# Industrial Strategy - Capitalizing the Canadian Forces



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2021)

*D&B:  You're right!*









						Informing the Army’s Future Structure
					

Excuse my ignorance, but is there an actual Force 2025 doc that I can get my hands on, or is it a concept wrapped within Army Future Force models    I understand there is something like that on restricted circulation in the internal net.  I don't know if there is anything available to the...




					www.army.ca
				





> 'Nudder thought.
> 
> How do you keep the inventory in the warehouse fresh.  Turnover.
> 
> ...











						Informing the Army’s Future Structure
					

Excuse my ignorance, but is there an actual Force 2025 doc that I can get my hands on, or is it a concept wrapped within Army Future Force models    I understand there is something like that on restricted circulation in the internal net.  I don't know if there is anything available to the...




					www.army.ca
				





> So.
> 
> In summary.
> 
> ...












						Informing the Army’s Future Structure
					

Excuse my ignorance, but is there an actual Force 2025 doc that I can get my hands on, or is it a concept wrapped within Army Future Force models    I understand there is something like that on restricted circulation in the internal net.  I don't know if there is anything available to the...




					www.army.ca
				





> *We can get all of that stuff already on contract, I think, without having to incur the overhead commitment.  D&B*



*But.

Nudder idea.

Subsidize Inventory.*

The short form is that manufacturer's of militarily useful kit should be subsidized to maintain minimum stock levels in inventory.   

Canada to cover the costs of storing, maintaining and securing inventory of militarily useful equipment.   The manufacturer is permitted to sell from inventory on the understanding that the minimum inventory level is maintained and the remaining inventory is maintained at "NTM" in regional warehouses.

Minimum maintenance level to be established as DND's estimated surge requirement to cover emergencies.
DND guarantees a constant usage rate permitting the manufacturer to maintain an economical Low Rate of Production.
Broken and Worn kit to be replaced immediately from inventory and disposed of.
Disposition could also include return to manufacturer for refurbishment and return to inventory if valid.

Big benefit to industry - Inventory. Low lead times sell fast.

Benefit to DND - Inventory.  Goods on hand.

This is a variant of the WalMart consignment strategy.  WalMart doesn't own the stock.  It sells the stock for others.


Applicability?

GDLS - ACSV TCVs for inventory
Prevost - MSVS-SMP for inventory
GM - Milverados and Infantry Squad Carriers
Chrysler? - Jeeps?
Ford? - Broncos?
Argo?
Rheinmetal?

Bell - Griffons? Or Venoms? Or even Valors?
Viking - Twin Otters?
Bombardier - Challengers?  BRP Products?

Harris - Radios?
L3 - EO stuff?

How about even F35s from Lockmart?  MPV hulls from Seaspan?  CSC hulls from ISY?  Hercs?  Chinooks?  A400Ms?

Ammo from GD-OTS in Montreal?


Canada gets a steadily refreshed capital and consumable fleet. The vendors get a sellable asset, inventory and a steady income from the wear and tear resulting from training.


Thoughts?


Edit - further extrapolation 

With respect to new, exploratory, kit the government agrees to buy one or two models for inventory and experimentation.  If acceptable government orders more.  If unsuccessful the trials units are returned to inventory for improvement or disposal by the vendor.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2021)

Not a new idea - again

The Dutch have beat me to it

Damen inventory.









						Vessels in stock
					

All of our standard designs are worked out to the smallest detail




					products.damen.com
				




Select a product cluster​     Select a product cluster     DOP Pumps     Dredging Installations & Components     Interceptor     Modular Vessel     Pilot Vessel     Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat     Tanker     Utility / Support Vessel     Barge     Cutter Suction Dredger     Escort Tug     Harbour Tug     Crew Supply Vessel     Patrol Vessel     Platform Supply Vessel     Pontoon     Sea Tug 
Select a product range​Select a product rangeInterceptorRigid Hull Inflatable BoatRigid Inflatable BoatStan Patrol




Stan Patrol 2205 FRP​Length (metres)22.7
Speed max (knots)30
Crew8
Hull constructionFRP
Propulsion2x Fixed pitch propellers

Learn more



Stan Patrol 4207​Length (metres)42.8
Speed max (knots)26.5
Crew18
Hull constructionSteel
Propulsion2x Controllable pitch propellers

Learn more



Inboard/Outboard RHIB 1050​Length (metres)10.5
Speed max (knots)50
Crew and Passengers10
Hull constructionFRP
Propulsionsterndrive/ waterjets/ outboards
RIGID HULL INFLATABLE BOAT
Learn more



Interceptor 1102​Length (metres)11
Speed max (knots)55
Crew2
Hull ConstructionE-glass and carbon reinforced epoxy
Propulsion2x Stern drives
INTERCEPTOR
Learn more


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Oct 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> *D&B:  You're right!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm right for a change?

Whoa, dude, don't encourage me like that!


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm right for a change?
> 
> Whoa, dude, don't encourage me like that!



Not so much you were right for a change as  I WUZ WRONG.


----------



## Dale Denton (1 Nov 2021)

Glad a new thread was made for this. Thoughts read here are similar to what's been discussed in he C3 Howitzer replacement, Force 2025 thread among a handful of others.

I'll add an idea for a '*Canadian Northern Shipping Corp*.':


Have Vard and one of our icebreaking excellence centres (whatever its called) build a small fleet of commercial-spec RO-ROs converted/modified for ice-strengthening. Multi-Role Support Ships for the Royal Navy – one size fits all? | Navy Lookout
Enable the ship to launch barges or similar vessels to deliver to more austere villages. Use of Mexeflote Rafts? – Canadian Naval Review
Set up a Crown Corp to act as a commercial shipping company in the Arctic to subsidize food/transportation/fuel costs to isolated northern communities.
Use them to allow for better logistics, infrastructure in the Arctic circle for Canadian and CAF.
RCN could enter into an agreement to use the ship in emergencies, or build additional hulls for the RCNs version instead.
Open an Arctic Navigation Centre of Excellence to train industry in best practices up there, teach them our relevant laws/regulations.
It can be a pillar of a MUCH needed northern sovereign strategy, one that actually has details at least..

If industry and the rest of the world is gonna want to travel through the NWP then at least we should at least allow them to use it under our conditions. How long is the strategy of the 'no go away its ours' or the status-quo neglect going to help?

At the end of it all, we have a small fleet of easier to sustain ships to make life easier and cheaper up there, a new CAF capability, and action to our now empty words on arctic and indigenous support.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Nov 2021)

One has to look at our industrial base as a start, 13 steel mills, 10 aluminum smelters, this gives us a good base for raw materials. The problem then comes in refined material, and rare earth metals. Computer chips are made by about 12 companies in Canada, but not on the large scale needed to feed manufacturers here. 

We have all the building blocks we need, just not the will to exploit them into an industrial power house. We could ramp up with government subsidies, which could then feed the green effort to make industrial development more friendly


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

Further to my Subsidize Inventory thought

Why not extend the concept to uniforms and IMPs?

And how generous could we afford to be on qualifying vendors for the program?

Could we afford to give a Gold Star Sticker to every company that makes something we MIGHT want to buy?   Stuff that could come in useful but we don't need now?  Prototype stuff made with the vendor's own capital?

If we subsidize inventory, and the maintenance of inventory, countering the global Just In Time trend, is that something that Canadian vendors could exploit internationally by becoming a source of immediately available materials?


















Sulphur, Potash and Wheat.

Does the concept extend to Rifles, Chips and Rare Earth Metals?


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Nov 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> One has to look at our industrial base as a start, 13 steel mills, 10 aluminum smelters, this gives us a good base for raw materials. The problem then comes in refined material, and rare earth metals. Computer chips are made by about 12 companies in Canada, but not on the large scale needed to feed manufacturers here.
> 
> We have all the building blocks we need, just not the will to exploit them into an industrial power house. We could ramp up with government subsidies, which could then feed the green effort to make industrial development more friendly



We've apparently got the industrial assets, but we just don't have the supply chain etc to match. We consistently prefer to do the national equivalent of making bike lanes, which gets votes on the cheap and looks good, in preference to fixing the arteries of commerce which is harder, less 'Instagram worthy' and more expensive.

Here's a report about that kind of stuff:

The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (CIRC) - 2019

This year’s report provides a timely update on the state of Canada’s public infrastructure across all core public infrastructure asset categories: roads and bridges; culture, recreation and sports facilities; potable water; wastewater; stormwater; public transit; and solid waste. It finds that the state of our infrastructure is at risk, which should be cause for concern for all Canadians. In order to change course, Canada’s public infrastructure will require significant attention in the coming decades. The evidence for the poor state of Canada’s infrastructure comes from the voluntary and federally administered Canadian Core Public Infrastructure Survey (CCPIS). Responses to the CCPIS provide the foundational performance measurement data on the state of Canada’s public infrastructure. The questions align with those used to create the 2012 and 2016 CIRC. This facilitates a direct comparison and gives us an exceptional view of the state of our assets over time.



			http://canadianinfrastructure.ca/downloads/canadian-infrastructure-report-card-2019.pdf


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2021)

Not just bike lanes; rail transit also.

One of the things about a road is that everyone can use it.  The thing about a network of roads is that it is fault-tolerant (ie. traffic can be rerouted).  Central planners are not needed to sort out who should use roads for what.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

Is there money to be made from converting from a Just In Time economy to a Just In Case economy?






						Canada's premier inland port | Global Transportation Hub
					






					thegth.com
				








						CFD Dundurn - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Bulk transport by rail and road.
Rapid transport by road and air.




> *Global Transportation Hub Authority* located in Regina, Saskatchewan is one of Canada's several inland ports, along with Centre Port in Manitoba and Port Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta. As a Crown corporation of the Government of Saskatchewan, the authority is responsible for marketing, financing, planning and attracting investment for an inter-modal transfer and logistics facility in Regina.[1]
> 
> The port consists of a 1,800-acre logistics park a few kilometers from the City of Regina, Saskatchewan. It is situated on the Canadian Pacific mainline and near the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 11.[2]
> 
> ...








						Global Transportation Hub Authority - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Nov 2021)

The shipping companies will whine if you take away their work in the North. However I like the idea of the Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary having 1-2 ice strengthened RO/RO and cargo ship that can provide the north food security and mobility to the Forces. Also one landing ship such as these would provide a lot of mobility for the military and the ability to move engineering resources.





						Landing Ships - Damen
					

The Damen Landing Ship range is a state-of-the-art, flexible Class, designed to fulfil traditional mission requirements, as well as the support and secondary mission tasks required by modern naval platforms of this size.




					www.damen.com
				




One thing the Feds can stock pile is bridging equipment, the Provinces like using Arcow and other modular bridges, keep a stock of these in depots across the country, Provinces can buy/rent as required and we can even rent/sell to other countries or gift them to missions. The bridge components are already made here. Maybe it's time we devolp a "Made in Canada bridging solution" that meets military and industrial needs?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

Do we have take work away from the northern shipping companies?  Or any other companies for that matter?

Can't we just encourage them to acquire more militarily useful ships and aircraft by subsidizing the inherent "inefficiencies" associated with military design?

Subsidize equipment that is heavier because of redundancy, that has more austere environment connectors.  Engines that are more rugged.  That may not get used as often.  That can't carry as much cargo as cheaply as a thin skinned civil carrier.

Don't compete with the civilians.  Engage them.

Britain's Point Class RoRos are a good starting point.

Engage the shipping and air transport companies to keep, and use, militarily useful kit in their fleets in return for tax credits and direct subsidies.

Darius's Royal Roads and the British Royal Mail both started as public endeavours that were exploited to build the economy and bring in revenues for the Royal coffers.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

As an example of a militarily useful, but commercially costly appurtenance might be a helipad on every northern vessel over a certain tonnage.  It would also benefit the locals during SAR evolutions and civil emergencies.  And it would do the crew no harm if one of their number needed evacuation.


----------



## KevinB (1 Nov 2021)

The only problem I see with any of this - it used the DND budget - rather than Emergency Preparedness or Industry Canada, or a plethora of other .ca governmental functions and ministries.


  The CF cannot support the costs of the enablers.
It works in the US for the Airlines - as it is only used for transport - not any real military activity.

When you make the Military a society net - it unfortunately drives competition out -- and you no longer get best value for your dollar - or sometimes (as we have seen in the past) even a viable Military item.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2021)

You also end up with uncompetitive industry (because they have guaranteed revenue streams and become indolent), who, since they have close connections to the military and to procurement, drive out innovation in the space that may challenge their consistent revenue streams.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> The only problem I see with any of this - it used the DND budget - rather than Emergency Preparedness or Industry Canada, or a plethora of other .ca governmental functions and ministries.
> 
> 
> The CF cannot support the costs of the enablers.
> ...


Who said it all had to come out of DND?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2021)

dapaterson said:


> You also end up with uncompetitive industry (because they have guaranteed revenue streams and become indolent), who, since they have close connections to the military and to procurement, drive out innovation in the space that may challenge their consistent revenue streams.



I agree there will be a cost.  Question is how much do we value keeping ahold of this treasure chest?

And how do we sell that cost to our fellow shareholders?


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> I agree there will be a cost.  Question is how much do we value keeping ahold of this treasure chest?
> 
> And how do we sell that cost to our fellow shareholders?


You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.

I think for an effective National Defence Industry Base in Canada - it needs to be leveraged with other Allies - and most specifically 5I's.
 That's means signing on to more joint programs - and not pork barrel program running.

In some areas that will mean a made in Canada ( but designed by XYZ ) solution, but sometimes it will means certain modules are built in Canada - and others are made in the US or Uk (or less likely AUS or even less likely than a snowballs chance in Hell - NZ).

Now that doesn't mean that Northern Infrastructure cannot be encouraged - or that maybe Canada should start to require certain features on vessels (air, land or sea) that operate above a certain point - but saying one will buy XXX of something just to keep the doors open - doesn't lead to innovation or cost efficiency.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.



I think we differ.






						Canada’s net worth rises to $4.5 trillion | Investment Executive
					

Government debt falls for third-straight quarter




					www.investmentexecutive.com
				









						Gross value added at basic prices (GVA) (current US$) - Canada | Data
					

Gross value added at basic prices (GVA) (current US$) - Canada from The World Bank: Data




					data.worldbank.org
				









						Canada GDP - 2022 Data - 2023 Forecast - 1960-2021 Historical - Chart - News
					

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Canada was worth 1988.34 billion US dollars in 2021, according to official data from the World Bank. The GDP value of Canada represents 0.89 percent of the world economy. GDP in Canada averaged 709.11 USD Billion from 1960 until 2021, reaching an all time high...




					tradingeconomics.com
				













						Posthaste: Canadians built a $2 trillion 'wall of wealth' during the pandemic — and it's not just a housing story
					

The average Canadian household now has more than $1 million in total assets




					financialpost.com
				




How much security would you recommend for a 5 to 10 Trillion dollar asset held by 35,000,000 people in trust?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.
> 
> I think for an effective National Defence Industry Base in Canada - it needs to be leveraged with other Allies - and most specifically 5I's.
> That's means signing on to more joint programs - and not pork barrel program running.
> ...




And nobody is saying that we are building inventory just to keep the doors open, or just to employ Canadians.

I am talking about the targeted building of inventory of goods that are critical to the defence of Canada and the ability of Canada to respond to emergencies when the Just In Time supply chains fail.   And that includes not just an adequate stock of Standard Missiles, or 7.62mm Ball.   Toilet Paper anyone?


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> And nobody is saying that we are building inventory just to keep the doors open, or just to employ Canadians.
> 
> I am talking about the targeted building of inventory of goods that are critical to the defence of Canada and the ability of Canada to respond to emergencies when the Just In Time supply chains fail.   And that includes not just an adequate stock of Standard Missiles, or 7.62mm Ball.   Toilet Paper anyone?


A Military should never be using JIT for a supply chain - they need a supply in depth to cover at least 5 years of peacetime consumption - and a varying degree of items on a wartime consumption schedule - the number depending on how long a lead time is it for those items -- some you may require a ungodly number of due to long lead times.

However when you say 'respond to emergencies', that is a rather open ended item.
   I could come up with an Emergency that required 4 Armoured Divisions for Canada - but the likelihood of that versus the cost is where Government need to make a call.

Personally I think the CF needs a lot more equipment - but it also needs a reality check before any programs get rolling.
  Someone at the CDS or MND level needs to take the service chiefs out back behind the wood pile and beat them until they agree to a Joint Force Construct, and out the good of Canadian Defence first as opposed to petty squabbles about fiefdoms.

The best way to maximize the Canadian Dollars for Defence spending is cooperative programs with Allies - and with a joint goal in the CF to fulfill the mission as best as they can.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

Another way to think of the targeted building of inventory to support a Just In Case economy is that it would be in keeping with Canadian interest in Widows and Orphans funds, Mutual Funds, Savings Banks, Lloyd's names and even Universal Health Insurance.   

We have never balked at an opportunity to make a penny by making others help feel safe.

Private fire companies?

I am thinking of a targeted, limited, probably tax-code based, measure designed to create a more resilient country.  And part of the that resilience would include making sure the tools were on hand for the Canadian Armed Forces to operate effectively when the situation demands. 

That would also free up the actual defence budget for training and standing operations.   Extraordinary operations would be funded, as they are now, from General Revenues.

And the accountants can decide which column to put the actual numbers in, and what to call them, to make the politicians look good.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> However when you say 'respond to emergencies', that is a rather open ended item.



I agree.  Emergencies are open ended.  And some cannot be managed no matter how much planning and preparation you have committed.

And I can come up with emergencies where the entire WW2 establishment, domestic and deployed, wouldn't do any good at all.  The joys of speculation.

The question is how many bumps and potholes, hairpin turns and swerves, can we afford to remove from the path ahead?


Not all of them, definitely.  But a lot more than we are.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

> Personally I think the CF needs a lot more equipment - but it also needs a reality check before any programs get rolling.
> Someone at the CDS or MND level needs to take the service chiefs out back behind the wood pile and beat them until they agree to a Joint Force Construct, and out the good of Canadian Defence first as opposed to petty squabbles about fiefdoms.
> 
> The best way to maximize the Canadian Dollars for Defence spending is cooperative programs with Allies - and with a joint goal in the CF to fulfill the mission as best as they can.



And Yes.  Absolutely.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

And, to go back to an earlier point of yours, by all means work in association with allies.  

But does that include a Canadian version of the new Aussie missile factory?  Or should we just continue to buy missiles from the Yanks?  GD-OTS might be a good starting point?

And does that preclude taking the lead on developing solutions unique to our circumstances?


----------



## GR66 (2 Nov 2021)

Rather than identifying industries in which to invest for developing stocks (i.e. picking your winners in advance) I think if you instead just developed an ongoing procurement plan which saw regular purchase and replacement of our key items you'd get companies to invest in Canadian production facilities.  

Plan ahead for our material requirements.  Signal our requirements well in advance to industry.  Be a trusted partner by sticking to your plans instead of tendering then cancelling and industry will see the advantage of dealing with Canada and setting up shop here to fulfill our requirements.

This way will leave openings for new contenders to join the market rather than defaulting to your pre-selected industry "champions".  Selection though should always be predicated on getting the best product for the military - wherever it is made - rather than just the best Canadian-made product.  Giving our troops the best tools we can in order to survive and win should always trump jobs or votes.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

GR66 said:


> Rather than identifying industries in which to invest for developing stocks (i.e. picking your winners in advance) I think if you instead just developed an ongoing procurement plan which saw regular purchase and replacement of our key items you'd get companies to invest in Canadian production facilities.
> 
> Plan ahead for our material requirements.  Signal our requirements well in advance to industry.  Be a trusted partner by sticking to your plans instead of tendering then cancelling and industry will see the advantage of dealing with Canada and setting up shop here to fulfill our requirements.
> 
> This way will leave openings for new contenders to join the market rather than defaulting to your pre-selected industry "champions".  Selection though should always be predicated on getting the best product for the military - wherever it is made - rather than just the best Canadian-made product.  Giving our troops the best tools we can in order to survive and win should always trump jobs or votes.



I can't solve problems with promises.

Nor can I solve today's problems with next year's wonderware.

On the other hand I can do something with stuff that I have in my hand - even if it is 70 years old and patched up by my predecessors.









						How on God's Green Earth Is the B-52 Still in Service?
					

The B-52's now in action fighting ISIS—and could spend another 40 years in the air.




					www.wired.com
				









						The National Interest: Blog
					






					nationalinterest.org
				











Unfortunately, while the Americans may have lots of ancient gear to repurpose we in Canada have nothing like that in inventory.  With or without parts, munitions or crews.


That is the result of the past.


Going forwards the question becomes:  When we build inventory do we fill it with ancient stuff that has to be repurposed or do we fill it with next year's wonderware?

And when can we get to a state where we have a modern inventory stocked with adequate supplies of solutions we trust?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

Or at least have a stock on hand that we can modify and repurpose to meet the needs of the day.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2021)

GR66 said:


> Rather than identifying industries in which to invest for developing stocks (i.e. picking your winners in advance) I think if you instead just developed an ongoing procurement plan which saw regular purchase and replacement of our key items you'd get companies to invest in Canadian production facilities.
> 
> Plan ahead for our material requirements.  Signal our requirements well in advance to industry.  Be a trusted partner by sticking to your plans instead of tendering then cancelling and industry will see the advantage of dealing with Canada and setting up shop here to fulfill our requirements.
> 
> This way will leave openings for new contenders to join the market rather than defaulting to your pre-selected industry "champions".  Selection though should always be predicated on getting the best product for the military - wherever it is made - rather than just the best Canadian-made product.  Giving our troops the best tools we can in order to survive and win should always trump jobs or votes.



And get away from the pandering, pork barrel approach so that everything has to be made in Eastern Canada.

oops.... I assume a puppy just died somewhere


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2021)

So for ref, this is already in place at a high level; see previous discussions on "Industrial and Technological Benefits', 'Value Proposition' or IRBs. The industry Canada policy is below, and it's already rolled into large DND pronouncements (and in like a dirty shirt for the NSS and other large projects).

Home - Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy

On the in service side we do it as well, but really gets driven around by the supply/procurement policies, as well as funding. Hard to stock shelves with no money for parts, direction was to minimize holdings, and when you have money and shelving still need to grind through the system to actually buy stuff. Because the actual procurement process takes so long we tend to buy larger quantities so there isn't a constant flow. Things like supply arrangements work great for common widgets with a high usage rate, but some things are only replaced every 5-10 years (or 20... sometimes 30), so there is no good single rule of thumb or generic approach that works for everything.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> So for ref, this is already in place at a high level; see previous discussions on "Industrial and Technological Benefits', 'Value Proposition' or IRBs. The industry Canada policy is below, and it's already rolled into large DND pronouncements (and in like a dirty shirt for the NSS and other large projects).
> 
> Home - Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy
> 
> On the in service side we do it as well, but really gets driven around by the supply/procurement policies, as well as funding. Hard to stock shelves with no money for parts, direction was to minimize holdings, and when you have money and shelving still need to grind through the system to actually buy stuff. Because the actual procurement process takes so long we tend to buy larger quantities so there isn't a constant flow. Things like supply arrangements work great for common widgets with a high usage rate, but some things are only replaced every 5-10 years (or 20... sometimes 30), so there is no good single rule of thumb or generic approach that works for everything.



Then let's embrace 'agile procurement', like alot of the rest of the industrialized world:

Agile Procurement Definition​The concept of ‘agile procurement’ is not a new one. The term ‘agile’ is one that has been borrowed from software development and now finds itself being used in a variety of industries.

The simple agile procurement definition states that *“agile procurement is a type of procurement approach that is less strict, less orthodox, and more open and collaborative.”*

It is a revolutionary methodology that turns traditional procurement frameworks upside down allowing for teams to make quicker decisions.

Agile procurement furnishes its adherents with a cross-functional type of model whereby new ideas, new ways of doing things are employed. There is a distinct breakaway from the ‘old-way-of-doing-things’.

Traditional Procurement vs. Agile Procurement​Traditional procurement works on legacy systems and frameworks. Decisions aren’t hurried. Lots of time is taken with each of the procurement stages – identifying the needs, outlining the procurement plan, selecting suppliers, issuing RFQ, tender evaluation, contract terms & conditions, and supply chain management.

With agile procurement, on the other hand, time and speed are of the essence, so some steps are combined together – for example – *contract negotiations can be entered upon during the sourcing process.*

Where traditional procurement employs a large team of professionals, agile procurement may opt for a select handful of people to form a cross-functional team. Individuals are picked from the stakeholders. So on top of the procurement professionals, the agile team might feature IT, legal, customer representatives, suppliers, and finance experts.

In a nutshell, agile procurement provides greater efficiency, is more effective, and has a faster time to market speed compared to traditional procurement.










						Agile Procurement: What It Is and How to Implement
					

Learn the agile procurement definition, the importance of agile procurement, and how to implement it in your 2021 operations.




					blog.procureport.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2021)

> oops.... I assume a puppy just died somewhere



Yes, plummeted to its death on the back of an angel that lost its wings.


----------



## GR66 (2 Nov 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> So for ref, this is already in place at a high level; see previous discussions on "Industrial and Technological Benefits', 'Value Proposition' or IRBs. The industry Canada policy is below, and it's already rolled into large DND pronouncements (and in like a dirty shirt for the NSS and other large projects).
> 
> Home - Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy
> 
> On the in service side we do it as well, but really gets driven around by the supply/procurement policies, as well as funding. Hard to stock shelves with no money for parts, direction was to minimize holdings, and when you have money and shelving still need to grind through the system to actually buy stuff. Because the actual procurement process takes so long we tend to buy larger quantities so there isn't a constant flow. Things like supply arrangements work great for common widgets with a high usage rate, but some things are only replaced every 5-10 years (or 20... sometimes 30), so there is no good single rule of thumb or generic approach that works for everything.


IRB's are in place to advantage compliant bids that also give industrial benefits to Canada, but the key part that is missing is the clear, ongoing procurement strategy.  

For example, we have the NSPS in place to order a specific list of ships for the Canadian Government.  What is missing is the ongoing piece of the puzzle.  What are the replacement plans and timelines for the CSC replacement?  Where is the plan to replace the aircraft that will replace the CF-18's?  We don't need firm budget dollars yet for these things but we should have a plan where we are saying that we expect the CSC's to have a service life of "X" years and we will are planning on starting procurement of the next-Gen CSC in 20xx.  

This would let the shipbuilding industry know that the NSPS is not a one-off deal (like the Halifax Class) and they can factor into their business plans the fact that they will be having the opportunity to bid on the next phase of shipbuilding contracts when it is due.  This should be across the board for all our major fleets.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2021)

Some of our procurement requirements flow down from international trade agreements, so it's a different ball than a private company, but there are probably some options there.  I think 'agile' and all the government buzzwords like 'value for money' 'responsible use of taxpayer funds' and the other tropes are pretty much anathema to each other.

Big fan of 'plain language contracting as well, but needs some lawyers who understand what you are doing and willing bidders.

We have at least incorporated relational contracting into some of the big ISSCs though, so progress I guess.


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Then let's embrace 'agile procurement', like alot of the rest of the industrialized world:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Forgive me for vomitting a little.
   The US Army has recently tried that - I see it more as a Hurry Up to Fail methodology.

While the Acquisition process shouldn't take forever, a lot of the steps have been added to stop buying lemons, or something from someones favorite political toy.

It also ensures contracts aren't in place until a viable design is tested -- not like a cool design and hopefully we can fix it down the road...
    SOCOM did that with the SCAR program - and resulted in a dislike from the Users, and a Manufacturer that didn't understand why.
    The Army is trying that with Next Gen - and I see even worse outcomes.

 And frankly Small Arms is pretty much one of the easiest systems to acquire...


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2021)

GR66 said:


> IRB's are in place to advantage compliant bids that also give industrial benefits to Canada, but the key part that is missing is the clear, ongoing procurement strategy.
> 
> For example, we have the NSPS in place to order a specific list of ships for the Canadian Government.  What is missing is the ongoing piece of the puzzle.  What are the replacement plans and timelines for the CSC replacement?  Where is the plan to replace the aircraft that will replace the CF-18's?  We don't need firm budget dollars yet for these things but we should have a plan where we are saying that we expect the CSC's to have a service life of "X" years and we will are planning on starting procurement of the next-Gen CSC in 20xx.
> 
> This would let the shipbuilding industry know that the NSPS is not a one-off deal (like the Halifax Class) and they can factor into their business plans the fact that they will be having the opportunity to bid on the next phase of shipbuilding contracts when it is due.  This should be across the board for all our major fleets.


To that point, NSPS changed to 'NSS' and they dropped the 'procurement' part, which would have ended it after contract award. The current plan goes out another 20 odd years, but every replacement that comes up is looked at to see if it fits within NSS. For some of the one-offs, like the big RORO ferry, it's too big to build in any of our yards and has specialized skill sets, so got the waiver from the 'Build in Canada' policy. But it's a big ask to have that become a 50 year plan when it's ultimately signed off on politicians that really only care about 4 years (or less) into the future.

But it's also not intended to be the sole source of income, just get the shipyards into the space to compete with the international yards. Because of the IRB requirements though, that flows down to a supply chain for the NSS ships that's largely within Canada.

GoC policy is a wrecking ball, not a precision hammer, but most governments have their own 'build in country' ship policies because the industrial benefits and trickle down is real and easy to measure. Obviously that work gets concentrated on the coasts,


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

> agile procurement may opt for a select handful of people to form a cross-functional team. Individuals are picked from the stakeholders. So on top of the procurement professionals, the agile team might feature IT, legal, customer representatives, suppliers, and finance experts.



It was bad enough when I saw "select" - Who is doing the selecting?

It got worse when I saw "handful" morph into a list of "experts" who might be involved.

And then I saw accountants, lawyers and IT people.... 

Kevin, pass the bucket.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2021)

Most "agile" doctrines boil down to "more concurrent activity".  Not everything can be done well that way.

Although proponents of "agile" often try to rope in "lean" and claim it as their own, examining and applying each independently is more useful.  

Theoretically, military communities knew of and could apply "selection and maintenance of the aim", "economy of effort", "centralized control and decentralized execution", "span of control", etc, long before business schools repackaged principles understood by great captains for millennia.  Business is war.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Most "agile" doctrines boil down to "more concurrent activity".  Not everything can be done well that way.
> 
> Although proponents of "agile" often try to rope in "lean" and claim it as their own, examining and applying each independently is more useful.
> 
> Theoretically, military communities knew of and could apply "selection and maintenance of the aim", "economy of effort", "centralized control and decentralized execution", "span of control", etc, long before business schools repackaged principles understood by great captains for millennia.  Business is war.



Yeah, but the military is famously awful at translating what it knows works well in a battlefield context to more mundane corporate leadership challenges.

Viz:

About the Defence Ethics Programme​Defence Ethics Programme​The Defence Ethics Programme (DEP) is a comprehensive values-based ethics program put in place to meet the needs of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), at both the individual and the organizational levels.
The aim and primary focus of the DEP is to foster the practice of ethics in the workplace and in operations such that DND employees and CAF members perform their duties to the highest ethical standards.
Vision​To maintain ethical integrity by consistently applying the highest standards of values and ethics.
Mission​To guide DND and CAF personnel in choosing conduct that is consistently ethical.





						About the Defence Ethics Programme - Canada.ca
					

Documents and references related to the establishment and maintenance of the Defence Ethics Programme for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2021)

I love "Vision" and "Mission" statements.  Why have one (purpose, aim) when you can have two?


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Someone at the CDS or MND level needs to take the service chiefs out back behind the wood pile and beat them until they agree to a Joint Force Construct, and out the good of Canadian Defence first as opposed to petty squabbles about fiefdoms.



Yes, but that won’t happen…ever…because:

The Scorpion and the Frog.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I love "Vision" and "Mission" statements.  Why have one (purpose, aim) when you can have two?



What I want to do.

What I'm paid to do.


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Yes, but that won’t happen…ever…because:
> 
> The Scorpion and the Frog.


I am an eternal optimist...


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> I am an eternal optimist...


Good on you, my friend.  I never got past ‘pragmatic realist’ (aka. cynic).


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And get away from the pandering, pork barrel approach so that everything has to be made in Eastern Canada.
> 
> oops.... I assume a puppy just died somewhere


Like those Army radios where the company had to be bailed out of bankruptcy and the CAF accepted many less than contracted?  In that notorious eastern province of (checks notes) Alberta?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

If we accept what the market has available, and accept that we have to work with what is available, then we can buy from open production lines at current market prices.  We can also buy a few/many extra for the warehouses.

Once it has been decided how to work with what is available then it also becomes easier to buy new stuff to replace old stuff or even to do new things.

40 years working in the food industry and I can't think of one single instance where I have found it necessary to engage a company to build something that requires a dedicated research program in order to gain a competitive advantage.   There is more than enough flexibility to be found using what the market has on hand and is willing to support.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Yeah, but the military is famously awful at translating what it knows works well in a battlefield context to more mundane corporate leadership challenges.
> 
> Viz:
> 
> ...



The key element is Time.

The Peace Time Army has too much of it available.

Civilian companies and armies at war do not.

*Parkinson's law* is the adage that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."[


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2021)

Back to Inventory Management



> Supply chains: companies shift from ‘just in time’ to ‘just in case’​








						Subscribe to read | Financial Times
					

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




					www.ft.com
				






> For decades, companies prioritised costs above all else when selecting suppliers, building factories and deciding how much stock to keep on hand. This philosophy was often dubbed “just in time” because it emphasised keeping inventory to a minimum and using short-term, flexible contracts that could be adjusted quickly to changes in demand.
> 
> But the drive for efficiency encompassed far more than that. Companies also moved production to low-wage locations, consolidated orders to maximise economies of scale, and tried to minimise their physical presence in high-tax jurisdictions.
> 
> ...



The Australians were past masters at this due to hard-learned lessons in WW2.  The Mother Country could not be relied on when its need was great.  These days America's need is challenging its abilities.  Australia is stepping up its domestic capabilities.



> On 31 March 2021, the Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the acceleration of a Sovereign Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise. The Enterprise aims to enhance Australia’s self-reliance and supply chain resilience with a longer-term aim of developing a sovereign guided weapons manufacturing capability.








						Sovereign Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise | Business & Industry | Defence
					

The Sovereign Guided Weapons & Explosive Ordnance Enterprise will provide the framework to support Defence’s inventory of guided weapons and explosive ordnance and will comprise multiple capabilities.




					www.defence.gov.au
				












						It's time for Australia to develop its own guided missiles — otherwise, we'll need to keep asking for the codes
					

The collapse of the US operation in Afghanistan means the day might come when Australia needs access to the design of the weapons it uses.




					theconversation.com
				






Meanwhile, from the same Financial Times article



> Chinese energy groups have been rushing to sign liquefied natural gas contracts that extend as long as 20 years, more than double the old normal length



Seems like the Chinese aren't giving up on fossil fuels just yet.  Exploiting an opportunity?  Or filling a gaping hole? Or both?


----------

