Conroy must define ‘the system’ Defence says it will fix

Dear Editor,

Pat Conroy says Defence workers were let down by “the system”.

Fair enough.

But ‘system’ is a slippery word. To one person it means committees. To another, requirements, approvals, risk, costings or contractors.

Unless Conroy defines it, “the system” becomes another place for responsibility to hide.

Defence is already world-class at three-letter and four-letter acronyms. A new Defence Delivery Group may tidy the chart, but it will not deliver capability unless it changes the machinery underneath.

I saw this from the industry side during the Defence Materiel Organisation years.

Projects of Concern could make troubled projects look like contractor failure, even when many problems were rooted inside Defence itself.

Conroy has named the system.

Now he has to name what failed.

Sailors, soldiers and aviators need capability, not committee minutes.

I expand on this argument at markcroxford.net/read

Regards,

Mark Croxford
20-year Navy veteran and
former political and media adviser to a former Minister for Defence Personnel

.

.


.


.