AN INTERESTING FOLLOW ON

Further to my article last week it has been interesting to note that there have been a couple of follow on articles dealing with a separate, but similarly themed issue relating to the provision of services to government.  Interestingly as they unfold, and it is accepted that not all parties can be frank due to client confidentiality, it seems that all roads appear to head toward the centre.

The process of supplying to the government regarding significant contracts is complex. With the size, value and duration of some of these contracts that is understandable because it’s too late to find out that it’s wrong after the fact; albeit that this is not necessarily an unusual experience these days.  Notwithstanding the questions that must be asked are, does the process really achieve its proper aim, is the process more complicated than it needs to be, has the process been designed for some self-serving process, is the process cost effective from a zero base, not merely a comparison to percentage of contract?

Processes become big, costly and ultimately serve but a few; that is, those that truly understand how to make the system work, for them.

After my earlier comments it was interesting to note that on this new matter it was a government department that threw a major consulting entity under the bus for failing in their analysis, and then later this week it was the consulting entity that said their report actually raised concerns about the supplier concerned!  Either way it appears to be a complete mess; notwithstanding, it’s beginning to indicate, at least at this early stage, that the process, whatever it was, was flawed.

The commonality of purpose, process, and primacy of fee generation amongst large consulting entities remains a concern for many and this will no doubt merely pass to reinforce those concerns.  A thorough analysis by truly independent eyes may one day find both an answer and a new solution.