The new strategy will
introduce an independent challenge function within National Defence that will
question the need for each major capability.
Greater consultation with
defence industry contractors before projects go out the door will be
encouraged. To this end National Defence will begin posting an annual list of
its equipment needs, beginning in June and the government will also become more
involved in steering Canadian defence contractors toward individual
procurements
The new system hopes to see
increased co-operation among Defence, Public Works and Industry officials under
an umbrella secretariat at Public Works.
The government has rejected
the idea of creating an independent military procurement board, as other
countries have done, and instead builds on existing structures and practices.
There is reason to believe
that no amount of tinkering with the mechanisms with which we buy military
equipment can lower the cost of buying that equipment. Reasons that may be
beyond the control of any government or organization it appoints.
One of the reasons is the
ever-increasing gulf between civilian and military technology, a gulf that
demands extra specialization on the part of engineers, equipment, and the workforce
building the hardware in question.
Another reason is that
military equipment, of all kinds, is designed to fight similar weapons systems
which encourages escalatory cycles. There is a rough form of evolution going on
here that sometimes means that only the expensive survive.
Another reason is that modern
military equipment is generally expected to fulfill multiple roles and packing
mission capabilities into a single package is another cause for increasing
costs.
It is also important to
remember that governments sometimes only pretend to care about the cost of military
purchases. Money spent on cost overruns for equipment doesn’t just disappear;
it gives defense contractors money and generates jobs across the country. Military
spending can also be used to favor specific communities and interest groups.
It is also true that
countries don’t simply buy advanced weapons systems “off the shelf,” as they
often come with long term deals for training, maintenance, and spare parts. Sometimes
what you are really buying is a political relationship and that can add to the
cost.
Social factors can also
affect the costs of military purchases. It is not uncommon to find that the
purchase of advanced military equipment is less about national defence than
national identity. Both civilian and military leaders tend to resent the idea that
others might own and operate more capable, advanced, and expensive equipment. Alternatively
those same leaders just want to have the best and newest, and in some cases
these feelings are an accurate reflection of the opinion of the populace.
In this case it is reported that “The Canadian military was defeated Wednesday
in the final battle of its years-long war with civilian bureaucrats over how
best to reform and control military procurement.” This is an example of Ottawa’s fixation with winners
and losers and it is unlikely that this “re-org” will have a great deal of effect
on the amount of input the military has historically had on major purchases.
In the final analysis it is
hard to believe that adding yet another layer to the bureaucracy of military
purchase will add any value to the process. It seems more likely to slow down
an already glacial process which in turn can only add to costs.
Military procurement changes
to bring more scrutiny, trade focus
Military defeated in war over
procurement reform
Control over military
procurement seized by Public Works' contract officials
