First line of defence

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is implementing a programme approach to the planning and delivery of its defence capability, aligned to OGCs MSP framework. Bill Egginton from Cranfield University, who has been working with senior military officers, gives a frank assessment of the progress and challenges faced in the delivery process.

Shortly after joining Cranfield University at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham in 2004, I was given responsibility for the development of a course aimed at newly appointed Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) within the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The aim of the one-day course was to raise awareness and understanding of programme management, and in particular the guidance contained in Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) applied in the context of defence.

In a sentence, MSP can be described as useful guidance written by practitioners, for practitioners and owned by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).

Of specific interest here is MSPs depiction of the programme management organisation structure and the roles that sit within it (see Fig 1).

In defence, the MoD is now investing significant amounts of time and money into the implementation of Through Life Capability Management (TLCM) as a method aimed at achieving improvements in the planning and delivery of capability.

This is defined in the following way: An approach to the acquisition and in-service management of military capability in which every aspect of new and existing military capability is planned and managed coherently across all Defence Lines of Development (DLoDs) from cradle to grave.

The principles underpinning TLCM come from general business and commercial management, and indeed project and programme management. TLCM is about taking a whole life approach to the coherent management of related projects in full view of defence business priorities, constraints, costs, benefits and risks all key themes within MSP and programme management.

What follows are some of my observations of the MSP approach gleaned from SRO events and other courses that I facilitated.

(Above: Figure 1)

Observations

1. There is never enough resource! Its important to recognise and accept that, in taking a programme approach, there will be the need to prioritise and for projects to flex in light of programme, and wider business portfolio priorities.

2. In defence, SRO roles are for the most part, part-time roles. Most defence related SRO appointments are on a part time basis. There are instances where a single, albeit senior officer, has responsibility for several major programmes. Moreover, a general feature of the MoD model is that SROs also have responsibility as the sponsor, or customer, for the programme. This doesnt contravene MSP principles as such but we have to ask is there capacity to give both roles the attention they demand and deserve?

3. The SRO role is only one part of the solution. SRO appointments have been happening since 2005, yet it is only now that we are beginning to see some of the other equally important features of the programme construct being put in place. For example, a common conclusion from many of the SROs that I have worked is that their programmes do not have a readily identifiable sponsoring group with appropriate terms of reference. If this is to be the Extended Joint Capabilities Board (EJCB) then its terms of reference must reflect that fact. Another crucial role is that played by the programme office or Programme Support Function, the PSF. This is an absolutely key function, and again based on discussions with SROs, an area where MoD appears to be under-resourced at present though I am aware of steps being taken to address this shortfall.

4. The programme manager role is an individual role, not a committee. Another key role one that we can easily relate to is that of programme manager. This role has clear responsibilities and any read of MSP would lead you to conclude that it is an individual role. Currently MoD exercises this role through the programme board. Im pretty certain thats not what MSP had in mind when defining the role.

5. Front Line Commands has a real role to play as the bridge to the business. The Business Change Manager (BCM) role is probably the one that organisations struggle with the most and the MoD is no exception. That said, once the role and its responsibilities have been clarified, there is generally unanimous agreement that it is a role best suited to Front Line Commands (FLCs). The question is perhaps, given the other intense pressures on FLCs, to what extent are they able to populate that role?

These observations may appear somewhat critical, and unduly negative. In fact, overall, this is a good news story in that a great deal has been achieved during 2008 in raising awareness of the need for a programme approach, and in taking steps to deliver a fit-for-purpose organisation. But what further challenges lie ahead in the future?

Future challenges

1.Ensuring programme coherence. The first tranche of (five) programme boards has been launched. The MoD must learn from this first wave and make sure that new ways of working are understood and lessons learned are used to improve the process, particularly in respect of those programmes that cut across different business centres.

2. Completing the picture. Whilst good progress has been made in identifying and assigning SRO roles, more needs to be done to ensure that other key functions are appropriately defined and resourced. Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) has a pivotal role to play in providing owners for the key DLoDs, equipment and logistics, as well as creating and staffing the new PSF function.

3. People development To be fully effective in the roles of programme manager or programme support, not to mention business change manager, people need an appropriate level of knowledge, understanding, skill and experience. Whilst training and education is available, and has demonstrated it can make a difference, these sorts of interventions take time, a precious resource for an organisation that is under pressure to stream-line itself even further.

4. Culture and decision making Establishing and sustaining the right culture, or the right behaviours, forms the bedrock of the NAOs Gold Standard the same applies equally to programmes. The professionalism of project managers must be retained, but at the same time their role in project integration and programme delivery made clear. Acting independently in a programme environment is unlikely to be in the best interests of the business. Top management and leaders have a role to play in modelling the right behaviours

5. Engaging with industry. The DIS set the scene for collaborative working and there are already fine examples of how that is working such as Team Complex Weapons and Aircraft Carrier Alliance. Collaboration will need to move to a new level in shaping and delivering programmes that require at one and the same time, flexibility and commercial rigour, big picture thinking and agility. We can expect programme delivery teams to transcend organisational boundaries and so a coherent approach to working and learning across the board will be needed.

Successful blueprint

Much has been done in a relatively short time. The MoD has moved from a position where programme management barely featured in its lexicon to one where a blueprint for 2012 has been agreed, people have been assigned and useful, essential guidance has been delivered. MSP has helped. It has provided a framework in exactly the way that its intended. But its implementation must be driven by a strategic agenda and not a tactical one.

Together, with industry, the MoD must learn from the experience of early programme boards and look to improve ways of working going forward including how it plans and prioritises. This will require the right behaviours trust, transparency, openness and a perspective that focuses on the wider business rather than an individual project. Decisions must be in the best interests of defence as a whole. This may require projects to be killed and this must be seen as a sign of organisational maturity, not individual failure.

Definition of terms:
Through Life Capability Management (TLCM)
Defence Lines of Development (DLoDs)
Extended Joint Capabilities Board (EJCB)
Front Line Commands (FLCs)
Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S)