parade we had the bare rear carry-handle that masqueraded as a rear sight, with the attendant risk of it sawing into parts of one's anatomy when doing drill.
And we got up half an hour before we went to bed, had a handful of gravel for breakfast and..... ^~
 
I.m not sure AF recruitment is complex. There's simply a set of standards that each applicant must meet in order to be recruited - what on earth can be difficult about that (apart from the normal MoD piss-poor requirement setting hindering the whole process).
I’d suggest AF recruiting is immensely complex, not least because of the large number of professions and trades and the diversity of entrance requirements for them. No other employer hires in numbers anywhere near what the MoD does.

The marketing is also complex; the target audience and message needed to recruit an infantryman who’s raison d’être is killing the Queen’s enemies is very different to that required to recruit a medic. And that’s before you start recruiting graduate doctors, engineers etc etc. And Reserves.

My guess is that the reason Capita misunderstood the complexity of the requirement was because Army misunderstood the complexity of recruiting in the 21st Century. So the Invitation to Tender was highly flawed and neither side had a clue what the risks were or where they sat.

IMHO this contract highlights the stupidity of adversarial competitive rendering for this kind of requirement. Hopefully Brexit will bring abandonment of European public procurement regulations to we get a system that delivers the kind of quality partnering relationships that industry achieves.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Until this year, Capita have been penalised every month of the contract in line with the KPI regime.

So far they have not made money on RPP.
Seems only fair, so far they haven't honoured their contract.
 
Unfortunately not. These figures are only for voluntary withdrawals, not rejections.

I'd say it's a combination of a steadily declining suitability of the general population (obesity, snowflakery etc), the still too long time between apply and start training (getting better but never as good as the myriad of old anecdotes of starting the next day/week), the issues with current soldiers morale (retention) leaking out to put off potential applicants. Yes they are all 'being addressed', but looks like a long way to go, and it doesn't look good that these issues have all been glaringly obvious for years before we finally get round to looking at them.

My only beef with this whole thing was the message from on high to serving soldiers to STFU about the snowflake ad campaign because 'it was the most successful campaign ever', end of, no discussion. To which I and others thought was wrong, as it used the wrong metric. The metric of success that actually matters is new trained soldiers, not new applicants. Ad companies can measure the number of applicants, but as the customer we should be measuring what's important to us. And if (yet to be determined) the snowflake ad campaign led to too many unsuitable candidates applying, then it follows it was targeted at the wrong demographic.
Sound common sense!
 
OK then:



The message from on high was, the adverts aren't targeted at serving soldiers.

As I have said consistently and repeatedly, the metric of success is not applications, they are simply a measuring point.

The KPI metric and the one in which the contractor is measured against is Basic Training Starts. Individuals commencing Basic Training only do so if they meet the educational, physical and medical standards set by the Army for the particular role. The contractor does not set these standards.

Once a candidate has commenced Basic Training, it is wholly the responsibility of the Army to get them to trained soldier standard, from the entry standard as set by the Army and for their retention.

The fact that this doesn’t fit with the narrative posters want is hardly the contractors (or the Army’s fault).
Serving soldiers may not have been the Ad's target audience... though it pissed many of them off enough to leave... the Ad campaign was NOT a success... it may have given the flotsam and jetsam snowflakery it was aimed at a warm and fuzzy and had them scurrying along to the Woke recruiting offices but it didn't get them into uniform in sufficient numbers.
 
I’d suggest AF recruiting is immensely complex, not least because of the large number of professions and trades and the diversity of entrance requirements for them. No other employer hires in numbers anywhere near what the MoD does.

The marketing is also complex; the target audience and message needed to recruit an infantryman who’s raison d’être is killing the Queen’s enemies is very different to that required to recruit a medic. And that’s before you start recruiting graduate doctors, engineers etc etc. And Reserves.

My guess is that the reason Capita misunderstood the complexity of the requirement was because Army misunderstood the complexity of recruiting in the 21st Century. So the Invitation to Tender was highly flawed and neither side had a clue what the risks were or where they sat.

IMHO this contract highlights the stupidity of adversarial competitive rendering for this kind of requirement. Hopefully Brexit will bring abandonment of European public procurement regulations to we get a system that delivers the kind of quality partnering relationships that industry achieves.
How is the recruiting process in the 21st Century any different/more complex to that of the 20th?
Nice business buzz jargon though Bob!:rolleyes:=D
 
Serving soldiers may not have been the Ad's target audience... though it pissed many of them off enough to leave... the Ad campaign was NOT a success... it may have given the flotsam and jetsam snowflakery it was aimed at a warm and fuzzy and had them scurrying along to the Woke recruiting offices but it didn't get them into uniform in sufficient numbers.
I think you will find you are completely wrong on the vast majority of that post ^~
 
How is the recruiting process in the 21st Century any different/more complex to that of the 20th?
Nice business buzz jargon though Bob!:rolleyes:=D
Other than the obvious technological advances in most of the trades, it isn’t overly different, it was just as complex and the Army wasn’t succeeding for years before the contract.

It’s just that people don’t want to accept that as fact.
 
Other than the obvious technological advances in most of the trades, it isn’t overly different, it was just as complex and the Army wasn’t succeeding for years before the contract.

It’s just that people don’t want to accept that as fact.
Now that the numbers needed to be recruited have dropped, the Army recruits more commonwealth, females and gays can serve everywhere and standards are lower than a scouse birds, its looking like a success for 2019.
 
How is the recruiting process in the 21st Century any different/more complex to that of the 20th?
Nice business buzz jargon though Bob!:rolleyes:=D
I didn’t say it was more complex; I said it was complex. It always has been. It had also not been run well for a very long time; lots of duplication, stovepipes, ACIOs that managed to recruit single figures in a year etc etc.

What has changed is the recruiting environment. Thirty years ago, you could run an advert campaign on prime-time TV and get people in to recruiting offices. You can’t now, not least because the target audience doesn’t watch much TV. So you have to be a whole lot cleverer about targeting to get the message to the right people.

Next, there’s a whole load more competition. 1990s kids left school at 16 and had few career choices; a job in traditional local industries. Now nearly all leave school at 18 In 1995, 12% went to university. Now over half do. So there’s both competition to employ them and competition to gain their attention with adverts etc.

Add in social media and the desire for social proof and a whole load of other social changes and you have a very complex environment to recruit from.
 

Latest Threads

Top