"Firms wary about hiring public sector staff"
Discussion
Bullett said:
So we either give a massive quote to cover unknowns (and don't get the job) or quote a 'basic' price caveat that will be delivered up to the eyeballs then charge extra for every change or extra feature they add and then remove again later delaying the project in turn.
Been there, done that, still have the T-shirt
But ....
In both the private and public sectors
Bullett said:
I supply IT systems to public and private sector clients. Without fair public sector projects take twice as long to produce a product half as good.
The reasons are many, but design by committee, internal politics and no-one driving solid objective based outcomes are a few.
They go through a massive tender process which is generally very poor in the information we are expected to quote on. So we either give a massive quote to cover unknowns (and don't get the job) or quote a 'basic' price caveat what will be delivered up to the eyeballs then charge extra for every change or extra feature they add and then remove again later delaying the project in turn.
Not saying private Co's are flawless they rarely are, but at least they tend to make decisions and provide timely information and don't shut the office down at 5pm each night and 4.30 on a Friday.
Mrs Digga is in a very similar profession, working for a private sector consultancy and has worked on projects for a variety of clients. Her current role interfaces with both public sector and elements of the public sector recently privatised (i.e. private by employment but public by mindset and experience) and her experience dovetails with Bullet's.The reasons are many, but design by committee, internal politics and no-one driving solid objective based outcomes are a few.
They go through a massive tender process which is generally very poor in the information we are expected to quote on. So we either give a massive quote to cover unknowns (and don't get the job) or quote a 'basic' price caveat what will be delivered up to the eyeballs then charge extra for every change or extra feature they add and then remove again later delaying the project in turn.
Not saying private Co's are flawless they rarely are, but at least they tend to make decisions and provide timely information and don't shut the office down at 5pm each night and 4.30 on a Friday.
She has had several meetings where a key public sector person has visited and brought one or even two 'unknown', un-announced hangers on. These hangers on have nothing to do with the agenda, contribute nothing to the meeting and, frankly, seem to have nothing more pressing to do but travel around at taxpayers expense. The distinct impression is one of limitless numbers of bodies employed, with not much to do in many cases.
On another instance, Mrs Digga had to travel to a meeting with two of these people - a guy and his boss - and they decided to car share. During the journey, she was gobsmacked to hear a conversation between the two guys which went along the lines of "well boss, what's this meeting about then?". This is a professional guy, who is somehow happy to trundle along to a key meeting with no notes, agenda, preparation or clue.
And this leads me to the second part of it; there are good, hardworking people in the public sector, but there is a huge culuture of spoon-feeding and mollycodling. Of providing two bods, where one hardworked one would suffice. Of literally no responsibility.
All of which, combined with death-by-committee, as Bullet says, is why large chunks of the public sector are highly inefficient.
Zod said:
Oh, well at least you've now shown your true colours as a "public sector always best" type.
It is, of course, utter nonsense. Remind me how long it took to get a phone installed (two models including the very modern trim phone). The trains were great of course. Having no choice of utilities provider was much better than the current situation naturally.
Funny that, I don't know what I'm doing here running a private company!It is, of course, utter nonsense. Remind me how long it took to get a phone installed (two models including the very modern trim phone). The trains were great of course. Having no choice of utilities provider was much better than the current situation naturally.
Zod said:
So why the extraordinary and, frankly, incredible defence of the public sector? Do you perhaps rely on the public sector for your revenues?
No."Incredible defence" - eh? I don't think so. However, I get rather tired of the fashionable diatribe against the Public Sector as if it is Holy Writ that they are inefficient drones sucking the life out the wealth creating commercial sector. The Public Sector has a role in administering Governement Policies and carrying out functions that, in the past, were thought necessary for the public good. Now it is a Cash Cow for the commercial sector to exploit, an endeavour that nobody is going to win anything from.
In my view. there are funtions in modern society that should be supplied by Government and paid for by all; Health, Defence, certain elements of the transport infrastructure, etc. This governement has not decided that they should be transferred to the Private Sector, they are just cutting the budget and as a result the funbtions will just not be carried out and staff will be shed.
I have see the results of previous staff reductions in MoD. Thousands of years worth of experience were shed in staff losses in the early 1990s and as a result MoD is no longer an "Intelligent Customer". It has become unable to manage projects effectively and the monumental cock-ups gleefully reported in the mail and others will continue.
You get what you pay for.
Zod said:
No you don't. The increase in spending on, and employment in, the public sector under Labour was enormous. Did we get a return on that?
I mentioned on another thread a few weeks back - since when did the Civil Service/Public Sector become the 'economy', as labour always describe it as such? How does this work? I fail to see how spending billions on public sector non jobs (nurses, armed forces, police force, some front line council workers etc are obviously a given..) 'Boosts the economy'.
chris watton said:
I mentioned on another thread a few weeks back - since when did the Civil Service/Public Sector become the 'economy', as labour always describe it as such? How does this work? I fail to see how spending billions on public sector non jobs (nurses, armed forces, police force, some front line council workers etc are obviously a given..) 'Boosts the economy'.
Hence the argument (often heard in BBC vox pops) that now is the wrong time to make public sector job cuts, as that is "taking spending power out of the economy".Churchill once said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Johnnytheboy said:
Churchill once said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
You'd have to be a mong not to get it....
Digga said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Churchill once said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
You'd have to be a mong not to get it....
Margaret Thatcher sort of said:
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Saddle bum said:
I have see the results of previous staff reductions in MoD. Thousands of years worth of experience were shed in staff losses in the early 1990s and as a result MoD is no longer an "Intelligent Customer". It has become unable to manage projects effectively and the monumental cock-ups gleefully reported in the mail and others will continue.
And this would be as opposed to the stunning job the MOD performed in the past, would it? 
Have you ever heard of a little thing called Nimrod?
If you go and take a look at the Rayner report as far back as 1971, you'll see recommendations that 15-25% of project development costs should be spent on project definition, and yet the MOD only averaged 8% throughout the seventies and most of the eighties. Was there a real revolution for about 3 years to create these "Intelligent Customers" within the MOD to later make them redundant?
It's interesting to note that this is much the same problem which I and other posters have noticed when bidding to the public sector for IT projects. Everything has to be done by jumping through lots of bureaucratic hoops positioned in exactly the correct sequence by people who don't actually have the first clue of what they want delivering to them.
chris watton said:
...How does this work? I fail to see how spending billions on public sector non jobs (nurses, armed forces, police force, some front line council workers etc are obviously a given..) 'Boosts the economy'.
It is based on the magic of growth! Invest to grow. Even if you are investing in nothing but a bubble, but sssh, don't tell the investors or it may all go a bit Greek 
Fittster said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Churchill once said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
State welfare is a very good and fair idea, right up to the point where any single person is better off on welfare than working. At that point, it's a failure.
Kermit power said:
Fittster said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Churchill once said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
State welfare is a very good and fair idea, right up to the point where any single person is better off on welfare than working. At that point, it's a failure.
If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Fittster said:
After a jolly holiday in German where he bumped into Bismark the stupid liberal decided that it would be a good idea to replicate the compulsory National Insurance scheme in the UK. During his watch you also have the foundation of the NHS.
If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Neither of those things are intrinsically bad though. It's taken a few decades of mismanagement to create the monster we have today.If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Kermit power said:
Fittster said:
After a jolly holiday in German where he bumped into Bismark the stupid liberal decided that it would be a good idea to replicate the compulsory National Insurance scheme in the UK. During his watch you also have the foundation of the NHS.
If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Neither of those things are intrinsically bad though. It's taken a few decades of mismanagement to create the monster we have today.If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Digga said:
Kermit power said:
Fittster said:
After a jolly holiday in German where he bumped into Bismark the stupid liberal decided that it would be a good idea to replicate the compulsory National Insurance scheme in the UK. During his watch you also have the foundation of the NHS.
If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Neither of those things are intrinsically bad though. It's taken a few decades of mismanagement to create the monster we have today.If you want a politician who loved spending fortunes start with Churchill
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff