14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
Lt Gen Figgures
added that perceived delays could also potentially be attributed
to
optimism
bias and the six‑month duration of rotations, the latter meaning
that some
personnel
might not stay in theatre long enough to see equipment enhancements
arrive
during
their tour.
On
communications between the UK and theatre,
Lt Gen Figgures advised that PJHQ
remained
“in constant daily
contact”
with Equipment Capability (EC) cells in theatre.
The DECs
were also “in frequent dialogue” with the EC cells. There had been
various
visits from
teams engaged in the procurement chain and those would continue in
balance
with
theatre’s priorities.
Recognising
that some improvements could be made, Air Commodore Brian
Bates,
Director
Directorate of Joint Capability, and Mr Guy Lester, Director
DCRS, were
going
to join PJHQ’s monthly video conference calls with theatre as
of that month.
Lt Gen Figgures
concluded:
“Indeed,
this already regular dialogue with theatre made the concerns
expressed to
the
Minister all the more surprising as reports from theatre on UORs
tend to be very
positive.”
On 23
April, Lord Drayson met Lt Gen Houghton and
Lt Gen Figgures “to discuss
the
apparent discrepancy between the view of troops in theatre and
PJHQ/MOD on
equipment
and UORs”.373
VAdm Style
sent a note of the meeting to Lord Drayson on
21 May
after consulting with PJHQ and EC cells.
VAdm Style
reported that the average length of UOR delivery time had fallen
over the
last three
years from an average of 9.3 months to 7.5 months. A “longer term
analysis”
indicated
delivery times at the start of Op TELIC were shorter, taking 5
months in 2002
and 3.1
months in 2003, but it was felt that “reflected the simpler nature
of the UORs
processed”.
VAdm Style
wrote that the overall feedback on UORs remained “very positive”
with
“94 percent/100
percent” of Op TELIC and Op HERRICK UORs being rated as
effective
or highly
effective.
The recent
comments about perceived failures in the UOR process were “a source
of
concern”.
VAdm Style suggested several ways to address the “causal factors”
for those
comments:
•
a review of
pre‑deployment UOR training;
•
better
communication of what had been done and what was being
done;
•
a clearer flow
of information from theatre because direct communication
between
theatre and
the Equipment Capability Customer (ECC) was “still the exception
rather
than the
rule”;
•
assessing
staff shortfalls in “key” Integrated Project Team (IPT) posts;
and
•
finding ways
to “aggressively and imaginatively bear down upon UOR
timelines”.
373
Minute
DCDS(C) to Min(AF), 21 May 2007, ‘Meeting with CJO and DCDS(EC) –
Equipment
Requirements
in Theatre’.
121