Sizing up government
The magazine Federal Computer Week regularly provides insightful stories and information about the work of managing, leading, and improving processes for better results. The January 7th 2008 issue of FCW features an editorial on government management and the presidential hopefuls. Without citing the FCW editorial opinions of the quoted views, we can still use them as a basis for our own analysis. The editorial repeats the often-quoted comment of Mr. Giuliani, that he would reduce the size of government by simply not rehiring "federal workers who retire during the coming decade." The editorial also quotes the proposal by Mrs. Clinton, to "cut 500,000 government contractors."
What can we say about the optimal size of government? There are current candidates as of this posting, who have quite different views on this issue. What products and services are best delivered by government? What values will influence our thinking and actions, as we seek the elusive "government that works better, and costs less?"
For those of us who are schooled in the methods and values of quality and organizational improvement (e.g., Deming, Kaizen, SPC, Lean Six Sigma, etc.), what would the process of assessing government agency missions look like? Are there any best practice examples around the world that our Government Division and other readers know about? What can the Government Division do in the days and weeks ahead, to think about the work of the next Administration, and offer the benefit of our knowledge and experience?
Your thoughts?
Comments
The question of what services government should provide and at what level is service considered adequate seems to be an old one. I believe it's also a constantly shifting target and dependent on global, national, and local context.
If I use water as an example, does global climate changes make it an issue of government provided across North Africa? Does drought in the US Southeast or growing demand in the US Southwest mean that the national government should step in and play a role in service provision? In rural Oregon should individuals drill their own wells or form private cooperatives? These are all policy choices. Deming, quality, lean, and six-sigman may help inform the dialogue and ultimate decision-making but I believe there is no one right answer or right size for government.
To make the political questions more complex, if we replace government workers with contractors, does that mean the cost to citizens has gone down or that the quality of the services have improved? If we cut contractors and bring the work in to the government, does that mean we have greater control or oversight?
I believe that over the years there have been some good examples coming from New Zealand and Australia as well as Charlotte, NC and Indianapolis, IN. Each brought something different to the discussion. I can recall, for example, that Charlotte put significant effort into decision-making processes and measuring the results. Cities and Counties may be good places to begin looking at processes used and results. The Government Division may have access to data and can certainly bring people together to discuss things like how to evaluate successes (or failures) and how to support political decision-making with data and information.
In the end it's really all politics; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Posted by: Howard Schussler | January 15, 2008 02:41 PM
If we agree that on virtually any issue, there will be multiple, and often competing points of view, then the deeper question is not what do, but how to decide what to do.
Differences in power, control, influence, and wealth all affect how individuals feel about any set of issues and options. Should regional drought be a national issue? The State of New Jersey has sued states the state of New York in the past, concerning medical waste that washed up on New Jersey beaches. Recent fires in Georgia resulted in air quality problems hundreds of miles away in Florida.
There is no question that the local actions and interactions of people everywhere, give rise to larger patterns of behavior, and larger consequences. As we think about choosing political leaders, and think about the role of government in both providing services and addressing problems, we might well ask how the candidates look at problems. Who do they talk to for information? Do they understand science and data sufficiently to make informed decisions? How are diverse and opposing points of view brought into the discussion? What are the leader's vision and values, which affect the way they rank-order competing priorities and options?
There are methods for engaging people in the kind of respectful, diverse dialogue that can yield innovation, consensus, and action. ASQ's own "Living Strategy" model relies on the techniques such as the "World Cafe" to influence positive change.
What other methods do we know, or have personally used, that could help political leaders, and others, make government better?
Posted by: Bruce W | January 17, 2008 02:34 PM
Size of Government based on number of people needed to accomplish something is a key factor among many factors as government quality is “measured.”
Note that “measured” is in quotes because the measurement of GOVERNMENT quality happens at the time of elections. The tools and metrics to measure program quality cannot be stretched or generalized to measure government quality. (That’s an opinion that I’ve shared, and not a proven fact.)
Making government better by reducing the number of employees may work. Privatizing operations may work. But, the key factor is it is WE THE PEOPLE working to form a MORE PERFECT UNION is the strategy to be followed. We the people in the field of quality need to be involved in government, starting with holding elected office. If we want to see government made better we need to get politically active.
Our responsibilities include applied leadership and that leadership starts with service through elected office. Improve schools? Get elected to the school board! Improve the services from the water district - - OK, run for election to the District’s board! Hold city council offices! Be elected to the state legislature! Work on campaigns for candidates we quality-types can support!
How many ASQ members attended their political party caucuses? I did. How many ASQ members have served as election judges or inspectors? I have. How many ASQ members have held elected or appointed political office? I have. And, I know I’m not the only one!
IDEA ->-> Why don’t we in ASQ create a Quality-in-Government political party? Why don’t we identify members to take political positions with an emphasis on our government? My hunch is we could create some constructive dialogue.
Jerry Brong
# # # # # # # # # #
Posted by: Jerry Brong | February 15, 2008 12:20 PM