The Office of the Procurement Ombud estimates that a major Department of National Defence (DND) project takes about 16 years to move from identification to close-out, with a range of 7 to 28 years. Some of that time is unavoidable for complex capabilities. Much of it isn’t. On defence programs we’ve supported, the gap between a plan and a schedule that actually controls the work is where years are lost.
How defence projects are approved
DND projects pass through five phases under its Project Approval Directive: identification, options analysis, definition, implementation and close-out. Requirements are reviewed by internal boards and, for larger projects, by the Independent Review Panel for Defence Acquisition. Projects over $100 million get two reviews. Before implementation, a project needs expenditure authority from the Minister or the Treasury Board.
The approvals themselves take time. The Procurement Ombud’s June 2026 report found that Treasury Board approvals take 9 to 12 months or longer in practice, against an internal service standard of about nine weeks for a well-documented submission. A Memorandum to Cabinet can take 12 to 18 months for the most complex projects. One expert told the Ombud that the Treasury Board Secretariat “applies little emphasis on schedule considerations.”
View the data
| Phase | Projects | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | 19 | 6% |
| Options Analysis | 51 | 15% |
| Definition | 35 | 11% |
| Implementation | 142 | 42% |
| Close-out or complete | 86 | 26% |
What the audits say about defence schedules
- Shipbuilding (2021). The Auditor General found that schedules “were often not an effective tool to manage projects’ timeliness.” It took more than six months after design started to produce a usable design schedule for the Canadian Surface Combatant.
- Fighter jets (2025). New F-35 squadron facilities at Cold Lake and Bagotville are expected only in 2031, more than three years behind schedule. The aircraft cost estimate rose 46%, from $19.0 billion to $27.7 billion, and excludes at least $5.5 billion needed for full operational capability.
- Capital spending (2025). The Parliamentary Budget Officer found DND’s capital spending fell $18.5 billion short of plan from 2017-18 to 2023-24, about 35% a year on average, as delays pushed funding into later years.
- Before implementation (2013). A DND internal audit cited reviews finding projects were on average four years behind schedule before reaching implementation.
The re-baselining blind spot
DND’s Departmental Results Reports show most capital equipment projects on schedule: 93% in 2023-24. But the indicator measures each project against its most recent approved schedule. When a project re-baselines, the slippage disappears from the metric. The 2024-25 Departmental Plan also lowered the target from 100% to at least 90%.
That isn’t unique to defence; many owners do the same. But it means leadership sees a green dashboard while the capability date moves right. Reporting variance against the original approved baseline, alongside the current one, is one of the simplest and most useful changes a program can make.
View the data
| Fiscal year | On most recent approved schedule |
|---|---|
| 2019-20 | 100% |
| 2020-21 | 94.12% |
| 2021-22 | 93.75% |
| 2022-23 | 81% |
| 2023-24 | 93% |
Five scheduling practices that would close the gap
1. One integrated master schedule per capability. Equipment, infrastructure, training, personnel and IT need to sit in one logic-linked schedule. The F-35 facilities delay is the textbook case: when the hangar schedule lives apart from the aircraft schedule, the gap shows up too late. DND committed in 2021 to have shipyard integrated master schedules presented at governance meetings with critical-path metrics. That practice should extend to infrastructure.
2. Long-horizon schedules that match long-horizon funding. Defence policy is funded over 20 years, and sustainment runs 20 to 40 years or more after acquisition. Capital plans that long need a schedule structure built for it: a stable summary level for leadership and funding, with detailed schedules that roll forward as projects mature. On programs we’ve supported, the long-range plan is most useful when every near-term project ties back to it, so a delay today shows its effect on the 20-year funding profile.
3. Schedule the approvals, not just the construction. Treasury Board submissions, Cabinet memoranda, review panels, security clearances and environmental approvals are activities with durations and risk. Put them on the critical path with realistic durations based on actual performance, not service standards.
4. Quantitative schedule risk analysis at each gate. A single deterministic date hides uncertainty. Monte Carlo analysis gives a P50 and P80 date and shows which risks drive them, which is exactly what an approval board needs to set realistic expectations.
5. Earned value on infrastructure. DND committed to using earned value management to measure shipyard schedule performance. We found no published requirement for earned value on defence infrastructure projects. Applying it, even in a simplified form, would give owners an early, objective read on whether spending is producing progress.
What DND programs can do this year
- Add original-baseline variance to every dashboard alongside the current approved schedule.
- Link facility readiness to equipment delivery for every capability arriving in the next five years.
- Build an approvals schedule using actual Treasury Board, Cabinet and clearance durations from recent projects.
- Run a schedule risk analysis before each major gate, and report P80 dates to the approval board.
- Pilot earned value on a handful of larger infrastructure projects and use the results to set a standard.
Go deeper: the Cold Lake fighter squadron facility, the 5 Wing Goose Bay modernization, Defence Construction Canada's standards and how defence spending turns into infrastructure.
The bottom line
Defence projects are complex, but the delays the audits describe are mostly schedule-management failures, not engineering ones. Integrated, honest, risk-informed schedules won’t make a 16-year process take 6. They will show leadership where the years are going while there’s still time to get them back.
Ben Abbasi, PMP, leads Benjamin R. Consulting and teaches planning and scheduling at George Brown College. Book a 30-minute call to talk about scheduling your program.
Sources: Office of the Procurement Ombud, Turning Complexity into Capability (June 18, 2026); DND, Defence purchases and upgrades process; DND, Defence Investment Plan update (2019); Auditor General, National Shipbuilding Strategy (February 2021); Auditor General, Delivering Canada’s Future Fighter Jet Capability (June 2025); PBO, Planned Capital Spending under Canada’s Defence Policy: 2025 Update; DND, Internal Audit of Capital Project Cost Estimation (2013); DND, Departmental Results Report 2023-24; DND, Departmental Results Report 2021-22; DND, Departmental Plan 2024-25; DND, response on shipbuilding schedules (2021); DND, Our North, Strong and Free, Annex A. This article is general information, not legal advice.