If independent consultant model doesn’t work
What are some good alternatives? Or just create a government auditing agent to continue monitor such contracts and hold them accountable?
Government departments could build up internal teams of experts. (They already have this in technical fields where then Big 4 don’t have expertise.) But government pay is crap compared to these giant corporations, so the best will be scooped up by the private sector while the less impressive employees stay employed for life in government.
To make it work would require a different system to what the government has now. A system with merit-based remuneration and much simpler hiring-and-firing.
(I say this as someone who originally worked for the government, then moved to the private sector.)
We used to do this I believe.
Many moons ago, the government used to hire real experts. Economists, biologists, physicists, business people who know how to do business bigly.
Now we just outsource decisions to one of the big four or just cut the crap and ask the IPA to write the policy.
Would you kindly elaborate on the merit-based system? Are you referring to it being applied to regulate the consulting cost or it is to attract high skill employees for the government to replace the consultants?
The APS pay scale defines the salary of everyone working for the federal government. Your pay is determined by your level. Your level is (mostly) determined by how senior your are in the Organisational Chart, and the OrgChart basically shows how many people work under you. So the only way to earn more is to manage more people. This results in people who are highly skilled in a subject matter doing middle-management instead, because that’s what happens when you get promoted. It simply reinforces the Peter Principle, resulting in a hierarchy where no one is doing the job they are best suited to. In the APS, you can’t get to $100k without becoming a manager.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Private companies don’t do that. If you’re very good at something, they can pay you well for it, they won’t force you to take on management just to get a raise. It means people can do what they’re best at, and you can attract and retain the best people to fill the roles you need.
I’ve worked with engineers on $200k+ working under a supervisor on $110k, because the engineer is highly skilled in a particular technology, while the supervisor was a graduate who got their MBA a couple of years after graduating and are working their way up the corporate ladder.
Thank you for the great detail.
You are right, requiring one to be at management level to increase pay is a waste of talents and waste of taxpayers money.
The chaser boys have already explained it.
