“If a Relationship Is to Work, There Must Be Transparency – And in Defence, That Transparency Must Come in the Form of Data”

By Paul R Salmon FCILT, FSCM

Introduction: The Foundations of Trust

In every relationship—whether between individuals, organisations, or governments—the foundation is trust. And trust, particularly in complex operational environments, is built on transparency.

In the world of Defence logistics and supply chains, this transparency doesn’t come through speeches or strategic intent alone. It comes through data.

Data is the language of modern partnerships. It drives decision-making, informs risk, enables planning, and allows stakeholders to align. Without data, trust becomes assumption. Without shared data, collaboration becomes friction.

In Defence, where readiness and responsiveness are paramount, we can no longer afford that friction. And yet, despite years of progress, too many of our relationships between Defence and industry remain transactional. Contracts over communication. Delivery over dialogue.

It’s time for that to change.

Where the Blame Often Falls

When supply chain performance dips—when spare parts don’t arrive, when lead times extend, when costs spiral—the instinctive response is to ask: What went wrong? Often followed closely by: Who’s to blame?

More often than not, attention turns to the supplier.

“They failed to forecast.” “They didn’t anticipate demand.” “Their lead times have slipped.”

But blaming the supplier misses the point. Because more often than not, the root cause isn’t poor performance—it’s poor visibility.

And that raises a far more important question:

👉 How much of the right data have we actually shared with them?

Did we provide accurate, up-to-date usage data?

Did we share operational patterns, surge plans, or demand volatility?

Did we flag known obsolescence timelines or maintenance bottlenecks?

Did we model the effects of right-sizing fleets, or forced availability rates?

If the answer to any of those is “no” or “not reliably,” then we have to be honest: the fault might not lie with the supplier. It might lie with us.

Flying Blind: When Industry Doesn’t Have the Data

Industry partners are not mind-readers. They’re not embedded in every squadron, unit, ship, or depot. They don’t see what happens to platforms on exercise, or know when short-notice surge operations throw inventory plans off-course.

They rely on Defence to provide that insight.

And yet, despite that dependency, many suppliers are still expected to operate with outdated, incomplete, or non-existent data from their customer—UK Defence.

Without that data, forecasts become guesswork. Inventory buffers become bloated—or too thin. Availability becomes fragile. Readiness suffers.

And when readiness suffers, people suffer.

This isn’t an abstract issue. This is about ensuring critical equipment is available for our people when they need it. Not delayed. Not broken. Not stuck in transit.

Forecasting Failure Is a Symptom, Not the Root Cause

It’s important to recognise that poor forecasting isn’t always a result of bad practice—it’s often a result of bad data. Or no data. Or data that Defence had, but didn’t share.

When suppliers don’t have access to:

Demand drivers, Repair loop feedback, Usage profiles, Force generation plans, Stock policies or batch run-downs,

… then forecasting becomes impossible.

And when forecasting becomes impossible, you don’t get availability—you get variability. That’s not resilience. That’s risk.

What Shared Data Actually Looks Like

So, what does good data transparency look like in practice?

It means a culture shift—from hoarding to helping. From control to collaboration.

Specifically, it means Defence sharing:

Planned fleet utilisation (hours flown, miles driven, duty cycles), Obsolescence forecasts and product lifecycles, Operational demand surges (and their likelihood), Maintenance planning schedules, Historical usage trends, and Failure rate data by component and configuration.

And in return, industry sharing:

Lead time variability, Supplier chain risk indicators, Parts availability trends, Production planning constraints, Repair turnarounds, and Early warning of shortages or disruption.

This is a two-way street.

The Cost of Secrecy

Defence often withholds data under the banner of security, competition, or risk aversion. But the real risk isn’t in sharing—it’s in not sharing.

When industry doesn’t have the data, they can’t deliver. So Defence spends more money, buys too much stock, increases buffers, and wastes effort firefighting issues that could’ve been solved with foresight.

This lack of data transparency leads to:

Excessive inventory buffers, Double ordering, Increased downtime, Slower readiness response, Reduced trust between stakeholders.

In contested, coalition-led environments like NATO operations or multi-national exercises, this isn’t sustainable. Secrecy costs lives, not just money.

From Transactional to Transformational Relationships

To solve this, we need to move from transactional relationships to transformational partnerships.

Transactional relationships are based on contracts.

Transformational ones are based on shared goals, shared risk, and shared accountability.

It’s no longer enough to define success in narrow KPIs or delivery metrics. Success must mean:

Platform availability, Operational readiness, Life-cycle performance, Cost through life.

That means building partnerships where data is shared proactively, not reactively. Where forecasting is co-developed, not contractually demanded. Where failure is investigated jointly, not weaponised.

Why Now?

The urgency is real.

Geopolitical instability is increasing. The Defence budget is under pressure. Readiness is now a strategic currency. And we are operating in environments that are more agile, contested, and data-driven than ever before.

We cannot afford to operate in silos. We cannot afford duplication. And we cannot afford not to know.

NATO operations. Five Eyes interoperability. Coalition logistics. None of these can be successful without data transparency across organisational boundaries.

And industry is ready. They want this. What they need is for Defence to match that intent—with culture, capability, and commitment.

Leading by Example: Modelling the Behaviour We Expect

If we want transparency, we must demonstrate it. If we expect collaboration, we must enable it. That starts with leadership—at all levels.

We need to create the conditions where Defence and industry don’t just exchange contracts, but exchange insight. Where the default setting is to share, not shield. Where joint ownership of outcomes replaces transactional finger-pointing.

This isn’t just about new tools or data platforms—it’s about behaviour.

It’s about leaders having:

Honest, open conversations when forecasts are wrong. The discipline to plan based on evidence—not assumptions. The courage to share risk and own outcomes together.

And above all, it’s about consistency. Because transparency isn’t a one-off—it’s a culture.

As leaders across Defence, industry, and the wider logistics profession, we must model the behaviours we expect others to follow. The change starts with us.

A New Model: Shared Goals, Shared Risk, Shared Data

At its heart, the solution is simple:

If we want availability, we must share data. If we want resilience, we must forecast together. If we want trust, we must be transparent.

This means creating shared data environments—whether through platforms, policy, or process—where both Defence and industry operate off a common picture.

We need to shift from:

❌ Blame → ✅ Alignment

❌ Secrecy → ✅ Sharing

❌ Forecasting in isolation → ✅ Forecasting in partnership

❌ One-sided contracts → ✅ Joint success models

This isn’t just modern logistics. It’s mission-critical logistics.

Practical Recommendations

Here’s what Defence leaders can do now:

Mandate data-sharing clauses in all new sustainment and support contracts. Create joint forecasting platforms between DE&S and suppliers. Fund supplier access to demand modelling tools where needed. Invest in Defence data literacy to ensure information is understood and trusted. Include transparency and co-ownership metrics in performance frameworks. Champion success stories that show data-driven partnerships in action.

Final Thought: The Accountability Question

So the next time availability slips or the forecast misses the mark, don’t just ask:

❌ Why didn’t the supplier get it right?

Ask instead:

✅ What didn’t we share?

✅ What data did they need but didn’t receive?

✅ What behaviours or policies stopped transparency from working?

Because if a relationship is to work, there must be transparency—and in Defence, that transparency must come in the form of data.