CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[dapaterson]

Guess I'm too much a fan of Pogo Possum - "We have met the enemy - and he is us."

 

[FSTO]

They know what they are told in submissions to the board.  Who writes those submissions?  DND/CAF.

So, if person A is ignorant of a fact, and person B who is responsible for it never told person A, is the problem with person A or person B?

Have you read some of the progress reports that are on this site?

http://otg-vcd-webs018.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/CID/intro_e.asp

The frustration with the process expressed by Project Managers (the ones who fill out the reports) is depressing;

" , there was much additional angst injected into the approval proceedings as the Project Team did "back & forth" communication with assorted Fin CS Analysts who were needed to tweak the submission documentation for CFO attestation purposes.  The big issue was turning a portion of the project budget into Vote 1 (from Vote 5) dollars to account for some "new" rule that relates to accounting rules for Environmental (soil) remediation work ... which is project work-scope that cannot be "capitalized."  Suffice to say that this agony having passed, the Submission was "promoted" very quickly in February up to the MND, who signed off and sent the file to TB on 20 Feb 2013"

"It is clear to me (the PD) upon taking over this project as PD in April 2013, that the Schedule (timelines) have slipped; and, that the Schedule Risks are the ones that we have to be most particularly interested in.
The "good thing" that this project has going for it, is that the Government of Canada's intention to implement this project has been publicly announced already: by the MND on 18 February 2013 at a specifically arranged Press Conference @ CFB Esquimalt; and, then in the Federal Budget of March 2013"

"The past year-plus has been an absolute `bust`` !  In the spring of 2012, it came to pass that those in charge of the CIP(I) could not and would not see their way clear to according this relatively high-scoring project (very high scored as far as the RCN was concerned) any Definition (Vote 5) funding in FY 12/13.  Moreover, the CIP(I) for 2013-23 left a full 2-year gap in between the Definition and implementation funding that could be accorded to this project."


Granted this is from one individual but I would hazard a guess that this is the commen sentiment throughout PM world.  This rigid adherence to the "process" where rules upon rules upon submissions upon briefing notes bog down projects to the point that cement is more fluid.
I have no idea other then a huge amnesia and EMP hit to Ottawa that would destroy the "process" religion and create the whole thing from scratch with no corporate memory to screw things up again.

 

[dapaterson]

You started out complaining about Treasury Board, and now support that argument with examples of internal departmental issues.

(And yes, I am quite familiar with the CID)

Let's look more closely at your examples.

1.  CFO attestation.  Departments must demonstrate that their projects have been properly planned financially before they are approved.  And every time someone pulls an F-35 or other stunt, the scrutiny gets greater.  So, that's a self-inflcited wound, not a TB problem.

2.  Schedule slip.  No indication of what / where / why; nothing to suggest it's all the fault of those nefarious TB/TBS staff.

3.  CIP(I).  Just because a project is important to one organization within the department does not mean it's a priority for the department overall.  And thus it may well be delayed because of other priority projects; there is a finite amount of staff capacity to advance projects.


I've met with and worked with TBS analysts, and have been largely impressed with their intelligence and work ethic.  If they do not understand something, they ask.  And often any lack of understanding is due to a lack of clarity or lack of information provided by the department in a submission.  I have also noted several occasions where the TBS analysts have more background and history for the department's activities than the departmental staff.

Are the internal processes of DND onerous?  Yes.  Should some be reformed?  Again yes.  But there is a need for oversight and control.  Projects left without adequate supervision suffer from scope creep, missed milestones and increased cost.  And as long as there are high-profile failures there will be increased, not decreased, scrutiny.

 

[Haletown]

from cbc.ca

""We are conducting an analysis of price and availability of other [aircraft] manufactured by other vendors. The government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our armed forces have the equipment they need at the best value to the taxpayer," Irwin told Power & Politics in a statement"

Should take about 30 seconds  to do that analysis.    It is not like fully equipped maritime helicopters that meet CF Operational Requirements are just sitting around waiting to be used.

Anyone know what's going on?

Negotiating with Sikorsky via the media? 


I still would like to know how much of the delay and increased costs are due to the aircraft and how much is the mission systems and what is left to be completed to meet the contractual obligations.

 

[observor 69]

The Canadian Press

September 5, 2013
Updated: September 6, 2013 | 8:00 am

Canada looks at Royal Navy choppers

OTTAWA – The Harper government may be ready to throw in the towel on the purchase of long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters and has gone as far as sending a military team to Britain to evaluate other aircraft.

Defence sources say the team, which included an officer from the air force directorate of air requirements branch, visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.

A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Findley confirmed the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/786834/canada-looks-at-royal-navy-choppers/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hmm I wonder does the RN have a surplus of Merlin's at present? Leasing some might be an option for now and something this government has not been shy on doing.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Brits took some off the Danes' hands for service in Afghanistan.  I don't think there is much likelihood of help there. 

On the other hand I hear the Dutch have a got a brand new, never been sailed, BHS/JSS ship up for grabs.  >

 

[FSTO]

You started out complaining about Treasury Board, and now support that argument with examples of internal departmental issues.

(And yes, I am quite familiar with the CID)

Let's look more closely at your examples.

1.  CFO attestation.  Departments must demonstrate that their projects have been properly planned financially before they are approved.  And every time someone pulls an F-35 or other stunt, the scrutiny gets greater.  So, that's a self-inflcited wound, not a TB problem.

2.  Schedule slip.  No indication of what / where / why; nothing to suggest it's all the fault of those nefarious TB/TBS staff.

3.  CIP(I).  Just because a project is important to one organization within the department does not mean it's a priority for the department overall.  And thus it may well be delayed because of other priority projects; there is a finite amount of staff capacity to advance projects.


I've met with and worked with TBS analysts, and have been largely impressed with their intelligence and work ethic.  If they do not understand something, they ask.  And often any lack of understanding is due to a lack of clarity or lack of information provided by the department in a submission.  I have also noted several occasions where the TBS analysts have more background and history for the department's activities than the departmental staff.

Are the internal processes of DND onerous?  Yes.  Should some be reformed?  Again yes.  But there is a need for oversight and control.  Projects left without adequate supervision suffer from scope creep, missed milestones and increased cost.  And as long as there are high-profile failures there will be increased, not decreased, scrutiny.

I grant that my rant at TB may have been more of a nuclear attack on Ottawa vice a sniper shot at the root cause of our procurement problems. But I would also argue that the idea of putting more reports, oversight and other scrutiny measures on an already cumbersome bureaucracy is not the way to get the best value for investment.
MHP, JSS, Army Trucks etc, have been scrutinized beyond all reason and we are no closer to getting them now then we were 20 years ago.

 

[dapaterson]

Not arguing the fact that processes are messed up, mostly internally.  But why don't we learn from our mistakes?  While not identical, many are similar to mistakes in the past.  Yet every project manager decides that Their Project Is Different, so there's no need to apply lessons learned, so they create unworkable schedules (or inheirit unworkable schedules), are insanely optimistic, and so on.  It's always fun to attend the Senior Review Board for a project just after it's transitioned to the implementer - when they state that the schedule they agreed to on transition is now unworkable and going to be delayed.

Certainly, there are times when rules change midway through a project; those delays are understandable.  But when a project schedule is designed with no margin for error and no flexibility, when a contractor underperforms and the whole project then shudders to a series of knock-on delays - delays that good management would have foreseen and taken precautions to mitigate against - our fault lie not with our stars, but with ourselves.

When you're in year sixteen of a ten year project, with three years to go, it's not because TBS complained, it's not because ADM(Fin CS) was slow - it's because you were poorly managed.


And, in usual governmental fashion, we never punish those responsible for the problem; we punish the system as a whole.

 

[h3tacco]

I still would like to know how much of the delay and increased costs are due to the aircraft and how much is the mission systems and what is left to be completed to meet the contractual obligations.

Not sure what you want to know but the delays are related to both the aircraft and the mission system.

There is a persistent thread in the media that requirements have been changing and this has resulted in the delays but this is in fact false. The requirements today are essentially the same as they were in 2004.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

N




And, in usual governmental fashion, we never punish those responsible for the problem; we punish the system as a whole.

Because they have sniffed the poop and have already moved on to "champion" another project before the blame can be squarely pegged onto them.

 

[FSTO]

I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
:facepalm:

 

[dapaterson]

How long do you keep chasing after a failure?  According to the original plan, the project should have closed five years ago.  We still have no aircraft accepted.

Unless you're a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, at some point you have to admit that it isn't going to work, stop it, and find something that works.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
:facepalm:

I can see a slight, but measurable partisan political upside to ditching the Cyclone and buying something else - if there is a "something else."

This is a Liberal mess: Jean Chrétien cancelled a signed contract for the Merlin in 1993; Paul Martin signed the deal for the unproven Cyclone in 2004; now, the CPC can say, we care cleaning up the whole bloody disaster.

Maybe, also, this can stimulate ministers to seriously explore reforming defence procurement.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I really hope that this report of looking at another helicopter is just the media engaging in mischief. Would the tall forheads in the government really do this? And all I can think of is "Yes, they would".
:facepalm:

Methinks this quote, if copied/shared correctly....

.... A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Findley confirmed the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget ....

.... it's more than just media speculation.

I can see a slight, but measurable partisan political upside to ditching the Cyclone and buying something else - if there is a "something else."

This is a Liberal mess: Jean Chrétien cancelled a signed contract for the Merlin in 1993; Paul Martin signed the deal for the unproven Cyclone in 2004; now, the CPC can say, we care cleaning up the whole bloody disaster.

It would be easy to message, but opponents of the AFG fight didn't seem to remember it was the Liberals that did that one, too, so one wonders if "they'll" get it.

Maybe, also, this can stimulate ministers to seriously explore reforming defence procurement.

Dare to dream ....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If they did it right, the political mileage would be great, but likely they rush into it, the new helicopter contract will bog down and Sikorsky will sue and try to stop it as well. It's a bit late to go down this path, they had better make dam sure they have a 2nd option and the legal side tightly wrapped our this will be a huge millstone around the CPC necks.

 

[tomydoom]

I think given the history of our main stream media in this country, the CPC are in a no-win situation on the MHP acquisition. Even though the MHP program and the Victoria Class acquisition were initiated by the prior Liberal government you continue to see no end of handwringing in the press about how "Harper" is wasting tax money on botched acquisitions of unsuitable equipment. Similarly budget cuts and deficit reduction when undertaken by the Liberals is portrayed in the press as "prudent" but when undertaken by Conservatives, is portrayed as a threat to the fabric of our society. Further, the current government has been in office for 6 years and could have begun looking at alternatives much sooner, so they are not entirely blameless in this fiasco. To me this looks like nothing more then political posturing and possibly "negotiating through the press".

 

[The Bread Guy]

Maybe I should put quotes around "progress" in the thread title?

 

[McG]

Re-enter the EH-101.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/06/pol-sea-king-replacement-flawed.html

 

[Haletown]

Re-enter the EH-101.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/06/pol-sea-king-replacement-flawed.html

And how long would it take and what would it cost to put the mission system hardware and software we use in a 101?

Seems like a breakout of silly journalism again.