"IPTs" were intended to include all key internal stakeholders and industry as full members. Further, it was anticipated that they would:
• provide consistency and continuity of approach throughout the project life-cycle;
• ensure close and effective involvement of stakeholders in decision making; and
• ensure clear responsibility and accountability for delivery of projects.
Discussions across the acquisition community confirmed that this principle of Smart Acquisition had been firmly embraced and implemented post-1998. These organisational changes produced a structure across the old DPA and DLO with around 110 IPTs, with flat reporting structures up to the top of these organisations.
However, post-DE&S formation, this structure has now evolved into 9 operating centres, with various structures of teams reporting in. Some of these structures are simply amalgamations of old project and support IPTs in a given area; others have been reorganised more radically to reflect new ways of working (e.g., in Complex Weapons) or better reflect the common links across activities in the cluster (e.g., Ships and Submarines where teams often handle a set of activities over a range of similar platforms).
There was a clear divergence of views within DE&S on these changes. Those involved in IPTs delivering new equipment (i.e., ex-DPA) generally held the view that organisational changes were a backward step because they inserted new layers of management and risked loss of focus and accountability. Those outside of these teams felt that clustering was beneficial in reducing the strong silo tendencies associated with independent IPTs and provided greater input and oversight from more experienced management with broader perspectives than just those from an individual project.