Detailed evaluation of the performance of the organisation in managing the very considerable expenditure on equipment support was not possible within the timeframe of the Review, but the Team did analyse high level trends and seek input from a reasonably wide range of individuals involved in the planning, contracting and operational aspects of support. Although further work needs to be undertaken in this area, important conclusions emerge:
• In conjunction with industry, the MoD has developed and deployed innovative CfA and CfC support solutions over the last decade for equipments both new and in-service. These have generally led to significant reductions in cost vs. "traditional" models.
• The extent to which equipment support costs can be further reduced using these techniques remains unclear, but the scale of cost reduction seen in example CfA type arrangements and the currently limited number of these contracts suggests that considerable further savings may be available (given suitable DE&S skills to deliver the contracts).
• However, existing contracts are perceived to suffer two drawbacks, which will need to be addressed before further major progress can be made:
- there is a perception that they are inflexible, and lead to "silting up" of the programme with cost; and
- there is concern regarding inadequate integration with support delivery elsewhere in the MoD (e.g., inventory visibility through management information systems).
• Although this Review has not conducted a thorough audit of business areas such as DSDA and JSC, it appears clear that severe issues with management information are impeding the ability to improve affordability elsewhere in the programme. The introduction of shadow charges by DSDA may serve to improve inventory control policies by IPTs.
• TLCM is attempting to extend decision-making beyond the current IAB project and equipment-centric process to a programme and cross-DLoD framework. This undoubtedly is correct theoretical approach, but many members of the acquisition community are concerned that TLCM is too complex and risks further blurring the responsibilities and accountabilities for major expenditures.
• Current processes struggle to embed effective consideration of Through Life Cost of equipment (up-front plus ongoing support) and decisions appear to still be driven by the up-front capital commitment.