---

Defence Transports and Movements Executive

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (a) those targets of the Defence Transports and Movements Executive for 1998-99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999-2000; and if he will make a statement. [111756]

Dr. Moonie: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

Letter from P. T. W. Leaning to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:

I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about the targets for the Defence Transport and Movements Executive, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility, being the Chief Executive of the Agency which replaced the former DTMX in April 1999.

It is pleasing to report that DTMX achieved all its Key Targets for 1998-99 and the results of that financial year's performance were included in the Annual Report and Accounts which were laid before Parliament on 27 January this year (Library number 132, pages 10-14). For your ease of reference, I am providing extract details of each of the four Key Targets concerned, at Annex A.

Also included in the DTMX Annual Report and Accounts (page 27) is the background behind the launch of our new Agency, into which DTMX was subsumed. Basically, as part of the Strategic Defence Review it was decided to form one Agency which would be responsible for the provision of surface (road, rail and sea) and air transport and movements support to the Ministry of Defence. The Defence Transport and Movements Agency was, therefore, formed from an amalgamation of DTMX, the Joint Transport and Movements Staff (Northwood) and elements of 38 Gp RAF/Air Movements Executive (London, High Wycombe and Halton).

DTMA has been able to use the lessons learnt by its former constituent parts but the way that it operates, and the type of support that it provides, is different to that of its predecessors. With that in mind, it has been set new challenging targets, rather than continue with any of the targets set for its predecessors. Again, I am providing details of the four Key Targets for 1999-2000, at Annex B.

DTMX Key Targets for 1998-99

Key Target 1

To exceed 90% of Customers' perceived satisfaction of requirements.

Results: In conjunction with the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA), the DTMX Plans Team developed a survey to both map the customer base and subsequently monitor satisfaction levels. The analysis of the survey results has proved useful and encouraging. Of the 371 surveys sent out, 60% were returned. The overall satisfaction rating was 92%. Desk officers have followed up these results with customers and in particular investigated those where DTMX scored less than the prescribed 90%.

Key Target 2

To establish the baseline for the quality of the Unaccompanied Baggage (UB) Service, to enable subsequent measurement of improvements.

Results: Although DTMX had been given until May 1999 to establish a performance baseline, it was decided that with the incorporation of DTMX into DTMA, a set of results would be compiled for the period January-March 1999 for each of the UB business areas, based on the existing, DTMX compiled, survey data.

Outside of DTMX a number of different surveys were already in use by the Divisional and District Headquarters. To avoid 'survey fatigue' it was agreed that DTMX would sponsor a single set of common surveys covering the whole gambit of the

8 Mar 2000 : Column: 704W

Unaccompanied Baggage Service. These surveys were taken into general use at the end of 1998 and will, in the future, provide a much wider data set, allowing the Agency to monitor customer perceptions continuously and thereby improve the service.

Key Target 3

To exceed 90% satisfaction of Customers' requirements.

Results: Given that the majority of the service provided is carried out through agents and contractors, it was acknowledged that a system of negative reporting would allow us to concentrate on supplier failure and would best support customer requirements. High volume activities with few complaints have raised the percentage satisfaction rate, but there are areas that have been highlighted which require attention. Overall 210 complaints were recorded during the period and these are summarised as follows:

The performance of our suppliers to customers' satisfaction exceeded 99%.

Customers with complaints or problems are required to contact DTMX with the details, these are then confirmed in writing, investigated and if upheld recorded as a supplier failure against the target. In order to improve the capture of complaints data, action is in hand to incorporate a system of complaints logging on CARGONET, the Agency's primary data warehouse and UBMIS which is specifically tailored towards the Unaccompanied Baggage Service.

Key Target 4

To establish unit costs per output data to enable the setting of realistic efficiency targets for subsequent years.

Results: Through the development of the Agency's Activity Based Costing model, it has been possible to identify unit costs down to individual loads. For example it is now possible to identify the average cost of sending 1 tonne of aggregate to the Falkland Islands or of delivering a consignment of ammunition to one of the Ammunition Depots.

Many of the outputs produced or sponsored by the Agency are conducted under call-off contracts which are casted on a schedule of prices.

DTMA Key Targets for 1999-2000

Key Target 1

To meet the customers' requirements as specified in customer supplier agreements to deliver:

a. 90% or more of agency transactions within agreed criteria.

b. 90% or more of the services provided under call-off contracts at a satisfactory level.

This KT measures the quantity, quality and timeliness of the 36 services of the Agency as specified by its customers through the performance indicators contained in the Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs). The CSAs have been developed with customers and will ultimately provide the basis for Agency funding. The services provided by DTMA fall into 2 categories: those processed directly by Agency staff and those that are provided as contracted capability against which a user is able to call-off.

Key Target 2

To establish baseline data for the administrative unit costs by 31 December 1999.

The administrative unit cost is defined as the cost of completing an Agency processed transaction. These costs will be obtained through the use of an Activity Based Costing model, which will need to be developed in year one with a target date of 31 December 1999 set to obtain baseline data. Efficiencies will be measured from this baseline in future years.

Key Target 3

To demonstrate net added value.

One of the benefits that DTMA ought to be able to offer its customers is the contract price advantage achieved through its corporate negotiating power and skills. This KT aims to demonstrate that the DTMA operating costs incurred by the provision of contracted services are more than covered by this

8 Mar 2000 : Column: 705W

price advantage and hence add value to the Department as a whole. This will be achieved by comparison with specific indices provided by the Office for National Statistics.

Key Target 4

To achieve at least a satisfactory rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.

This KT relates to the output in support of planning the deployment, sustainment and recovery of forces on operations that may not be subject to a CSA. It also includes the MOD tasking authority for those assets owned by HQ 38 Group and Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary (COMRFA). This activity is a core Agency task supporting military operations and force projection. PJHQ as the principal operational Customer, will be requested to provide a biennial assessment of the Agency's operational performance based on post exercise and audit reports on Defence operational capability.

Military Survey

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (a) those targets of the Military Survey for 1998-99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999-2000; and if he will make a statement. [111764]

Dr. Moonie: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Military Survey Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:

I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Key Target achievement for 1998-99 for the Military Survey Defence Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Agency Chief Executive.

As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Account, Military Survey achieved five of the six Key Targets set by its owner for 1998-99. The sixth was achieved one month behind schedule. This delay was due to the need to complete higher priority work in support of operations. Full details of the Key Targets are attached at Annex A.

The Agency monitors the performance of its Key Targets and detailed Business Plan Objectives via an electronic reporting spreadsheet, which is supplied to the Directors' Board each month. The Directors' Board Pack is supplemented with a printout containing details of all those objectives which contribute to overall performance together with commentary from the managers responsible. The introduction of these procedures has ensured that appropriate action is taken in a timely manner.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Those targets of the Military Survey for 1998-99 which were achieved

Key Target 1:

To satisfy 100% of requirements for geographic support to current operations within the timescale agreed between the Agency and its customers.

Outcome: Achieved

Key Target 3:

To complete the agreed Annual Production Programme (APP) on the time and to cost.

Outcome: Achieved

Key Target 4:

To establish by March 1999 a process for measuring the degree of satisfaction the library service provides.

Outcome: Achieved

8 Mar 2000 : Column: 706W

Key Target 5:

To maintain the required readiness state of the required Field Support elements of the Agency as required by the Department.

Outcome: Achieved

Key Target 6:

To achieve a 2.5% improvement in efficiency.

Outcome: Achieved

Those targets of the military survey for 1998-99 which were not achieved

Key Target 2:

To agree with the Joint Customer Group by March 1999, a process for measuring the degree of customer satisfaction with the service provided.

Outcome: Achieved at the end of April 1999

Factors affecting the outcome: Publication of the paper defining the process for measuring customer satisfaction was delayed due to the need to complete higher priority work in support of operations. The paper was agreed at the end of April 1999--a delay of one month.

---