Defence productivity overhaul is needed, suggests project consultancy firm

The paper said that “inadequate performance measurement, misaligned commercial incentives, and the absence of systematic organisational learning” are the primary causes of the delays and underperforming functions causing significant Defence delays.

“The building blocks of our white paper are already present across the 2026 National Defence Strategy, the FY2026–27 Defence budget, and the Productivity Commission’s December 2025 final reports on national productivity priorities,” said Jonathan Jacobs, managing director of TBH.

“However, those building blocks are operating as disconnected reform streams rather than a coherent, jointly governed system.

"With Defence expenditure approaching $100 billion annually by the mid-2030s and the average major project running 21 months behind schedule, formally naming and integrating these initiatives into a whole-of-sector agenda is both achievable and urgent.”

To address these concerns, the paper proposed that Defence and government leaders must launch a “National Defence Sector Productivity Forum” to openly address these issues within the system.

“We’re proposing a sector-level data architecture that gives Australia, for the first time, a systematic view of where productivity losses are concentrated across the entire defence sector,” said Peter La Franchi, national defence director of TBH.

VIEW ALL

“Built on consistent earned value management, common project controls standards and a shared lessons taxonomy, it’s what makes productivity improvement measurable, governable and improvable over time.”

Defence has been under the criticism of both internal and external parties due to the extended project completion time, having to begin formalities most recently in a Project of Concern for the significant delays of the Arafura Class vessels.