Collaborative Business Relationships Case Study
The Royal Australian Air Force F-111
Mission Simulator project:
A greenfield journey into capability development using principles of high performing relationships
A Report Authored by Dr Ian Faulconbridge and Dr Robert Holmes
Introduction
For Flying Officer Ian Faulconbridge, based at Number 501 Wing, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley in the early 1990s, the story of collaboration between industry and Defence is also a personal story about leadership, trust and team development. Ian was appointed as the Officer in Charge of the original F-111C Mission Simulator facility. On his desk sat requests from Squadron Leader Geoff Northam, from Materiel Division Air Force (MATDIV-AF) to review project documents including the draft contract and specification for the new F-111C Mission Simulator. Those reviews would shortly become a series of tender evaluations for the new simulator; an extended acquisition activity based out of Canberra.
What would happen from here surprised Ian. In short order the Directorate of Postings Officers – Air Force started looking for candidates within the future Project AIR5208 (F-111C Mission Simulator) Office in MATDIV-AF. The engineering position in that team required an electrical engineer with F-111 aircraft and simulator experience who was also familiar with MATDIV-AF engineering processes including draft contracts, specifications, and tender evaluations. Ian was the only RAAF engineer in the country at the time who met those requirements. He was offered the position of Resident Simulator Engineer and remained on that project for three years following contract signature.
His new boss, Squadron Leader Bob Reid was Resident Simulator Project Manager on Project AIR5208. Bob demonstrated trust in his team leaders and encouraged them to make engineering decisions to the full extent of their design authority. Bob would routinely seek and act on advice from his team. When things went wrong, he would accept responsibility, but when things went well, he was quick to point out that it was a result of the work of others. Bob, in this story, is an exemplar leader who lived and breathed collaboration in very practical ways. Major projects such as this one face plenty of challenges, and once trust is built decisions can be made with imperfect and incomplete information.
Project background
The RAAF has used simulators for flight and mission training for more than 70 years, beginning with the famous Link Trainer (or Blue Box), used for basic instrument flight familiarisation. Simulators continue to play a crucial aviation training role in the Australian Defence Force today, providing personnel with training and practice by reproducing the behaviour of operational equipment. Simulation enables specific training objectives to be met with fewer people, in smarter ways, with greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and without damaging the environment or unnecessarily risking the safety of operating personnel. Simulators improve training and help extend the life of type of major capital equipment which cost many billions of dollars.
In the aviation context simulators yield the following significant benefits:
- increased efficiency as training is not subject to weather conditions or aircraft availability;
- increased flying safety;
- extended life of type of expensive, long lead-time equipment;
- lower training costs; and
- reduction in operational and environmental disturbance
Between 1960-1988 the Australian Defence Organisation spent $1 billion acquiring simulators for training purposes. Between 1988 and 1998 they spent a further $1.1 billion.[1] The F-111 Mission Simulator project in the 1990s was a major capital equipment project that was part of the F-111C Avionics Upgrade Program (AUP), managed by the then MATDIV-AF. This program delivered an upgrade to the General Dynamics F-111C aircraft which had been in service with the RAAF since 1973.
The simulator project was challenging and had plenty of risks. The selected contractor, Wormald Advanced Systems Engineering, had never designed or built an aircraft simulator before the simulator was to be designed against an aircraft baseline that was yet to be finalised. This simulator featured a complex tactical environment simulation and an Australian developed Image Generator that relied on 200,000 square nautical miles of digital terrain data. The data required for the simulator databases did not exist. Added to this, the RAAF resident team had almost no major project experience. Despite this lack of experience within the Australian context, the project was a success.
The approach
The project was stood up under established contracting arrangements. That is, the legal instrument under which the collaboration took place and from which the benefits were gained was the same as everywhere else. Nowadays, especially in the UK, there are specialist contract instruments that enable collaboration. In the construction industry especially, they have the NEC-4 suite for example. There is also now an International Standard for Collaboration (ISO 44001) that gives guidelines, process and direction to establish and sustain the collaboration effort.
However, many within the Defence environment had been raised with a very different culture of command and control. Customer teams fall into the habit of taking on a “policeman” role and treating contractors with a lack of trust and respect, sometimes bordering on disdain. This now seems to be the default position in some organisations and is passed onto junior members as they join the team, being perpetuated as normal behaviour.
It takes leadership on both sides to establish and maintain an environment of mutual respect and teamwork. Inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour needs to be corrected. Here is one example of such a culture correction:
The RAAF design required collection, collation and cleaning of data upon which to base the simulator design. The contract made it clear that the contractor (not the RAAF) was responsible for collection of the design data. However, Bob simply asked Ian to do it (much to his annoyance). They discussed it, but in the end Ian was able to provide the data very quickly, being familiar with the RAAF processes that needed to be followed to request the data, move and secure it in the facility.
Bob asked if Ian had reflected on why he had made that request (instead of leaving it to the contractor). Bob explained that the contractor personnel were all working hard to make the project a success, but they were not very familiar with RAAF processes. To source the data they needed, they would pull people off their design tasks who would then take a long time to familiarise themselves with the RAAF data request process. This didn’t make sense. This was a prime opportunity to help, and for Defence to create an environment where the project could succeed, save time and create contingency in the project schedule.
The RAAF also provided extended access to technical personnel who were F-111 system subject matter experts, to accelerate the contractor’s learning process. These people remained part of the RAAF organisation but worked to help the contractor navigate complex systems. Contractor personnel were also encouraged to visit RAAF Amberley to meet and talk to the end-user community.
Contractor personnel developed an appreciation of the importance of the work they were doing and that their work was valuable and contributed to the mission outcomes. Their work was going to make a real difference and directly support the mission critical outcome. As a result, they not only lent into the project, and often worked beyond the required (contracted) hours, they also adopted a collaborative approach to design, costing and implementation.
On the ground there was a one team approach. Contractors and Defence personnel worked side by side. There was a sense of one team developed by combined project meetings and a constant “one team” approach. The collaborative culture went well beyond technical and practical.
The Defence team also extended the one team approach to the social context with contractor personnel attending RAAF-style dining-in-nights. The blended Defence-Contractor team routinely socialised together, which helped to instil a sense of belonging to a team who were pulling in the same direction.
Showing appreciation for collaboration in concrete ways RAAF demonstrated continuously a clear interest and commitment to the project well beyond the resident project office team. On two occasions during the project, F-111 aircraft were tasked to carry out maritime strike training missions with the Royal Australian Navy near Sydney. On both occasions, the aircrew and RAAF air traffic controllers worked with the RAAF project office to organise a low-level pass off Long-reef Point at Collaroy near the Wormald facility. At the prescribed time, contractors and the RAAF project office went to Long-reef Point and watched an F-111 undertake a low-level pass. An aircraft this size travelling at high speed and at low-level is a “whole of body experience” and in this situation, made a huge positive impact on the contractors who had never seen an F-111 before.
On another occasion, the contractors requested an example of the infrared video, cross hairs, and alpha-numeric characters produced by the Pave Tack targeting pod on the F-111. The example data provided to the contractor was taken by an F-111 flying over the Wormald facility in Sydney with cross hairs on the office windows. RAAF demonstrated in a special way just how important Wormald’s work was to them, and this was not lost on the contractor personnel.
Measuring success
“The projects examined demonstrated the advantages of regular face-to-face communications between appropriately qualified and experienced project staff and the contractors involved.”
ANAO Audit of Acquisition of Aerospace Simulators, pg 14
The way Bob saw it, once the contractor had won the bid, they were part of the team. There was only one project, and one budget… one timeframe with deliverables that all must get after. This required both parties to adopt a collaborative approach to their work. For the RAAF team it meant bringing the contractors in on RAAF decision making, including budget and risk considerations. For the contractor team it meant buying into the overall project, timeframes and budget as if they were the owners – and acting in the project’s best interest. This approach produced:
- The Accelerated delivery of project milestones
- De-risking critical path processes
- Managed risk for project failure
- The project was delivered to an acceptable cost and schedule and to the standard required by the capability managers.
In terms of capability uplift for the RAAF and its pilots, the ANAO audit of this project concluded, “The F-111C simulator acquisition resulted in a significantly enhanced mission training capability for the Strike Reconnaissance Group aircrews.”
Lessons learned
During this three-year development project, it was clear to the key leaders that when contract language does not support the intent of a relationship, friction can and does occur when one partner “gains” at the other partner’s expense. This misalignment can be felt, even when the project team itself collaborates, and shows up in other parts of the supply chain, in the risk management team or in procurement (contract management). This misalignment creates a risk that the contract could be used to the detriment of the whole enterprise.
The Project AIR5208 leadership team followed the existing contractual guidelines, but not in an adversarial manner. Their mantra became “contracts are tools not weapons.” A similar sentiment is captured in the saying, “You don’t need a contract when you have a relationship.”
While adopting relational contracting practices can yield tremendous results, the results are only as strong as the leaders and their willingness to follow the behaviours outlined in the Foundational Charter.
About the authors
Dr Ian Faulconbridge has over 30 years of applied experience in the engineering and management of complex, technical systems. His experience spans both public and private organisations, a range of different industries and sectors, in both Australia and overseas. He specialises in the early stages of the system lifecycle, working with stakeholders to: articulate business needs and requirements; define and specify the required capability; and develop realistic and workable technical concepts, strategies and business cases to solve customers’ problems.
Dr Robert Holmes is the Senior Director of Consulting at Providence. He is an expert in human behaviour, transformational consulting and change management. His career spans work with federal and state government, large public firms and for purpose entities. His focus is on strategic advice, delivered through practical solutions that solve complex problems. He is an active member of the communities of practice for behavioural insights, neurodiversity, coaching and change management.
[1] Acquisition of Aerospace Simulators (anao.gov.au), pg 11
