At a strategic level, it’s accepted that Defence needs to change to keep pace with our adversaries, yet Defence’s own processes and structures could be perceived as actually working to delay, and at worst, prevent, the very change it is trying to achieve.
Examples include:
Defence posting cycles seem to favour the promise of change rather than encouraging the delivery of change. With new appointments come new ideas, new strategies and plans, which are rewarded; but there seem to be few incentives for seeing change through. As a result it strikes me that many of those working in Defence appear to be suffering from change fatigue, as plans for change appear to be in a regular state of flux.
Defence’s approach to finances and budgets, could also be regarded as obstacles to change. Traditionally Defence is judged on the size of its workforce and consequently there appears to be a bias towards spending on people and things. Unfortunately, this seems to reinforce traditional spending and could be said to discourage exploration of new ways of meeting Defence objectives, through for example, services and the benefits those can bring.
Finally, all of those working in Defence know that Multi-Domain Integration is a critical component of delivering on the Defence strategy. Yet, unlike in the corporate world, where budgets encourage the different departments to work together, Defence budgets seem to provide little incentive for the Defence Commands to work together for the common good. The Services are in effect competing with each other for resources, most acutely felt through the cycle of a strategic/integrated review every 5 years, but also in annual budgetary cycles. The resultant need for adjudication requires a deft hand from central staffs in MOD, and importantly from the Strategic Command as the “integrator” for Defence – but very much in need of the appropriate authorities over Single Services.
In my view, many of the challenges outlined above, could be resolved with the adoption of an overarching Enterprise Business Architecture – or in other words, a coherent overview.
Despite the existence of the Defence Operating Model, I’d suggest that a coherent overview of how the Defence Tasks drive the Defence Operating Model and structures, making use of the full range of Defence (and I mean ‘Big Defence’ here) capabilities (people, process and technology) would be an enabler for change. In an ideal world, Defence would develop an approach that enabled Defence capabilities to integrate in specific ways for each operational scenario/use case, rapidly reconfiguring in a dynamic environment by exploiting common service
In my view Defence should use industry-proven methodology of enterprise business architectures to drive this coherence. The word “architecture” in Defence is usually interpreted as a technology, but the technology architecture is subordinate to the business architecture that considers what we are trying to do with what services available: in effect the way to do strategy (which I define as the dynamic balancing of ends, ways and means). From my perspective, this approach would help develop a Defence that is flexible and agile, working together to not only respond to, but be pro-active in, a fast-moving defence environment.
Working as change consultants across Defence, we at Warner McCall, recognise the challenges that Jon raised during his interview. One point that particularly resonated when talking to him, was the need for what we call ‘strategic patience’ – for Defence to not only reward and incentivise ideas for change, but to stick with it, in order to realise the benefits that delivering change can bring.
As he suggests, one reason that change is not always achieved, is most likely down to the unnecessary friction caused by some of the existing processes and reward structures. It certainly feels as if removing these frictions would encourage Defence to see change through.
Like Jon, we also believe that Defence would benefit from, what he refers to as a “coherent overview” and what we refer to as strategic alignment – or more bluntly, more joined up thinking and action. In our opinion, change should ideally be seen as part of the strategic picture and be delivered in a more strategically aligned way.
Interested in learning more about our Change Strategy & Design, P3M and Technology Exploitation service offers, and how we can help you achieve change, then visit our Services page.
