MoD plans 'name and shame' crackdown on crap projects

So close, and yet so far

So he realises they need to do something, but doesn't want to actually do anything himself like, oh, implement contractual standards with meticulously defined financial bollock-kickings for any supplier who takes the piss with their project?

I'm reminded of the Billy Connolly skit about the dangerous dogs act and the Tattooed Fuckwits - where the government started from a stance circa "Shoot them! Cut their balls off! Cut their balls off first, *then* shoot them! Never mind the shooting, just give 'em a hefty boot to the balls! etc" but somehow arrived at "Make people register them at the Post Office". Because that gets the Tattoooed Fuckwits quaking in their boots, doesn't it?

Bad news for trees

The MoD are going to need a bloody big sheet of paper to list all the defense (*) projects that are over-budget, over-running, and under-delivering.

Good luck with that one!

What amazes me is where all the money goes! Seeing millions of pounds go up in smoke, time and time again, on developing systems that take years to develop and then still don't work and which in the commercial world would take 6 months of development and then get mass produced so cheaply, they'd be given away with a mobile phone, is just staggering.

(*) - I love that word "defense". It's never called "attack" is it? Even if its a missile or a land mine :-) And yes, I DO work in the "defense" industry.

so let me get this straight

they are saying that by being on the naughty list it will make stockholders question the company and cause them to work to deadlines/costs? how?

"whats this about the f72 being delayed whats this going to do to my stock"

"nothing we get 100 billion each year for 20 years instead of 100 billion each year for 15"

"oh ok then , carry on"

If they perform poorly

Get money back, tell them contract is cancelled and they can go get stuffed if they want compo. Do that once and see how quickly the rest of them suddenly start hitting their deadlines!

OK...

Shame on you, Company X, for taking billions of pounds of public money and not delivering!

Company X? Hello? .....what do you mean the company shut down and the directors are now billionaires, and we can't touch them as the money will buy their way out of pretty much anything under the UK's wet and soppy legal system?

I'll tell him what'll happen

Fox wants shareholders to do something about failed ICT projects for the MoD ??

I can tell him (or rather their companies' management) what they'll do.

Walk.

Like all bar one of the contractors on NPfIT did once it was clear that was going to be a total, moneypit for all concerned, failure. To everyone except the Government decision-makers, of course.

And, of course, BT, who collected all the money for the total waste of the rip-and-replace NHS National Network version 3 well in advance of any deliverable service apart from VoIP appearing over it.

At long last

Finally, something that pretends to give a good kicking to where it is deserved. I say pretend because I only see this as a political sop rather than any meaningful way of solving the problem. Is naming a project on the naughty list really going to fix it or just make everyone competent give it a wide berth? Expect to see some project never leave the list until they are cancelled then!

I can tell you why Typoon is not on the list, it is because it belongs to BAE who donate to the political parties. Do we honestly expect this government to name and shame those companies that provides all those 'political donations" and kickbacks/directorships etc? Are they going to spell out the reasons why those projects are failing, including those occasions where Ministers over-rule project teams in favour of a politically beneficial solution?

Don't think so!

Contracts

The government, and civil servants in general, are almost wilfully inept at dealing with private sector organisations.

There appears to be a binary mindset - either every corporation is the true embodiment of evil and must never, ever be trusted *or* anything done in the commercial sector must be so good and powerful we could never dare to question them.

As long as this weirdness is in place, HMG will constantly get dragged over the coals by large contractors who are, frankly, making millions out of the system with every contract. If HMG had a way to negotiate contract terms in the manner of Fujitsu, Siemens, IBM, BAE (etc, its a long list) then the taxpayer might have some hope.

Currently the only way you can hope your hard earned money is doing the right thing is by "hedging" and buying stocks in the multinationals....

Time

I'll save him time BAE, BAE, BAE.

How's the aircraft carrirers coming along Mr Fox?

Balance?

OK... not wanting to fan any flames, but has Lewis read the pdf? Lets look at some of the results quoted shall we:

Watchkeeper: Cost variation -18£m (and does more than they wanted it to do, not less - oops, facts again, getting in the way of reporting)

FSTA : cost variation -408£m

(There are others that show minus figures)

Oh no the horror, they are saving money how can that be when its not purchased from our colonial cousins? Now I'm not saying some of the projects quoted are not woefully overspent and much of the blame can be equally spread between the MoD and Industry I'd suggest, but, lets get a bit more balance shall we... Oh hang on, that's not the aim of a Lewis Page article is it?

Interesting comparison between UK and US govt.

UK Govt.

Operate to standard Uk contract law *including* penalty clauses and ones which (had they *fought* them) would be deem illegal under the Unfair Contract Clauses Act.

*Allow* themselves to get shafted *despite* the 20 000 staff in Bristol on MoD procurement.

US Govt.

*Absolute* right to cancel contract *without* compensation. Probably *the* defining feature that makes US Govt con-tractors the entities they are.

Hardly *ever* used due to *massive* political lobbying

Allow themselves to get shafted *regularly*.

The *awesom* power of the US govt's unilateral cancellation power should make them head and shoulders better than the UK, yet in reality it seems to make *no* difference. It is literally *too* powerful to use.

Note the UK's unending support of BaE (because they're "British". Well at any rate their CEO can drop in on Cameron whenever he feels like it) means that in reality it has *no* choice but to use them (or rather some part of them) because of the ongoing insane mantra of "Buy British, protect UK jobs (if they are so *damm* good and unique why can't they bid for foreign business and *win* it)"

Fox *should* be angry. His department costs a f**k of a lot of money, and a hell of a lot of it has b***er all to do *directly* with enabling HMG's servicemen and women to apply boot to backside of Johnny foreigner across the globe.

Con-tractors should be *very* afraid of Dr Fox's Phase 2, provisionally entitled

"The naughty step."

You have been warned.