APPENDIX 6
Memorandum Submitted by the DSTL Trade
Unions (13 January 2003)
SUMMARY
The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
(DSTL) was created in July 2001 with 3,000 of the 12,000 DERA
staff. The outstanding issues and developments since then, as
seen from the DSTL staff perspective, relate primarily to those
staff selected to maintain visibility of that defence research
conducted outside government. The concerns include difficulties
in:
— Maintaining the necessary staff expertise
in the longer term.
— Obtaining adequately effective access
to intellectual property.
— Being suitably responsive in collaboration
and other circumstances.
The trade unions further believe that the DSTL
site rationalisation, prompted by the separation from QinetiQ,
is a damaging distraction.
BACKGROUND
1. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
(DSTL) is a trading fund agency of the MoD. It was created in
July 2001 when the larger part of the former DERA was privatised
as QinetiQ plc.
2. The main separation of staff took place
in advance of vesting, around Christmas 2000, with about 9,000
staff going to QinetiQ and 3,000 retained for DSTL. Those staff
allocated to DSTL can be considered as three or four groups:
(A) Staff at Porton Down, who were retained
as a complete community.
(B) Staff who were retained at other sites
in smaller teams. These subdivide further:
(B1) Research teams undertaking research
mainly on particularly sensitive work.
(B2) Teams of operational analysts undertaking
effectiveness assessment of operational systems and new concepts
to advise MoD.
(C) Single staff members, or extremely small
groups, retained from previous larger teams (in a ratio of about
one in 10 or 20) to retain visibility of the remaining major part
of the defence research programme.
3. Very approximately, about a quarter of
DSTL staff come from each group. Initially, groups (A) and (B2)
retained their previous DERA management structure while (C) and
(B1) were structured together as seemed practical. Since then,
in April 2002, there has been a major reorganisation. The main
effect was to bring together the analysts (B2) with associated
systems experts from (C). It also created more alignments with
different elements from Porton Down (A).
THE TU PERSPECTIVE
4. The trade unions were opposed to the
DERA PPP. However DSTL and QinetiQ now exist and the staff, and
their representatives, are very much concerned to make a success
of the new organisations. This submission reflects the views of
the DSTL staff trade unions.
5. The separation of QinetiQ from DSTL was
completed and DSTL now forms a distinct organisation. Some of
the group (C) staff were unsure of their role but all are now
fully occupied. Both DSTL and QinetiQ deserve credit for managing
new procedures for contracting MoD research that came from the
S&T review, at short notice and within weeks of vesting. So
there is cause for satisfaction. Nevertheless, this submission
focuses on outstanding concerns.
CONCERNS
DSTL is less than two years old. It will take
time to shake out and manage all the repercussions of the separation
from DERA. There are also other, new external disturbances. So,
it is a dynamic situation. Nevertheless, there are three issues
which have already either emerged or been confirmed as areas of
difficulty:
— Maintenance of Capability.
— Use of Intellectual Property.
— Obstacles to Responsiveness.
MAINTENANCE OF
CAPABILITY.
7. Staff from groups (A) and (B) undertake
the quite limited range of research which it is assessed as having
to be done within government. The limited number of staff from
group (C) are tasked with covering the remaining majority of defence
related research, for example by leading on international collaboration.
8. To do this effectively, the staff must
have a considerable breadth and depth of expertise; for effective
international research collaboration, they should be of world
class in the relevant disciplines. Existing staff have been selected
to meet these criteria. However, since DSTL does not undertake
the actual research there is no means for junior staff to develop
their expertise. So, it is not clear how the current set of experts
can be replaced.
9. This `succession' problem has been a
concern from the outset and management, particularly at the more
junior levels, has been giving it active consideration for a year
or more. However, suitable staff do not seem to exist to be recruited
and no satisfactory solution to the succession problem has been
identified.
10. Because the staff involved are so thinly
spread there is no depth to maintain coverage while a solution
is sought. So it may not be long before gaps in capability start
to appear.
11. A secondary effect is also emerging.
Although the existing staff from group (C) currently have the
necessary level of expertise, some are already beginning to notice
the lack of the stimulation that comes from close interaction
with the front-line research. Thus there is likely to be a staleness
problem to add to the succession problem in maintaining capability.
USE OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
12. Considerable effort was taken, when
it was set up, to ensure that DSTL had rights and access to any
necessary Intellectual Property. Nevertheless there is a problem,
particularly in relation to computer models.
13. Using or developing these models often
requires considerable background knowledge, much of it tacit.
That knowledge typically lies with QinetiQ. Thus, although DSTL
has access to the models in a legal sense, in a number of areas
it would have difficulty in using them effectively and the associated
capability is significantly constrained.
14. Recreating the capability within DSTL
would take time and resource. It would also create competition
with QinetiQ, undermining the goodwill that enables the current
capability.
OBSTACLES TO
RESPONSIVENESS
15. The greater part of the former DERA
research capability now lies in QinetiQ. Thus, not infrequently,
DSTL has to call on QinetiQ for support. Because QinetiQ is a
separate company, this involves formal contract action, which
can be awkward or cause delays.
16. One example is in international collaboration,
where DSTL is required to lead. Opportunities or offers of collaboration
often arise only during the international meetings. The DSTL representative
can have difficulty in making an immediate positive response because
the relevant research will have to be undertaken by QinetiQ (or
another company) and that will need to be negotiated.
17. A different example is where QinetiQ
has a required test capability. There have been cases when urgent
requirements have potentially been at risk because of delays caused
by having to place contracts. There have also been cases where
allies in collaborative activities have had reservations about
the involvement of private companies for such tests.
18. In practice, because of the willingness
of the staff involved to pull together, the problem has usually
been awkwardness, rather than a failure to meet critical requirements.
However such reliance on goodwill does not provide a robust solution
and more appropriate arrangements remain to be worked out.
DSTL SITE RATIONALISATION
19. A particular current concern of DSTL
staff is the plan for site rationalisation. This will involve
relocation of about 40% of the DSTL workforce, with all the concomitant
disruption to the lives of the staff members and their families.
20. The trade union view is that there is
no real justification for this disruption. On the contrary, because
it will tend to precipitate staff resignations, it is likely to
exacerbate the capability maintenance problem by increasing the
number of staff who have to be replaced, by bringing the problem
forward and by extending the problem from individuals to the small
teams (B1). If anything, it is likely to make the Intellectual
Property and Responsiveness problems worse.
21. Thus the trade unions believe the site
rationalisation will be damaging to DSTL and will divert attention
from solving more fundamental problems. It should be said that
the DSTL Board have a different view, and theirs has been endorsed
by the Minister.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The separation of DSTL from QinetiQ has been completed
with some successes.
(2) Some of the difficulties inherent in
the separation remain to be resolved, in particular the ability
of DSTL:
— to maintain advanced staff expertise
and hence organisational capability;
— to access relevant intellectual property
effectively; and
— to act responsively in international
collaboration and urgent operational requirements.
(3) Current processes depend on continuing
goodwill and co-operation at working level between DSTL and QinetiQ
staff.
(4) The DSTL site rationalisation is a damaging
distraction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
22. The Committee may wish to inquire:
(1) of the Minister and QinetiQ, how they
see the respective roles of QinetiQ staff and the group (C) DSTL
staff, and how they should interact.
(2) of the Minister how he sees the capability
maintenance problem being resolved; and of QinetiQ whether they
believe they have a part to play.
(3) of the Minister and QinetiQ whether
they are content that there is currently reliance on individual
goodwill for effective co-operation between DSTL and QinetiQ and,
if not, when they envisage it being replaced by more formal contractual
arrangements.
(4) of the Minister what practical benefits
he sees to justify the further disruption of the DSTL site rationalisation.
| 
