Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the US
Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the US
Dr. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Privatize the General Services Administration Through an Employee Buyout
May 26, 1995 - The Heritage Foundation
In my October 6th posting (NPM’s guiding principles for creating a “Slim” State: What Marshall, Tipple and Rotor should have known?) I indicated that David Marshall’s decision to look outside of the government for transformation leadership (a decision he later admitted was a mistake), was centered on “private sector bigotry.”
What is interesting about the Utt article (besides the fact that many of the challenges referenced in 1995 still apply to the GSA today), is that technically his observations surrounding the apparent shortfalls in public sector procurement practice have a high degree of merit. However, his suggested methods for addressing said challenges are based on the perceived superiority of the private sector. This of course is problematic, especially when a hybrid version of privatization principles are introduced into a public sector environment such as with the GoC shared services agenda.
For example, citing the principle behind the GSA’s creation in 1949 whereby the centralization of the buying mechanism could achieve significant savings through “specialization and economies of scale,” Utt maintained that “any cost advantages from the government’s vast buying power was more than offset by bureaucratic inefficiencies and rigidities.”
Utt’s position that the resulting problems are a characteristic of “any government monopoly,” that attempts to do “what is often done better and cheaper by leaner more flexible” organizations is a reasonable evolution in his thought process. Unfortunately, it is his definition of a leaner and more flexible organization that is flawed, specifically Utt’s assertion that the ideal vehicle for addressing GSA inefficiencies is a “profit-making private company.”
In reality, I believe that the flexibility to which Utt had referred is better accomplished through a decentralized operational collaboration at the department or agency level within an existing bureaucratic framework. (The key word being collaboration as it is imperative to understand the nature of the individual pieces before you can reliably bring them together under a cohesive and sustainable program.)
A fork in the road
Perhaps it is the very premise of private sector superiority that has led the GoC to continually “go to the well” of purported private sector expertise in an effort to define its current procurement practice. Certainly, the Henry – Blank presentation on “The Role of Governance in Transformation” at last week’s GTEC conference would seem to indicate that this viewpoint is very much alive within the bureaucracy.
Ironically, it was the suggestion of privatization, either in practice or principle that was likely at the heart of David Marshall’s testimony that Tipple’s proposals were “creating upheaval in the department among employees and unions who feared job losses.”
The fallout from this atmosphere of fear is that the self-preservation instinct kicks in, and with it a shift in focus from improving operating efficiencies to one of position justification. And it is this mindset that needs to be addressed and diffused before any meaningful progress can be made with procurement reform.
What is unfortunate about the entire “privatization” concept is that it doesn’t recognize the fact that there is a distinct and significant difference between public and private sector procurement practice.
In the summer of 2006, I chaired the Summit Roundtable that reviewed the critical elements of the Federal Government’s Way Forward initiative. Based on the input that was received through a series of meetings in which representatives from both the public and private sectors were in attendance, I drafted a procurement blueprint.
In an excerpt from that blueprint, a general consensus was reached in terms of the purchasing guidelines that define public sector practice. And I quote, “it is also generally agreed that government is not a corporation and therefore has different priorities and imperatives to meet when procuring goods and services. This acknowledgement takes into account socio-economic implications including the importance of developing key Canadian business sectors or industries. Examples of key sectors or industries include the SME/minority-owned business community, or Canadian-based manufacturing sectors such as shipbuilding where job creation and community financial stability are taken into consideration.”
Dr. Utt’s 1995 article’s lack of understanding or recognition of this key tenet is where he misses the mark. It is also through the introduction of an ersatz private sector mandate on the part of the GoC that has created what some have referred to as a rudderless PWGSC ship.
Inefficiency is not an issue to be conquered!
Many within the public sector ranks point to the “media’s exploitation of past anecdotes of alleged incompetent buying,” such as the U.S. Department of Defense paying $436 for a hammer, that it is often behind the seemingly pervasive bureaucratic fear of ending up on the front page of the local newspaper. Some even perceive this to be one of the key drivers of public sector procurement policy.
Fanning this fire are contentions such as the one expressed by Utt that the reason for GSA inefficiencies and high costs is that it “suffers from fundamental flaws in its operation, from the contradictory nature of its tasks, to the monopoly it enjoys over services provided to federal agencies.” And while the General Accounting Office (GOA) was able to provide documented proof of these “flaws and excessive costs,” it only acts to highlight rather than address the problems. As an advocate of Jim Collins’ “autopsies without blame” (please read Good to Great) criticism without the provision of a viable alternative is ultimately counter-productive. And privatization or a privatization mentality is not a viable alternative.
Notwithstanding Ms. Blank’s “divide and conquer” reference in her 2004 presentation, inefficiencies within the bureaucratic process are not issues to be conquered. Instead, they need to be understood and addressed through a collaborative effort involving key stakeholders both within and external to the government itself.
Until this critical fact is recognized and acted upon within the framework of the guiding principles that define public sector procurement, the bureaucracy and the taxpayers that fund it will continue to “twist in the wind” of uncertainty and disillusionment.
When a shared services strategy makes sense?
As I have always maintained, the broad application of any strategy, regardless of how effective it is in one area of a procurement practice does not mean that it is scalable on an enterprise-wide basis.
One example is the January 2007 joint press release by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the GSA. In the release both organizations announced that they had “established the technical specifications for private sector firms to be certified as private sector Human Resources Line of Business (HR LOB) Shared Services Centers.”
While I have not yet had the opportunity to review the new program in detail, the stakeholders claim that this move will “lower the operational cost of federal human resources offices.” The point I would like to make is that there are circumstances or areas of operation that may be very well suited to a “privatized” shared services platform.
However, determining the true viability of this or any strategy will continue to be an illusive quest as long as a collaborative (not combative) element is absent from the present initiative.
Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the US - To learn more about this author, visit Jon Hansen's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
“Of all the agencies and departments that have been discussed for privatization this year, the GSA would be one of the easiest to privatize. Its many services are available from the private sector, whose more successful firms offer a blueprint for how a privatized GSA could survive and thrive in a competitive environment. Moreover, because of the routine and commercial nature of most of its operations, as well as the performance benchmarks provided by its private sector counterparts, GSA is amenable to forms of privatization that allows for substantial and active participation by the existing federal workforce. Thus, besides saving a considerable sum for the taxpayer, privatization of the GSA could become a model for many of the other privatizations lawmakers and Administration officials say they intend to pursue.
Dr. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Privatize the General Services Administration Through an Employee Buyout
May 26, 1995 - The Heritage Foundation
In my October 6th posting (NPM’s guiding principles for creating a “Slim” State: What Marshall, Tipple and Rotor should have known?) I indicated that David Marshall’s decision to look outside of the government for transformation leadership (a decision he later admitted was a mistake), was centered on “private sector bigotry.”
What is interesting about the Utt article (besides the fact that many of the challenges referenced in 1995 still apply to the GSA today), is that technically his observations surrounding the apparent shortfalls in public sector procurement practice have a high degree of merit. However, his suggested methods for addressing said challenges are based on the perceived superiority of the private sector. This of course is problematic, especially when a hybrid version of privatization principles are introduced into a public sector environment such as with the GoC shared services agenda.
For example, citing the principle behind the GSA’s creation in 1949 whereby the centralization of the buying mechanism could achieve significant savings through “specialization and economies of scale,” Utt maintained that “any cost advantages from the government’s vast buying power was more than offset by bureaucratic inefficiencies and rigidities.”
Utt’s position that the resulting problems are a characteristic of “any government monopoly,” that attempts to do “what is often done better and cheaper by leaner more flexible” organizations is a reasonable evolution in his thought process. Unfortunately, it is his definition of a leaner and more flexible organization that is flawed, specifically Utt’s assertion that the ideal vehicle for addressing GSA inefficiencies is a “profit-making private company.”
In reality, I believe that the flexibility to which Utt had referred is better accomplished through a decentralized operational collaboration at the department or agency level within an existing bureaucratic framework. (The key word being collaboration as it is imperative to understand the nature of the individual pieces before you can reliably bring them together under a cohesive and sustainable program.)
A fork in the road
Perhaps it is the very premise of private sector superiority that has led the GoC to continually “go to the well” of purported private sector expertise in an effort to define its current procurement practice. Certainly, the Henry – Blank presentation on “The Role of Governance in Transformation” at last week’s GTEC conference would seem to indicate that this viewpoint is very much alive within the bureaucracy.
Ironically, it was the suggestion of privatization, either in practice or principle that was likely at the heart of David Marshall’s testimony that Tipple’s proposals were “creating upheaval in the department among employees and unions who feared job losses.”
The fallout from this atmosphere of fear is that the self-preservation instinct kicks in, and with it a shift in focus from improving operating efficiencies to one of position justification. And it is this mindset that needs to be addressed and diffused before any meaningful progress can be made with procurement reform.
What is unfortunate about the entire “privatization” concept is that it doesn’t recognize the fact that there is a distinct and significant difference between public and private sector procurement practice.
In the summer of 2006, I chaired the Summit Roundtable that reviewed the critical elements of the Federal Government’s Way Forward initiative. Based on the input that was received through a series of meetings in which representatives from both the public and private sectors were in attendance, I drafted a procurement blueprint.
In an excerpt from that blueprint, a general consensus was reached in terms of the purchasing guidelines that define public sector practice. And I quote, “it is also generally agreed that government is not a corporation and therefore has different priorities and imperatives to meet when procuring goods and services. This acknowledgement takes into account socio-economic implications including the importance of developing key Canadian business sectors or industries. Examples of key sectors or industries include the SME/minority-owned business community, or Canadian-based manufacturing sectors such as shipbuilding where job creation and community financial stability are taken into consideration.”
Dr. Utt’s 1995 article’s lack of understanding or recognition of this key tenet is where he misses the mark. It is also through the introduction of an ersatz private sector mandate on the part of the GoC that has created what some have referred to as a rudderless PWGSC ship.
Inefficiency is not an issue to be conquered!
Many within the public sector ranks point to the “media’s exploitation of past anecdotes of alleged incompetent buying,” such as the U.S. Department of Defense paying $436 for a hammer, that it is often behind the seemingly pervasive bureaucratic fear of ending up on the front page of the local newspaper. Some even perceive this to be one of the key drivers of public sector procurement policy.
Fanning this fire are contentions such as the one expressed by Utt that the reason for GSA inefficiencies and high costs is that it “suffers from fundamental flaws in its operation, from the contradictory nature of its tasks, to the monopoly it enjoys over services provided to federal agencies.” And while the General Accounting Office (GOA) was able to provide documented proof of these “flaws and excessive costs,” it only acts to highlight rather than address the problems. As an advocate of Jim Collins’ “autopsies without blame” (please read Good to Great) criticism without the provision of a viable alternative is ultimately counter-productive. And privatization or a privatization mentality is not a viable alternative.
Notwithstanding Ms. Blank’s “divide and conquer” reference in her 2004 presentation, inefficiencies within the bureaucratic process are not issues to be conquered. Instead, they need to be understood and addressed through a collaborative effort involving key stakeholders both within and external to the government itself.
Until this critical fact is recognized and acted upon within the framework of the guiding principles that define public sector procurement, the bureaucracy and the taxpayers that fund it will continue to “twist in the wind” of uncertainty and disillusionment.
When a shared services strategy makes sense?
As I have always maintained, the broad application of any strategy, regardless of how effective it is in one area of a procurement practice does not mean that it is scalable on an enterprise-wide basis.
One example is the January 2007 joint press release by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the GSA. In the release both organizations announced that they had “established the technical specifications for private sector firms to be certified as private sector Human Resources Line of Business (HR LOB) Shared Services Centers.”
While I have not yet had the opportunity to review the new program in detail, the stakeholders claim that this move will “lower the operational cost of federal human resources offices.” The point I would like to make is that there are circumstances or areas of operation that may be very well suited to a “privatized” shared services platform.
However, determining the true viability of this or any strategy will continue to be an illusive quest as long as a collaborative (not combative) element is absent from the present initiative.
Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the US - To learn more about this author, visit Jon Hansen's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 | |
 |
No article feedback found. |
| |
Leave Your Feedback |
 | |
| |||
David BarrDavid Barr is the President of Venture Opportunities, Inc. David has been a professional business broker/intermediary since 1980 focusing on General Business Brokerage and Mergers and Acquisitions representing client transaction value from $400,000 to $20,000,000. Mr. Barr has handled the sale of over four hundred and fifty companies. David earned a university degree from the State University of New York majoring in economics and business. David holds the Mergers and Acquisition Master Intermediary and the Certified Business Intermediary designations from the International Business Brokers Association. He is also a Senior Business Analyst and a Texas licensed Real Estate Agent. For more information about David and Venture Opportunities, visit www.bizdealmaker.com. - Visit David Barr's Website |
|||
Kim CastleWith nearly two decades in the advertising and design business, with clients like Domino's Pizza, General Motors, Direct TV, Pedigree, Wolfgang Puck, Higher Octave Music, Hollywood Celebrity Products, Disney, and Paramount, as well as thousands of entrepreneurs around the world define, structure, communicate, and position their business for greater profits, BrandU(R) co-creators Kim Castle and W. Vito Montone discovered that entrepreneurs could experience the same power that big brands command for a fraction of the cost with the world's only process-based results-drive Integral approach to business creation. BrandU(R) is helping entrepreneurs grow with the power of extreme clarity from idea...to brand...to market(TM) and helping one million entrepreneurs become successful and whole so that they can make a difference in the world. Are you one of them? If you want to experience clarity all the way to the bank(TM), get started now at http://www.brandu.com. - Visit Kim Castle's Website |
|||
Dave KurlanDave Kurlan is the founder and CEO of Objective Management Group, Inc., the industry leader in sales assessments and sales force evaluations, and the CEO of David Kurlan & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in sales force development. Dave has been a top rated speaker at Inc. Magazine's Conference on Growing the Company, the Sales & Marketing Management Conference and the Gazelles Sales & Marketing Summit. He has been featured on radio and TV, including World Business Review with General Norman Schwarzkopf, in Inc. Magazine, Selling Power Magazine, Sales & Marketing Management Magazine and Incentive Magazine. He is the author of Mindless Selling and Baseline Selling – How to Become a Sales Superstar by Using What You Already Know about the Game of Baseball. He created and wrote STAR, a proprietary recruiting process for hiring great salespeople, and he writes Understanding the Sales Force, a popular business Blog and is a contributing author to The Death of 20th Century Selling and 101 Great Ways to Improve Your Life, Volume 2. - Visit Dave Kurlan's Website |
|||
|
To learn more about the Evan Elite Author Program please contact us. | |||
 | |
|  |
Subscribe to Jon's articles
 | |
|
|  |
 | |
|
| |
 | ||
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
| ||
 |
| Have you written articles that would be of value to entrepreneurs? Become an expert on our site by publishing them! Expose yourself to a wide audience, drive more traffic to your website and get more sales! Click Here for details. |
|
|
 |
| Modeling the Masters: Learn the true secrets behind Walt Disney's business success factors & grow your company! Video produced by Phanta Media |
|
|
 |
"Learn straight from Evan how you can Make a Full Time Income (And More) from a Website"
Click Here To Learn More |
|
|
|
|
Get advice & tips from famous business owners, new articles by entrepreneur experts, my latest website updates, & special sneak peaks at what's to come!
|
|
 |
 Branding The Product Pro-Forma Template Competetive Advantage Article Business Success By Design Managing Generations |
|
 | ||
 |
Top 50 Business Plans
Top Business Plan Blogs | |
 |
Top 50 Franchising Blogs
Top 50 Franchising Blogs | |
| ||
 | ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Email us your ideas on how to make our website more valuable! Thank you Sharon from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for your suggestions to make the newsletter look like the website and profile younger entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez and Sean Combs!
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||