(Original post by Drewski)
That theory works in some industries and with good reason, but the defence sector is not one it should ever be implemented in.
There are several problems with this in reality, too.
How do you decide which regiments are underperforming? How do you make that quantifying system transparent? There are too many variables in what kind of opposition they might be up against and how new recruits/training cycles and injuries could affect them. Does a unit that's not seen any fighting get a worse record than one who has seen lots? So in cases like current when infantry units are out in Afg, the tank units are not and would then be rated poorly...
All officers and new recruits are centrally recruited and trained, and that's the same for each Force, going through the same establishments before heading off to their units, if they are deemed inadequate they don't go.
All servicemen and women [and can we all stop saying soldiers? There are 70,000 people who would consider being called a soldier highly insulting. I was in the RAF, if someone called me a soldier I would instantly stop listening to their 'opinion' because it wasn't based on knowledge and was therefore irrelevant] already do substantial parts of their own admin. There's a centralised programme called JPA that all personnel use to do basic admin for themselves. Slight problem is that the programme is bilge and doesn't work. But the practise is there.
However, the larger chunks of admin need to be done by those trained in that field. You wouldn't want every serviceman rotating in to 'their turn' of flying a Typhoon, would you?
One of the most important points is that unlike schools and hospitals we're asking these men to go out and put their lives on the line. They need to do that in units they are comfortable with, with people they know. There's a reason why an Army regiment is like a family. You all know each other's families, you have a vested interest in looking after them, because they're your friend, not just a colleague. Removing good soldiers from these equations happens already but should be limited. They need to go where they do more good: training the next soliders.
In the other Forces, there are niche roles. It's childish and naive to suggest that people can chop and change readily. Many roles in the forces require years of training which cost huge amounts, to throw this away is far more wasteful than any current proposal.
The Defence sector is inherently wasteful. It's an expense you don't really ever want to see the benefit of. Don't think of it as a tool, think of it as an insurance policy. You want the fineprint and the details to be ready to take care of any
problem that may arise, but you'd far rather leave the policy in the drawer never having to use it.