Reform of Australian Government Administration
Challenges facing the public sector: share your thoughts (15-17th October)
The discussion paper Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the best public service in the world identifies, in Chapter 2, six key challenges that are facing the public sector at the federal level in the next 10 years:
- The increasing complexity in the nature of many policy problems such as global warming, illicit drugs and addressing social disadvantage.
- Citizens’ increasing expectations of government as people are becoming better educated and more affluent and as business faces increasing competitive pressures.
- Demographic change, including the ageing population, means that the working age population as a proportion of the total Australian population will fall by around 8% over the 40 years to 2047 . The public service will need to compete more effectively for talented employees.
- Technological change provides great opportunities for improved service delivery and greater efficiency. It also poses challenges for the public service such as reforming policies and procedures to allow better exploitation of technology as well as effectively managing IT systems over their lifecycles.
- Globalisation – in today’s interconnected world, financial and economic developments, ideas and a range of threats are transmitted around the globe in an immediate way. Recent examples include the global financial crisis and swine flu. The public service needs to be able to effectively respond and adapt to these developments.
- Increasing financial pressures faced by government are influencing the resource levels likely to be available in the public service and are driving the need for greater efficiency and effectiveness in all government operations.
We are interested in your views on whether the discussion paper has correctly identified the key challenges in the strategic environment and their implications for how the public service will need to operate.
Questions for discussion:
What are the most important challenges facing the public sector in the next 10 years?
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
The six key challenges listed in the discussion paper sound plausible, but I would make two observations.
First, it ignores the challenges that are found in the work of the public service: how do you provide for national security, how do you respond to the global financial crisis, how do you find a reasonable balance between environmental and economic concerns (especially when the necessary information is incomplete, etc. There would be hundreds.
Second, I think "increasing public expectations" puts a too much emphasis the public. Much of this is actually increasing expectations of political actors - politicians (government, opposition, and other), lobby groups, and the media that communicates their messages. I would be inclined to argue much of the expectations are unrealistic, with a utopian view of what ought to be achievable.
Martin
The six key challenges are spot on in my view. However, what I would add is that one of the major challenges is the public sector itself. While the is no doubt whatsoever that we have many clever and talented people it is also fair to say that, for reasons of history, we have many that are not. At least not in the world we are facing. Also, many of our ways of working actually work against us. To much red tape, to much emphasise on hierarchy, to many careers and interests grounded in the past.
These are often messages we get from the community, but what tends to happen is that they get treated as 'perceptions to be managed' rather than substantive issues to be acted on. I think we need to get past that approach and look at such messages as problems to be acted on. So while dealing with these challenges we also need to, as it were, deal with ourselves.
Nothing wrong with being utopian or idealistic. Otherwise, why are we all here?
Steve
"The media that communicates their message".
I think that this is the fundamental problem for all our institutions of (three levels of) governance = adapting to a globalizing world where government used to be about 'delivering a National service' or 'implementing a National policy'. The introduction of a Dept, of Socialinclusion speaks reams about what media is Internal, what media is external, and what media is (not) shared, between the two, in the civil space.
Certainly a space like this is a first attempt to believe that by giving people (all of whom are citizens) a voice, public servants (in one level of government) might become capable of being more responsive. But the paradigm is as antiquated as the tool chosen to support this open forum. So the media which might have allowed people to communicate their message, to one another, and find more innovative solutions to their needs and wants is stillborn. I agree with Martin, "much of the expectations are unrealistic". But that's only because I have been told so many times by PS who always agree they must abide by a set of rules, in a silo, in a country town, where they have so little say that nothing can change. "Sorry mate, I'm too busy delivering a (well defined= one size fits all) service".
Most of the cultural changes taking place in civil life are driven by the fact that we can all have these discussions in a global space, yet reports like the Gershon report are always couched in terms of 'National ICT' (in Australia's case at a Federal.gov level only). As Pt. 5 says "The public service needs to be able to effectively respond and adapt to these (global) developments". It does; in its present form it can't. But at least many of the citizens that work internally and externally understand that, which is why so many of our public institutions are so quiet - uncommunicative - these days. You see, they are educated to broadcast a message, not to receive one, except on a National policymaking level. But well done on your department taking your first steps into the new world of interactive (collaborative) media, at last. I suppose you wouldn't consider using AGOSP as a Single Sign on (online) account for all citizens would you? It would be nice not to have to sign on separately to all the interactive spaces popping up on .gov.au websites now, and duplicating the conversations
I understand the biggest labour market pool of untapped potential is women with young or school aged children who don't need to work, but would be happy to do so around their family commitments. Shouldn't we take a different view of how we structure our workforce? For instance, there is capacity already for part time work and purchased leave. If the Australian Public Service were to offer work on the basis of school hours and school term times I think we would be inundated with applicants. Additionally, many retirees would be happy to work 3 - 6 months a year. We would benefit from being more flexible in our approach.
"Shouldn't we take a different view of how we structure our workforce?"
I'd ask; Shouldn't we take a different view of how we structure our institutions? You can't restructure a workforce. You can restructure the kinds of jobs and the hours PS are employed. Yes, many new mothers and (bored & experienced) old men and women would want (say) 20 hours a week or 3 months/year. Yes all the technology is there which would enable them to work from home or in a nearby ICT centre. But our institutions are set up for an industrial time and based on the idea that people don't want to work, which is why they must come into an office. But good point, we need more flexible institutions. This is happening of course, mainly at the local and state level. Canberra, as the locus for 3/4 of Senior Public servants, is the odd MAN out here.
I agree strongly with these comments. The current model of operation for the APS (hierarchical bureacracy with 'new public management' culture) is known to be the least effective and efficient model - there are still some things we can usefully do to improve it, but bureacracies inherently resist change.
Hierarchical bureacracy has been the default model for public administration for a very long time, but there is increasingly good evidence that it's running out of puff. The notion that public administration must be bureacratic needs to be challenged. The big question is - do we have the political and administrative leadership that are prepared to do this?
THE EFFICIENCY DIVIDEND
Several contributors have commented negatively on the efficiency dividend.
In its current form it's a very blunt stick that reflects an outmoded (1980s) theory of organisational performance.
However, there is still a need for an effective mechanism to drive productivity improvement across the APS.
It may be that the efficiency dividend should be replaced by a more sophisticated 'productivity dividend' that properly reflects the many factors that influence APS productivity.
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
A NEW APPROACH FOR TECHNOLOGY-BASED SERVICES
Technology management IS NOT a core function of the APS (current debates about IT outsourcing notwithstanding).
Service management IS a core function of the APS - all APS activities require ready and affordable access to relevant services, including technology-based services.
Technology management across the APS is still primarily focused on the internal production of technology-based services (notwithstanding technology outsourcing arrangements implemented over the last decade). This approach broadly reflects the 20th century 'cottage industry' era of enterprise-based IT.
A historic shift in the ICT industry is now occurring, with the advent of industrial-scale production of technology-based services that is already achieving order-of-magnitude reductions in service costs. Currently the APS and its agencies are not well prepared to take advantage of the emerging technology services paradigm. Consequently the APS will continue to be exposed to high service and infrastructure costs, and competition for increasingly scarce and expensive technology expertise.
The APS must establish a consistent approach to the management and provisioning of technology-based services. As with information, there is no evidence that a 'best practice' approach will be effective, and it is likely that suitable administrative legislation will be required.
The priority is to establish consistent standards-based arrangements for the provisioning of technology-based services, including:
- IT Service Management;
- Service oriented architecture;
- Service oriented infrastructure;
- Robust security arrangements;
- Assurance mechanisms for external service providers.
Effective governance arrangements for APS information and data are an essential prerequisite for the broad adoption of externally-produced services by agencies.
Key outcomes of a shift to a services-based approach will include:
- significant future reductions in the cost of technology-based services;
- faster and more flexible provisioning and deployment of technology-based services;
- APS-level economies of scale for standard technology-based services;
- a sound basis for comparing the quality and costs of internally and externally produced technology services;
- future access to industrial-strength ‘information banking’ services;
- reduced exposure to the future costs and risks of internally-produced technology-based services.
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
A CONSISTENT APPROACH TO REPORTING ACROSS THE APS
Reporting is a core function of the APS.
Reporting includes:
- operational reporting
- internal management reporting
- external management reporting (eg financial reporting to DOFR)
- public accountability (eg annual report)
- regular and ad hoc program reporting
- regular and ad hoc reporting to Government and Parliament
The non-technology costs of APS reporting account for an estimated 25% of operating expenses. These costs reflect the one-off and ongoing costs of designing, compiling and assuring reports – they do not include the underlying supply costs for relevant information and data.
With the exception of financial reporting, there is no consistent formal approach for the management and accountability of reporting at APS or agency level. Consequently there is no effective overall control or accountability for reporting performance, costs or risk at either APS or agency level.
A consistent approach to the management of reporting at APS and agency levels is needed.
An effective approach to APS reporting would have two levels of focus:
- demand-side management of reporting requirements and priorities
- supply-side management of report development and production processes
Key outcomes of and improved approach to APS reporting would include:
- reduced costs of reporting across the sector, from 25% to 20% of departmental expenses within 5 years;
- improved quality, consistency, timeliness and reliability of reporting at agency and APS level;
- improved reporting of policy outputs and outcomes;
- better informed decision making at all levels of the APS and agencies;
- improved control and accountability of reporting performance, costs and risks;
- an improved basis for investment in technology-based reporting services;
- improved public accountability.
I'm not sure this is the key to solving the problem. In fact the idea of reporting internally and externally appears to be the problem, not the solution. I agree that records must be kept. But of 25% of the time is made up of issuing reports, surely the problem is that these are to compensate for the lack of open communications, internally and externally. One of the major changes introduced by new media technology (its a better description than ICT) is its habits of offering easy and simple ways to create channels between silos. Certainly its a problem that the old way of doing things is to issue reports backwards and forwards, many of which were instituted before blogs, wikis, forums, etc were considered. But aren't we better off placing an emphasis of the interdepartmental committees and improving their communications, and formalising the space in which this inter-agency communication is kept, so they become records in themselves, rather than further industrializing the reporting process?
Any system (including government administration) requires some level of formal communication (feedback) to maintain effective organisational control and ensure accountability (APS agency heads are legally required to do this).
The key questions about reporting are the standard ones:
- WHAT is being reported
- HOW is it being reported
- WHO is reporting
- WHO is being reported to
- WHEN is it being reported
The current problem is that there is no overall framework or process to control APS reporting activity, and consequently it is effectively out of control.
The framework I have suggested is designed to optimise the quantity, quality and cost of reporting over time. One of the big problems at the moment is that supply-side driven IT reporting projects (BI, data warehouse etc) don't effectively address the more fundamental business demand-side issues, and actually lead to more reporting than may be necessary.
I don't disagree that we want (generally) less reporting rather than more, but this won't be achieved in the current approach. We need to make Ministers, Secretaries and SES accountable for the overall level and quality of reporting activity. One of the big problems is that most SES don't know what their real reporting costs are - there's not even a line item in the standard chart of accounts for it.
Could I suggest to the RAGA team that analysis and benchmarking of APS reporting activity and costs would be a very useful exercise.
The aim of the game is to implement processes to optimise the demand for reporting (business-side), and then implement reporting mechanisms that minimise the costs of meeting agreed reporting needs.
This is not a static business requirement - reporting requirements need to be reviewed at least annually as part of general business planning, to ensure that any new reports are genuinely needed, old reports with no further utility are decommissioned, and continuing reports are reviewed to confirm their usefulness and quality.
The APS must act now to address the financial challenges agencies face, which are being exacerbated by the efficiency dividend.
1. The APS should centralise generic non-core functions across agencies. As others have commented, there's no need for agencies to have different procurement and HR processes. Developing these kind of processes is complicated and time consuming. They consume agencies' resources that would be better invested in their core purposes such as service delivery and policy advice.
2. There should be one collective agreement for most APS agencies. Agencies waste millions of dollars every year negotiating over 100 different collective agreements. How about a common set of core conditions in one agreement across the APS, while maintaining some flexibility at the agency level?
3. The Department of Finance or Australian National Audit Office should have a dedicated unit to identifying waste in agencies at all levels. Pointless bureaucratic processes, red tape and largess should be identified. Finance or ANAO wouldn't necessarily need any kind of binding powers, public reporting of the waste and recommendations to address it should be enough motivation for agencies to act. This will allow more money to be spent on services that make a difference to citizens.
4. All APS agencies should have processes in place to facilitate continuous improvement based on the experiences of front line staff. I'm sure if you ask regional Medicare or Centrelink staff for suggestions to save money they would have lots of good ideas. There needs to be a central unit in every agency to receive, encourage and explore such ideas. Otherwise you're relying on an APS6 to pass on an idea to an EL1 who has to pass it on to an EL2 etc etc. There needs to be closer connections between front line staff and those who make policies and processes. This would help improve efficiency and service delivery.
This seems to be approaching the idea of a citizen focussed approach to "service delivery", from the inside. "Non core" or "generic" functions, "services that make a difference to citizens", "continous improvement based on the experience of frontline staff", "flexibility at the agency level". Absolutely!
Let's keep in mind that PSers are also citizens. They also have the experience to identify a "pointless bureaucratic process", and often understand how to fix a stupidity quickly and simply; especially when "the computer says no". But "the central unit in every agency" to encourage, encourage and explore such (good) ideas wouldn't seem to be the way to go here. Many multinationals have internal online places, shared between global groups, where employees (and customers) are encouraged do exactly this. But it takes leadership to change a closed culture, where every little mistake must be covered up, and we simply lack this in the PS. I have yet to hear of one PS say, "look at what these guys are doing". I suppose this kind of cultural change always comes down to our elected reps proving this kind of leadership. It's not fair on PSers to take this step into the dark. Maybe govdex could be used to encourage this. But it would need to an approach very similar to 'Professional Development' in the education sector for a more open culture to be instituted and become entrenched.
I totally agree with each of these points.
Regarding point (1):
I am an EL2 in a small statutory authority. We waste an inordinate amount on procurement and IT, and to a lesser extent HR (I believe some HR issues are appropriately dealt with in house).
IT is a particular problem for my agency. Our IT expenditure is substantial, and we have little to show for it. The head of our agency has been told he 'cannot have a BlackBerry' because it is not 'secure'. DSD's website clearly shows BlackBerrys can be hardened to PROTECTED. This is just one small example of the problems that arise when you have a very small and relatively inexperienced IT department. I am sure it would not have occurred if our IT was managed by either the main department that we deal with, or a centralised agency.
I'm very interested to hear these comments from someone in a small agency regarding support costs. It confirms my view that we need to get a good handle on the true level of APS support costs, which is probably much higher than most of us thought it might be. If you include the time spent by line-of-business staff conforming with support processes (eg procurement, recruiting), it's possible that the true cost of support activities may be around 70-80% of APS operating costs.
We then need to find effective mechanisms for minimising overhead costs consistent with legitimate business requirements. I agree entirely that centralising the supply of generic support services is a good approach.
Suggestion to RAGA team - measurement and benchmarking of true APS support costs, including process costs borne by business units (procurement, recruitment, financial compliance etc).
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
BETTER MANAGEMENT OF APS INFORMATION
Information is a core element of APS capability. It directly impacts performance, costs and risk at all levels of the APS and agencies.
The non-technology costs of managing APS information and data are estimated at around 25% of operating costs.
The stock value of APS information and data assets is in the order of $25-50 billion (around 2-4 times the size of APS IT assets).
There is no consistent formal approach for the management and accountability of information and data resources and assets at APS or agency level.
There is no effective overall control or accountability for information and data performance, costs or risk at either APS or agency level.
There is a clear need to establish a consistent approach to the management of information and data at APS and agency level.
There is no compelling evidence of any fundamental improvement in the management of information and data across the APS in the last decade or so.
The 'best practice' approach has failed. There is now a clear need for a legislative imperative for agencies to adopt a consistent approach.
The Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act is a model resource management act, and provides a ready-made basis for an Information Management and Accountability (IMA) Act.
There are broadly three levels of focus required for any new approach to effective:
- governance of information and data at the executive business level
- management of information and data at the operational business level
- information and data management at the technical level.
Key outcomes of better governance and management of APS information would include:
- reduced costs of managing information and data across the APS, from 25% to 20% of APS operating costs within 5 years;
- improved access to relevant information and data across the APS, agencies and stakeholders;
- reliable quality assured supplies of information and data to key policy and program processes;
- strengthened capability for evidenced-based policy development and program evaluation;
- better measurement of key performance indicators;
- consistency of information and data across the APS and agencies, with improved capability to integrate and synthesise information and data across policy domains;
- improved control and accountability for information and data performance, costs and risks;
- an improved basis for investment in technology-based information and data systems and services;
- improved public accountability for information and data.
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
IMPROVED DIRECTION, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF APS CAPABILITY
CAPABILITY = CAPACITY + ABILITY
APS CAPABILITY is the capability required to undertake the full spectrum of APS policy, program and delivery activities in a timely, effective, efficient and ethical manner.
There is a clear need for a more consistent and effective approach to the direction, planning and management of APS capability.
To be effective any new approach needs to coherently address all elements of APS capability, including:
- governance (leadership, direction, authority, stewardship, control, accountability);
- management;
- business processes;
- business resources & assets (people, finance, information & data, other productive capital);
- enabling services;
- enabling infrastructure.
Significant short-medium term improvements in APS capability, performance and efficiency are achievable within existing APS structures and arrangements through:
- general improvement of APS-level and agency-level coordination and support for direction, planning and management of capability;
- focusing on existing elements of capability that afford opportunities for significant performance improvement and cost reduction through better governance and management arrangements (eg management of information and data, reporting).
Siginificant medium-long term improvements in capability, performance and efficiency are achievable through progressive improvement of APS structures, governance and management arrangements.
Key outcomes of these improvements would include:
- general improvement of APS capability planning and management;
- better matching of APS capability to key policy and program tasks;
- improved APS capability to address and resolve complex policy issues;
- more flexible and responsive deployment of capability at agency, cross-agency, whole-of-APS and sector levels;
- better measurability, control and accountability of APS capability costs and performance;
- better opportunities to achieve ‘synergistic’ APS capability improvements (within and across agencies);
- continuing improvement of APS productivity and efficiency over time.
There are many and varied challenges facing the public sector over the next ten years.
There's heaps of debt to pay back - so that's gonna mean lots of pain for the public sector, as its going to have to have some budget cuts. But the public sector shouldn't be scared of that. Instead, it should seize the day - along with the accompanying opportunity provided to it by lots of (sad to see) retirements - and bite the bullet and downsize. That way, if we have a smaller public service, there'll be better talking to each other across boundaries, less hierarchy, more fulfilled employees in what they are doing, they Gen Y youngsters will be happ(ier), things will happen more quicker. So that's about debt. Make a bad situation good. Didn't the PM tell us to be innovative? There you go, there's my suggestion.
Another challenge:
Retirement. Lots of it. I mentioned it before. I'm getting closer to it myself every year. I see good colleagues go out the door every year, off to tend to their gardens. But they walk out with important corporate memory. The public sector needs to catch that and bottle it. It's gold. But we need a mechanism to do that.
Another challenge:
Pay. Senior public servants are not paid enough. Seriously. Why would some people work in those roles for that sorta money? It ain't much. And it ain't gonna attract the private sector people that the top APS leadership are keen to attract (see ads in the paper in recent months).
Another challenge:
Training. I like training; always have. It is important for a public servant to be trained, no matter what their level. I like to brush up on my skills, hear about the latest developments, and build my career prospects. Training - or learning and development - has been good for my colleagues and my bosses. They've done those specialised leadership programs, and its done them good. We all benefit, whether you do uni stuff, a program with colleagues, or attend one of the APSC's programs.
Another challenge:
Time pressures. These are great these days, but we need to have better technology to help, better records management and retrieval.
From my perspective as a mid ranking APS staffer in a large Canberra based department I'd like to make the following points.
Q.What are the most important challenges facing the public sector in the next 10 years?
Response. I generally agree with the comments in the discussion papaer and on this blog. Below are some additional comments.
* IT. While on the surface there are benifits in streamlining APS IT systems, the reality is that there are many different platforms and too many different requirements, esp for the larger Departments ( Defence, Centrelink, DEEWR, FaHCSIA, Medicare etc). However there is a lot of merit in combining the IT systems of small, Canberra based Departments/agencies into a common platfom.This would provide efficiencies and would allow these smaller Department access to a more comprehensive IT system then they would otherwise have access too.
*Policy complexity & decision making. The current complex policy enviroment is a sign of the times. There needs to be a common APS wide apporach to finding policy solutions . Decision making of policy issues of real importance to the community (e.g. Closing the Gap, Indigenious Housing, Employment policy, education, health,) is too centralised in Canberra, which is often is too far from where the policy is to be implemented, and is made by well intentioned staff who have no idea about what they makeing decisions on, or are completly out of touch regarding the actual events on the ground.
* APS staffing. Many talented potential employees, and current APS staff not based in Canberra, are very unwilling to relocate here. The answer, decentralise some work and decision makeing, to areas away from Canberra. Centrelink is a excellent model to policy departments to follow. More and more of Centrelinks National Office positions are now based across many locations across Australia. There is really no reason why other Departments ( FaHCSIA, DEEWR, etc) cannot do this as well.
* Efficiencies. There are ways to get some real efficiencies by having, where appropiate, APS wide standards or process's, e.g contract management, tendering, making better use call centres and web based applications.
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
* IT efficiencies such as common IT platforms, are required.
*Public perceptions. The public want efficient and effective govenment. Waste has to be elimanated, but it also has to be defined, what may be one persons idea of waste make actually be an appropiate business decision! The current problems regarding the lack of new housing for Indigenious communities in the NT could have been avoided if there were experenced APS senior officers based in the NT managing this program in the first place.
*APS Stafffing. It is getting more and more difficult to recruit staff to fill Canberra based positions. Potential staff find Canberra too expensive to live in, too hard to locate housing, don't like the weather, or find Canberra too dull.
* Policy complexity. Needs to be better working between departments.
*Appropiate levels of staffing to get the job done
* Get rid of the efficency dividend
Probably the most succinct, informative and honest assessment of the federal government's fundamental problem one could read. Culture is such an impossible thing to explain to people who have never lived it. And most culture is based on where one lives. NY has such a very different culture than LA, as do Sydney and Canberra. It is the only capital city in the world (that I know of) which is so remote (from the culture) of its capital cities. Perhaps there is no sadder example of the effects of this isolation than the indigineous problems, although the implementation of the digital education revolution is close behind. So much money has been spent on ICT solutions which, nationally, cannot talk to one another.
Many of the common platforms which might satisfy the "common approach to policy development" could be satisfied by exactly the same ICT platforms which are required by national educators in order to educate the PSers of the future (and today). Let me give one concrete example. There are many, many (online) spaces which represent distance learning at institutions around the world. ALL work on the formula that one brings a number of people to an online space like this after a conference. Most educators expected to find something like this space after the 2020 summit. Canberra PS weren't ready for it as the new government arrived (although Sen. Kate Lundy probably was).
The idea of "people's cabinet" events is a great idea. The challenge now is to get the balance right between the events and online tools. As PMC get their heads around what is happening in global (and Australian) learning institutions, the "better working between departments", and "a common APS wide approach to finding (broader and lighter) policy solutions", in conjunction with their common communities, will become more obvious. It will become more obvious because this new collaborative media has already changed the culture inside most old .edu institutions. It's now up to the Canberrian institutions to catch up, by being more inclusive.
One of the greatest challenges for the APS is the workforce demographic. We have set up our work / life arrangements in such a manner that any of the factors to retain people working in Government long term have been lost. Superannuation for example is now fully portable and based on an accumulation 'choice' scheme. Younger workers see and are told that remaining with one employer for more than 5 - 6 yrs is not a positive thing.
A large number of APS employees are set to retire in the next 5-15 yrs. This exodus will create a vaccum into which we are at risk of promoting people who may be of mediocre quality from within the Service.
Decreasing budgets or budgetary restraint is likely to be a challenge. Commonly once budgets tighten one of the first areas to be cut is training and development. Yet it is in training and development that the seeds to retain and grow our new younger employees lies. This is a case of the tactical & operational imperative outweighing the strategic. When times are tough or a crisis of any kinds reigns - the first thing to be disgarded commonly is strategy...and yet it is at these times that strategy becomes most critical.
Our ability to offer flexible ways of working that will keep or retain our people are crucial. The idea of a more fluid and mobile APS workforce is one that is very exciting. If we can find a way to allow people to move around between agencies in a way that is 'easy' our capacity to retain those people will grow hugely.
One step could be to establish an 'Australian College of Government' concept - in which the Learning and Development areas of all agencies are linked in a 'virtual' college that exists everywhere. Training opportunities that are offered in one agency - where 5, 10 or 15 empty seats go begging - should be on offer to the wider APS.
Qualifications could be managed by a single Registered Training Organisation (RTO) place for all of the Commonwealth rather than every agency having their own RTO status and management system. All Agencies could be auspiced under the central RTO and every Trainer anywhere in the Commonwealth would become a member of the Australian College of Goverment Faculty. Linkages with Universities would provide pathways direct from Government training that could become the envy of the private sector. We need also to recognise that we have excellent skills in Government and the APS that are unique and are not mirrored in the private sector. This concept would cement these pluses and make the most of them.
This is a very exciting project and I look forward to reading more comments that are to be added over the coming weeks.
What are the most important challenges facing the public sector in the next 10 years?
EXTERNAL challenges are those that shape the environment in which government administration has to operate
INTERNAL challenges are those that need to be addressed for government administration to operate effectively, efficiently and ethically in the EXTERNAL environment
1. Increasing complexity in the nature of policy issues - generally agree that this is a key EXTERNAL challenge - complexity can be measured initially by the number of policy and stakeholder 'domains' that the issue touches, with direct implications for who needs to be involved in the policy/program/delivery process. Even within a single policy domain, issues can be complex.
2. Citizens increasing expectations of government - generally AGREE that this is a key EXTERNAL challenge
3. Demographic change, including ageing population - generally AGREE this a key EXTERNAL and INTERNAL challenge
4. Technological change provides opportunities and challenges - generally AGREE that this is a key EXTERNAL and INTERNAL challenge
5. Globalisation - generally DISAGREE that this is a separate key challenge - it's just part of the increasing complexity of the EXTERNAL environment for government administration
6. Increasing financial pressures ... driving the need for greater efficiency and effectiveness in all government operations - generally AGREE that this is a key INTERNAL challenge
In my public submission to the 2008-09 Budget process I made the opening statement -
"The Australian Government faces unprecedented challenges at all levels of policy – global, regional, national and local. To address these increasingly complex challenges effectively and deliver timely, viable and affordable responses it must increase the productive capability of the general government sector. Further, it must achieve this within constrained operating budgets and increasing market competition for skilled people."
I think this statement largely encapsulates the set of challenges outlined above.
In addition to the above, INFORMATION is a key EXTERNAL and INTERNAL challenge that must be addressed - the existing capability of the APS to govern, manage and use information effectively, efficiently and ethically is simply inadequate for current and future policy tasks.
What are the implications for how the public service at the federal level will need to operate?
1. Need to achieve general agreement on the core (non-discretionary) functions and tasks of federal government administration
2. Need to determine (over time) the model(s) of administrative operations that can effectively identify and address emerging real-world policy issues and deliver "timely, viable and affordable responses" - this must include a critical review of existing models of operation and the general administrative and legislative structure of the APS
3. Need to progressively establish suitable administrative models of operation that are both stable AND adaptive to progressively changing policy environment - these must include effective mechanisms for progressively and effectively outsourcing and managing non-core tasks and functions (line output and enabling)
4. Need to progressively improve REAL productivity over time (target is 4% per annum) - keys to productivity are more effective and efficient utilisation of key organisational resources - PEOPLE, INFORMATION & FINANCES
5. Need to effectively and usefully measure productivity - initially need to measure ratio of direct output costs to overhead/enabling costs (this ratio is currently not measured, and is probably much worse than might be expected)
6. Need to develop new management and operational tools to effectively address complex policy issues and tasks, including respectful and meaningful engagement of citizens and stakeholder groups
7. Need to refocus from the "T to the I in IT" (Peter Drucker) - information is core to government administration - technology is not - government administration requires ready access to technology-based services for effective utilisation of its core resources (people, information, finance) - the information management issue must be addressed in broadly the same way as the financial management issue has been addressed in the last two decades - One-APS will require a broadly unified approach to the management of government information - it's time for an Information Management and Accountability Act (IMA).
8. Need to address administrative governance from both performance and conformance perspectives - leadership, direction, authority, stewardship, control and accountability
9. All of the above will require significantly improved leadership and culture at all levels of government administration - central value must be RESPECT
Agree.
The challenge will for the Public Service as a whole to embrace the notion that there needs to be an agency taking the lead for managing IT projects across the whole service. To be efficient and effective all agencies need to work together to develop projects, not in insolation. Working together in developing frameworks, standards and agreed expectations will ensure that more IT projects succeed in the first instance (not just because more money and resources were thrown at it to get it working).
Senior executives that may like to protect their own "patch" need to be at the fore-front of collaboration across the APS and share successes and also share ideas for improvement.
In relation to dot point 1: "The increasing complexity in the nature of many policy problems such as global warming, illicit drugs and addressing social disadvantage."
Further globalisation of criminal networks and enterprises is expected to pose increasing problems for law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Policy makers and government need to consider how to grow funding for law enforcement in line with the growth in the scale and complexity of organised crime. The is particularly noticeable in areas where increasing demands on law enforcement and security that have come with heightened terrorism risks have impacted on resources available for other crime types.
Funding for projects that combat organised crime should be proportional to legislative reform. There has been a lot of legislative reform in the last 10 years and funding simply has not kept up.
We all know doing more with less will continue, so the real question is how do we use the resources we have more effectively. One idea is to share common resources and tasks. I believe that too much of our increasingly scarce resources are being devoted to unnecessary administration as each agency develops sets of the same things. For example
- does each agency really need to have different versions of Chief Executive Instructions and underpinning procedures when we all need to comply with the same whole of government frameworks ;
- does each agency really need to have different (but essentially the same) contract and tender templates
I am sure there are numerous other examples. Why can't we have these types of things for whole of government - used by all agencies - and therefore only done once.
Centralisation does have some problems but the savings of resources involved in centralising just these two admin functions (ie each time there is a policy change, we make the same change more than 100 times as each agency implements and changes its own documentation) would generate a lot of spare resourcing which could instead be applied to actually serving the public.
Not only that, but if each agency used the same contract and tender templates, tenderers need not to seek legal advice as part of each tender process therefore decreasing tenderer costs and opening the way to more competitive procing for goods and services provided to the Commonwealth.
The biggest challenge for the public service in the 10 years is shifting to a mode where specialist skills are integrated with general skills. By this I mean giving APS staff the capability to have a strong information technology literacy (An understanding of the processes by which people identify problems, seek and use information to resolve problems and evaluate their success) so they are able to establish new contexts quickly and develop specialist skills as required.
The current service is overly technocratic (being technocratic is good so long as it is mediated with commonsense) and based on strict heirarchies. I think that without the ability for people to adapt and build skills quickly in has become an information dense environment that the public service will lose valuable opportunities to set the policy direction for the future and resolve problems which have yet to be identified.
It is interesting to note that the jobs we will need to be skilled for have not even been created yet and this is why it is important to ensure that there is a high level information technology literacy across the public service rather than a focus on the 'specialists'. If you think about it in this light, how can specialist workers do their jobs if they are not supported by the means to find the information they require to identify and solve problems. Essentially without that machinery they cannot function and thus become useless. Finally, higher levels of information technology literacy enable transferability between jobs and thus keep things fresh rather than having the same people with the same ideas doing the same job all their career.
Could I suggest that the need is for significantly improved information competencies at all levels of management and operations - not IT literacy.
My view is that we need to develop consistent competencies (and language) for indentifying and articulating the information requirements (resources and servcies) for any policy, program or delivery activity.
In my experience most APS people can readily articulate what information they need and what services they need to access and use it - the problem starts when this is positioned as an IT requirement.
The technology should be 'behind the wall' (just like other technology-based utility services) - the key issue is the information and services needed for any task or process, and the competencies/knowledge/skills required to use them effectively and appropriately.
The information issue is much bigger than most people realise:
- the management of information and data probably accounts for around 25-30% of administrative operating costs - this does not include the costs of actually using information and data for output activities
- the availability and quality and information and data has a significant and direct impact on the effectiveness and productivity of most APS managers and officers
One of the key challenges for the PS from my perspective is the ability to make the best use of staff in locations and is linked to the last dot point in the key challenges.
The Public Service is very centralised within Canberra at the higher levels. Using information from 2007-08, overall the number of staff at the EL1 to SES level was 24,715. This is more staff at these levels than all states have total number of staff, excluding NSW which have 28,439 staff overall. With most, if not all, departments having their headquarters in the ACT the opportunities for staff are considerably greater. Staff in the Public Service need to make a conscious decision as to whether they want to pursue a career in Canberra or remain where they are. For most states their career, through no fault of their own, is stifled through lack of opportunities.
I believe that to be an effective Public Service and one is that worthy of the title 'world's best public service' that the ability to de-centralise needs to be taken. The public service, as a whole, should be looking at where they can share resources to ensure this is effective. Whether that is not only sharing floor space in a building but also sharing other resources.
Using the Australian Public Service Database Internet Interface (APSEDII) the number of SES employed in the APS was 2693. Of this amount, 2022 (75%) were employed in Canberra. The other states had rates of between 0.56% (Tasmania) and 6.68% (Victoria) of the SES contingent.
Kodo McKenna makes a good point about sharing work between departments to manage workflow variations. However, in my experience ministers won't allow it. Each agency's primary responsibility is to look after its minister. As a result we regularly aren't allowed to let other departments know what we are working on, especially PM&C where there has been a fear that the PM will want to take over and claim the credit for any good ideas, leaving our ministers with the unpopular announcements and trivial measures. This isn't meant to be a political observation since this pattern isn't unique to any particular government, it has been an issue ever ince I joined the APS in the early 90s with at least four PMs and many more ministers.
Also, if the APS is going to attract talent in an environment where skilled labour will become increasingly scarce due to demography, then we need to stop wasting it once we have it. A lot of work happens very quickly, especially these days because the Government has a whim that it wants to act on, so we all stay back, work over the weekend, miss major family events, cancel involvement in social and community work because our jobs won't let us commit regularly etc. The problem is that the papers that we have all busted a gut to prepare then sit in Ministers offices for months or get bounced from once decsion making process or meeting to the next. Clearly they didn't need to be cobbled together in such a rush and could have included more innovative or creative solutions rather than just those that could be worked up quickly, as well as not imposing an unnecessary cost on our people. Eventually good people either quit so that they can balance work and family life or go to the private sector where their skills will be rewarded much more highly. While most public servants I have met are altruistically motivated, putting in lots of hard work only to see it never go anywhere does not send the right messages.