Category: government

  • When taxpayers hearts sink

    When taxpayers hearts sink

    Nothing is sadder than a government or business that believes it will gain huge savings through outsourcing.

    Part of the 1980s management mindset is that outsiders can do a job better and cheaper than existing staff. Almost always this is proved to be expensively wrong.

    The announcement the New South Wales Government will outsource Sydney Ferries is a good example of this. Media reports claim the “government is hoping to save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade.”

    Good luck with that. As the people of Melbourne found when the Victorian government outsourced operations of suburban trains and trams the levels of service remained poor, subsidies increased and new level of bureaucracy developed to manage the disconnect between a private operator running a service accountable to the public.

    Advocates of outsourcing always overlook the cost, time and skills involved in supervising contractors.

    This is something the banks found in the early days of offshoring services as the claimed massive labour cost savings by moving operations to the developing world were offset by higher supervision costs.

    Governments have a bigger problem with outsourcing as the public service generally lacks the contractual and project management skills to effectively specify and supervise major service outsourcing contracts.

    A good example of this is the Royal North Shore Cleaning contract where the hospital has seen a fall in hygiene levelsas the contractor attempt to meet their KPIs under an agreement that has been designed primarily to save the area health service money.

    Focusing on cost savings when outsourcing is almost always a recipe for failure. In both business and government its rare that a function or operating unit is so badly managed that savings offset the increased management expenses.

    This isn’t to say outsourcing isn’t always appropriate. Sometimes those savings are achievable – albeit not as often as proponents claim – and outsourcing can deliver skills that the parent organisation lacks.

    Which is another concern about the Sydney Ferries outsourcing. The Sydney Morning Herald article referred to above says the following about the CEO of the winning consortium.

    Mr Faurby, who has more than 20 years maritime experience, has never run a passenger service before. But he said he understood what it would take to improve Sydney’s ferries.

    ”It doesn’t really matter very much if it is a towage, tug company, or a container shipping company, or for that matter a ferry company … what matters is that you have the competencies to run it in an efficient, safe and effective manner.”

    Um no. That’s 1980s management school thinking where every business – from airlines to software – can be reduced to selling soap.

    Not having experience in running a passenger service with all the customer service issues that come when you’re dealing with the public is a concern. One hopes, prays even, that Mr Faurby and his employers have the wisdom to support the CEO with managers who do have a customer service ethos.

    Then there’s the black hole of Australian public transport – ticketing.

    While it’s impossible to quantify just how poor Australian governments have proved themselves to be with ticketing systems; Sydney’s convoluted, complex, siloed and passenger unfriendly public transport system adds another layer of complexity that the new management of Sydney Ferries is going to have to deal with.

    There’s no doubt though that Sydney Ferries need reform; its management was incompetent and, beyond the usual cheerful deckhands, the staff were surly with little concept of customer service.

    Done well, outsourcing Sydney Ferries could be for the better; but the emphasis on cost savings and what appears to be naive management expectations should make taxpayers’ hearts sink.

    Similar posts:

  • Is the Paperless Office promise about to come true?

    Is the Paperless Office promise about to come true?

    For as long as personal computers have been around the paperless office one of the holy grails of the IT industry.

    Paper is messy, difficult to file or store and cruel to the environment. So being able to move and save information electronically made sense.

    Despite the promises of the last twenty years, the quest for the paperless office seemed lost.

    While the networked PC gave us the ability to get rid of paper, its advanced word processing functions and graphic capabilities along with the data explosion of email tempted us into generating more paper.

    To compound the problem, over the last thirty years paper manufacturers found cheaper ways to make their product which meant the price of paper dropped dramatically just as we found more ways to use it.

    So rather than delivering on the promise of eliminating paper, computers generated more than ever before.

    Just as it seemed all was lost in IT’s War On Paper, the tablet computer came along. Coupled with cloud computing services and accessible fast wireless Internet, suddenly it appears we might just be on the verge on delivering on those promises of the last twenty years.

    At a suburban football game I saw this first hand as I watched the ground officials electronically filing match information with their league.

    “This used to be a pile of paperwork that used to take until Tuesday to be filed and collated” the ground manager told me, “today it’s done within half an hour of the game ending with almost no paper involved.”

    For amateur sports clubs, money isn’t so much the problem as time. There simply are never enough volunteers to meet the workload of getting a team on field.

    This is true with almost any community based organisation – from volunteer firefighters to community kindergartens organisers struggle with rosters and finding helpers.

    In business the same resource constraints exist except we know we can fix these problems by paying a worker to do it. The problem there is few businesses have unlimited funds to employ filing clerks and form fillers to handle the paperwork.

    By killing paper in the office, we’re making business and the economy more efficient. We’re about to deliver on that promise.

    Bill Gates once wrote that in the short term we overpromise what technology can deliver while in the long term we underestimate its effects.

    This is true of the paperless office – now that promise is being delivered the effects on business and government will be profound.

    Is your business prepared for these changes?

    Similar posts:

  • Television rights and clouds

    Television rights and clouds

    The Australian Federal Court today handed down their appeal decision in the latest twist in the Optus TV Now copyright case where the National Rugby League claimed the telco’s online recording service breaches the sporting body’s copyright.

    Reversing their colleagues earlier decision, the judges found the TV Now service does breach the League’s copyright.

    The Court’s reasoning is because the service plays a part in creating a recording the copies cannot be considered an individual’s personal copy to be watched at a later time – therefore they aren’t protected under the personal use provisions of the Copyright Act.

    It’s going to be interesting to see where the line is drawn that a computer program or cloud service is infringing copyright.

    Could be that copying a video of a football game to Dropbox, Google Drive or Evernote is a copyright breach by those services?

    Perhaps online back up services like Carbonite or iCloud could infringe copyright as they automate the copying process?

    Even if Optus doesn’t appeal the case to the Australian High Court, the decision will almost eventually tested there by someone else.

    Many of the spokespeople – along with and their apologists in the sports and business media – have argued this is about the law falling behind technology.

    The court covered this in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgement linked above and the judges are quite clear the law was written to be technology neutral.

    Calls now to “reform” copyright law in light of the TV Now and AFACT – iiNet cases to “bring the law up to technology” are disingenuous.

    While there’s no doubt legislation could be tweaked, there’s the real threat any “reforms” driven by the pleading of the copyright industries and their tame journalist friends will result in more restrictions and damage the take up of modern technologies.

    One can’t blame the rights holders for trying to maximise their income, they have to feed the remorseless hungry beast that is modern professional sport – although one wishes they didn’t keep bleating “think of the children” to justify their actions.

    We’ve previously seen how sports organisations have felt threatened by every new technology and the profits these new tools have delivered them.

    The latest wave of change is no different, although the glory days of sports rights may be another symptom of a changing economy and 1980s thinking.

    Hopefully the sports organisations and rights holders won’t be allowed to kill the potential of the these technologies before new business models are allowed to evolve.

    Similar posts:

  • Distorted priorities

    Distorted priorities

    Every year the bureaucrats of the world’s movie production industry make their way to the Locations Show where governments compete to attract movie producers to their states with fat subsidies.

    This year, the preparations for the Locations Show conference are overshadowed by the US government’s struggling with continued subsidies to the Export Import Bank, an organisation going by the wonderfully Soviet name of the ExIm Bank.

    While ExIm and screen subisidies aren’t directly linked in the US – the bank being a Federally funded body that finances American manufacturing sales to foreign market while state governments compete for productions – both though illustrate the zero sum game of corporate welfare that leaves citizens poorer in the process.

    Delta Airline’s law suit over Exim subsidies to Boeing gives us a real life illustration of how business loses in these battles for government largess.

    When Delta Airlines goes to buy or lease a Boeing 777, they have to find funds at a commercial rate of interest. Air India on the other hand gets a subsidised rate courtesy of ExIm bank.

    However if Delta chooses to buy an Airbus A330, European governments will offer similar subsidies to the American carrier.

    So the subsidy system actually encourages American carriers to buys European jets rather than the US products. Nice work.

    This distortion is something we see too in film subsidies, as government funds are siphoned off to support large corporate movie productions.

    Nowhere is this truer than in Louisiana where the state embarked in 2009 to capture the so-called “runaway production” market of footloose movie projects that shop around the world for the most lucrative subsidies.

    This has worked, with Louisiana based movie production expected to total 1.4 billion dollars in 2011 on the back of $180 million in subsidies.

    One of the productions Louisiana grabbed in 2010 was The Green Lantern which came as a surprise to the government of the Australian state of New South Wales who thought Sydney had secured the project.

    The Green Lantern loss was the nadir for the Australian film industry that ten years earlier had been overwhelmed with productions like The Matrix Trilogy.

    At the time of the Green Lantern loss the industry appeared to be in its death throes, crippled by a high Australian dollar and disadvantaged by relatively lower government subsidies.

    You’d have thought that riches to rags story had taught Australian politicians that dumb subsidies don’t work and may have actually damaged the local film industry more than it helped.

    Unfortunately not.

    Last week the Australian Federal government announced $13 million in support for production of Wolverine. The Prime Minister’s office gushed;

    To attract The Wolverine to Australia, the Gillard Government granted the producers a one-off payment of $12.8 million which will result in over $80 million of investment in Australia and create more than 2000 jobs.

    The payment effectively provided The Wolverine a one-off investment package equivalent to an increase in the existing Location Offset to 30 per cent.

    Without this effective tax offset incentive, the producers of The Wolverine would not have chosen Australia as the location.

    In the 1950s, it made sense to invest in the industries of the future such as aviation, movie and car manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately for our politicians in Washington, Canberra, Sydney and Baton Rouge, we don’t live in the 1950s.

    Similar posts:

  • Taking care of our own

    Taking care of our own

    “The council ought to do something” growled a friend who’d been stuck in a peak hour traffic jam.

    That innocuous comment illustrates the fundamental challenge facing the developed world’s politicians – that we expect our governments to fix every problem we encounter.

    In the case of the local traffic jam, the cars creating gridlock are parents driving their children to two nearby large private schools.

    Despite the problem being caused by the choices of individuals – those decisions to send their kids to those schools and to drive them there – our modern mindset is “the government aught to do something” rather than suggesting people should be making other choices.

    Socialising the costs of our private decisions is one of the core beliefs of the 1980s mindset.

    Eventually though the money had to run out as we started to expect governments to solve every problem.

    We’re seeing the effects of this in the United States where local governments are now having pull up black top roads, close schools and renege on retirement funds as those costs become too great.

    As a society we have to accept there are limits to what governments can do for us.

    Increasingly as the world economy deleverages, tax revenues fall and the truth that a benign government can’t fulfill our every need starts to dawn on the populace, we’ll realise that expecting politicians and public servants to save us is a vain hope as they simply don’t have the resources.

    Bruce Springsteen puts this well in his song “We Take Care Of Our Own.”

    The truth today is the cargo cult mentality of waiting for governments or cashed up foreigners to come and save us is over.

    We’re going to have to rely more on our own businesses, families and communities to support us in times of need.

    The existing institutions of the corporate welfare state are beginning to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

    Joe Hockey knows this, but as a paid-up agent of the establishment he doesn’t dare nominate the massive cuts to middle class welfare and big business subsidies that are necessary to reform those institutions.

    Waiting for the council to fix the local roundabout is nice but it doesn’t address the bigger problems.

    It’s up to us to build the new institutions around our local communities and families. This is not a bad thing.

    Similar posts: