Much of this report is concerned with the incentives leading to problems in the initial acquisition of defence equipment. The pressures on the budget that are caused by an overly-ambitious defence agenda, and a badly overheated, unaffordable equipment programme, also have their impact on the provision of in-service support for equipment.
Unlike the time delay which is the main expression of problems in the new equipment programme, the main way in which problems show in the support of existing equipment is through reduced availability of equipment for use by the forces. Much equipment apparently in the inventory and ready for use would, in reality, need significant time and expenditure to make it ready for combat.
The DE&S has done much good pioneering work in the area of "Contracting for Availability", where a partnership approach with industry has led to joint teams with a mutual interest in driving down defence costs and improving equipment availability. More should be done to build on this good start, in particular to extend this process into the provision of new equipment, as well as in the support of legacy equipment already in the inventory.
However, the granular nature of supporting existing programmes makes it difficult to draw general conclusions in this area. It has not been possible in the time available to this study to make significant progress in this area.
In recent times the Ministry of Defence has introduced the concept of Through Life Capability Management ("TLCM") into the handling of the defence programme. This activity seeks to harmonise and maximise defence output by ensuring that all areas of defence activity that have an impact on one another are considered together and that, for the first time, capability delivery is viewed at a more strategic level than just the delivery of individual new equipment projects or individual in-service equipment capabilities.
It takes a capability as a whole and seeks to address issues such as the military doctrine underpinning the use of any capability, provision of new equipment to meet a particular need, the support of such equipment, training and manpower required to run this equipment, and the basing and infrastructure required for any equipment and the associated personnel.
As a general proposition, it is hard to argue with the assertion that managing these related activities in a co-ordinated way is anything other than a good thing. It is in the execution of this assertion that potential problems lie.
In the first instance, the objective that TLCM is trying to achieve is fearsomely complex and inherently based in financial data.
Programme Boards, under the hierarchy of Capability Planning and Capability Management Groups, have been established to co-ordinate these strands of work. However, it is far from clear that these Boards have the financial and programme data they really need if they are to co-ordinate this activity properly. It is certain that there is insufficient data and no sophisticated financial modelling to allow trades to be made between these areas to minimise costs to defence as a whole. It is simply not possible to balance a financial question against 7 different variables through general conversation alone.
If this system is to have any significant impact, then it needs be populated with such data, and the Financial Management skills required to analyse the information, as a matter of urgency. Without that information, the risk is that the Capability Boards, and TLCM, are reduced to being a limited talking shop.
The second substantial issue with the system as it is currently being rolled out is that it could blur the accountability that previous efforts at reform have tried to engender. Each of the "Lines of Development", as they are known, are represented on the Capability Board, and each is therefore entitled to an opinion as to what should be done in the provision of new equipment.
Each individual representing a Line of Development is also capable of changing its mind, of coming up with new ideas, of delaying decisions. Given the rapid rotation of staff through posts, it is a fair bet that between each of the quarterly meetings of such Boards, at least one of the Board members is likely to have been replaced in the meanwhile, and a new person will need to be read in, and they will have their own views about what actions should be taken.
Unlike in the case of some private sector entities the Review team has interviewed for this report, the Capability Board structure does not have a single executive empowered to drive decisions and accountable for those choices. Without that, it is hard to see these bodies coming to swift decisions and being happy to be held to account for their actions.
It was a sine qua non of the Smart Acquisition changes of a decade ago that accountability should be improved and clarified through the split of responsibilities between the Requirements group and the Integrated Project Team Leaders in the (now) DE&S. This was a valuable and hard-won improvement, which risks being undermined by some recent changes, including the implementation of TLCM.
Furthermore, a key consequence of effective TLCM may be to increase short-term spending to gain economies in the longer term (i.e., "spend to save"). The current structures and financial environment within the MoD do not provide fertile ground for this type of trade-off to take root.
The TLCM structure is, therefore, unobjectionable in principle, but fraught with potential pitfalls in practice.
Accordingly, it is the sixth key recommendation of the Review team that a further substantial and externally conducted piece of work be put in hand to understand better how the provision of more efficient in-service support could be delivered. It would be hoped that the output of this work would be available to inform both current and future planning rounds as well as the decisions of a Strategic Defence Review which should be held as the output of the recommendations of this review. It is also recommended that TLCM should be considerably simplified, and financial modelling tools should be imported along with the staff capable of using them to allow the system to make choices. The issue of accountability needs urgent simplification and clarification if it is not to run counter to the objectives of this review.