Central to the required changes was clear definition of a budget-holding customer for each IPT across every stage of its project life-cycle. The role of the then Procurement Executive was to be a supplier of equipment procurement services, which required clear definition of the customer-supplier relationships. This was intended to be a precursor to a move toward Trading Fund status.
There were to be two distinct customers:
• one, central, customer makes trade-offs across capabilities and equipments; these customers should be arranged around 12-15 cross functional capability groups, each led by a senior Capability Manager who has significant delegated financial authority; and
• the other customer, involved only later in the process, is the end user.
In general, the Smart Acquisition transformation initiatives were viewed as having improved the processes and accountabilities considerably, but a number of shortcomings were described. These include:
• budget-holding is not delegated to the Customer. DE&S is the TLB holder for both EPP and ESP expenditure in-year, and the ECC and Front Line are not operating contractually with DE&S on a financial basis;
• DE&S is not sufficiently "arms length" from its customers to be held accountable for problems in project delivery. For example, requirements from the ECC / MoD Capability Sponsor often change in the course of live projects, and DE&S does not seem empowered to push back where these changes have significant consequences on time or budget. They are more inclined to "keep the customer happy" almost irrespective of the consequences on either the equipment programme or on performance of individual projects;
• interface with the User is still relatively unclear to many participants in the new equipment procurement. The introduction of Chiefs of Materiel in the DE&S structure is viewed as confusing and of questionable value; and
• conversely, project teams within DE&S that are principally delivering support are well aligned to the User, but less clear on the roles of the MoD Capability Sponsor in planning or programming of support.
It should be noted that there are change programmes and other initiatives underway which may help to address some of these issues (particularly in relation to TLCM implementation), but there are currently no moves to amend budget responsibility or to encourage more autonomy for DE&S to put trade-offs back to the customer for resolution, and to be judged on its merits in delivering what has been agreed.