You hold the purse strings.
Streamlining your middle rank structure could save a few bob.
Does a FJ Sqn really need 6 Sqn Ldrs ? - I understand that the one with the most manpower under command is the SEngo, do you really need another 5.
Does a FJ Sqn really need 6 Sqn Ldrs ? - I understand that the one with the most manpower under command is the SEngo, do you really need another 5.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opso
If you refer to the "Centralised engineering at Lyneham" string you will understand what I mean. The old system, before we went "lean" appeared to work. I don't know how much it cost to attempt to re-invent the wheel but it wasn't money well spent.
If you refer to the "Centralised engineering at Lyneham" string you will understand what I mean. The old system, before we went "lean" appeared to work. I don't know how much it cost to attempt to re-invent the wheel but it wasn't money well spent.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was perfect?!
Engineering to task not offer. Insufficient spares forcing Christmas treeing. Fleets within fleets. Having a major contractor that can return an aircraft from major or mods as late as they like. All this resulting in such poor serviceability that frame allocation to task is a constant fire-fighting exercise at the eleventh hour. An unacceptably low record of getting aircraft to depart home base within even 6 hrs of itinerary.
That was a system that was working 'perfectly' well? That's more of the working 'adequately' category if our standards are low or, if one is more honest, 'barely' working.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that the new system is better, that it doesn't need reviewing, nor am I pointing the finger at individuals or trades. What I am saying is that the system wasn't perfect any more than any other part of the Service is. Advocating we 'do nothing' should not be acceptable to any of us as we should all be striving to examine the system to improve our performance. 'The best we can do' isn't enough if the system is holding us back and we could do better. And there are precious few areas where we couldn't do better.
Anyway, just because something is working today doesn't mean that the same thing will be working tomorrow. The Titanic wasn't sinking until after it hit the iceberg. Looking forward to the problem and changing the course earlier would have saved it, even if it resulted in some spilled drinks amongst the first class passengers. And that is roughly what Lyneham is trying to do... (But that's all on another thread.)
Engineering to task not offer. Insufficient spares forcing Christmas treeing. Fleets within fleets. Having a major contractor that can return an aircraft from major or mods as late as they like. All this resulting in such poor serviceability that frame allocation to task is a constant fire-fighting exercise at the eleventh hour. An unacceptably low record of getting aircraft to depart home base within even 6 hrs of itinerary.
That was a system that was working 'perfectly' well? That's more of the working 'adequately' category if our standards are low or, if one is more honest, 'barely' working.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that the new system is better, that it doesn't need reviewing, nor am I pointing the finger at individuals or trades. What I am saying is that the system wasn't perfect any more than any other part of the Service is. Advocating we 'do nothing' should not be acceptable to any of us as we should all be striving to examine the system to improve our performance. 'The best we can do' isn't enough if the system is holding us back and we could do better. And there are precious few areas where we couldn't do better.
Anyway, just because something is working today doesn't mean that the same thing will be working tomorrow. The Titanic wasn't sinking until after it hit the iceberg. Looking forward to the problem and changing the course earlier would have saved it, even if it resulted in some spilled drinks amongst the first class passengers. And that is roughly what Lyneham is trying to do... (But that's all on another thread.)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, i'm not saying the old system was perfect but from a 1st line point of view we on the ground could work it. I don't think anyone will come up a perfect system of operating unless time is spent listening to those with the hands on experience, and to the experiences of others who have attempted a similar system to implemented. It may save money in the long run.
On the contractor side of things don't the MoD have a late delivery penalty clause written into any contracts? If not, why not?
On the contractor side of things don't the MoD have a late delivery penalty clause written into any contracts? If not, why not?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of chopping the carriers, lets chop the RAF in its totality.
We all seem to be operating under the assumption that we will always operate with the Yanks, so what does/can the RAF do that in any way enhances what they do. They have significantly better kit in all areas that the RAF operates, and more of it.
We all seem to be operating under the assumption that we will always operate with the Yanks, so what does/can the RAF do that in any way enhances what they do. They have significantly better kit in all areas that the RAF operates, and more of it.
Perhaps what you meant to say was "Less of the areas we don't need when we go to war with the US"? There are some parts of the RAF the US almost depends upon before they can go into a large war.
If we're that desperate for money maybe we could reduce the 42 uniform variations the Navy has to something more practical like one for everyday of the week?
An interesting question, rendered academic by the unwillingness of senior staffs and politicians to address it.
One MoD line may be that it has a scheme, currently called “GEMS”, which ostensibly rewards such ideas. This is true. However, the golden rule is don’t try to save too much as the idea will be ditched like a political hot potato. The scheme does not allow suggestions that challenge “policy”. Nor can one submit a suggestion that is deemed within your own job description. So, for example, this would preclude a project manager from suggesting a change to project management procedures, even though proven to save tens/hundreds of millions, and which would benefit other projects. This principle has been upheld many times, both in DLO and DPA (and their predecessors), and up to and including PUS.
I could make hundreds of suggestions but the most obvious one (to me) in recent years is the plethora of consultants employed by the MoD to consider topics which are complete no-brainers to 3rd year apprentices (not that there are many of them nowadays, which is half the problem). £350M in 2002, according to the NAO. Invariably, after many months on £1000 a day, their reports (a) recommend further studies or (b) make a recommendation which is actually long standing mandated policy, but the MoD customer is too inexperienced to realise it. And I can assure you the consultants deliberately target projects where the “external assistance” project officer is a young, inexperienced graduate. (So would you, in their shoes). They run a mile when confronted by experience.
As an aside, herein lies a significant financial problem project managers face. Very often he will be denied £millions because he has experienced staffs that don’t need consultancy support, and so cannot justify bidding for the money. Then, after their 2 year tour is up (no such thing as cradle to grave now), it’s all change and suddenly the “saved” millions are required again as the replacements are young graduates. Something must give, and the user finds he’s suddenly got a cheapo system, or no spares, or no training etc. You don’t get much consultancy for £2M, but it buys a lot of what you really need.
One MoD line may be that it has a scheme, currently called “GEMS”, which ostensibly rewards such ideas. This is true. However, the golden rule is don’t try to save too much as the idea will be ditched like a political hot potato. The scheme does not allow suggestions that challenge “policy”. Nor can one submit a suggestion that is deemed within your own job description. So, for example, this would preclude a project manager from suggesting a change to project management procedures, even though proven to save tens/hundreds of millions, and which would benefit other projects. This principle has been upheld many times, both in DLO and DPA (and their predecessors), and up to and including PUS.
I could make hundreds of suggestions but the most obvious one (to me) in recent years is the plethora of consultants employed by the MoD to consider topics which are complete no-brainers to 3rd year apprentices (not that there are many of them nowadays, which is half the problem). £350M in 2002, according to the NAO. Invariably, after many months on £1000 a day, their reports (a) recommend further studies or (b) make a recommendation which is actually long standing mandated policy, but the MoD customer is too inexperienced to realise it. And I can assure you the consultants deliberately target projects where the “external assistance” project officer is a young, inexperienced graduate. (So would you, in their shoes). They run a mile when confronted by experience.
As an aside, herein lies a significant financial problem project managers face. Very often he will be denied £millions because he has experienced staffs that don’t need consultancy support, and so cannot justify bidding for the money. Then, after their 2 year tour is up (no such thing as cradle to grave now), it’s all change and suddenly the “saved” millions are required again as the replacements are young graduates. Something must give, and the user finds he’s suddenly got a cheapo system, or no spares, or no training etc. You don’t get much consultancy for £2M, but it buys a lot of what you really need.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the military has been in a constant state of change for the past 15 years, what we really need is the people initiating and implementing changes to have a better grasp of change management techniques. Lineslime's point about involving those with the hands on experience has validity. Stakeholder involvement and better communication in the local area would go a long way to easing the problems inherent with the introduction of many of the measures that have been/are/will be thrust upon us all. That said, stakeholders such as a random chief on 1st line, cannot realistically expect that simply because he has what he considers to be the perfect solution (ie do nothing!) that it will meet the wider needs. To use the Titanic analogy again, the people with hands on experience were so busy stoking the furnaces to keep the engines running at full speed that they had no chance of seeing the iceberg, nor were they in a position to have a window out on to the impending problem.
And as for savings - do away with Gps in the RAF. The few useful functions within the HQs could be absorbed within STC or the stns, whichever is most efficient on a case by case basis. The remaining bits that exist only to support the Gps can then be ditched at considerable saving.
And as for savings - do away with Gps in the RAF. The few useful functions within the HQs could be absorbed within STC or the stns, whichever is most efficient on a case by case basis. The remaining bits that exist only to support the Gps can then be ditched at considerable saving.
Last edited by opso; 16th Jan 2005 at 11:59.
