|
Dr. K-
I normally resonate with what you write and to a large extent, agree with your latest blog. However, there does need to be balance. Some people really need a roadmap in order to get from Point A to Point B. And many people are drawn to the procurement, and other administrative field(s) because there are rules that help them feel safe. We need those people. As some of your students acknowledged, some bureaucracy is necessary to avoid chaos, duplication and to keep some semblance of knowledge management.
With that said, too much bureaucracy squelches innovation and disuades many from finding better ways to do the government's business. To help encourage innovation and Deming's challenge for continuous improvement, it is important that procurement leaders reward those who think outside-the-box as a way to incent all within the organization to find better, faster and cheaper ways of doing business---- within the bounds of the bureaucracy.
Posted by Beleaguered Fed on February 26, 2008 - 02:07 PM
Dear Dr. K. With over 35 yrs. of Federal government service I have seen a lot of changes. What I find disturbing is that far less documentation of the process is done and therefore knowledge is not passed on to succeeding generations. In addition, the newer generations have little if any historical perspective as to why certain events triggered what we did in government. Last but not the least and this is not solely targeted at the newer generations but in "reinventing the wheel" at what cost and what are the benefits. Before undertaking the changes has the analysis been done, have measures been taken that the proposed changes are really achievable to provide the greatest good which I think is the crux to good government.
Posted by galway on February 27, 2008 - 08:46 AM
One of the problems is the heavy amount and reliance on documentation. Most people do not learn well by trying to read tons of boring documents, much of which is not appicable to their work and is difficult to totally understand. What they really need is mentoring and hands on experience with someone guiding them through the process. Too many of the managers in government think all they need to do is provide a bunch of documents and the people around them will get things done properly.
Posted by expgeoengr on February 27, 2008 - 09:34 AM
The teaser in my email introduced this article as "A student in Steve Kelman's public management class explains why she found government a difficult place to work -- and an easy place to leave." This statement resonates with me 110%. I am often reminded to stay in my lane and I find my coworkers with 20X the years of experience I have operate naturally in the "tell me what to do and I'll do it; I won't do what I'm not told to do". In private industry we had to gather information, piece data together, use the myriad e-mails and attachments to work globally through primarily electronically published commuincations. Sure, there was a visit or two, maybe standing teleconferences, but the bulk of work was in e-mail. I find in government the opposite - no matter how rich the e-mail, if it isn't distilled in a phone call or a meeting work doesn't happen. The homogenization of the process by standards means the worker can determine the boundary of performance not to cross and not have to do a whit more. The institutional lessons being transferred are not vibrancy and innovation, but "go along to get along", "the nail that stands up gets hammered down", and "check your brain at the door". If it weren't for FEHB in retirement...
Posted by wledoejoed on February 27, 2008 - 09:41 AM
I have worked in the government for 30 plus uears, 25 of which have been in procurement. To me, acquisition regulations have come full circle. We started using the point system to award contracts. When FASA and FARA were implemented, we were blessed with more simplified procedures for issuing contracts, not necessarily a more simplified way of processing request. For example, the "Best Value" process allows us to award contracts to whoever is considered to be technically superior but the steps you have to go through to document they are indeed the better offer is far more than what we use to do to award a contract for under $100K. We use to get three quotes, the lowest quote got the award, and on to the next request. Do not get me wrong, I think awarding contracts using the Best Value method is good for the tax payers, and government. I'm just saying, "it ain't a simplified process", and I do not even want to start talking about the ever popular "Performance Based" contracts. It took three classes, and several years to grasp that concept, which, by the way, my technical staff fights tooth and nail not to do because the adminstrative burden is on them too. Anyway, getting back to reinventing the wheel verses sticking with the status quo. There is a key word in the new federal regulations that gives CO's even more flexibility than before. It is call "innovation". If the younger more thoughtful generation is lucky enough to work with a CO that knows how to practically apply the regulations to work assignments they will be very happy campers!
Anonymous
Posted by jsmeditor on February 28, 2008 - 10:53 AM
YOu can become brain dead fast working for the government.
lifer worker (only for bennies)
Posted by PJJ on February 29, 2008 - 12:18 PM
When dealing with the bureaucracy is harder than doing your job, then you know you have a problem.
Posted by Bospat on March 2, 2008 - 07:10 AM
First, let's consider all of the innovations that the wheel has undergone. What if I can improve the wheel? I finished my undergrad 4 years ago and I've been in Federal procurement for 3 yrs. I consider myself to be relatively innovative person who "gets" federal procurement, and every day I find myself considering a decision to leave government because I spend so much of my energy dealing with rules and bureaucracy. After reading the postings above, I feel a strange comfort in knowing that other people experience similar frustrations.
I have had several supervisors who encourage innovation and creativity, and others (sometimes in the same group) who appeal to some obscure written authority (FAR, Statute, GAO decisions) to discourage any innovative method that appears before them. There is so much written authority out there that it is very easy for them to do this. I try to counteract by finding written authority that supports the opinion that I agree with. Often times my approach is more risky, however, and it is discouraged. We can combat bureaucrats by arming procurement professionals with business knowledge. Instead of advanced FAR training, the government should offer/require more business training. The 24 business hour requirement is good, but more training is needed that discusses, for example, how contractor business strategy, cash flow and pricing strategy fit into the procurement landscape. With this knowledge, the business advisor can overcome the contracting bureaucrat. I do resent the first commenter grouping procurement with "other administrative fields", but it will continue to be an administrative field until procurement professionals are armed with more business knowledge.
Posted by jswhetsell on March 3, 2008 - 07:35 PM
nosvfpxn ypatcvlo http://kjzomqya.com qhypvzuu ivgvzihb [URL=http://kegtszik.com]adknglez[/URL]
Posted by jvckxioe on May 10, 2008 - 06:45 AM
Amazine site Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by Ipod Nana Online on August 25, 2008 - 06:32 PM
Beautifull design Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by best savings accounts us on August 26, 2008 - 11:40 AM
|
