Integrated Project Teams: The MoD's New Hot Potato?

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Cranfield University]On: 12 August 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773511694]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The RUSI JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t777285713

Integrated project teams: The MoD's new hot potato?David Moore a; Peter Antill b

a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Defence Management & Security Analysis, Cranfield University, b

Research Assistant in the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis, Cranfield University,

Online Publication Date: 01 February 2000

To cite this Article Moore, David and Antill, Peter(2000)'Integrated project teams: The MoD's new hot potato?',The RUSIJournal,145:1,45 — 51

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03071840008446487

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071840008446487

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t777285713

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071840008446487

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

DEFENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAMS:

THE MoD's NEW HOT POTATO?

BY DAVID MOORE AND PETER ANTILL

'We trained hard . . . but it seemed that everytime we were beginning to form up into teamswe would be reorganised, [and] I was to learnlater in life that we tend to meet any new.situa-tion by reorganising: and what a wonderfulmethod it can be for creating the illusionof progress while producing confusion, ineffi-ciency and demoralisation.'1

'History knows many more armies ruined bywant and disorder than by the efforts of theirenemies.'2

With the end of the Cold War and collapseof the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, themonolithic threat to Western Europe

evaporated and many governments took the opportu-nity to gather a 'peace dividend' from the new situa-tion. This has meant the reduction of defencebudgets and the reallocation of those funds to otherareas of public spending. However, the 'New WorldOrder' has taken a direction which is rather differentfrom that forecast. Instead of the one major threat,there is now a multitude of smaller ones, which can-not be met with large conventional forces stationedon the Central Front, but will have to be counteredby smaller intervation forces capable of rapidprojection.

This reorientation, so far as the UK ArmedForces was concerned, was announced in theStrategic Defence Review (SDR), in July 1998. Italso recognised the need to do more with a smallerbudget, given the rate of defence inflation (which isgenerally above normal economic inflation). Facedwith criticism stretching back many years whichaccused the MoD of having an over-bureaucraticapproach to procurement,3 failing to prevent highdefence inflation and in-service date slippage, theSmart Procurement Initiative (SPI) was announcedas part of the SDR. It is hoped that these 'radicalchanges . . . will deliver a forward looking organi-

sation using up to date acquisition processes andprocedures. The emphasis will be on flexibility . . .and continuous evaluation to avoid any danger ofstagnation.'4 'Faster, better, cheaper'5 has becomethe new catch phrase for the supporters of changebut for others, the change in mindset is almost toobig to be practical. For them, SMART could be saidto stand for Same Methods Appearing RatherTrendy.

SPI involves a change from the previousDowney procurement cycle and a move to a morestreamlined Acquisition cycle. The structure of thiscycle aims to reduce risk by carrying out a morecomprehensive assessment of projects at an earlierstage, while streamlining the approval process.6

Formal approval has been reduced from three totwo occasions, the first time is during the conceptphase (Initial Gate) and between the assessmentand demonstration phases (Main Gate).

Central to the implementation of SPI is theintroduction of Integrated Project Teams (IPTs)which are part of the drive to move from a func-tionally based management and reporting structure,to a project based organisation. They will drivethe management of major defence equipment

David Moore is a SeniorLecturer in the Department ofDefence Management & SecurityAnalysis at Cranfield University,and co-director of the newAcquisition and Logistics Unit.

Peter Antill is a ResearchAssistant in the Department ofDefence Management andSecurity Analysis at CranfieldUniversity.

45

Downloaded By: [Cranfield University] At: 14:43 12 August 2009


procurement, balance the trade-offs between per-formance, cost and time, within boundaries set bythe approving authority. IPTs will bring together alldefence stakeholders and industry under a singleteam leader. They will be responsible for thecomplete lifecycle of the piece of equipment, andonce in service, will move from what was theProcurement Executive (PE), now the DefenceProcurement Agency (DPA), to the Defence Logis-tics Organisation (DLO) where they will manageequipment support.

Since the announcement of Smart Procure-ment, much has been written on the potentialbenefits that IPTs will hopefully bring. It issupposed that they will improvethe interface with industry,create a better understanding ofrequirements and establish anenvironment where industry ismotivated to perform7 and soreduce cost, risk and time intoservice while improving prod-uct quality. The formation of ateam should provide continuity,consistency, flexibility and ~

increased performance due tothe integration of a wide-range of functional activ-ities and decision-making, as well as increasedmotivation. These may well be gallant objectives,but how achievable are they? What obstacles doesthe MoD face in the implementation of the IPTs?Have they grasped a 'hot potato'?

A NOT-SO-NEW, NEW IDEA

IPTs have been described as the 'centrepiece ofSmart Procurement'8 which itself has beendescribed as a 'revolution and complete culturalchange in MoD procurement'.9 Many of the initia-tives in Smart Procurement may well be revolution-ary, but IPTs themselves are not a new idea. The USDoD adopted the concept in 1995 and introducedIPTs, which consisted of 'everyone with a stake inthe outcome or product of the team, including thecustomer and suppliers'.10 Also, the Society ofBritish Aerospace Companies (SBAC) states thatIPTs have been an integral part of the aerospaceindustry for the past five years. They refer to themas 'cells of individuals, whose skills span thedesign, development, manufacture and through-lifeaspects of a platform or weapon system' and main-tain that IPTs are key elements wherever leanmanufacturing is practised.J l

. . . IPTs will make itharder to strike abalance between

and competition . . .

Similar thinking was expressed in the 1983'Value for Money' paper, where the Governmentrecognised the need for improved managementpractices and 'sharing the risks and costs, throughinternational collaboration and/or joint ventureswith industry'.12 These ideas have been knownvariously as Integrated Procurement ManagementTeams, matrix resourcing or Multi DisciplinaryGroups.13 However, they were organised alongfunctional lines, and according to McKinsey,characterised by an arms-length relationshipbetween the MoD and contractors. This in turninhibited the full exchange of information, therebypreventing effective problem solving.14 IPTs could

be viewed as another namein what is currently goodmanagement practice. TheChallenger 2 project teamfor example, maintains analmost daily contact withtheir opposite numbers in

industry par t i c ipat ion industry at Project Managerlevel.15 In terms of in-servicesupport there are cases whereMoD and industry teamsare closely integrated, one

example being the joint RN and contractor projectteams established at Devonport Dockyard to man-age surface ship and submarine refits.

INDUSTRY: COMPETITION,PARTICIPATION AND PARTNERSHIP

Even after Smart Procurement, competition remainsthe MoD's primary tool for achieving value formoney in defence contracts. Industry participation inthe IPTs will vary according to where in the decisioncycle the project is and according to the competitivesituation of each phase.16 Industry may be involvedin one of two ways. Firstly, through the participationof selected individuals from potential prime or sub-contractors and secondly through secondment of anindividual who is not from a potential supplier to theproject. In the second ease, it would be possible forthat individual to be appointed team leader.17 Theintroduction of IPTs will make it harder to strike abalance between industry participation and competi-tion, and this may well be difficult to achieve inpractice, despite what the Smart Procurement docu-mentation says.

IPTs will form during the concept phase whereit is quite likely that industry will be 'coopted' onto a team, rather than being a full member. This is

46



because several companies would be involved inproviding solutions as part of the User RequirementDocument (URD) process.18 It is here that the firstproblem of competition is apparent. In order to pro-duce an effective URD, the MoD requires industryto comment on aspects such as target costs, timescales and performance. Contractors will be loatheto pass on information that they feel will give arival an advantage downstream. This will be evenmore apparent if more than one company has been'coopted' into the project prior to the announce-ment of a prime contractor. At the same time, SmartProcurement expects industry to be more willing torelease data, than they have in the past.19 Apartfrom stating that IPT leaders will have to makearrangements to ensure that commerically sensitiveinformation is protected from competitors, there islittle advice on how this might be undertaken.

Once the competition has been launched byInvitation to Tender (ITT), the companies' 'co-

opted' membership of the IPT will be temporarilysuspended. Contributions made by contractors dur-ing the previous phase would however, be takeninto account during the selection process. There is afear that this process will not generate fair competi-tion. The MoD could be accused at first glance ofusing the 'carrot' of favouritism during selection asan incentive to contractors to share informationduring the URD phase. Furthermore, how can thisbe fair to a contractor who joins at the ITT phasewithout having been a 'co-opted' member?

Smart Procurement will see the introductionof a segmented approach to acquisition. There willbe three tiers: low risk and unit cost items, minorprojects of intermediate scale and technical risk,and major projects characterised by substantial riskand high unit cost.20 It is the latter tier that hasreceived most of the attention so far, and provided anumber of the IPT pilot projects announced underSmart Procurement. IPTs will be formed for Tier 2

The Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank - already supported by good management practice (Photo courtesy of BritishArmy Photo Library).

47



projects as well, but will be capability based, andresponsible for more than one project. As an ex-ample, the Land Systems section of the DPA estab-lished a Dismounted Close Combat (DCC) IPTresponsible for fifty-two projects.21 In this sort ofsituation, it will be difficult to manage contractorparticipation whilst guaranteeing no party gains acompetitive advantage. This view has been takenby the DPA, who suggest that multiple equipmentIPTs will work for Commercial Off The Shelf(COTS) procurement but not developmental oneswhere developers are reluctant to pass on techno-logical information.22

Additionally, while there is no intention in the.SDR to return to the cosy world of cost plusarrangements, post-main production contract part-nering seeks an environment where participantsrecognise common goals and work towards themcreating a 'win-win' situation. This approach couldinvite accusations of mediocrity. The DPA IPT.members will be conscious of their responsibilityfor prudent management of the public purse, whileindustry members will feel a responsibility towardstheir shareholders. There is a danger that a 'com-pany knowing that it has an established close rela-tionship with government may lose some of theleanness it has developed in the search for value for •money'.23 While there may. well be a middleground, human nature doesn't always naturallyseek it, and when the necessity to cut costs isremoved, inefficiencies may develop. In order toavoid this, both sides must remain convinced as tothe benefits of partnership, and contracts must bestructured so as to allow industry to benefit fromefficiencies achieved. In the longer term, partneringpost-contract must support the ongoing viability ofboth IPTs and industry. The IPTs need to supportthe equipment through its life, at acceptable cost,and industry must remain profitable to survive.

This is an area that must have further work.Industry must remain motivated, so that it will entera dialogue with the MoD during the early stages ofa project, so it can gauge requirements quickly andaccurately. If this is not achieved, it is unlikely thatequipment will be delivered on time, to specifica-tion or budget, and it will appear that the newprocurement system is no better than the last.

ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

There are a number of organisational issues thatneed to be addressed with regard to IPTs. One ofthe major criticisms of previous efforts was the dis-

continuity and confusion arising out of the regularturnover of staff and rotation of roles.24 If the MoDis not careful, IPTs may repeat this mistake. WhilstSmart Procurement rightly acknowledges the needfor the team to stay in post for four to five years, lit-tle attention is paid for the necessity for continuityin the rest of the team as well. McKinsey actuallyhighlighted the need for the Operational Require-ment (OR) or Capability Managers to stay in postfor even longer,25 but no reference can be found asto the need to adjust military or civil service tourlengths.

The subject of the MoD 'ownership' of IPTs isrife with confusion. The main purpose of an IPT isto manage the whole lifecycle of a product that willmove from Chief of Defence Procurement (CDP)to Chief of Defence Logistics (CDL) once theequipment is in service. The detail of the transferprocess is yet to be resolved. Consequently, there istalk of running parallel project teams withinDLO.26 This is obviously contrary to the 'lean'intent of Smart Procurement. Additionally, it isunclear where the new IPTs will sit- inthe new MoD hierarchy. Smart Procurement sees theeventual creation of a central defence customer,the Capability Manager (CM) whose relationshipwith IPTs is seen as 'critical to achieving the fullpotential of Smart Procurement'.27 However, at thisstage, DPA staff are unsure as to who will own IPTsin the future.28

Integration of internal stakeholders is essentialto the IPTs success. Early signs have been that thismay not always be possible. The OR branch is notcapable of meeting its membership commitmentsand of the twenty-five IPTs within the DPA LandSystems section, at the last count, only seven hadOR representation.29 To enhance stakeholder inte-gration IPT leaders are empowered to considercolocating core members.30 This however will bedifficult as the three major internal stakeholders(Capability Manager, DPA and DLO) occupy threesits separated by between 50 and 120 miles.

CULTURE AND TRAINING -CONVERTING THE DINOSAUR

The creation of IPTs will mean people comingtogether from different organisational and businesscultures. IPTs will have to overcome differences inpublic and private sector organisations as 'the for-mer has a need to spend money legally, whereas incommerce it must be spent efficiently'.31 A tooclose relationship could see profit orientated com-

48



The introductionof an acquisitionstream for bothmilitary and civilian

a previously unseenprofessionalism tothe process.

panies exploiting the government by charging asmuch as possible. Industry tends to be less averse torisk than the MoD and responsibility and authorityare usually devolved to lower levels as well. Cul-ture differences can be illustrated by the fact thatsome industrialists are yet to be convinced of themerits of Smart Procurement, in that the chairmanof SBAC commented that 'our main' worry is thatSmart Procurement is full of good ideas, but willthey ever be exercised'.32 Industry and the MoDoperate different reward philosophies, which willbe a barrier to cohesion. A good year for a civil ser-vant or military officer meansa favourable personnel report,for an industrial executive it isa hefty payoff in a profit relat-ed pay scheme.33 These differ-ences will have to be carefullymanaged, if team cohesion isnot to suffer. , . n 1 •

IPTS will represent a shift p e r s o n n e l wil l b r ingfrom current procedures and itis inevitable that there will besome resistance to that change.According to US Loral FederalSystems (who published tenlessons learned from operatingIntegrated Product Teams) resistance to implemen-tation is a major obstacle to success. In their opin-ion, overcoming the resistance means people must'understand the concepts, see the benefit to the pro-ject and understand the changes to their role'.34

Strong leadership and change management areessential for IPTs to succeed.

It has been written that 'no great improve-ments in the lot of mankind are possible until greatchange takes place in the fundamental constitutionof their modes of thought.'35 The 1990s have seensubstantial upheavals in the defence arena, andalthough Smart Procurement is not necessarily rad-ical, it is being imposed on a traditionally conserva-tive body. Commercially, value for money throughthe medium of competition has been the main dri-ver for the PE since the 1970s. Those involved haveseen themselves in personal competition with bothother MoD employees and industry. This adversari-al relationship was accentuated by the lack ofaccountability and delegated authority.36 In short,for most PE employees, there has been little in-centive to achieve a closer relationship with OR,the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency(DERA), or industry. Taken from an outside view-point, the rationale for reform' is undeniable, but it

is the people from each constituent body that willmake the IPTs work, and thus it is those people whomust be convinced of the real benefit of change.

The answer is not an obvious one though, anda workforce does not tend to accept change easily.Many civil servants who have been in their job along time, are being asked to give up security forflexible employment, potential location changesand a more complex working environment. IPTsare about coordination and empowerment, whichcould, however, be used as a reward. Potentially,those reluctant to change may be sidelined whilst

the proactive are pushed for-ward to develop their careers.Fundamental to this processof change are education, lead-ership, the commitment ofsenior management, and athoughtful personnel policy.

In this vein, it is encour-aging to note the recognitionthat the skills needed in pro-curement can no longer beacquired by either osmosis orexperience. The IPT PilotGuide 4th edition and sup^porting information37 outlines

a series of core capabilities that are expected of IPTleaders and their teams, and a comprehensive train-ing programme in both technical and team commu-nication skills is intended. Additionally, innovativeproposals for the establishment of CommercialExternal and MoD Internal consultants, will domuch to set a solid foundation for an effective man-agement structure.

To work effectively, the DPA must attract andpromote the highest quality personnel. Up untilnow, while a few civil servants have made a careerfrom procurement, most senior managers havemoved between the PE, MoD HQ and possiblyDERA. For the military, procurement specialisationis a rarity (compared with logistics). The introduc-tion of an acquisition stream38 for both military andcivilian personnel will bring a previously unseenprofessionalism to the process. Unfortunately, forthe military, it is probable that acquisition willremain a second choice career path and what is truefor the government, is also true for industry. In thecase of secondment to IPTs, industry will probablyprovide their best people when they see it as in theirbest interest to do so. As regards the competition tolead teams, the situation is more complex. Recruit1

ment form the commercial sector will be dependent

49



not only on job satisfaction and long term benefit,but also on financial reward and flexible contract-ing, not normally present for public employees.The IPT Pilot Guide provides the capability to pay •bonuses for exceptional performance but pitchingthem at a suitable level and paying realistic basesalaries will be difficult issues.

SOME FURTHER OBSTACLES

'Faster, cheaper and better' has become the sloganfor Smart Procurement, and for IPTs to succeedthey must achieve this objective as a minimum. It isimportant to note that the MoD does not itself seethe IPTs as a guarantee of success. They state that'success will depend on the calibre of the teamleader and their authority, both within the team andthe quality of relations with industry and the cus-tomer'.39 In such an environment of uncertainty,how can IPTs be expected to achieve the aim ofSmart Procurement?

It can be argued that the ability of IPTs toreduce costs in the short term is limited because somany projects are already advanced and set in their •ways.40 Around twenty-five per cent of the projectscovered by the 1997 NAO Major Projects Reportaccounted for some fifty per cent of the annual pro-curement budget. The integration of current projectsis an area that must be addressed.41 A poor per-formance from an existing non-IPT project thatattracts criticism from the NAO has the potential toundo all the good work of the IPT pilot pro- •grammes.

Critics of Smart Procurement argue that thesuccess of IPTs will be hindered by the lack ofinvestment. These reforms have emerged in an erawhere the defence budget remains flat and unitcosts of defence equipment maintain a rise ofaround 10 per cent a year.42 To this must be addedthe probability that IPTs will require a greaterinvestment and rigour at the front end of the acqui-sition process in order to ensure capability specifi-cations are met.43

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, following years of criticism, the MoD •is attempting to modernise and update its procure-ment system. Central to these measures is the intro-duction of Integrated Project Teams that bringtogether all the stakeholders. In the course of this,much has been said about the potential benefits ofIPTs, but little about their limitations.

So, what factors will the MoD have to con-sider, if they are not to get their fingers burnt bythe new 'hot potato' that are IPTs?Stakeholder Co-location - If one accepts thatstakeholders should be housed together if IPTsare to stand the best chance of success,45 thenit follows that IPT leaders must have the abil-ity to colocate stakeholders. At the moment themain internal stakeholders are geographicallyseparated and, in the case of OR, cannot fulfilall their IPT commitments. There is an urgentneed for internal stakeholders to be broughttogether on one side. While some elements ofOR may join the DPA at Abbey wood, toimprove the chances of the IPTs success andgive industry a single point of contactthroughout the whole lifecycle of the project,DLO must join. If the site at Abbeywood isunsuitable, then an alternative site should befound. Eventually, both DLO and DPA couldmerge (along with their respective organisa-tions) to create a Defence Support Agency(Materiel) or similar.

Information Technology - If it is not possibleto overcome geographic separation, IT andEDI must be exploited to the full to bringstakeholders together within a common elec-tronic network. All parties, including industry,must have the ability to exchange informationover an Internet, which must also have theability to hold online conferences.Training and education - This is essential forall stakeholders, so that cultural barriers canbe broken down. The Smart Procurement doc-umentation discussed the introduction of anAcquisition Stream with 'career paths and anendurable culture of change'.46 For this towork, continuity must be provided to all posts,not just the team leader's, and the team leadermust be able to adjust tour lengths at their dis-cretion. Personnel must be thoroughly trainedin IPT practices. Smart Procurement proposespersonnel attend training modules at the timeof appointment and at various stages of a pro-ject according to individual need.47 An IPTtraining strategy is required urgently.Rewards - To offset the differences in MoDand military remuneration, there is a need tointroduce some form of reward scheme forcivil servants and military officers. At thesame time,, incentives should be introduced toreward successful IPT performance. Sugges-tions proposed under Smart Procurement

50



include performance-related bonuses and'shares' in an IPT terminal bonus.

• Industry Support - In order to ensure IPT suc-cess, industry must be motivated to cooperatefully in the IPT process. Without their fullsupport, IPTs will fail to improve the currentprocurement system. It is possible that thiscould be achieved through a combination offinancial and non-financial methods. The for-mer would include milestone payments andthe offer of a completion bonus if the projectwas completed on or ahead of schedule,to budget and specification. Non-financialmethods would be aimed at breaking downsome of the cultural barriers and wouldinclude the involvement of industry in IPTtraining and education. The US DoD hasfound that IPTs work better when contractorshave an established IPT system.48 The exis-tence of an IPT culture within a contractorshould be included as a selection criterion.

• Independent Regulator - The appointment ofan independent regulator would protect theMoD from the risk of exploitation by singlesource suppliers. This idea has already beenmooted, and the regulator would have thesame role as Oftel in regards public telecom-munications and BT.49 A supervisory role dur-ing the concept phase of the Acquisition Cycleshould be added as well as this would protectthe MoD from accusations of unfair competi-tion when more than one company is 'co-opted' into an IPT. It may also give potentialcustomers the confidence to share infor-mation, without fear of rivals gaining anadvantage. •

NOTES

1. Petronius, Arbiter, Greek Navy, 210 BC.2. Richelieu in Van Creveld, Martin. Supplying War, (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), p. 17.3. See for example Kincaid, Bill. 'SMART Procurement: Revolu-tion or Retrogression?', Conference on Managing the Revolutionin Military Affairs, RMCS Shrivenham, 11 November 1998 and ADinosaur in Whitehall. (Brassey's, 1997).4. Ministry of Defence. Strategic Defence Review, Cm3999, 10July 1998, Supporting Essay 10, paragraph 6.5. Ministry of Defence. Strategic Defence Review, Cm3999, 10July 1998, Chapter 8, paragraph 161.6. Jdir, C A. 'Strategically Smart: UK's ticket to future cuts',Jane's Defence Industry Report, 1 July 1998, p. 7.7. See DPA Web Site, 'Take your Partners: Partnering arrange-ments between MoD and its Suppliers', http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/aw0199.htm. Galloway, Iain. 'Private finance comes ofage'. Defence Procurement Analysis, Autumn 1998, pp. 17-19.Financial Times Survey, 'Private Finance Initiative', December 111998.

8. Nolan A. 'MoD dream teams on trial in flagship projects',Supply Management, Volume 3, Issue 22, 5 November 1998,p. 14.9. Cook, N. 'Smart Moves', Jane's Defence Weekly, 9 September1998. Comment attributable to the Chief of Defence Procurement,Sir Robert Walmsley.10. US DoD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. IntegratedProduct and Process Development, 5 February 1996, p.2.11. Op Cit. Cook, N.12. Pattie, G. Minister of State for Defence Procurement. 'Valuefor Money in Defence Equipment Procurement', Defence OpenGovernment Document, October 1983, Section II, p. 5.13. Ministry of Defence. 'Smart Procurement: The Integrated Pro-ject Team', http://www.mod.uk/policy/smart/ipt.htm, p. 2.14. McKinsey and Company. Transforming the UK's DefenceProcurement System. Final Report, 20 February 1998, p. 1.15. Inglis, B. 'Challenger 2 Project', Presentation to 13 MDA,MoD(PE) Abbeywood, 8 March 1999.16. Ministry of Defence. 'Smart Procurement: The Role of Indus-try', http://www.mod.uk/policy/smart/industry.htm, p. 2.17. Ibid. p. 3.18. Ibid. p. 4.19. Ibid.20. Ministry of Defence. Strategic Defence Review, Cm3999, 10July 1998, Supporting Essay 10, paragraph 11.21. Brown, D. 'Dismounted Close Combat IPT', Presentation to13 MDA, MoD(PE) Abbeywood, 8 March 1999.22. Hudson, D. 'Introduction to MoD(PE)/DPA and Smart Pro-curement', Presentation to 13 MDA, MoD(PE) Abbeywood, 8March 1999.23. Taylor, Professor T. 'Smart Procurement and the Partnershipwith Industry', RUSI Journal, April 1998, pp. 41-46.24. Op Cit. McKinsey and Company, p. 11.25. Ibid.26. Op Cit. Hudson.27. Ministry of Defence. 'Smart Procurement: The CustomerSupplier Relationship', http://www.mod.uk/policy/smart/customer.htm, p. 1.28. Op Cit. Hudson.29. Ibid.30. Op Cit. Smart Procurement: The Integrated Project Team, p. 3.31. Op Cit. Taylor, Prof. T. p. 41.32. Op Cit. Cook, N.33. Ibid.34. Popick, P R and Shead, S A. 'Ten Lessons Learned fromImplementing Integrated Product Teams', http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1996/Jultenlesso.htm.35. Mill, J S. Autobiography. 1873, Chapter 7.36. Kincaid, Bill. 'Smart Procurement for Jurassic Park', RUSIJournal, December 1997, pp. 14-17.37. IPT Pilot Guide Edition 4, 19 January 1999 - Personnel andTraining Model and Smart Procurement Implementation TeamInformation Pack for Integrated Project Team Leader Candidates,February 1998.38. Ministry of Defence. Strategic Defence Review, Cm3999, 10July 1998, Supporting Essay 10, paragraph 25.39. Op Cit. Smart Procurement: The Integrated Project Team, p. 1.40. Op Cit. Taylor, Prof. T. p. 41.41. Ibid. p. 46.42. Ibid. p. 41.43. Smith, K. 'What should Smart Procurement be?', RUSI Jour-nal, April 1998, pp. 37-40.44. Fleming, Q W. 'Integrated Project Development Teams:Another Fad . . . or a Permanent Change?', Project Manage-ment Journal, Volume 28, Number 1, 1997, pp. 4-11.45. Ministry of Defence. 'Smart Procurement, Personnel andTraining', http://www. mod.uk/policy/smart/personal.htm. p. 1.46. Ibid. pp.2-3.47. Op Cit. US DoD, p. 11.48. Op Cit. Taylor, Prof. T. p. 42.

51


Documents

Integrated Project Teams: The MoD's New Hot Potato?