The Politics and DV Engineering working group analyses current political developments in the defence sector. It provides independent facts and interpretation from the technological knowledge and experience of engineers.
The Politics and DV Engineering Working Group has the following comments and questions on the letter of 5 July 2018, in which the Minister of Defence explains the measures taken in response to the Van der Veer Committee report. The comments have been prepared based on publicly available documents and defence technology knowledge and experience. The comments and questions concern exclusively technological or related aspects.
The letter indicates that a Directorate of Security, an Inspectorate of Security and a Review Board are being set up within Defence. This gives the impression that the butcher will be judging his own meat after all. The rest of the text also announces new internal arrangements to further improve security. Most are aimed at strengthening safety thinking. This is useful in itself, but in the context outlined, these will soon have to compete again with the can-do mentality and other demands on the unit concerned.
Utility and necessity of external security advice
Outside Defence, external security advice is widely used. These are not always mandatory or binding, but they are demonstrably established. Also, compliance with the advice entitles one to carry a certificate or other proof of organic safety. As pointed out in our Jan 31, 2018 commentary on the Van der Veer report (pt 1), this reinforces the need to answer the "why" question when deviating from advice.
Such external advice is inevitable with increasingly complex technology because in the smaller Defence organisation not all the necessary knowledge is available anymore. For naval vessels, Defence already works with civil classification societies, such as Det Norske Veritas and Lloyds Register. Opinions from such companies are mandatory in civilian shipping.
Acting unconsciously competent when it comes to safety
The measures proposed in the Plan of Action do seem aimed at improving safety thinking in the organisation. This encourages acting in accordance with the regulations. However, the Action Plan does not show that the required technical and safety knowledge of staff is increased. As a result, the culture of "unconscious competent acting" is not returning to the capillaries of the Defence organisation. In other sectors, including aviation and medical, this is considered very important and actively pursued.
_____________________________
The Hague, 5 September 2018
More information on the Politics and Defence Technology working group can be found via this link.
Do you have any questions? Then contact the working group at E: politiektechniek@kividv.nl
Would you like to receive the working group's comments and opinions by email? Then sign up for our mailing list.
Disclaimer: The facts and opinions given are based on open sources and on the knowledge and experience of working group members.
As part of the professional association KIVI, the working group is independent of political parties, governments and companies.
This is not an official position of KIVI. The association accepts no liability for anything put forward by the working group or its members.
Photo:Ministry of Defence
