Report of the Review of the Safety and Functionality of HMNZS Canterbury
Part 3 – The Way Ahead
- In this report we have made a series of recommendations on project management and governance based on lessons from HMNZS CANTERBURY’s acquisition and introduction into service, provided an assessment of the safety and functionality of HMNZS CANTERBURY and recommended areas of safety and functionality that should be addressed. In this final section of the report we consider the way ahead.
- It is important that the issues arising from this review are gripped and taken forward in a treatment phase or “get well” programme. We suggest that it is also important in the light of concerns about HMNZS CANTERBURY that effective action is seen to be taken.
- We envisage three work streams; - a Governance work stream, a HMNZS CANTERBURY “Get Well Team” and a HMNZS CANTERBURY Strategy Team. These activities should be led by competent officials, fully resourced, with clear programmes of work, and reporting to senior MoD/NZDF management.
Governance
- The purpose of the Governance work stream would be to ensure the implementation of all accepted recommendations in section 1. It should be led by a nominated senior official assisted by Dep Sec (A) and AC Dev. We suggest that duration of 12 weeks should be adequate for the implementation of most recommendations. Guidance could be provided as necessary by VCDF and Dep (Sec) (P&P) with a final report to CDF and Sec Def on the completion of its work.
HMNZS CANTERBURY Get Well Team
- The purpose of this team would be to develop and implement solutions to achieve the functionality of the HMNZS CANTERBURY. The work of this team should be conducted with the Warranty claim in mind i.e. to do minimum necessary to improve HMNZS CANTERBURY’s ability to meet the Functional Performance Specification. It should be seen as the MoD taking action equivalent to purchasing in default.
- The team would address the issues below; a number of which are currently being actively pursued under the warranty claim:
- Boats
- Alcoves
- LCMs
- Propulsion chain
- Re-certification, if any is required.
- Aviation facilities
- RAS arrangements
- Ship/shore transfer system
- Ballast requirements
- Advice on sea keeping/patrol patterns
It could also take the ship through to full operational capability and, in effect, be the Scheduling Authority.
We suggest that the team should be provided with a provisional budget e.g. a ceiling of NZ$20M, tasked with defining the financial requirement in greater detail and set 12 months to complete its work. The team would report to CDF and Sec Def jointly.
We have considered where the team might be placed in the NZDF/MoD organisation. On balance, we feel that it should ideally stand outside the Navy, who might be felt to have an interest in going beyond the FPS, and also outside the current Protector team which some may feel would be overly influenced by its own past decision-making on the project. In view of the need for close association with the finalisation of Project Protector and the resolution of the warranty claim, we suggest a stand-alone team, located in the Acquisition branch, albeit reporting directly to CDF and Sec Def.
Strategy
The purpose of this work stream would be to develop a strategy for moving forward with Tenix on HMNZS CANTERBURY in the context of the Protector. It would need to consider the warranty claim, the additional costs being incurred as part of the Get Well Programme, Tenix’s motivations and the future relationship which the New Zealand Government may wish to have with the company’s new owners – BAE Systems - given the need to support Protector ships once in-service.
We see this team comprising 2-3 individuals at about one star level or with that potential. One would need to be person who would eventually lead the negotiations with Tenix. Initially, the work would be of a short duration e.g. 5-6 weeks, to provide a strategy for MoD/Crown negotiators to employ with Tenix.
Recommendation:
- That work streams be set up to implement the project management/governance recommendations in this report; implement a HMNZS CANTERBURY Get Well Programme, and develop a strategy for moving forward with Tenix.
List of Annexes
Annex A – Terms of Reference
Annex B – List of those interviewed (not included)
Annex C – MRV Key Events
Annex D – Summary of Analysis of Functional Performance Specification
