Findings indicate that Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), accountable for substantial projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), are frequently appointed without any formal qualifications in project management and often serve in a part-time capacity.
SROs are entrusted with overseeing key MOD procurement and development programmes such as Ajax, Dreadnought, and the future combat air system.
Notably, many of these pivotal roles are filled by senior military officers, appointed primarily based on their experience, regardless of whether they hold formal project management credentials.
This practice was initially questioned by the Public Accounts Committee in 2021, issuing a warning about potential taxpayer money wastage. More recently, Member of Parliament Kevan Jones sought further information on this matter through several Parliamentary Questions (PQs).
A particular response provided an enlightening perspective on the selection criteria: “The Infrastructure and Projects Authority Capability framework for SROs identifies typical qualifications and professional memberships but these are not mandated…On appointment, SROs are expected to complete the Major Projects Leadership Academy (MPLA) if they have not already done so.”
This response confirmed that SROs are primarily appointed based on their experience. It was also revealed that “three current GMPP SROs were appointed based on experience alone but have since undertaken or are undertaking formal training.”
The MPLA, an 18-month course, is often suggested for SROs after their appointment. However, data suggests that SRO roles are seldom full-time, with some allocating only a small fraction of their time to a specific project.
The MOD maintains that SROs are not vital for day-to-day project management, asserting that this role is performed by project managers appointed by the SRO. However, the Ajax project in 2021 presented a contrasting viewpoint.
Kevan Jones said about this issue:
“In the private sector, multi-million, multi-year projects are led by people with years of experience and qualifications in project management. There is no doubt that senior responsible owners in the Ministry of Defence are well-meaning and committed individuals. But their short-term nature and inexperience is leading to often poor procurement practises and wastage of British taxpayers’ money.”
In an effort to address the issues with the Ajax project, the MOD appointed David Williams, a full-time, qualified civil servant, thereby emphasising the importance of a full-time, qualified SRO for effective project delivery.
As of 1 March, the average tenure of current SROs is 20 months, a span considerably shorter than the median programme length of 77 months. This discrepancy may indicate a potential disconnect between the tenure of SROs and the lifespan of the projects they oversee.
The MOD’s SRO appointment process, which currently places more emphasis on experience than qualifications, could potentially explain the recurrent challenges in defence procurement.
Moving forward, it may be beneficial to reassess the criteria for such critical appointments, aligning them more closely with project durations and ensuring that appointees possess the necessary qualifications for efficient project management.
Uniformed personnel should be no where near project management on such projects, it’s too big and complicated for anyone other than full time professionals to do. We need to beef up civil servants capable of such tasks and have a similar system to France with a dedicated in house organisation to do this.
If you want feedback from the front lines then your looking at NCO’s not Career officers looking for a 2 year rotation.
I think experienced forces personnel should have some say in the high-level (but not detailed) requirements phase and be involved in testing/user acceptance.
Agree, no need for anyone to be attached to a project for that though and input should be at the start and the end, not messing around in the middle trying to make a name for themselves.
But a 77 month project provides time for requirements to shift – technological advances or new policies (sustainability) and changes in Defence direction all influence projects, thus, mil input is required throughout.
100% 👍🏻
The SRO should really simply be filling the role of the Business Owner for the project. They should not be doing any project managing, though a basic knowledge of project management would perhaps assist them in their dealings with the project management team.
Absolutely Sean, expecting an SRO to be a project manager misunderstands the role. The SRO is effectively the senior customer in the Business As Usual organisation. They are the customer that the professional project management team are responsible too. Obviously an understanding of Project Management would help but I have seen enough large public projects where the professional project team completely failed to deliver (e.g. NAO said “not good value for money”) though that is clearly an SRO not keeping a tight hand on the reins by following costs and delivery milestones.
Absolutely agree. The issue is that a competent PM needs to be in place from day one to understand the goals and drive the requirements. Not low level and brought in too late in the process.
If you bring in a delivery PM to fulfil a signed contract at 40K a year in Merthyr, that isn’t going to hack it.
This is surely not serious? Most project teams are made up of civilians with no prior experience, with just a project manager qualification. There is normally 1-2 military personnel (normally Warrant Officers) left in a team where they are in the minority of at least 1:5 military to civilians that get given gradings of ranks much higher that overrule a WO.
There is nothing wrong with civilians in procurement. The problem lies with the inexperience and failures from aren’t dealt with, and they then move to work in another department, and because it’s a separate contract, they aren’t removed. It happens constantly. Warrior upgrade, VIRTUS and AJAX are through ineptitude and lining their own pockets, the serving military on the project teams gives the feedback and information that cause this, it is ignored because of pocket linings and push from the government. I can give countless examples, such as the main gun on the warrior upgrade (40mm CTA) being assessed and unworkable die to unreliable performance at trials and ISS, yet it is pushed forward. VIRTUS ignored user input, challenger 3 lies on gun performance to get a cheaper alternative (only reason is NATO and cheaper ammo, not performance).
Military procurement will not be solved by solely military or solely civilian. The problem is the lack of regard by project managers, teams and procurement to take on user and SME advice.
Are they all bad? No, but there is plenty of room for improvement.
Stop blaming military and ex-military. You see first hand by the basic kit to the major equipment that the capabilities required and the end user are ignored, corners are cut and sub par business deals are taken. Sub par personnel are not held accountable, most members are not ex-military, and the military members change every 2-3 years. This problem is a lot older and will continue a lot longer than that.
There are stellar military project managers and really poor ones, accountability at the end of the day is the name of the game, it’s not us and them with military and civilians, it’s individuals and culture. Run it for quality, not cost and have people running a project be experienced or acutely aware of end users and capabilities. This ineptitude has cost the lives of good people.
Not sure why you attached this to my comment. Seems to be more a response to Jim.
You echo the results of what I said. You can’t expect to get good quality PMs for £40K a year in out of the way places when they can get treble that in London. And I also agree that you can’t expect to just train someone who is already there, civilian or military, with some online Prince2 courses, or worse yet, Agile, and say off you go. You may get a naturally talented PM, but you probably won’t.
You are correct, i responded to the wrong comment, my apologies!
Quite frankly, this seems like deflection, to blame individuals, existent or not, to avoid taking ownership of what abhorrent mess the Government have made.
Especially with more service cuts on the way, they continue to endeavour to privatise areas with the worst and uncontested contracts. It isn’t the MoD that directs this either (although they aren’t blameless).
Princes 2 is a waste of time, Looks Great on your CV, but you will never use it. But Tutors will push students onto that course.
Civilians that will understand contract law….. or a Grunt who knows how to stomp. Put my money on the people who can think and not just stomp. Ajax won its Procurement and then handed to the Stomp brigade. and they are not around to face that firing squad
Sean, quite correct. Some are confusing the role of SRO with Project Director. MoD guidance is clear:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner/the-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner
Jim, the article is about the background and training of Senior Responsible Owners; feedback from NCOs is not a part of that.
Feedback from junior ranks is obtained during Troop Trials at ITDU, ATDU etc – but that is a different point
I’ve been banging on about this for ages at work, people with proper PM skills and experience should be the only people anywhere near multi billion pound complex projects. Furthermore if you’re going to appoint senior officers, as well as having a PM qualification they should be allowed to see a project through to fruition without fear of a career foul and continue to promote at the normal rate. Until the promotion system is sorted and PM qualifications becoming a pre-requisite to running any project costing more than a few thousand pounds we will continue to get debacles like AJAX.
I can go out and spunk a couple of grand and come away with a Prince 2 and Agile or APM PMQ, looks great on paper but other than being able to preach methodologies it has no real depth. However, I can leave the forces after 25 years, have an intimate understanding of a requirement, truly understand the needs of the user and have an innate ability to just get sh*t done.
In regards to AJAX, its made up of 100’s of sub-projects, some of which aren’t of huge value, some tens of millions.
Lets take for example a co-axial machine gun. Do you want the PM who has a couple of nice lines in the qualification section of his CV or the bloke who put up with years of pain operating an inadequate (at best) system on his Warrior but had to continually find solutions to make it operate semi-effectively? I know what I’d choose.
Well yes in theory that’s great except that hasn’t been the case has it. AJAX and the projects preceding it have been a car crash. The SRO’s in charge I’m sure still got promoted to the next staff job. There is no accountability. Yes you want intimate knowledge of the end product and military ways of thinking, but you also need actual PM experience. Frankly PM could be a trade within the military in it’s own right. I appreciate some of the issues relate to ‘mission creep’ from further up the food chain too, which compounds problems. Whatever the status quo is currently, it is not working (certainly for the high profile big ticket items) so something needs to change.
I don’t disagree with you. I’ve recently had a deep discussion on this very thing.
In the area I come from we have a maximum engagement of 24 years. If I use 17 as an average age of someone joining the army, they’ll be 41 on completion of service and will likely be leaving as a Warrant officer with a wealth of experience.
I was one of those people. I now work in defence procurement on a considerably higher rate of pay than than I was as a WO, at the MOD’s expense.
Imagine now if there was an engagement that would allow for a continuation of service for WO’s, would qualify them as PM’s (2-3 weeks of effort, using ELCAS, as part of an advanced resettlement perhaps), but would exclude promotion, lets say a 5 year continuance. That would help relieve the resource burden at DE&S which is an issue, get people in to the projects who understand the ground truth and what is really needed and would significantly reduce costs as those WO’s would continue being paid at the same rate rather than what consultancies charge for providing PM’s.
I’m definitely not advocating for consultancy as such. But former SNCO/WO or Senior officers with knowledge of Project Management AND the subject matter would be hugely beneficial. They then need to be empowered along with the SRO to drive that project and engage with the stakeholders to provide a suitable product in a realistic and timely manner. ‘Mission creep’ is probably the biggest problem, this is where SRO’s i think fail as they are reluctant to push back on demands from above for fear of a career foul or otherwise having their promotion held back. I’m at the beginning of my PM journey prior to leaving the service so I certainly don’t have all the answers, but we can definitely do better.
We seem to be at a similar point in life. I’m a couple of years in to PM’ing after hanging up my uniform (mostly).
I continuously see and hear PM’s talking about how we will ‘implement this method of blah blah blah in order to understand what is required by the customer’. Well the ‘customer’ (and I despise that term, particularly when we are talking about an MOD organisation delivering a requirement to one of its services) has already detailed the requirement. If you need a better understanding then get your arse up from your desk, get away from the comfort of your own home (because that’s were most are these days, myself included) and get out there and understand what is truly required and whether it’s actually been detailed or communicated within the scope of the requirement. I know PM’s who have never set foot on or near the platforms they are delivering for, that is bonkers. If you do not arrive in a role with an understanding of what you’re going to be involved in then you need to start working hard to develop an understanding.
Again I’ll turn to an earlier comment. You can have all the qualifications under the sun, but if they boil down to nothing more than attending 5-10 day Agile/Prince2/PMQ courses then are they really worth the paper they’re written on? Maybe we should be considering the quality of some of those PM’s rather than if they are formally qualified.
It’s a little bit like job adverts that state ‘must be educated to degree level’ but doesn’t state what type of degree. It’s arrogant to assume that just because an individual holds a qualification then they are automatically regarded as being a more capable candidate.
All that aside, vent over 😤 Good luck going forward, don’t underestimate how valuable you’ll be in projects as a service leaver. Our ability to see things in black and white and cut out the chaff is hugely beneficial where others can get bogged down in tiny detail.
Someone with 25 years as an Army Personnel is not the same as a professional Project Manager. Yes methodologies are appropriate rather than the “get it done at all cost” mentality. The analogy here says, a driver of a car with 25 years of experience is best place to design, decide on the best method of engaging the industry and other procurement processes of parts and components acquisition to manufacture that car. There are great engineers, designers and creative minds who have never driven a car. Let those who can conceptualise ideas do what they do best, and the end users with 25 years of driving that car, provides some input of thought by way of expectations/deliverables, with feedback about the prototype. . Some of the job description of these senior roles are scoped around “people’s manager”. To have a people’s manager without a single sensory neuron of engineering to manage a group of infrastructure engineers is diabolical. This is akin to Anglo-Saxon style of project leadership in comparison to Hispano, Teuto or Italo ways.
Bang on Greg, 100%. If you put someone in control of a project that doesn’t understand project management at the level to which they are appointed, then they most likely won’t know what they don’t know about project management.
If you use the Johari Window model, then such a person would fall into the unconsciously incompetent quartile. So there really should be no surprise at what happens next…!
Sorry mate but that is complete bollocks and your analogy is bullsh*t. The fact that you quote “ Someone with 25 years as an Army Personnel is not the same as a professional Project Manager” suggests to me that you have very little understanding of how capable many who have served really are. Now please explain what a professional project manager is.
You’re suggesting that, let’s say for example, a REME Aircraft technician who has served a full career, held the position of artificer and reached the rank of WO/Capt and is also a qualified PM should not be PM’ing a defence project, let’s say an element of the NMH program? Or someone from the RE, similar background, holds a degree in engineering and is a qualified PM should not be PM’ing an element of, let’s say an armoured engineering project. Or maybe someone from the Royal Signals, again similar background, should not be PM’ing a comms or EW project.
I think you have a very arrogant view and have completely underestimated how effective serving and ex-serving are. I’ve not suggested that we only apply a ‘get it done at all costs’ mentality. What I am saying is that these people seem to have the ability to drive tasks/projects in the direction they need to go where many others just can’t. I see it first hand every day.
What makes you think my opinion lacks understanding of an ex- service personnel and termed it as ignorant? I am very well informed. This is a discussion; purely from opinions of thought. Until a research is conducted, none of what we say is factual. An ex-service personnel with a lifetime of experience is valued and respect. I have met some who are egotist robotics with no common sense, compassion and provide lip service about CDRILS. Just because someone has risen to senior management doesn’t make him great at his job; not to even argue about competency. By virtue of one being in service creates a mindset that is binary, because the org structure is result oriented as compared to individuals who have the freewill and opportunities to experiment and make mistakes. This is where “grey matter” is discovered. The substance that drives innovation technology mostly used by the forces. Inventions used by the services were not created by the personnel. Refer to DSTL and find out. So why do you think 25 years of services makes one suitable and better qualified to be an SME with regard to manufacturing. For your information, I wore Combat 95 when it was green, was on OP Herrick. YES! The forces is the best place to be and has made me a better human being. I have worked within MOD on various platforms as a re-trained civvy who can once again experience the grey matter. I can profess to you right now that the 2 groups have a different outlook to innovation and problem-solving. Making a problem go away doesn’t mean it’s be solved, especially when one group’s ideology is enshrined in autocracy and getting people to do what is prescribed and the other in divergence of opinions and optimisation.
Greg, I apologise for making an assumption, the way you worded your earlier reply gave me the impression of you having had little exposure to service personnel, again my apologies.
I agree on some of those points that you mention in regards to being egotistical, robotic in thought and lacking common sense. What I would argue is that things in the main seem to have changed and for the better. I would say that we very much have a thinking soldiers Army now (can’t speak for the other services) and I know many who have been heavily involved in innovation and development, myself included having spent a couple of years doing a lot of work with DSTL and suppliers in the area of platform protection. I left the regular army just over 2 years ago, still serve as a reservist but my day job is a PM in defence procurement. Some of my predecessors who were WO’s when I was a Jnr absolutely would not cut it PM’ing in Defence procurement for the very reasons you mention, however many of those in my peer group and coming through behind me are proving to be extremely effective and proficient PM’s, many in the defence sector, others across a wide range of industries.
On the flip side what I have been witnessing almost daily over the last 2 years is DM’s/PM’s, Commercial Officers etc, who are completely inflexible, unwilling to scrutinise a requirement in order to achieve the ideal outcome, or those that unfortunately just don’t care enough and are content to push through a requirement at first draft. I am of the belief that because they’ve never had to rely on these types of equipment or capabilities, because they haven’t served, then they simply aren’t as invested in the project as those of us who have served. Again I’m not suggesting it’s all of them or even a majority but certainly many. I know of a significant number of PM’s who have never set foot on or near the equipment that their project relates to, or have never engaged with those end users. That cannot be good in any type of project.
Apologies again for going a bit on the offensive. It can feel like a bit of a beating when you’re trying to make your way in the world after 25 years of being in rig, have chosen a path, which has been a slog and then feel that your being told that you’re part of a group that isn’t quite good enough. I now appreciate that wasn’t what you were suggesting.
yep as expected 25+ with Zero qualifications. go be a PM and see how quick you get found out. Shouting at people doesn’t work in Civilian service Any more.
What qualification will someone who has served 25 years have over a Professional PM. PM deliver they dont design. maybe learn what a PM does before you talk Bollocks. makes you look like a 25+ years and no qualifications.
Except I am a qualified and working in defence procurement, imagine that!
I’m not sure if you’ve misunderstood some of the points I’m trying to make as I agree almost completely with what you’re saying in your posts, so maybe something is being lost in translation.
You’re confusing a PM with a SME or a work stream lead, the PM doesn’t need to know the ins and outs. A good PM will assemble a project team consisting of the relevant skills to deliver the project. Just getting shit done doesn’t control risk or costs or create anywhere near the right level of governance needed to effectively manage a project.
Well, that sounds promising 🙄
“Full Operating Capability will follow between October 2028 and September 2029, when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver Armoured Cavalry capability to the Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade and its two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams.”
LINK
Don’t confuse SRO with Project Manager. The SRO would not generally have any day-to-day input into the management of the project- they have overarching responsibility for the project because the PMs answer to them, and they also act as an escalation point to be used sparingly. Personally I regard project management methodologies and attend qualifications to be snake oil, but in any case they aren’t relevant to the SRO role. The MOD’s procurement problems stem from regulatory red tape and a tendency among seniors to keep chaniging the high-level requirements and time-scales in response to budgetary pressures.
Amen 🙏
👍🏻
All SRO’s have a Programme Director underneath them if its a GMPP programme. The PD runs the programme day to day.
The SRO is usually someone senior who takes the responsibility for the overall success of the programme and can help clear any ‘political’ roadblocks or liaise with the wider organisation to assist delivery. Someone senior with ‘heft’ is required.
Nothing wrong with someone only having 20% of their time allocated to it, as long as the time allocated is enough for what they are required to do.
Yes but if you have a SRO that changes every 2 year they all have a different style and it is human nature to meddle. You need continuity and also accountability – their JOB should be on the line if they don’t get it right, not they get rotated out after 2 years and then someone else has to pick up the mess. with SRO changing every 2 years, the new SRO then need to learn what is going on etc. and that takes 6+ month to do.
We used to have civil servants do this and thus you had a continuous team wit accountability. These people should have track record of delivery and also know the PM process.
The risk before was bribes to these civil servants to favor/overlook something. There are better ways of controlling and detecting that now (MOD internal and NAO). so we should switch to prioritise continuity as we get better outcomes. If that is someone that was a soldier and now switched to civvy life and has a track record of delivery great!
Again SRO’s do not need to fully understand PM or have a track record of delivery. In laymens terms they state or approve the requirement and then a delivery team of DM’s, PM’s, Engineers, Technical specialists etc etc, run and deliver the project. The SRO’s will expect regular updates in order to scrutinise progress. Any SRO (incoming and outgoing) worth their salt should be able to understand a requirement and their role in it by conducting/receiving a good HOTO.
SRO need to be accountable and longer on the project than 2 years and a track record of delivery of doing this kind of thing. You don’t want to be shifting your senior team every 2 years due to a rotation. A 5bn project needs someone on it end to end that is the buck stops with me and my job is on the line if no good.
The SRO does not deliver the requirement! The Delivery team should be maintaining the delivery. An SRO could be the requirement owner for multiple different requirements. There is absolutely no way on earth they could stay fully up to speed on the detail of those requirements even if they remained for 5 years or 10 years, that is why we have DT’s with DM’s, PM’s Technical specialists, Engineers, Finance officers, Commercial Officers, Legal Officers, Schedulers etc etc.
You’re asking a hell of a lot from a single person and if the answer is to assign a single individual to a single requirement then guess what, we have even more senior Staff officers, so lets get rid of more Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen..
Don’t expect them to know it all but expect them to be accountable for it. If you rotate out every 2 year you are not accountable as you go to your next gig. Then what is the point of having you there esp. if you are trying to do your day job elsewhere in the forces too – the “part time bit”.
The person after you blames the person gone, the person gone can say the new person is not doing the job when I left it it was OK. If you are there for multiple years there is no excuse and you build a strong and efficient team around you.
Also every 2 year you now have a new person learning it all again.
Good debate 🙂
DRS I totally get your point it is a bit of a conundrum but I would say that the delivery team is the element that needs to provide longevity, more so than the SRO. Unfortunately, usually as a serving officer the SRO still has the other part of their ‘career’ to consider. I’ve seen SRO subordinated when said SRO has moved on, and usually subordinated to someone who is already intimately involved in the requirement. This should allow for a project to continue unhindered. I’m still very much of the opinion that the SRO needs to be someone in uniform. I appreciate this sounds very biased but they are the SRO for a reason and that’s because they have identified or been made aware of the need by those on the frontline.
I very much agree with Ian when he said “The MOD’s procurement problems stem from regulatory red tape and a tendency among seniors to keep chaniging the high-level requirements and time-scales in response to budgetary pressures.”
I also see daily the lack of resource available at DE&S. In one area we are short of circa 65 PM’s, and we’re only a small part of one of the domains.
Procurement is a paperwork exercise to check the bid is compliant. Ajax won its Procurement round and then Army top Brass. changed it so don’t blame the Procurement, blame the Top Brass who have zero qualifications in design. You leave design to the experts. AKA the RN say we would like a ship around this size to do this this and this. they select the best design, but as soon as its built they dont turn around and say, can it Hover
Why? I’d argue that UK defence procurement projects don’t even remotely follow any traditional PM methodologies or principles. I have witnessed so many hold-ups and delays because we have PM’s who hold either APM PMQ. Prince2, Agile, Sigma lean 6, blah blah blah, or combinations thereof, but have zero understanding of defence requirements and view them in the same manner as building, lets say, a leisure facility.
The flip side is that I know many who have transitioned to DE&S as PM’s straight from wearing a uniform (many don’t even hold formal PM qualifications). They’re employed because they understand the requirement, have vast amounts of experience in that requirement area and are personally invested because they know those who will ultimately be the end user. I witness regularly how these people have the ability to reinvigorate projects and manage to get them moving again in the right direction and at pace.
Surely theres a requirement for both- as indictaed by the (continual) failure for MoD projects to be implemented without issues or delays.
I work in IT – I have a knowledge of the infrastructres I have worked on – I provide technical input to a project.
I have not , would not and most probabably could not project manage. It doesnt interest me and I doubt I would be any good- project creep and budgets just do not float my boat.
I would suggest that for those that have the experience technically and the desire to move into project management that accelerate training could be an option- to ensure they can actaully do it!
But neither shoud preclude the other- good PM’s dont have to have the experience they just have to know how best to use them that do – and vice versa.
Cant argue with you Grizzler, very valid points. My only slight counter is that DE&S don’t really follow any traditional PM methodologies and on top of that the various domains don’t follow a generic DE&S process.
This is the correct way.
You need both. Subject Matter Experts….and people who can manage a Project/Programme.
It’s rare that you get someone who can do both really well…get someone who can work with the other side really well and you get success….
A Subject Matter Expert is usually zero help at planning, sequencing or governance…
If they have zero qualifications how do they get the job….. corrupt as you would need a job description to even get there. understanding Contract Law and he is stuffed manage a day nursery maybe. anything with a legal twist and he/she will run to the consultant
No they’ll consult the project legal team, that’s why they have them.
‘Findings indicate that Senior Responsible Owners (SROs), accountable for substantial projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP), are frequently appointed without any formal qualifications in project management and often serve in a part-time capacity.’
I had to pinch myself. The penny has dropped at last.
But the SRO could be an Army Col, Navy Capt or RAF Gp Capt for example. Why would they hold a formal PM qualification? Are we saying that Service personnel in these ranks must be qual’d PM’s now? Of course they often serve part time because they also have the responsibility of Command. Is the alternative to have a Civil Servant who has never served in uniform so is detached from the needs of the military.
I’d argue that my latter point (non-serving personnel, those who have never served) has been just as much of an issue as that of which this article is attempting to communicate.
How can delivering a 5bn project be a part time activity and something that you do for 2 years and rotate out? Then the next person has 6 month to learn again what you do as SRO etc etc? That is why you appoint SRO as a civvy (with prior successful track record) whose full time job is to deliver that with a team that is not changing. The civvy can be ex MOD with the right PM/large scale project delivery experience. Their job is on the line if they don’t deliver.
If I part time keep an eye on builders that are building a house to my spec, they will make assumptions and decisions minus me that may not be to my liking as I am not there to say so. Same here. You need to be involved and full time.
How can a Civvy own a military requirement? As others have mentioned the SRO does not manage the project or programme. The SRO and where it gets slightly confusing depending on where you are is the Senior Requirement Owner or Senior Responsible Officer. They will be updated at regular intervals to allow them the opportunity to intervene.
My point is not if it is a civvy or mod. My point is they should – have a track record of doing this (know the job, proven track record etc) and be there for the duration not get rotated out to the next gig after 2 years. Being an officer organising and ordering troops and understanding tactics etc does not make you good in understanding industrial process, pinch points and critical paths. Or when you need to use a carrot or a stick to make things happen with companies. You can’t order BAE to do something for you! 🙂
You can from a military perspective be the product owner saying I want X & Y and wiz bang, but then your SRO will say yes that means 7 years and X billons, v’s 80% of what you want in 3 years and X bn/2, and I can deliver that for you or making sure the full spectrum or requirement is done in 7 years and on agreed budget. and if I don’t my job is on the line – my personal risk making sure i do the right thing.
No the SRO won’t. I think you’re missing the point. The SRO and the PM are two distinctly different roles. You keep referring to the SRO then giving examples of what would be expected from a DM or PM. And the level of most SRO’s is way beyond that of “organising and ordering troops and understanding tactics etc” Most at that level would have had quite a bit exposure to industry, I personally had quite a lot of dealings with industry at SSgt level. Not suggesting i knew the ins and outs but was certainly more involved than many would realise.
And in regards to not being able to order BAE to do something for you, you’re right. What you can do however is hold them to account, apply financial penalties, withhold payments etc. This is now a very common practice if a supplier is not meeting milestones, KPI’s etc. Show me a supplier that wants to fall foul of this. How can we apply this were necessary? By ensuring that the Statement of Requirement and everything that goes with it has been produced correctly and to the detail needed. A PM will not have this level of detail to begin with, however from that they should be putting together, along with schedulers, finance, commercial, legal etc etc. very comprehensive Procurement strategies, Statements of work, Contract Deliverables Requirements lists, Tender documentation, Contractor liabilities etc etc etc.
Big chip on your shoulder, big gap in between your ears. Did you work on Ajax
Why do I have a big chip on my shoulder? No I didn’t work on Ajax but do work on another project. Not really get the point you’re trying to make.
You are really slow, I WENT TO SCHOOL = DOESNT MEAN I CAN BE A TEACHER. I SHOT A GUN= DOESNT MEAN I COULD BUILD ONE. SKY BLUE you are living in the clouds.
What are you chuntering on about?
“I had to pinch myself. The penny has dropped at last.”
It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether an SRO has Project Management experience….
The SRO does not manage a project or programme…
A full time Programme Director does….the SRO fulfils another function.
The issues always occur at Project Definition, the Requirements and Change….
Finally common sense has arrived.
I am puzzled by the ‘Findings indicate that…’ phrase. Most people who follow this subject know that SROs frequently do not have formal PM qualifications and often serve in a part-time capacity. This is no deep dark secret or revelation, nor is it necessarily a problem.
The Project Director reports to the SRO. The PD and his team need to be Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) ie to have the appropriate PM training. MOD guidance states that ‘all senior responsible owners of projects or programmes in the Government major projects portfolio are expected to attend, or to have graduated from, the major projects leadership academy (MPLA)’. This is an 18 month course and it will be hard for a busy senior officer to fit it in, but I believe they must do so.
There are thousands of major and minor projects on the go in defence procurement. The SRO will be responsible for a number of projects and have other duties, thus he will be part-time on a given project ie Ajax.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner/the-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner
There is an argument for full time SRO’s for some programmes given their scale and complexity. I have had a full time SRO for a programme before and it worked well. For smaller programmes it could well be an impediment however…for a programme the size of the Dreadnought Class it would make sense.
Nothing new here. In 1994 I was a Wg Cdr aircraft engineer with project managrment experience on Puma, Sea King, Chinook and Merlin helicopter procurement. I had a career interview indicating further promotion prospects and stated my wish to specialise in further project management. I was told I would be typecast which would be bad for my future career and should go to MOD to write policy! I declined and took early voluntary redundancy. Best thing I ever did but what a waste of my experience.
So the MPLA lasts 18months…and SROs are put on to it at start of assignment and their average tenure is 20 months. You could not make it up. Utterly unfit for purpose and small wonder there is such appalling management of most projects.
All well and good, but with AJax if the hulls are constructed wrongly hundreds of miles from these shores you cannot project manage that away unless the SRO happens to be a qualified engineer as well. I think this is what Sir Humphrey would call a smear it all over job. Yes things need improving when it comes to procurement and a compulsory training program needs to be put in place for senior ranks, before they sit behind that desk in the MOD and the tenure needs to be for the full period of the project so they take ownership.
You have to ask why Santa Barbra Spain still have ISO 9001 if the dimensions of the hulls were wrong and quality poor ?
It has been reported that the GD light tank is sending toxic fumes into the tank when firing, a purge system is being developed . Another risk to the project is finding a way to minimize the MPF’s audible signature of the prototype , although they are saying noise is within limits for a tracked vehicle this size !
I think the requirement is for Subject Matter Experts. Standard training for civil servants will not include expertise in, for example, armoured vehicles. That is not what they do. Simply hire independent external SMEs for each project and listen to them when they say “it won’t work”.
Sadly, this is not surprising given the dire record of military project management and procurement, leading to a reduced number of platforms to compensate for the waste incurred.
Here is a video of the Ares and Atlas testing. (Link)
Its the 20 month average tenure for SRO, when the projects need 77 months. You need someone to see it from start to finish (service entry).
John, Do you think the key personnel for HS2 (or other large civilian procurement or construction projects) are there for a decade or so?
Its not realistic for serving officers to be in one post for 77 months (plus the 18 month MPLA course).
MOD Procurement or Projects are on a average 18 month cycle, from feasibility to delivery as you will need to secure funding. why there are some many Civilians now recruited with the MOD services. as they are likely to be on 12 month rolling contracts. HS2 were offering Contracts on a 5 year term to secure there lead Consultants
They did in the past, see Polaris. All this chopping & changing, just seems to be a way of dodging blame when the project fails.
Polaris is the only project I have ever heard of that had the same Programme Manager for its entire period – that was way back in the 1960s. It was incredibly unusual then – I am sure it was a one-off.
Its all well and good pointing the finger at military SRO, but there is another part of the process which causes significant resource wastage. DES has put so many additional hurdles in the way of SROs that it makes their lives extremely difficult at times. This leads to time slippage and financial waste.
Keep Getting Told delivery Projects is easy, Agree Delivery is easy, as that is the End of all the hard work you have put in to get to Delivery. If you a successful Project Manager, you will Build a Team around you to deliver. and support and lean in and learn.
There are far to many who have a qualification in Project Management or a Princes 2 qualification, because that’s what there tutor told them to follow. Yet would struggle to deliver a Pizza.
Army Procurement has failed as it has top brass having a play and getting a case of Whiskey out the deal.
There are no long term Civil servants they are all 12 years old with a Fresh degree.
Jon, have you actually seen MoD procurement up close and personal? I am not sure what your experience is.
I would like to say its not like that in the outside world. But it is I have been Building a Project Team for delivery of various projects for the past 18 months, and i recruit every 3 months. as it will take you that long to search through the Cack that lands on your desk. Just because they have attended a university and have a fresh qualification. those who cannot do teach badly
Uniformed personnel is often moved to new posts every couple of years so no surprise there
A beginner’s guide to Ajax procurement 101.
Scrap it.
Buy CV90 MK4.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bae-wins-2bn-czech-contract-q2vkclmxs
Simples