Why can't we get anything done?

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, they don't do those today.

Of course they do.  You only hear about the massive projects where there are delays and court cases. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course they do.  You only hear about the massive projects where there are delays and court cases. 

I suppose you're right but if you have examples why ask me?

 

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose you're right but if you have examples why ask me?

 

You’re the one claiming there’s an issue with them…

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So do you have an example of a quick, small project by government that took too long?

How about buying the army's new pistols?

the military was still using browning hi powers for heaven's sake - and i believe it took 11 years to go through the selection process.  For a pistol. Most gov's do that in 3 or 4 years.

Here found a newspaper story.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-on-military-sidearms

This is a great example of how the gov't can turn a simple process into an extended nightmare.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re the one claiming there’s an issue with them…

Yes and you told me that I'm wrong, which I accept.  Why not show me what you have?

Also do read the NB paper, it explains this far better than I could.  My context is corporate project management and consulting which has only brought me into the government domain a few painful times.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

How about buying the army's new pistols?

the military was still using browning hi powers for heaven's sake - and i believe it took 11 years to go through the selection process.  For a pistol.

When’s the last time a soldier shot someone with a pistol?

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

When’s the last time a soldier shot someone with a pistol?

If you're trying to claim they don't and pistols are unimportant pieces of equipment that soldiers don't need to rely on, then perhaps you can explain why we (and most other militaries) issue them at all?

Please. Don't spout nonsense. Pistols are important and soldiers need to be able to trust that their gear will work in combat.

So the REAL issue is - why would it take 11 years to figure out what to repalce old ones with? It's a pistol, we're not talking about a fighter jet.

This is a good example of how gov't can complicate things and  make the timeline unnecessarily long, resulting in serious delays. And delays often cost money or opportunity or in this case potentially lives.

Processes should be no longer than they need to be. Making them longer frequently makes the outcome worse, not better.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

why would it take 11 years to figure out what to repalce old ones with? It's a pistol, we're not talking about a fighter jet.

I think some very incompetent people have been working in military procurement for a long time…. Easily since Harper.   Clearly, pistols are not a controversial item with environmental issues, NIMBYs, or native protestors….  

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I think some very incompetent people have been working in military procurement for a long time…. Easily since Harper.   Clearly, pistols are not a controversial item with environmental issues, NIMBYs, or native protestors….  

Sure. It should be easy.  Does it go bang even after we abuse it a bit? That's a good pistol

But the problem is the procurement process. And that's a good example of how 'taking your time to do it right' can get out of hand.

I noticed in the paper this morning bc estimates it's got to build 25 percent MORE homes than it ever has per year for 5 years to prevent the housing market from becoming utterly unaffordable and to have enough homes for people at all.  So, now because the process was excessively lengthy before, they're going to have to cut corners and go ultra fast now.

So we go from too slow to too fast because of the problems that created. If we'd focused on making the process more efficient in the first place so it was faster but still thorough then we'd be a lot better off.

[impartialobserver]

Having worked for a state government for now 7.5 years.. I can't think of a quick process that was ever done. Anything that we do in this office takes months and usually you have to seek out person x, person y, and person z to get approvals and so on. I like what I do and all but it is quite the cluster*** getting the simplest of things done. 

[TreeBeard]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. It should be easy.  Does it go bang even after we abuse it a bit? That's a good pistol

But the problem is the procurement process. And that's a good example of how 'taking your time to do it right' can get out of hand.

I noticed in the paper this morning bc estimates it's got to build 25 percent MORE homes than it ever has per year for 5 years to prevent the housing market from becoming utterly unaffordable and to have enough homes for people at all.  So, now because the process was excessively lengthy before, they're going to have to cut corners and go ultra fast now.

So we go from too slow to too fast because of the problems that created. If we'd focused on making the process more efficient in the first place so it was faster but still thorough then we'd be a lot better off.

I don’t disagree.  We also need to build correctly.   We’ve encouraged urban sprawl over many decades.  It’s inefficient, takes up way more land, and harms the environment.  We need to build more and more freeways to try and keep up with traffic congestion, which gets worse anyway.  
 

So not only do we need to build more, we need to build better than we have been.  

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t disagree.  We also need to build correctly.   We’ve encouraged urban sprawl over many decades.  It’s inefficient, takes up way more land, and harms the environment.  We need to build more and more freeways to try and keep up with traffic congestion, which gets worse anyway.  
 

So not only do we need to build more, we need to build better than we have been.  

Agreed - but now we have to rush and it's unlikely that will happen,. I suspect that either there will be poor municiple planning or the provinces will step in and force some one size fits all solutiosn on the municipalities.

We (the voters) need to be holding people to account better from the get go and deamanding that processes are quick and efficient yet sufficiently thorough. Not insanely long - not stupidly short. At the end of the day we let ourselves get distracted i think and then there's a problem and blam - we're in a mess.