“Regardless of the moniker, the majority of government initiative elemental roots can be traced back to the New Public Management (NPM) ideology in which efficiency, accountability, decentralisation and marketisation are the main components or drivers (J.E. Lane, Public Sector Reform: Only deregulation, privatization and marketisation, Public Sector Reform, 1997).
Since the early 80s the NPM “philosophy” has been viewed as the vehicle for “redefining managerial and governance practices in the public sector,” so that said practices would be more “in line with objectives typical of market economies” (D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, 1992).”

From NPM’s guiding principles for creating a “Slim” State, Procurement Insights (October 2007)

The concept of applying private sector principles to public sector practice is not a new concept. Nor is it unique to the North American public sector as illustrated by a 1995 article by Dr. ...

shippingworkz is an industry specific opportunity and networking portal designed for the maritime and transport industry. In essence, shippingworkz is the first site of its kind to combine the power of the internet for use as both a networking tool and for linking talent with leading job opportunities.

“it workz for you” is a critical part of our message. Why?

It is designed for you. shippingworkz is designed with the end-user in mind. Upon registration (it is Fast, Free and Easy – FFE!), you will have full access to our industry relevant content, current industry news, helpful resources and unique perspectives from within and outside the industry.

In addition to unique and fresh content, shippingworkz’ key focus is on creating a forum for our members to publish on our site, a public profile of themselves based on their individual preferences. shippingworkz will be adding a networking tool soon. In addition, shippingworkz members will have access to its sister site, www.logisticsworkz.com coming ...

I was recently asked to provide a contextual point of reference that would assist the uninitiated public in understanding the reasons why the GoC’s Shared Services program has become such a contentious issue.

The Answer was Baseball!

Rather than getting into a complicated dissertation of the differences between an agent-based model versus an equation-based model where the prescribed processes reflect and therefore adapt to stakeholder characteristics and objectives, I tried to think of what I would say to one of my sports fanatic friends. And it hit me, the answer is baseball!

Think of it this way, what would happen if the Commissioner of Baseball delivered an edict that all players had to use the same bat. Same weight, same length, same everything. Would it make baseball a better game?

What about hockey. Would Wayne Gretzky have been as successful as he was if during his playing days the hockey hierarchy made it mandatory that all players use the same sticks, the same skates and so on! You ...

In yet another example of the value of collaboration over compliance the Commonwealth of Virginia was ranked alongside the States of Washington and Utah as a top performer in the PEW Center’s Grading the States 2008 report.

According to the PEW organization’s web site the report, which is designed to assess the “quality of management in the 50 states,” focuses on four key areas of government practice.

The four areas that are assessed include:

Money

How states manage fiscal resources, including budgeting, forecasting, accounting and financial reporting, procurement, contracting, investments, and debt.

People

What states are doing to recruit and retain strong professionals and offering development and recognition for top-level service.

Infrastructure

How states maintain, improve and plan for future physical infrastructure needs, including roads, bridges and buildings.

Information

How effectively states apply data and technology to measure the effectiveness of services, make decisions ...

Yesterday's post regarding the role that associations are playing in undermining their own efforts to effect positive and sustainable change in the Government of Canada's procurement policy is quite telling.

Distributed widely through a variety of channels, readers were in some cases "passionate" in their comments. One such example came from an industry veteran who stated, "Why does someone not go to the Opposition who control the Committee's and force some public testimony. PWGSC prefers to sneak around in the backrooms, afraid to engage in public debate."

Alternatively, a former government employee was more reflective in their response as demonstrated by the following, "I was fully aware of this change and the direction the Feds are taking, and think that it really minimizes the potential of small company business development."

At the end of the day, there appears to be a collective belief that the GoC is headed for yet another setback that many feel could be avoided through a productive collaborative ...

It has been one of the more interesting weeks in the world of Government of Canada procurement policy-making.

Despite the numerous "outward facing" storylines that can be pursued in terms of GoC activity, the real action (or lack thereof) is actually within the supplier community itself.

I am of course referring to the ongoing inability of associations and lobbying groups to respond to government policy outside of the confines of a narrowly defined platform. A platform I would add in which the tempo is being set by the government.

As a point of illustration, let’s consider the concern that the Task-Based IT Professional Services (TBIPS) Strategy will be superseded by a "couple of winner take all contracts awarded to very large multi-nationals.”

In a June 6th, 2006 meeting hosted by PWGSC, Mike Appleton, FCMC (representing the CMC Association's Ad Hoc Committee for Government-wide Procurement) raised a number of concerns on this very same subject.

The association reported that PWGSC's Jerome Thauvette, ...

On the heels of the recent SOS from SMEs who are concerned with the direction of the Government of Canada's policies relative to procurement practice, the following link to my latest column (Paradigm Shift) in Summit Magazine is worth revisiting. (http://www.summitconnects.com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/w10_7_07.pdf)

The success of the Commonwealth's eVA program, in which their approach to stakeholder engagement has played a major part, demonstrates the elements of open collaboration that seems to elude the champions of the GoC undertaking. Or as one industry pundit put it, "same old stuff. Managing the issue, not solving it."

I hope that you enjoy the column, and I look forward to receiving your feedback.

Conference Update:

Houston (Feb. 22, 2008)

"I invited Jon to speak at the 2008 6 Packed Conference in Houston. He was very professional. He had top grade material and he provided everything requested in high quality, on time. The feedback from his presentation reaffirmed my impression ...

While I am on the road this week in Houston at a speaking engagement, recent developments from the home front regarding the Government of Canada's "Managed Services" initiative has again raised alarms within the Canadian SME community.

Based on initial comments received from senior industry representatives, the concerns are fueled by the belief that the new strategy will for all intents and purposes exclude Small to Medium Enterprises from major government contracts. Specifically, that the "TBIPS and SBIPS will be superceded by a couple of winner-take-all contracts awarded to very large multi-nationals."

Since I have not yet had the opportunity to analyze the details from this developing story, I cannot offer a definitive opinion at this stage. However, these same senior representatives have already forwarded documentation, which they tell me will provide a clear indication of the Government's intentions.

Over the next few days I will review the information at length and will dispatch a detailed analyses ...

In an excerpt from a December 13th post in the Procurement Insights Blog titled The Bands of Public Sector Supplier Engagement (see below), the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the current RFx (bid) process was questioned.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? If Yes, how would you "fix" the process?

Blog Excerpt:

“I do not think that buyers spend any time at all analyzing RFQ’s . . . once they have sent them out they go directly to the price auction and get on a phone and those who cut the price get the business.”

“We spend too much time working on RFQ’s . . . the RFQ process chews up dollars and time for something that is going to bring us no return.”

“It (RFQ’s) will have a negative effect on my business . . . we should charge the issuers of RFQ’s for responding.”

These of course represent only the tip of the proverbial ice berg. There is a general perception that the RFx process is ultimately little more than an elaborate fact finding mission that is geared toward bolstering ...