Talk:Property Services Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Property Services Agency Problem: The PSA, its activities & its demise were, by their very nature, shrouded in Government Secrecy & were politically controversial. The MOD had long coveted The PSA's role, which was a lot wider & deeper than is revealed in the existing article. e.g. its stewardship of USAF facilities. The MOD/PSA/Client(s) relatonship(s) was not quite 'as written' was it? Wikipedia seeks to enlighten people with as truthful & comprehensive description or account of the subject matter as possible, does it not? I feel that the existing article is written from an 'MOD-centric' point of view & therefore is of somewhat limited value to any 'seeker-after-truth'. Answer to problem: Perhaps another article that addresses the above concerns? It may take a little time but, watch this space? Deliajones (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me assure you that the article was definitely not written from an MOD point of view, or with any political viewpoint in mind - in fact it was written from inside knowledge of the PSA during its final years. I freely admit that there is a lot of detail missing about the PSA's work and its client relationships, particularly in the earlier years, and would welcome someone with more detailed knowledge expanding the article in this respect. Lonegroover (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reassured by what you've written. However, the next problem is finding the time to research what is in the public domain & what is not, the Civil Servant's (eternal) dilemma? In general terms the 'Technical Skill-base' was dissipated, including the training schools, losing a very valuable resource composed of many highly trained, technically well educated & qualified, dedicated & yes, effective people. [Let's not forget the DWO's 'inkies'] Of course there was dead wood & there were errors, no large organisation can escape those but, instead of freeing the 'front line troops' in the DWO's, from an over large & often incompetent bureaucracy, perhaps the baby was thrown out with the bathwater? Unless someone worked in 'Sleepy Hollow' they had to 'deliver'. The client, quite rightly, expected it & if they hadn't got 'it' the tanks wouldn't run, the planes couldn't fly & the ships not sail. The Services, God bless 'em, were(are) very good at maintaining the myth of self-sufficiency. The reality was that without the DWO they wouldn't have had, e.g. fuel, storage, cooked food, catering equipment, power, gas, their grass cut, any buildings or anywhere to sleep, on or off base. All this was done by the PSA controlled contractors, with a little DEl, 24/7. This is the key point, unknown, even incomprehensible to the GBP & politicians. On larger establishments several building, mechanical & electrical contractors were based, permanently, on site, purely for maintenance. The competitive tenders for the contracts were highly sought after because, although the rates were only OK, not high, it was constant work & "We always get paid, eventually." (Auditing, QA & QS was strict.) Technical Officers worked with all client levels, NATO & very highly qualified engineering consultants & etc. The client relied on PSA for technical advice because soldiers, sailors & airmen can't be trained & educated in those fields & still do their own jobs. Obviously there were disagreements but, by & large they 'got on' very well together. It worked, imperfectly at times but, it worked. Departments, including the MOD, sought to replicate the PSA's technical ability & knowledge of 'contractor supervision' but, they were starting from a long way back. Perhaps others can judge their success? Forces personnel,were brought in to replace Technical Officers; good guys but, shall we say, it was not a fair assignment? Was all this 'value for money' for the tax payer & a better service to the clients? Questions. Did every client wish to escape from PSA's tender care? Or did a couple demand that "PSA" continue to manage their estates? Were those demands met? Deliajones (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)