..er last time I looked (and I try not to) it meant centralised fleet management. Now you're going to ask what the difference is between that and whole fleet management aren't you?
Please don't or we shall all die of boredom.
Yours in train spotterdom.
well here y'go - just for the giggles that will ensue:
" Whole Fleet Management - Key Messages
A modernisation in the way the Army manages its fleets of both combat and support vehicles.
WFM will provide the right eqpt, in the right configuration and condition, in the right amount , in the right place and at the right time to achieve mil capability.
WFM will introduce major changes - is therefore incremental and subject to extensive assessment over the next few years, inc trials and the study/adoption of best practice from other Mil and Commercial sources.
The focus of WFM will be changes in central management.
WFM is the most cost-effective method of balancing the requirement for vehicle availablility, for Ops and trg, with affordable qties of new eqpt.
WFM will herald more efficient trg and therefore a better quality of life for our soldiers. "
CFM is "Centralised Fleet Management" and is the next step on the way to bringing in WFM. The WFM concept is so different from what we have always done that it will take a long time to get right. CFM is just one more step into the future!
Arghhhhhhhhhh - if I here this one more time I'll go bloody mad. I'm out here working in a "best in class", "world leader" and the chaos in unbelievable. When oh when is DEME(A) going to stand up and say it?
Best Practice in many cases is REME (and other Arms occasionally). We (oops I mean you) have had Sixty years to get it right and quite frankly compared to what I've seen in a number of big primes REME is head and shoulders above "Commercial Best Practice". Bloody hell two of them can't even work out how big a floating runway is..............................
Rant over....of back to reminisce about Repair Forward, BDR, improvisation.......
I would agree that REME and the rest of the Army (with a few notable exceptions - RLC) are damn good at what they do, but to say we are better, or worse, than civvy street equivalents is not being totally honest. Where else. apart from the Army, does one organisation insist on re-examining a vehicle which the previous owner has had MOT'd (AF G932)? Talk about duplication of effort, where does it end?
Also, if a civvy company had so many vehicles unused for as long as the Army does, it would go bust!
Surely the Army has to look at what it does with its Fleet over a period of time & rotate the Fleet to even out its usage, otherwise the bean counters will eventually work out that 1 Div only need 200 vehicles to do all its training etc!!!!!!!!!!