The MoDs £700 million efficiency savings

#1
The MoD has announced it is to make £700 million in efficiency savings

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...RealtermIncreasesInDefenceBudgetConfirmed.htm


Current plans to deliver the £700m of efficiency savings include:

• £550m to be saved across the Department, including up to £120m from greater use of collaborative procurement on construction, food and IT as well as better management of the Defence Estate, savings through greater efficiency in equipment support, and further prioritisation in the Strategic Defence Review.

• £130m of savings within the MOD through replacement of legacy IT systems.

• £30m to be saved by further reducing the use of external consultants and expenditure on marketing and communications, including significantly reducing the number of MOD publications. The MOD has already cut consultancy spending by 75 per cent since 2002.

• The results of an independent review of Defence civil servant numbers, led by Gerry Grimstone, which is looking at the distribution of tasks between military and civilian personnel and the scope for further efficiencies. This is on top of the 40,000 reductions since 1997. Savings may be significant. Findings from the report are expected in May 2010.
Are these achievable or just pure fantasy that will be demonstrated with the usual smoke and mirrors exercise of double counting, triple announcing and simply making things up?
 
#2
Well some idiot will say that more military can cover for civilian security - especially since who needs disembarkation leave? Or any leave in fact? Or time to have the lunch of £30 mediocre cottage pie because more rake off is taken from the PAYD contractors for the pleasures of their getting the contract.

The rest of it I am willing to bet wont happen because the toes being stepped on are the ones they play golf with on Wednesday afternoons.
 
#3
Smoke and mirrors.

msr
 
#4
Suggest you read the various National Audit Office reports on claimed "Efficiency Savings" in public spending

Plenty to choose from and a common theme soon emerges.
 
#5
meridian said:
The MoD has announced it is to make £700 million in efficiency savings

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...RealtermIncreasesInDefenceBudgetConfirmed.htm


Current plans to deliver the £700m of efficiency savings include:

• £550m to be saved across the Department, including up to £120m from greater use of collaborative procurement on construction, food and IT as well as better management of the Defence Estate, savings through greater efficiency in equipment support, and further prioritisation in the Strategic Defence Review.

• £130m of savings within the MOD through replacement of legacy IT systems.

• £30m to be saved by further reducing the use of external consultants and expenditure on marketing and communications, including significantly reducing the number of MOD publications. The MOD has already cut consultancy spending by 75 per cent since 2002.

• The results of an independent review of Defence civil servant numbers, led by Gerry Grimstone, which is looking at the distribution of tasks between military and civilian personnel and the scope for further efficiencies. This is on top of the 40,000 reductions since 1997. Savings may be significant. Findings from the report are expected in May 2010.
Are these achievable or just pure fantasy that will be demonstrated with the usual smoke and mirrors exercise of double counting, triple announcing and simply making things up?

Ok, how are they going to make these savings, that is the easiest question:

1 - £550 million savings through Defence Estates, this sounds like a sell off or PFI to me, are Annington going to get another juicy amount of MoD property to rip us off with over the next 30 years?

2 - How can you save money by spending £130 million replacing legacy IT equipment, you've just spent £130 million replacing like for like, unless these are going to be great new time and cost saving systems, you know like DII and all the others.

3 - £30 million saved by reducing consultants, yes that's good, but how much more is going to be spent through contracts with external companies, or getting partnerships in place, instead of the MoD paying consultants you get prime contractors doing it, so in effect it goes off balance sheet, i'd say we spend a lot more now on consultants than before, but it's not directly contracted by the MoD anymore, but by second or third parties.

4 - More redundancies, the MoD have got rid of 40,000 since 1997, another 8,000 are earmarked for it as well, the MoD has never been busier, but is reducing in size each year, leaving gaps that private industry are filling up, so we save a few quid on making some MoD band D's redundant, then replace it with contracts to companies who then hire people on more money to do the same work.


Overall, i think nothing is firm savings, it's all smoke and mirrors as usual, we can all write down ways of saving money, by just shifting it around, if i do a balance transfer from one credit card to another i'm not better off, i've just hidden the debt a little better. What is needed is a real SDR by people in the right places, let the guys from the bottom all the way to the top speak their minds and come up with real savings that can be achieved without affecting support to operations, why do we continually allow consultations and people well out of the loop to shape the MoD when the best people to do it are in the MoD and doing the job.
 
#6
On the savings from CS reductions, what concerns me is the idea that putting mil in place to do CS work is a savings measure - generally speaking, capitation rates for CS is vastly less than mil staff. Its going to be interesting to see how they work this one out - is a wholesale expansion of AGC on the cards to replace the E and D grade staff who currently do admin?
 
#7
The point about the difference between consultants, MoD staff and external service providers is an interesting one.

The MoD can't even sort out a request for ladders...

http://defensenews.com/blogs/dsei/2009/09/09/bmt-helps-bridge-the-gap-for-british-combat-troops/

Its a bit of an old story (last Sep) but why does what seem like an improved ladder need outsourcing to BMT to come up with the answers?

Light bridging equipment, or a ladder as it is more commonly known, is in the throes of a technology make-over to ensure it is more suitable for use by heavily laden troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Responding to an urgent operational request from the frontline to come up with a better method of crossing ditches and scaling walls than a conventional ladder the Ministry of Defence turned to BMT Defence Services to provide an answer.

In the space of five weeks this summer the Bath, England-based consultancy conducted a survey of possible solutions and completed a competition involving more than a dozen bidders from the U.K. and overseas.

Eugene Morgan, the director of systems at BMT Defence Services, says the consultancy team running the project spoke to designers ranging from a supplier of ship gangways to a Formula 1 racing team in order to find the best possible solutions.

Morgan said recommendations on the top three or four designs for the 3 metre bridge requirement was submitted to the MoD last month.
He said he was unable to talk about the designs recommended to the MoD until a decision had been made on the way forward.

BMT is best known as a leading naval consultancy but has been diversifying into the defense land sector over the last couple of years on the back of the rapid growth of urgent operational requirement work from the MoD
What is going on when we have to outsource this kind of request?

This isn't a contractor on the MoD payroll but is still outsourcing what should be an MoD owned job
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
jim30 said:
On the savings from CS reductions, what concerns me is the idea that putting mil in place to do CS work is a savings measure - generally speaking, capitation rates for CS is vastly less than mil staff. Its going to be interesting to see how they work this one out - is a wholesale expansion of AGC on the cards to replace the E and D grade staff who currently do admin?
Jim's only a young chap - those of us around when Mrs T saved enormous wads of cash by civilianising many functions - such as guarding camps - can look on this and laugh. Just compare the Cap Rate of a Cpl or Sgt with a Band D, and you'll see what I mean :) Replacing Civvies with Mil is a non-starter. Plus of course the army don't really want to take over from the MPGS or most CS.

In fact, the only way - the ONLY way - to save money on this sort of thing is to put it out to contract, and get people in to do the work who are paid less. Taking into account that the plc they work for has to make a profit, they'll be paid a lot less. Their bosses have to be paid, as well, as do those who invested in the plc to make it grow. All this has to come from somewhere. It can work - and it can fail. Look to the contracting-out of Messes for an example - I won't say of which..............
 
#9
OldSnowy said:
It can work - and it can fail.
Not when the taxpayer is picking up the tab...
 
#11
• "£550m to be saved across the Department, including up to £120m from greater use of collaborative procurement on construction, food and IT as well as better management of the Defence Estate."

translated..... Bye bye TA centres. Weekends now to be held in church halls or camping in a field :wink:
 
#12
meridian said:
The point about the difference between consultants, MoD staff and external service providers is an interesting one.

The MoD can't even sort out a request for ladders...

http://defensenews.com/blogs/dsei/2009/09/09/bmt-helps-bridge-the-gap-for-british-combat-troops/

Its a bit of an old story (last Sep) but why does what seem like an improved ladder need outsourcing to BMT to come up with the answers?

Light bridging equipment, or a ladder as it is more commonly known, is in the throes of a technology make-over to ensure it is more suitable for use by heavily laden troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Responding to an urgent operational request from the frontline to come up with a better method of crossing ditches and scaling walls than a conventional ladder the Ministry of Defence turned to BMT Defence Services to provide an answer.

In the space of five weeks this summer the Bath, England-based consultancy conducted a survey of possible solutions and completed a competition involving more than a dozen bidders from the U.K. and overseas.

Eugene Morgan, the director of systems at BMT Defence Services, says the consultancy team running the project spoke to designers ranging from a supplier of ship gangways to a Formula 1 racing team in order to find the best possible solutions.

Morgan said recommendations on the top three or four designs for the 3 metre bridge requirement was submitted to the MoD last month.
He said he was unable to talk about the designs recommended to the MoD until a decision had been made on the way forward.

BMT is best known as a leading naval consultancy but has been diversifying into the defense land sector over the last couple of years on the back of the rapid growth of urgent operational requirement work from the MoD
What is going on when we have to outsource this kind of request?

This isn't a contractor on the MoD payroll but is still outsourcing what should be an MoD owned job

Here ya go… heavy duty ladder… £105!

A combat proven design since 4000BC




http://www.central-ladders.co.uk/Titan-Trojan-Heavy-Duty-Ladder-Class-1-Single-Section-4.0m.html

Can I collect my bonus now?
 
#13
-re consultants, I understand MoD have recently relaxed the rules so they can recruit more, quicker. Little changes does it - many are former MoD staff who have been retired early on the Friday, and turn up on Monday as full-time consultants. Different colour pass, less work to do, no responsibility, go home at 1600, weekends free and the boss still hasn't a scoobie what you're doing.
 
#14
I was in a certain govt dept today, non military, it was absolutely hectic, spending money like their jobs didn't depend on it - window cleaners, new carpets being ordered, new chairs etc - anything to spend the rest of this years budget. If what was being spent by this one dept is multiplied by the number of depts doing the same thing then the final tally is bound to be horrendous.

Do these people not realise that they might lose their jobs over a bit of carpet? I was actually quite shocked at the waste.

Socialism - doesn't really get the bigger picture.
 
#15
Can't beleive we haven't come up with a better system than the current skin flint april to feb - march splurge financial year.

Why not give the depart X in April. If they have any left, just leave it. Then they have more the next year. It doesn't have to leave the bank, just leave it in the black on a accounts book.

Then when lightening blows the roof off they may have the money to put it right.
 

dockers

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#16
In my, albeit limited, experience the only way out of the skint-splurge cycle is to have a costed plan (and at least a plan B) and stick to it.
 
#17
meridian said:
The point about the difference between consultants, MoD staff and external service providers is an interesting one.

The MoD can't even sort out a request for ladders...

http://defensenews.com/blogs/dsei/2009/09/09/bmt-helps-bridge-the-gap-for-british-combat-troops/

Its a bit of an old story (last Sep) but why does what seem like an improved ladder need outsourcing to BMT to come up with the answers?

Light bridging equipment, or a ladder as it is more commonly known, is in the throes of a technology make-over to ensure it is more suitable for use by heavily laden troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Responding to an urgent operational request from the frontline to come up with a better method of crossing ditches and scaling walls than a conventional ladder the Ministry of Defence turned to BMT Defence Services to provide an answer.

In the space of five weeks this summer the Bath, England-based consultancy conducted a survey of possible solutions and completed a competition involving more than a dozen bidders from the U.K. and overseas.
Eugene Morgan, the director of systems at BMT Defence Services, says the consultancy team running the project spoke to designers ranging from a supplier of ship gangways to a Formula 1 racing team in order to find the best possible solutions.

Morgan said recommendations on the top three or four designs for the 3 metre bridge requirement was submitted to the MoD last month.
He said he was unable to talk about the designs recommended to the MoD until a decision had been made on the way forward.

BMT is best known as a leading naval consultancy but has been diversifying into the defense land sector over the last couple of years on the back of the rapid growth of urgent operational requirement work from the MoD
What is going on when we have to outsource this kind of request?

This isn't a contractor on the MoD payroll but is still outsourcing what should be an MoD owned job
But there's the difference. It took this company a mere 5 weeks to pick the top 3 or 4 designs....How long would an IPT have taken to find just the suppliers ?
 
#18
On the combat ladders issue, it could have a question of capacity at Abbey Wood - the UOR system has worked incredibly well BUT it has also drained the best manpower away and led to delays in the wider procurement system. The fact that this one was outsourced could be because there is insufficient manpower to 'flex' at Abbey Wood, or as there is a hiring freeze going on, they were unable to put the right people in to do it. The "23000" people at DE&S is a bit of an urban myth - thats the all up figure including all the stores staff and ex DCSA bods. The numbers of actual procurement staff is a lot lower, and they are very heavily gapped at the moment.

As for the request - this one crossed my desk a long time ago, its requested by Theatre and they identified that there was (but I've forgotten why) a very good reason why a normal ladder couldnt do the job.
 
#19
I dont think anyone is questioning why it is a normal ladder or not, that is for the users and they know what they need.

But it is a very simple requirement and yet despite all the many thousands of people within the MoD, both mil and civ, they had to outsource it.

Not enough people, the wrong types of people, not enough skills or whatever, the basic fact is that it had to go outside. How much for a 5 week consultancy package from BMT, likely no change from £100k

And we wonder why the MoD has cash problems.

Read the PAC and Select Committee reports and you will see a litany of wasteful overspending.

The MoD isnt underfunded, its just poorly managed

I actually wonder if a sizeable budget reduction would actually yield better results
 

mysteron

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Guys, the elephant in the room is that there is a tonne of waste that can be cut in order to achieve these savings.

Unfortunately, to achieve this, a huge culture change is required in the Civil Service as well as some sectors of the 3 Services.

The MoD need to stop employing people to homework mark the contractors and start empowering (also read make accountable) them to work in a partnership. What is happening now is not partnership, it is a client / provider relationship with too much in depth auditing for its own sake.

Take the IT guys as an example, you have 500+ staff (vast majority CS) working on the DII Programme. The roll out is mostly complete and the last vestiges do not require that amount of resource. You have the teams out in the regions whose sole function was to homework mark ATLAS and now that function is fast diminishing. On a business point of view, I just see a huge cost to my business - so it has to be P45 time.

By reducing head count the savings are massive, let's make a few assumptions:

C1 CS gets paid circa £30k pa with a compensation and benefits package that the rule of thumb is traditionally 33% of income for pensionable contribution, benefits, etc. So let's say £40K p.a. per head.

There are about 250 people working in the regions, so if you reduce them by 2/3 you reduce head count to about 100. Ergo, 150 x £40k = £6m savings. That is one department.

Add to that the overhead and operational efficiency savings that go with a reduced footprint, not to mention the savings that DE can do by losing some Real Estate in the process. That in itself will present greater savings.

Sorry to the CS members here - but the numbers simply don't stack - you need to reduce head count now.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
scotscop The NAAFI Bar 65
Aunty Stella The NAAFI Bar 100
E ARRSE: Site Issues 24

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top