Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[suffolkowner]

so what everyone is saying is its tank purchase time again

 

[daftandbarmy]

Major Johns knows his shit. The state of the Leopards is abysmal. A big problem was the lack of a unified maintenance plan because we had to maintain 2A4s, 2A6 and 2A4M all at the same time with our severely understrength tech pool.

And I wonder to what extent 'everything else' is suffering from similar issues...

 

[FJAG]

We do not want unit COs having tighter access to the procurement officer than the project director (the Army officer responsible to the Army Commander for ensuring the project deliver’s the Army’s requirements) and project manager.

I was a project director for three years on an IM project. One of my most valuable resources was a business analyst who was directed to deal with all of the stakeholders and map out their workflows and business structures. It is this upon which we built our SORs for hardware, software, staffing and training/implementation.

A hard equipment project works a bit different from that but at some point along the way a project director needs to have an excellent understanding of what the equipment will be used for and how it is to be used so that the SORs can be properly written to provide the required solution. That get's you down to the question of what is the proper "business" community that needs to be consulted in order to build the understanding. In my projects case the analyst (and I) dealt with all the deputies and directors (effectively the COs) and a broad cross-section of staff below them from legal assistance to line legal officers. While we did broad access, I only had one boss - the DJAG/COS - who could give me "orders."

 

[McG]

I was a project director for three years on an IM project. One of my most valuable resources was a business analyst who was directed to deal with all of the stakeholders and map out their workflows and business structures. It is this upon which we built our SORs for hardware, software, staffing and training/implementation.

A hard equipment project works a bit different from that but at some point along the way a project director needs to have an excellent understanding of what the equipment will be used for and how it is to be used so that the SORs can be properly written to provide the required solution. That get's you down to the question of what is the proper "business" community that needs to be consulted in order to build the understanding. In my projects case the analyst (and I) dealt with all the deputies and directors (effectively the COs) and a broad cross-section of staff below them from legal assistance to line legal officers. While we did broad access, I only had one boss - the DJAG/COS - who could give me "orders."

… and all of this is PD responsibility, not the procurement officer. The PD absolute must understand the user requirements and engage the user community. That is not PMO job and it is definitely not the job of any procurement officer.

We will sewer a lot of projects if we give COs a back door to skip Army HQ and even the ADM(Mat) technical authority to influence the guy whose expertise is budgeting and writing contracts.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not enough qualified procurement bureaucrats after an 8 year recruitment spree that hired 20 to 25% more bureaucrats?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not enough qualified procurement bureaucrats after an 8 year recruitment spree that hired 20 to 25% more bureaucrats?

That's not what they were hired for, was it?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Re: My questions about "top down" ability to expedite procurement
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-germany-norway-nato-submarines-1.7240569

Could Cabinet with the advice of the CDS come to an agreement that commits us to a basket of common capabilities:

• 212CD
• RCH-155 modules
• Land based NSM
• NASAMS and other GBAD from Kongsberg

That covers off a lot of the initiatives identified in ONSF and turn it over procurement to work out the details rather than the decisions?

 

[KevinB]

Re: My questions about "top down" ability to expedite procurement
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-germany-norway-nato-submarines-1.7240569

Could Cabinet with the advice of the CDS come to an agreement that commits us to a basket of common capabilities:

• 212CD
• RCH-155 modules
• Land based NSM
• NASAMS and other GBAD from Kongsberg

That covers off a lot of the initiatives identified in ONSF and turn it over procurement to work out the details rather than the decisions?

Outside of the CAF being in a shooting war the Government only directs the purchase of made in Canada items - see Blackhawk v Griffon…

 

[dapaterson]

There are bureaucratic processes in place in part to prevent folks from directing contracts based on manila envelopes filled with cash.

And to ensure proper decisions so there is sustainability, related integration costs are considered... And that you're not buying based on a glossy pamphlet with photoshopped images and unproven claims (Hello, MMEV and Bombardier maritime patrol).

 

[YZT580]

There are bureaucratic processes in place in part to prevent folks from directing contracts based on manila envelopes filled with cash.

And to ensure proper decisions so there is sustainability, related integration costs are considered... And that you're not buying based on a glossy pamphlet with photoshopped images and unproven claims (Hello, MMEV and Bombardier maritime patrol).

instead we buy kingfishers: how did that work out for us?

 

[suffolkowner]

instead we buy kingfishers: how did that work out for us?

has an error in the process been identified and a solution proposed?

 

[PrairieFella]

There are bureaucratic processes in place in part to prevent folks from directing contracts based on manila envelopes filled with cash.

And to ensure proper decisions so there is sustainability, related integration costs are considered... And that you're not buying based on a glossy pamphlet with photoshopped images and unproven claims (Hello, MMEV and Bombardier maritime patrol).

Ah yes, many proper decisions were made in the procurement of the TAPV, AOPS, etc etc.

 

[Quirky]

instead we buy kingfishers: how did that work out for us?

Well they are flying. That's a success in DNDs eyes, actual functionality is a RCAF problem.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not enough qualified procurement bureaucrats after an 8 year recruitment spree that hired 20 to 25% more bureaucrats?

You misspelled 40+%…

And to ensure proper decisions so there is sustainability, related integration costs are considered... And that you're not buying based on a glossy pamphlet with photoshopped images and unproven claims (Hello, MMEV, TCR and Bombardier maritime patrol).

 

[dapaterson]

instead we buy kingfishers: how did that work out for us?

You mean "our revolving door of requirements personnel did not hold fast and let other considerations dominate instead"?

 

[dapaterson]

Ah yes, many proper decisions were made in the procurement of the TAPV, AOPS, etc etc.

If the requirements are not properly defined and defended throughout, you end up with problems.

If issues are noted and not addressed with the vendor, you end up with problems.

 

[Kirkhill]

You misspelled 40+%…

You're right. Incredible, innit?

 

[Good2Golf]

You're right. Incredible, innit?

For 0% increase in productivity…it’s arguable criminally incompetent

 

[GK .Dundas]

has an error in the process been identified and a solution proposed?

Yes, but park them in a field somewhere and set fire to them wasn't the solution the Government is looking for.
I suspect based on past performance I'm making a big assumption that the Government is actually looking for a solution other than ignoring them and hoping the whole mess will go away.

 

[FJAG]

If the requirements are not properly defined and defended throughout, you end up with problems.

If issues are noted and not addressed with the vendor, you end up with problems.

I might be off base here, but looking in from the outside, it's not the micro management of requirements that seems to be the problem but the formulation of a macro strategy or vision that the micro components exist and work in. In short, without a credible concept of an end state organization , purpose and operational doctrine for the army (or CAF) as a whole, how can you properly formulate requirements for its various components.

If you don't know what you want to be when you grow up, folks will just fumble around making it up as they go along.