Our government is failing to get results. It might ‘tick boxes’ – but doesn’t follow through to ‘making a difference’ – it doesn’t get to the desired end result.
This is largely a consequence of poor project management skills. When I started building houses, the first thing I did was get a roll of lining paper, and wrote down . in order, what I thought needed doing to build a house. I juggled the order until it made sense (you can’t dig trenches for utilities under scaffolding – so you either do the service connections early or late…). I then identified what I thought was the ‘critical path’ – a set of jobs that followed on from each other – and put a timescale on that sequence of events. That determined how long things might take.
Some elements of Government can be handled like this. What needs doing, how long will it take – alongside looking at the finances, the cash flow and so on.
However, government is really about the big decisions, and these need handling in a slightly different fashion.
Take defence for example. Arguably we face existential threats at the moment, at a minimum the possible invasion of parts of Eastern Europe by Russia. Proceeding in a ‘in due course’ to policy is not adequate. Increasing defence spending by less than is necessary is not the answer.
What the Prime Minister needs to do is actually decide ‘what is necessary’. That means properly funded existing defence forces, plus planned developments in the pipeline (eg nuclear upgrades) plus the increased funding/expansion tha tis necessary.
You then need to commit to that figure, then have the conversation about how to fund it. The options are limited, assuming no more borrowing or increased taxation. It means hard decisions about other govevernmetn spending, which in this context, and by definition, is less of a priority. This includes welfare spending, that needs to be cut.
There is however a second, crucial element to this decision making. There is no point in increasing defence spending if it will be too late to be of any use. The ‘in due course’ approach is not good enough.
So we need to determine when all of this needs to be done by. If we were actually at war there would be a real sense of urgency.
My view would be that all the key developments should be given very short, tight, deadlines. In general, a three year project time seems necessary.
So any new ship type, for example, needs to be launched in three years. Design would need to be streamlined, likewise the procurement process. Manufacturing would need to be on a 24/7 basis – three shifts a day, seven days a week.
Clearly there are design options – obviously keep it simple – adopt an existing design – buy it in from overseas – if necessary.
In terms of procurement, it’s no good having a committee of civil servants deciding ‘what they fancy’ and going out to tender. There’s no time for that. The best bet I think would be to use a large defence contractor, and pay them a management fee to manage the contracts, buying in the components as cheaply as possible.
Any associated processs need the same sense of urgency – any regulatory processes need to be dealt within within the ‘critical path’ framework – so approvals might need to be done with days not months or years……. Other such organisations would also need to work 24/7.
It is possible that some people could not share the sense of urgency. Employment contracts need to be changed from ‘a set weeking week’ to ‘whatever hours are needed to deliver’.
Those that can’t deliver need to be replaced. There should also be a clear legal obligation – criminal law – that any failure to deliver would be an offence…….
Many other examples spring to mind of long timescales that are unacceptable. HS2 for example – by the time it is open it may have been overtaken by autonomous transport on the motorways, even electric drone type transport.
Apparently the timescale for the new modular nuclear power plants is to have the first one open in ten years time. This is utterly ridiculous. They should be given the same three year timescale – start work on site immediately, complete design work urgently, start fabrication, plan the nuclear fueling process. Get all the approvals through without project delay – planning, impact on the environment, technical approvals.
So, terminate the ‘open ended’ thinking of start now, see how it goes, complete in due course, and change to announcing the opening date, book The King for the opening ceremony, then make it happen.
I know one great team that could do this, with the ’can do’ attitude, there must be others……
Leave a Reply