- Risk taking ability, work ethic, ability to deliver results
- Superior technical skills
- Work needs more people than the government has
It is surprising then, that having set out to outsource, the government procurement processes are tuned to kill two of the three reasons for outsourcing. Here is how:
- By laying down stringent (often one-sided) conditions, penalties and an overall attitude of "we don't trust you or your work ethic"; the bidders are often scared stiff into risk aversion.
- By insisting that they work to government procedures and work-style - convert the vendor's employees to government work ethic
- By insisting that vendor's technical work be reviewed and evaluated by internal / NIC people (see #2 above!)
- By weighing most projects towards the lowest-bidder. Even where QCBS is touted as the method, pseudo experts and lame duck consultants water it down to elaborate tabulations in the name of objectivity.
- By causing project delays with interminable paper work, refusing to accept responsibility for the delays and needlessly harassing vendors for payments.
The private sector, over the years seems to have adapted well. Effectively killing their own competencies.
- Bid management teams are nearly exclusively focused on "winning the deal" - at any cost. Often this requires convenient interpretations of the requirements and taking short cuts that can "later be rationalized". As a result, #1 is left out in the lurch. Project outcomes are sacrificed at the altar of "win the bid first".
- Blame the government and its procedures for all their compromises. Surely the government isn't innocent. But then, what about business ethics?
- Experts cost money. Good tools, technologies and methods cost money. Money that wasn't included in the bid.
All this leaves only one reason to outsource. Not work ethic. Not result orientation. Not technical competencies. "#3: Work needs more people than the government has". Situation has deteriorated so much that it is not easy to recover from this downward spiral.
To get out of this quagmire, perhaps we could try:
Private sector reform its bid management approach. Bid to compete as much on quality as on price.
Government stop trivializing technical evaluation. Hire experts and find ways to give weight to their opinion.
One last point for emphasis. Hundreds of technical evaluation criteria achieve only one thing. Unsurprisingly, that is not "best technical bid". They ensure that bids with glaring weaknesses in several areas can still get through - as long as they bid "some standard stuff". One would think that such an obvious possibility would've been apparent to all.
I would like to hear from you all - on what you think is wrong; and how you think they can be fixed.
I would like to hear from you all - on what you think is wrong; and how you think they can be fixed.
Off late, IT was used to be a portfolio in government, where people took charge reluctantly. In last couple of years funds got appearing from central government to states. As lot many stinking, so some of the vulchars got to this episode.
ReplyDeletePoint is that to how extent things can be outsourced, governance, police, judicial system all have scope. Even education system is also being outsourced to some of the foreign universities here in this country.
To be able to get task done by others you must have the capability to understand and procure the things.
I wonder government has no capability and right number manpower in IT procurement. By engaging private sector and couple of middle men will not guarantee good to the government? For example US$6-30billion is estimated to be spent without no proper government foresight and mandate in using UID for governance and national security?
2ndly, you must look to the west how much is covered in government space and what is not covered. Outsourcing is not the panacea for everything.
improve, augment, expand, adopt world view...