Public Service Bloats...

[Michael Hardner]

Vancouver Sun

Maria Barrados says that departments are under pressure to reduce spending. When a standing committee asked how this would happen, she didn't know.

Barrados said departments are under pressure to reduce spending, meaning salaries — one of their biggest expenses — may be a prime target for cuts.

The executive cadre grew at a faster pace than the rest of the public service. There are now 5,000 executives, a 26 per cent increase compared to five years ago.

I watched this committee on CPAC and it was downright depressing. The MPs seemed to have no idea how large businesses work, and question after question resulted in "I don't know" answers. Furthermore, what is the point of having a giant and lengthy meeting to ask detailed questions ? When asked why there were so many executives being hired, the response was that there were retirements happening, and that there were new complex areas that needed to be staffed.

None of the MPs on the committee seemed to realize that one of the main points of strategy and new technology is to reduce costs, and increase services. There was no point of reference that anyone could ask about to see if that was happening.

The time has come for government services to be outsourced... set off on an ice floe to companies that can manage services properly, with an eye on costs.

[Smallc]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Smallc

[DrGreenthumb]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

I don't know why so many people find this hard to understand. It's the same BS that the Conservatives tried to sell us on MTS. Somehow the service was supposed to get better and our phone bills lower, all the while increasing the profit for the private shareholders. What a joke. Since MTS got privatized the reality is higher phone bills crappy service, and increased wealth for the already wealthy. Meanwhile lots of people can't even afford a phone at all anymore. Hard to get a job when you don't even have a phone number to put on your resume.

[eyeball]

The Conservative's plan to crack down on crime is guaranteed to create thousands of jobs. It should be fairly easy to see how things will dovetail together.

Judging by the article Michael linked to Correctional Service Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development will be the recipients of vast sums of money. Door are probably already revolving around all the opportunities that cracking down will offer. Human Resources and Skills Development will train all the new people hired to staff all the new prisons the government plans to build. I suspect many of the retiring people the government needs to replace include existing senior staff at Corrections Canada that are repositioning themselves to become private consultants and instructors. Once they train up all the new prison guards they can turn their attention towards training the prisoners they're guarding.

The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench into the works is if the crime rate drops but of course we can always fix that by broadening the criminal code.

[Shady]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

I don't think most people expect it to be run like RIM. It's a question of degree. And this example illustrates that the degree is far out of whack. The fact is that as a government, just like a business, you MUST deal with your revenue, expenses and debt in a responsible way. Because ultimately, even a government cannot escape economic realities. And failing to do so only puts the people the government is suppose to represent at serious risk.

I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.

[Michael Hardner]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

Government can't be run like a business, but the services it provides can definitely be.

[Argus]

Vancouver Sun

Maria Barrados says that departments are under pressure to reduce spending. When a standing committee asked how this would happen, she didn't know.

If you've read any of my previous posts on the subject you should be aware that no senior public servant will ever have any real ideas on how to cut spending - in public. Because that's a government issue, and not up to the civil service to dispute. What did you expect them to do, advocate cutbacks in services the government has mandated them to offer? Suggest reversing policies the government has put in place? That's not what the public service does in a public setting.

When asked why there were so many executives being hired, the response was that there were retirements happening, and that there were new complex areas that needed to be staffed.

Actually, the reason there are more executives is because ever stricter policy guidelines and spending oversights require managers at all levels to micromanage, to virtually be looking over the shoulders of every clerk and administrator every moment of the day. You would not believe how high the level is that routine, tiny, everyday jobs must go to get approval now. The strict reporting and oversight requirements put in place require more paperwork, more meetings, more bureaucracy and red tape, more people to process it all, and more time and effort from managers and execs to read all those reports, attend all those meetings, and approve it all.

As one example, do you know that the cell phone bills of even high level executives have to be scrutinized and signed off on by their superiors? Yes, you have say, an assistant deputy minister, just one level below the deputy minister himself, wasting his or her time looking over thirty dollar cell phone bills from all the executives who report to him. He also has to examine and approve their travel claims. And if they order coffee and donuts for a working meeting he has to approve those too. I once sent an internal email asking people to return manuals to our little library so the binders could be replaced and was chided for not first sending the memo to the senior manager's committee to be approved!

The time has come for government services to be outsourced... set off on an ice floe to companies that can manage services properly, with an eye on costs.

They'll manage them by paying lower salaries and as few benefits as possible to their workers, which will mean a rapid turnover among them, loss of knowledge and an overall drop in the quality of the employees concerned.

And is this the example you think government should be setting to industry? Outsource! Maybe our federal call centers could be outsourced to Pakistan or India? Maybe we could have Chinese working 12 hrs days for two dollars an hour handling IT, shipping computers and parts back and forth to Canada? Maybe our taxes could be examined and checked over in Malaysia?

By their nature all large organizations are less efficient than small ones. They used to say GM had all the bureaucracy of the kremlin. But the rise in the number of employees and executives of late has to do with government distrust more than any innate inefficiency by the bureaucracy. That distrust seeps down through layers of management until you get lower level managers who can't decide which pair of pants to wear in the morning without someone writing a formal report for them and holding a meeting to reassure them they're not violating policy.

[fellowtraveller]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

Most of 'the government' is involved with mundane, routine tasks like collecting/verifying information, cashiers, IT functions, support functions, and clerical gruntwork. There is no reason much of that cannot be outsourced, except of course the power of the unions, the poor quality of civil service management in general and a political leadership vacuum.

[Wild Bill]

Right...then we can pay for profit and just as many workers. Government is NOT a business. It cannot be run like a business. Parts of it will be and can be reduced (it's been done before), but this idea that the Government of Canada can run like RIM is crazy.

This seems very simplistic. Why should we assume that paying for profit automatically means we're paying MORE?

This is the same tired old crapola we hear whenever someone talks about privatizing some government service. Let's look at it realistically. If a service is provided by a private firm as a result of a competitive bid there are obvious pressures for those companies to keep their prices down.

When a government delivers a service, who's to say if the cost is not more than that of a private service, no matter how high a profit margin is involved? Government waste and inefficiency can easily add up to far more than a private company's costs and profit margin!

So why should we as taxpayers care about a profit margin, no matter how high it might be? If the cost to us is still lower then we are better off!

Please note that I am not implying that government workers are lazy or do not have to work hard. Quite the contrary. They can be slaving their little butts off every day and that doesn't mean we are given good value. If their efforts are not focused in a manner that makes sense then they are like the old joke about being in the army as a private, where some of you fill holes that others have just dug. The work is hard but the result is valueless.

No, government is NOT a business! That doesn't mean it must be inefficient. It just means that it can get away with it!

[Smallc]

This is the same tired old crapola we hear whenever someone talks about privatizing some government service. Let's look at it realistically. If a service is provided by a private firm as a result of a competitive bid there are obvious pressures for those companies to keep their prices down.

We've tried it with various things at the municipal level. It saves little to no money.

[Bonam]

Actually, the reason there are more executives is because ever stricter policy guidelines and spending oversights require managers at all levels to micromanage, to virtually be looking over the shoulders of every clerk and administrator every moment of the day. You would not believe how high the level is that routine, tiny, everyday jobs must go to get approval now. The strict reporting and oversight requirements put in place require more paperwork, more meetings, more bureaucracy and red tape, more people to process it all, and more time and effort from managers and execs to read all those reports, attend all those meetings, and approve it all.

Yeah I can attest to this. While working at a government agency, I once had to procure a ~$5000 piece of equipment. Because the price exceeded a certain threshold, it had to go through a competitive bid, in compliance with policy. The paperwork to issue the request for a competitive bid had to be handled by people more highly paid (at the time) than myself and took hours and hours out of the days of various public servants. Additionally, because of the length of the process, the piece of equipment took approximately 2 months to procure, and, the competitive bidding process did not offer us even a single penny of savings compared to if I had simply ordered the item from the website of the company that I originally wanted to get it from (and from which we did indeed end up procuring it).

However, the opportunity cost of the two month wait compared to getting it in just one week, and the time spent by various individuals and departments, had a value of no less than a few thousand dollars. That's not even counting the cost of me spending about a month twiddling my thumbs and posting on internet forums while waiting for the item to arrive so I could continue work on my project.

Basically, we wasted months of time and thousands of dollars to comply with a policy that had no benefit at all for this situation, as I'm sure it similarly doesn't for many others. Of course, people complying with policy and wasting thousands never becomes a scandal. On the other hand, every time there is a case where something was supposed to go through competitive bidding but didn't, that's liable to make a scandal every time.

[Michael Hardner]

And is this the example you think government should be setting to industry? Outsource! Maybe our federal call centers could be outsourced to Pakistan or India? Maybe we could have Chinese working 12 hrs days for two dollars an hour handling IT, shipping computers and parts back and forth to Canada? Maybe our taxes could be examined and checked over in Malaysia?

By their nature all large organizations are less efficient than small ones. They used to say GM had all the bureaucracy of the kremlin. But the rise in the number of employees and executives of late has to do with government distrust more than any innate inefficiency by the bureaucracy. That distrust seeps down through layers of management until you get lower level managers who can't decide which pair of pants to wear in the morning without someone writing a formal report for them and holding a meeting to reassure them they're not violating policy.

It's funny that they behave as though they're the only organization who has these problems - which is further evidenced by the ridiculous way they go about solving their problems. How about they put their call centre management out to tender and lay off the people who are managing them ?

That might be a start.

[Michael Hardner]

Please note that I am not implying that government workers are lazy or do not have to work hard. Quite the contrary. They can be slaving their little butts off every day and that doesn't mean we are given good value. If their efforts are not focused in a manner that makes sense then they are like the old joke about being in the army as a private, where some of you fill holes that others have just dug. The work is hard but the result is valueless.

No, government is NOT a business! That doesn't mean it must be inefficient. It just means that it can get away with it!

Well said. The workers must be demoralized with management not paying attention to their problems, and instead focusing on what is going on at the top levels of palace intrigue.

[Shwa]

It's funny that they behave as though they're the only organization who has these problems - which is further evidenced by the ridiculous way they go about solving their problems. How about they put their call centre management out to tender and lay off the people who are managing them ?

That might be a start.

A start at what exactly? Do you not think that the ruling government wants control over the bureaucracy and always has? There have been outsourcing initiatives over the years with brutal results that cost more than the scheme they replaced and several reversions back to bureaucratic processes.

So you are one of the biggest advocates of more government accountability and openness and now that Argus has - rightly - pointed out there is MORE accountability because of the openness you crave, you change your tune into saying the costs of what you want is too high, let's outsource.

You want to outsource? Then hire all the staff to handle the transition including more clerks and middle managers to deal with the contracts. Don't forget more legal staff too. Because there is going to be a bloat during the transition phase where both systems are operating. And let's not forget developing a system that will guarantee the security of the information because I am betting that when it comes to privacy issues some people might have a problem with private firms handling all the personal information. But, hire more staff and managers to provide oversight to those systems to ensure they don't. Hire more RCMP to enforce the law if they do. And, of course, hire more lawyers.

Or better yet, how about providing a real time model of a current company to scale that actually is as efficient as you would have the federal or provincial bureaucracies. You want the public service to resemble Bell Canada? God forbid if your EI cheque didn't arrive and you had to call them...

And so on...

[Argus]

Basically, we wasted months of time and thousands of dollars to comply with a policy that had no benefit at all for this situation, as I'm sure it similarly doesn't for many others. Of course, people complying with policy and wasting thousands never becomes a scandal. On the other hand, every time there is a case where something was supposed to go through competitive bidding but didn't, that's liable to make a scandal every time.

Oh it had a purpose. The purpose was to ensure fairness to the variety of private sector suppliers who want to do business with government. We slow down and complicate all procurement in order to ensure absolute fairness to all possible suppliers or would-be suppliers, which has an enormous cost. It's similarly to the hideously complex, time-consuming and expensive HR process. All hiring and internal transfers and promotions take many, many, many months and untold hours of complex bureacratic maneuvering whose sole purpose is to ensure absolute fairness in all things to all possible applicants. It fails, btw, but that's its purpose.

Private sector entities don't really concern themselves to much with fairness as with efficiency.

[Argus]

It's funny that they behave as though they're the only organization who has these problems - which is further evidenced by the ridiculous way they go about solving their problems. How about they put their call centre management out to tender and lay off the people who are managing them ?

That might be a start.

You don't seem to understand. The people at the call centres are not inefficient nor stupid. All these various layers of oversight are demanded by government and designed to keep government happy.

If, for example, the people don't feel these complex bureacratic rules for procurement are necessary then the government could remove those rules and that would most definitely save money and streamline all purchasing throughout government. If the government didn't want its HR systems to be dedicated to the process of absolute impartial fairness it could remove the policies which require this and we'd be able to hire and promote far more easily

You aren't going to get the same levels of efficiency in a 40,000 person agency or department as you're going to get in a company with 100 employees, that's all there is to it. But we could certainly improve efficiency - if the government wanted to.

[Michael Hardner]

A start at what exactly? Do you not think that the ruling government wants control over the bureaucracy and always has? There have been outsourcing initiatives over the years with brutal results that cost more than the scheme they replaced and several reversions back to bureaucratic processes.

Let's talk about what went wrong with those initiatives then.

So you are one of the biggest advocates of more government accountability and openness and now that Argus has - rightly - pointed out there is MORE accountability because of the openness you crave, you change your tune into saying the costs of what you want is too high, let's outsource.

More accountability how ? By adding several more layers of management between the workers and the Deputy Minister ? That's more of the same. You're really not getting it. The people who consume and pay for services aren't interested in whether the ministers are getting their butt covered - they want services at lower cost.

You want to outsource? Then hire all the staff to handle the transition including more clerks and middle managers to deal with the contracts. Don't forget more legal staff too. Because there is going to be a bloat during the transition phase where both systems are operating. And let's not forget developing a system that will guarantee the security of the information because I am betting that when it comes to privacy issues some people might have a problem with private firms handling all the personal information. But, hire more staff and managers to provide oversight to those systems to ensure they don't. Hire more RCMP to enforce the law if they do. And, of course, hire more lawyers.

Oh, oh, oh ! So many problems ! I don't know how private industry does it so much better and easier. It seems impossible. Again, all we hear from those on the inside is that there are too many problems to do this. It reveals a lack of imagination.

Or better yet, how about providing a real time model of a current company to scale that actually is as efficient as you would have the federal or provincial bureaucracies. You want the public service to resemble Bell Canada? God forbid if your EI cheque didn't arrive and you had to call them...

And so on...

If someone's EI cheque is late, and yet the cost of EI administration and delivery fell 20% - would people really complain so much ?

[Michael Hardner]

You don't seem to understand. The people at the call centres are not inefficient nor stupid. All these various layers of oversight are demanded by government and designed to keep government happy.

Where have I said anything that contradicts your paragraph here ?

If, for example, the people don't feel these complex bureacratic rules for procurement are necessary then the government could remove those rules and that would most definitely save money and streamline all purchasing throughout government. If the government didn't want its HR systems to be dedicated to the process of absolute impartial fairness it could remove the policies which require this and we'd be able to hire and promote far more easily

The politicians don't understand the government, it's clear to me. They slap another layer of rules and bureaucracy on it over and over again.

You aren't going to get the same levels of efficiency in a 40,000 person agency or department as you're going to get in a company with 100 employees, that's all there is to it. But we could certainly improve efficiency - if the government wanted to.

If we wanted to, then the government might want to.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Vancouver Sun

Maria Barrados says that departments are under pressure to reduce spending. When a standing committee asked how this would happen, she didn't know.

I watched this committee on CPAC and it was downright depressing. The MPs seemed to have no idea how large businesses work, and question after question resulted in "I don't know" answers. Furthermore, what is the point of having a giant and lengthy meeting to ask detailed questions ? When asked why there were so many executives being hired, the response was that there were retirements happening, and that there were new complex areas that needed to be staffed.

None of the MPs on the committee seemed to realize that one of the main points of strategy and new technology is to reduce costs, and increase services. There was no point of reference that anyone could ask about to see if that was happening.

The time has come for government services to be outsourced... set off on an ice floe to companies that can manage services properly, with an eye on costs.

Well Mr. Hardner you have indeed made a valid point. One worth considering with some care however.

Is the sole intent of the exercise to reduce expenses? That singular intent would best be served with eliminating either programs or services outright. Yet that is another political struggle altogether. So I can see your desire to attack from a different quarter, seeking a different specific target on the hard running animal of bureaucracy. All things considered in my opinion, there is opportunity to do "something" and quickly, but what that something is, eludes me. You may just be right.

[Shwa]

Let's talk about what went wrong with those initiatives then.

They were outsourced with the idea that outsourcing is a one stop shop silver bullet solution. Plus the EXTRA layers of administration costs to manage concurrent systems...

More accountability how ? By adding several more layers of management between the workers and the Deputy Minister ? That's more of the same. You're really not getting it. The people who consume and pay for services aren't interested in whether the ministers are getting their butt covered - they want services at lower cost.

Oversight. More reports. More spreadsheets with data in them. More analysis by experts. More training for expert analysts to make spreadsheets into data reports for more oversight. In other words, carefully read what Argus has already illustrated.

Oh, oh, oh ! So many problems ! I don't know how private industry does it so much better and easier. It seems impossible. Again, all we hear from those on the inside is that there are too many problems to do this. It reveals a lack of imagination.

Someone dreaming up the latest silver bullet paradigm is not only displays a lack of imagination, but also a lack of reality. For example, show how wonderful outsourcing has worked for companies and their customers compared to those that haven't worked out so well and then pick a median where you think government outsourcing will fall. Then study the options, hire management consultants to bring in studies, reports, spreadsheets with data. BTW, MC's are not cheap ya know.

If someone's EI cheque is late, and yet the cost of EI administration and delivery fell 20% - would people really complain so much ?

Seriously? If the bank doesn't get their mortage payment from the EI recipient, but EI delivery administration and delivery fell by 20% - would people really complain so much?

[Shwa]

The politicians don't understand the government, it's clear to me. They slap another layer of rules and bureaucracy on it over and over again.

Well yes they do - why do you think they want such control over it?

If we wanted to, then the government might want to.

Wishful thinking is free. But not always productive.

[Topaz]

What did you expect under this government. The hire temps, which now, they have the highest number of them working longer than ever. This government is not a conservative government its being lead by an alliance leader that doesn't know how to act like a tradition conservative and downsize government and spending, until they are over their heads in debt.

[Michael Hardner]

They were outsourced with the idea that outsourcing is a one stop shop silver bullet solution. Plus the EXTRA layers of administration costs to manage concurrent systems...

Ok, well that's a major issue right there.

Oversight. More reports. More spreadsheets with data in them. More analysis by experts. More training for expert analysts to make spreadsheets into data reports for more oversight. In other words, carefully read what Argus has already illustrated.

There's such a thing as too much analysis. The goals and sub-goals can be set out at the beginning, then the plans, then the execution, then the follow-up. If the politicians don't interfere, then you either meet your goal or you don't.

Seriously? If the bank doesn't get their mortage payment from the EI recipient, but EI delivery administration and delivery fell by 20% - would people really complain so much?

They would fix the problem, but no they wouldn't complain so much. They would fix the problem and move on.

[Michael Hardner]

Well yes they do - why do you think they want such control over it?

Wishful thinking is free. But not always productive.

All I seem to hear from you on this is that it can't be done. I sense enough frustration and noise on this issue that the people may actually start to call for something better than this.

Sending cheques, answering phones - these are things that government needs to ensure that are done, not that government necessarily needs to DO. Why is it so difficult ? Because politicians are at the top of the food chain is a major reason. At some point, the people will realize that their interference causes a lot of the problems, and will get them to butt out.

[Shwa]

All I seem to hear from you on this is that it can't be done. I sense enough frustration and noise on this issue that the people may actually start to call for something better than this.

You "sense??!" Aren't you the guy that told people on another thread that you had enough of the anecdotes and now you are talking about your feelings? Good one!

But beside that many bits and pieces of governmental services are contracted out, but of course you knew this. Right?

Sending cheques, answering phones - these are things that government needs to ensure that are done, not that government necessarily needs to DO. Why is it so difficult ? Because politicians are at the top of the food chain is a major reason. At some point, the people will realize that their interference causes a lot of the problems, and will get them to butt out.

Notwithstanding the high interest I have in your idea that "the people" will get politicians "to butt out" you might be closer to something as government services centralize. It is much easier to centralize an operations within one of two locations than it is with a hundred locations spread out across this vast nation of ours. So give it some time.

However, I wouldn't want some private company handling my personal information - or the databases of everyone else's information, when their bottom line is profit. One of the most powerful tools the government has in redistributing the wealth is in their bureaucracy. Most politicians are very aware of this fact and sometimes a local politician might lobby a minister or two to get some services located to their municipality.

My preference is the local-regional-national/provincial model where services are delivered from 'satellite' offices with the advantage being that the local offices - with staff from that locality - are better able to deliver tailored programs to that population. It allows a more refined approach, including the reporting requirements that are 'rolled up' to the regional reporting mechanism and so on. You will find this model played out in the various 'service centre' concepts currently being rolled out by the federal and Ontario provincial government (i.e. you can go into an office and get your health card, driver's licence, fishing license, etc.)

However, I also see that some services, like call centres, processing centres, administrative functions, etc. are being nationally and provincially centralized into some localities, some of them hard hit by unemployment or other economic factors. I suppose these centralized services could be privatized, but is a slight gain in efficiency (for the present) worth the long term inflexibility or cost of administering such contracts? I don't see any politician of any worth risking those sorts of goodies for his constituents do you?