It has previously been noted that the merger of the former DPA and DLO organisations was achieved with remarkable speed and effectiveness, particularly given the significant operational demands on the new DE&S organisation. The principal objective of the merger was to bring together the commissioning of new equipment (DPA) with its subsequent support (DLO) so as to provide a better platform for through life management. This objective has been largely achieved.
At the time of the merger, and in order to avoid instituting an 'us-and-them' type of attitude, it was determined that DE&S should be an integral part of the MoD and not an agency (as was previously the arrangement for the DPA). This is contrary to the changes recommended as part of the Smart procurement initiative, which sought to clarify the distinct roles of the requirements and the acquisition communities, and put in place appropriate organisational structures.
Since cost estimates and technical specifications are subject to influence from both Heads of Capability and the military, DE&S is not sufficiently 'arm's length' to be held fully accountable for problems in project delivery. Moreover, the MoD now has fewer semi-independent "expert" cost estimators, such as those in the DE&S CAS team, even than it did during the 1990s (c.50 vs. c.90 in the 1990s).
It is recognised, however, that military input to the acquisition process remains important. In the absence of the CoMs, it would be particularly important to ensure that the Armed Forces have input to the acquisition process in order that user needs are adequately taken into account. But this should be the limit of military influence; as described in Section 8.5.2, project management roles should be limited to those with project management experience.
The alternative scenario, and one encountered by the Review team under DE&S's current arrangements, is that military staff can occupy line management positions. Since their future career prospects are determined by single Service agendas, incentives (in the context of future career development) could be intension with, or even contrary to, the project's best interests. For instance, a narrow view of 'successful' project delivery could be one in which outstanding platform performance is delivered to a user regardless of cost. The alternative definition of success (in which appropriate trade-offs are made between performance, cost and time) is more likely to optimise the outputs of the entire acquisition system.
Similar logic could be applied to all positions in DE&S which are responsible for project delivery. For this reason, responsibility for making appointments should be delegated to the appointee's direct report and should remain independent of military influence. The current situation, in which forces outside of DE&S determine the career trajectories of project managers within DE&S is highly damaging and should be stopped.