Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

[Ozair]

Wedgetail's an established design and already flying in RAF colours - so I'm not sure how they're getting to 'unachievable'. 'At risk of cost escalation' might be a more accurate interpretation.

Schedule?

 

[timmymagic]

How many programs are Red when they're exactly on time and on schedule up through the end of delivery? Haven't several been named on this forum?

Journalistic understanding of the IPA (Infrastructure and Project Authority) RAG statuses and process is near zero I'm afraid.

All UK Government programmes that are over £50m, or of a novel or contentious nature, are reported to the IPA in the GMPP (Government Major Projects Portfolio) with annual returns listed for publication. There are also quarterly returns and an annual 'Transparency Return' (don't expect to get too much from that though..., the GAO it ain't). The Programmes status is listed clearly with a RAG status (Red, Amber and Green). It's a bit more complex than that as there are interim stages like Red-Amber, Amber-Green as well...

The RAG status comes from either an internal assessment i.e. the programme or project grades itself, or from an independent assessment that is commissioned by the programme via the IPA. That assessment is done at defined stages of the programme, ranging from programme start to programme closure. They're called 'Gateways'. You need to clear multiple 'Gateway's in order to proceed with the programme. For long term programmes where there could be large gaps between stages you can also commission, or be asked to commission, interim reviews. Dependent on how these are commissioned they can be internal to the programme only (with a copy submitted to IPA for records) or submitted to the IPA formally. Typically these are done at the request of the Senior Responsible Owner, particularly if they've just taken over from another SRO).

There are also other assurance mechanisms that can run alongside the IPA, the Major Projects Group for example chaired by the CEO of the Civil Service with external to Government experts called in. These tend to be for larger projects.

The big issue though is that journo's (and politicians) just don't understand the reality of the IPA process. Definitions of RAG status are available online and they go with that....but there is a lot of wriggle room and nuance...the reasons why a programme are scored RED are many and varied...and don't necessarily mean that there are unsurmountable issues. But the published definition makes it sound like there are...

For example I worked in a programme from start to finish over a period of >5 years. At the start we were listed as RED....we remained in that status for 5 years, went to RED-AMBER for the final year...before going straight to GREEN on delivery. End result was we delivered early, under budget with savings of 65% over the previous solution (and our business case stated 35%)...and industry had said that it wasn't possible...MPG told us it was the most successful Government programme they had ever seen....so why was it RED? Simple....we needed to keep political and organisational focus on it to ensure we had the resources to actually get the work done, if we'd scored at GREEN everyone would have taken their eye off the ball and it would have suffered. By emphasising issues, industry views etc we kept it at that (make no mistake it wasn't plain sailing either). If you know you need the money, attention and resources to keep flowing scoring at GREEN doesn't actually help your case sometimes...

And for MoD projects its even worse as the Transparency Returns, GMPP reports are not available for viewing and the data they release to the public is woefully short of detail, and no-one will talk in comparison to other government programmes, due to the secret nature of a lot of them....unfortunately though, it appears that the data that MoD releases, even to Parliament has become even thinner on the ground over the last few years...transparency, to a degree, is a good thing and MoD is increasingly secretive. The only reason for that is to avoid scrutiny...

So the journo's use the IPA definition...because they don't know any better, and it appears MoD don't care either way...

One thing that would help is if the IPA shared stats with the public about pathways to green by Dept's, and historical data around how many programmes successfully delivered, were cancelled, over budget or time, particularly those that hit RED...

 

[Scott Kenny]

They also measure quality / performance

Again, delivered on time and on budget. (Think it was timmymagic's project that I was thinking of)

 

[Scott Kenny]

For example I worked in a programme from start to finish over a period of >5 years. At the start we were listed as RED....we remained in that status for 5 years, went to RED-AMBER for the final year...before going straight to GREEN on delivery. End result was we delivered early, under budget with savings of 65% over the previous solution (and our business case stated 35%)...and industry had said that it wasn't possible...MPG told us it was the most successful Government programme they had ever seen....so why was it RED? Simple....we needed to keep political and organisational focus on it to ensure we had the resources to actually get the work done, if we'd scored at GREEN everyone would have taken their eye off the ball and it would have suffered. By emphasising issues, industry views etc we kept it at that (make no mistake it wasn't plain sailing either). If you know you need the money, attention and resources to keep flowing scoring at GREEN doesn't actually help your case sometimes...

Sounds like gaming the system...

 

[red admiral]

Again, delivered on time and on budget. (Think it was timmymagic's project that I was thinking of)

But not quality

Anyone can quickly buy something cheap that doesn't work

 

[Scott Kenny]

But not quality

Anyone can quickly buy something cheap that doesn't work

If it was timmymagic's program, it was early and under budget. And saved almost twice as much money as they had predicted.

Again, red until delivery.

 

[TomcatViP]

May I just paste again the quote from the UK government:

However, according to the government, a red rating indicates “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”, with major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which “at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

It's rather clear and don't ask for some divergent definition. In need are some reforms or better project management and directions.

 

[timmymagic]

Sounds like gaming the system...

Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.

The real detail is always in the full reports...actions, conclusions etc. The journo's don't get to see those though...

 

[DWG]

It's rather clear and don't ask for some divergent definition. In need are some reforms or better project management and directions.

It doesn't matter what the text defining the process says, but rather what the practice is by the people executing the process - e.g. PDRs and CDRs: the process says you have a meeting, it's pass or fail, if you fail you go away and try to fix things while ministers and journos shout at you. The practice is everyone turns up a week in advance, hammers out what isn't right yet, agrees a set of corrective actions, then you have the meeting for a couple of hours on Friday where every minuted action has been agreed in advance, everyone signs off on it and then you head down the pub.

 

[Sintra]

Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.

The real detail is always in the full reports...actions, conclusions etc. The journo's don't get to see those though...

If memory serves me right almost every single major RAF Program at some point was marked red by the NAO, and this for the last... three decades? Or at least since the NAO have its documents available online.
Typhoon, A400M, P8, Lightning, Meteor, FC/ASW, etc... It seems quite a normal thing.

FCAS was already marked red in the December 2023 "The Equipment Plan 2023–2033" document. And arguably rightly so, the timeline seems pretty ambitious and the budget seems a bit low.

Cheers

 

[red admiral]

If it was timmymagic's program, it was early and under budget. And saved almost twice as much money as they had predicted.

Again, red until delivery.

But you can be early and under budget but e.g. delivery half the number of units. It measures a few criteria against a baseline not just time and cost. Often the way to get from red to green is simply to rebaseline.

If memory serves me right almost every single major RAF Program at some point was marked red by the NAO, and this for the last... three decades? Or at least since the NAO have its documents available online.
Typhoon, A400M, P8, Lightning, Meteor, FC/ASW, etc... It seems quite a normal thing.

None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal

 

[DWG]

None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal

Cutting edge aerospace development is inevitably accompanied by cutting edge uncertainty, not meeting the initial requirement isn't necessarily a sign of bad management.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sometimes. But it can also be a very temporary thing. You can be scored RED because a particular resource is unavailable or blocked at that point in time. You then get access to that resource...and suddenly all is well.

Ah, gotcha! Not gaming the system so much as "without a RED state there's not enough political will to actually make the project happen at all."

 

[Sintra]

None of those are programmes which successfully delivered Vs cost, schedule, definition so they're obviously not green.

"All our programmes are managed badly so therefore it's ok" shouldn't be normal

While i have a lot of simpathy for your point i can also remember quite a few programs in wich the main problem were the original estimations (by that same MOD...) on timeline and/or budget that were entirely irrealistic right from the start and so, at some point they got... red.
Most programs are not "Ajax", quite a few are "CVF´s".

Cheers

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

honestly most combat aircraft projects get into higher cost constantly, i am not surprised that the UK is going red on it but again the program won't stop because of this, i've seen some detractors of GCAP being like "oh no the UK will leave the program due to cost rising and it not being in budget" that won't happe, while another nation doesn't fully disclose the investment (or it does and i can't find it for the life of me) Italy isn't going to care either way, BAE and Leonardo worked together before and it's working well so far, i belive the program will end up well like Typhoon and i will be happy to have it with Japan and the UK, hopefully FCAS merges with us so we make a truly complete platform but knowing history i don't have too much hope anymore... at the same time i love both programs and i belive they'll be complete

 

[red admiral]

While i have a lot of simpathy for your point i can also remember quite a few programs in wich the main problem were the original estimations (by that same MOD...) on timeline and/or budget that were entirely irrealistic right from the start and so, at some point they got... red.

The phrase is "conspiracy of optimism". If we're meant to be submitting 50% funding bids then half of the programmes should be under budget... But it sure doesn't seem that way.

I remember a NASA paper on cost forecasting that showed that the more important the programme, the more likely it was to be over budget

 

[momosir]

honestly most combat aircraft projects get into higher cost constantly, i am not surprised that the UK is going red on it but again the program won't stop because of this, i've seen some detractors of GCAP being like "oh no the UK will leave the program due to cost rising and it not being in budget" that won't happe, while another nation doesn't fully disclose the investment (or it does and i can't find it for the life of me) Italy isn't going to care either way, BAE and Leonardo worked together before and it's working well so far, i belive the program will end up well like Typhoon and i will be happy to have it with Japan and the UK, hopefully FCAS merges with us so we make a truly complete platform but knowing history i don't have too much hope anymore... at the same time i love both programs and i belive they'll be complete

All of Japan's budgets are publicly available.
The approved budget can be seen here. the total comes to 400.4 billion yen.

https://www.mod.go.jp/j/budget/yosan_gaiyo/index.html

and the actual amount spent can be seen on this site.

行政事業レビュー見える化サイト | RSシステム

政府が実施する予算事業や基金事業の情報のデータベースです。 事業の概要、成果目標や実績、支出先などを、関心・目的に応じて、自由に検索・閲覧できます。

rssystem.go.jp

Since the production of the prototype will start this year, a budget of 249,001,437,000 yen will be spent.

行政事業レビュー見える化サイト | RSシステム

政府が実施する予算事業や基金事業の情報のデータベースです。 事業の概要、成果目標や実績、支出先などを、関心・目的に応じて、自由に検索・閲覧できます。

rssystem.go.jp

 

[Mike Pryce]

The phrase is "conspiracy of optimism". If we're meant to be submitting 50% funding bids then half of the programmes should be under budget... But it sure doesn't seem that way.

I remember a NASA paper on cost forecasting that showed that the more important the programme, the more likely it was to be over budget

The more important it is the more management and political attention it gets.

Of course, they are always cost free!