2.3 Clearly, each of the main organisations, functions and processes in Defence will face its own particular challenges, but our analysis has identified a number of problems arising from a range of causes:
• an inability to take tough, timely decisions in the Defence interest, particularly those necessary to ensure financial control and an affordable Defence programme, reflecting:
■ the political pain of taking such decisions and the lack of immediate consequences of deferring them;
■ the 'conspiracy of optimism' between industry, the military, officials and Ministers;
■ an institutional focus on short-term affordability at the expense of longer-term planning;
■ a lack of clarity over who is responsible and accountable for taking decisions and an emphasis instead on reaching decisions by consensus in committees to achieve coherence across Defence, which can let the best be the enemy of the good;
■ weaknesses in the management information and evidence-based analysis that supports decision-making, which can allow advocacy to have greater weight in decision-making than it should;
■ that finance, and the need for affordability, are not regarded as sufficiently important throughout the organisation; and,
■ insufficient skills in key areas and a lack of financial rigour throughout the organisation.
• weaknesses in the Department's ability to think strategically, and to contribute coherently and effectively to the Government's strategies for influence overseas, and over the balance between policy and military advice in relation to strategy and operations, reflecting:
■ the absence of a shared understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Department of State and Strategic Military Headquarters within Head Office in relation to political / military strategies and the conduct of operations; and,
■ shortcomings in the skills and training of Service personnel and civilians performing these functions.
• delivery arms which are disempowered and have their inputs micro-managed by the Head Office, but are not held to account for their outputs, reflecting:
■ the challenges of managing an overheated Defence programme;
■ a corporate framework of delegated responsibilities and authorities which has evolved organically and unsystematically over time, rather than by deliberate design;
■ on the part of the Services, insufficient influence over some of the key elements of military capability;
■ a lack of transparent, trusted and shared management information which prevents proper assurance and encourages micro management; and,
■ a lack of the right structures and processes, and the will to hold delivery arms rigorously to account.
• concerns over the profile and priority given to joint enabling military capabilities within Defence, reflecting:
■ the tendency of the single Services to favour capabilities they consider to be core to their outputs, particularly in resource allocation decisions; and,
■ the fragmented way in which joint capabilities are currently organised and managed, a legacy of the joint approach having developed on a case-by- case basis over time, rather than on the basis of an overall vision or design.
• continuing inefficiency in the current model, reflecting:
■ a predisposition to over-complicate, partly to satisfy a range of stakeholders;
■ a culture of re-inventing the wheel and developing bespoke solutions, rather than standardising;
■ some fragmented structures and processes, with too many interfaces and similar functions performed in several organisations; and,
■ duplication and man-marking because of a lack of trust across the organisation.
• concerns over whether Defence makes the most effective use of Service and civilian manpower, reflecting:
■ a tendency to use Service personnel to fill roles that could more cost effectively be filled by civil servants or contractors;
■ perceived flaws in the career management, promotion and appointing systems, including the perception that these incentivise single Service officers in certain areas to put the interests of their Service over Defence as a whole;
■ a lack of professional skills in key areas; and,
■ a culture where people move too quickly from one post to another.