Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[ytz]

budgets for this year were overestimated it seems and now everyone is getting told, actually no you have less

The whiplash is interesting. Went from and ADM literally telling people to "Spend it like you stole it," to "Can you guys slow down? We don't have money" in like 3 months. Lol.

Which budget I wonder? O&M I guess. Thats unfortunate.

Vote 1 and Vote 5.

That said, this isn't really impacting major procurement.

 

[KevinB]

DND's normal budget cycle relies on carrying forward underspending from the prior year to address non-baseline adjustments/requirements in the next year. So if the department didn't spend $100 in 25/26, that $100 will be pulled into 26/27 and used to cover new /emergent issues raised during the departmental planning process.

That’s a heck of a way to run a railroad.

(There are also some things that have never received baseline funding which are done year after years and funded by that source of funds).

Uhm, that sounds shady AF.

In 25/26, though, the department (from what I understand) successfully overspent its allocation, leaving $0 to carry forward.

Overspending, at least to me would me less than zero, so a negative balance going forward. Thus requiring more money allocated to cover the overage. Money for that needs to come from somewhere.

(Yay 2%+) This means that a lot of activities traditionally funded by that carry forward, and other new items, had no source of funding.

Well glass half full hopefully this is a lessons learned that the ‘unfunded slush fund methodology’ isn’t actually a generally accepted accounting principle.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The whiplash is interesting. Went from and ADM literally telling people to "Spend it like you stole it," to "Can you guys slow down? We don't have money" in like 3 months. Lol.

Vote 1 and Vote 5.

That said, this isn't really impacting major procurement.

Somewhere the math isn't mathing.

 

[captloadie]

I can use the RCAF as an example. Starting last year, we were told to get on board with activity based planning for our funding. This year, we took it a step further and were told to start at zero, and business plan based on the expected expenditures for the activities, rather than up to a notional allocation. Then at the L1, they can determine which activities will occur and receive full funding and which won't. I firmly believe this is a better way to do things, because then you don't half ass a lot of things that may or may not be important to your mandate.

On the project side, word came down recently that we are already bumping up against the 3.5% number CAF wide for the out years, and may need to start thinking about taking an appetite suppressant on some of the projects. Does this mean we shelve certain plans? Do we descope things? What we can no longer afford to do is commit PYs to projects and activities that have little chance of coming to fruition in the near future due to funding limitations, because we have so many projects/activities going forward that don't have adequate PYs assigned already.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I can use the RCAF as an example. Starting last year, we were told to get on board with activity based planning for our funding. This year, we took it a step further and were told to start at zero, and business plan based on the expected expenditures for the activities, rather than up to a notional allocation. Then at the L1, they can determine which activities will occur and receive full funding and which won't. I firmly believe this is a better way to do things, because then you don't half ass a lot of things that may or may not be important to your mandate.

On the project side, word came down recently that we are already bumping up against the 3.5% number CAF wide for the out years, and may need to start thinking about taking an appetite suppressant on some of the projects. Does this mean we shelve certain plans? Do we descope things? What we can no longer afford to do is commit PYs to projects and activities that have little chance of coming to fruition in the near future due to funding limitations, because we have so many projects/activities going forward that don't have adequate PYs assigned already.

What I did not enjoy was the zero based business planning being sprung on units late and with few explanations…

 

[dapaterson]

What I did not enjoy was the zero based business planning being sprung on units late and with few explanations…

I suspect that the move of business panning at the Departmental level from VCDS to ADM Fin is behind this.

ADM Fin is notorious for not realizing that other L1s are much larger and ore complex than their own minor satrapy, and bringing in last minute demands that are unreasonable and unrealizable within the deadlines they pull out of their various bodily orifices.

Thus resulting in demands that do not account for time at every level to review, analyze, and understand and feed the requested information back up.

But it looks good on a placemat, and that's really what matters.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What I did not enjoy was the zero based business planning being sprung on units late and with few explanations…

Which is largely impossible for most public sector entities anyways.

It sounds like someone up there attended a 2-day executive education session at York University