It seems to me that just about anytime that DE, or whatever it may have been called in the past, gets to a point at which either it is EITHER actually becoming efficient OR the cracks are realy begining to show; that it is reformed, rebranded, changed and restructured and always to better support the "delivery of infrastructure". Now I may well be a little dyed in the wool but seems to me that infrastructure is by and large pretty much fixed in all cases and as such "delivering it" is more than a small challenge. How exactly infrastructure is "de;ivered" is therefore somewhat of a mystery. Nevertheless (and in an effort not to derail a very nice gravy train) it was with great joy that I read that we are to have another newer, better and far more streamlined organsiation whose function will be the delivery of infrastructure and (after obviously much thinking) it will be called The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO). It will eseentailly dragr all TLBs and other bits of DE into a single enterprise to "deliver" -- wait for it ...................... a Fully Serviced Infrastructure (on a Defence Wide Basis- whatever that means). Of course lots of other buzzwords, teams, sponsors and very many working and steering groups and committees will carry out this key transitional work that is vital to the joint Defence effort. But perhaps most worryingly is the view that they intend to review how they are to do their work, rather than what kind of service they are going to provide, which seems ever so slightly pissed to me. Bit like planning a route when you don't know how you are getting there - or even where you are going!! Apparently this is "matter of concern for all staff involved" - No Shit Sherlock!! But this only refers to the people within the current organsiation and not the poor buggers who have to suffer from inadequate/malocated and insufficient infrastructure that has simply failed to be delivered. Maybe Eddie Stobart can help??