An Internationally based colleague who spent some time in Australia, most graciously sent me a provocative reply to one of my recent posts.
He raised the issue of Australian Engineering & Construction companies large and small suffering from the effects of excess bureaucracy, making them slow, inflexible and expensive.
He reminded me of the challenges of excess bureaucracy that show up, particularly for foreign companies when they initially tender for Government Infrastructure projects. A major hurdle must be overcome in the form of tendering requirements, which are typically extensive, hugely expensive by International standards and a source of frustration for many.
To sum up his thoughts with a quote:
“The government should ease bureaucracy to help local businesses grow. Australia has great potential but help should come from within.”
I absolutely agree with his sentiments. My colleague has highlighted local bureaucracy as a key impediment to delivering effective and efficient Infrastructure projects, which International entrants as well as local players continue to struggle with.
Most of course would regard necessary bureaucratic activities such as project cost/benefit evaluation, environmental assessments and community consultation with the importance that this work deserves. Indeed, these activities ultimately enable the designers and constructors to better meet the needs of the community (who – in the end – we build the infrastructure for).
Unfortunately, I also regularly encounter the sort of unnecessary “make-work” bureaucracy that achieves no more than creating a barrier to getting the job done.
So what should we do about this?
Here’s a simple idea. Wherever and whenever we encounter this stuff, we should all be prepared to stand up and say:
Why are we doing this?
Does anyone disagree?
In dealing with perceived “bureaucracy” the key process is to understand, analyse and consistently offer mitigation/elimination of their real risks and perceived concerns. We have to first of all ask; “Why are the Govt doing it this way?” Then, once we understand their overall objective, we can develop and “sell” a solution that allows them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the solution we offer meets the required standard.
“Scourge” is probably a useful word to use sometimes in understanding the thought processes that produce these perceived onerous conditions and requirements. In other words governments not only think differently but also have different rankings of key criteria that they must meet to satisfy their legal responsibilities and the electorate’s perceptions and demands. Like dealing with a possible scourge we have to “cure” the perception of a risk of infection by proving that there is minimal risk of of our client being “infected” with any financial or reputational failure.
The government process is often iterative and in some cases providing extra evidence is strongly advisable to “persuade” the principal that we understand THEIR risks and requirements and that our solution can be “proven” to address and or mitigate these to a minimal acceptable level. In a lot of cases we have to do their work for them in providing a solution that is politically acceptable, viable, legal and the best value for money.
To help us in this “Journey” we can develop a suite of aids/procedures to reach the desired result. We must ask and answer the following questions in such a way that the “thread” of our “message” is inherent in all of our documentation. Many times different people, from different departments, with differing agenda review and “score” on only parts of our submissions. The general aim therefore is to send a consistent message so that the sum of the parts confidently reflects our position as a “Safe pair of Hands” to deliver the requirements to an agreed budget at minimal risk.
So we should ask ourselves the following:
1. Q. What “mischief” did the principal, government or regulator intend to remedy by the selective or general application of laws, rules, regulations, codes etc., that we think are onerous in their application to the tender or process?
A. By understanding the why? we can apply a process in our offer that addresses perceived “issues” that we have identified and could arise as a result of our approach and tender/solution. Some like safety are often not negotiable but instead the safety system can often be adapted to meet the identified need or risk.
2. Q. Has the criteria set been benchmarked against the latest comparable statistics available and to meet accepted professional/industry practice?
A. Can we meet those standards and at what cost? Can we offer a solution that meets proven international/comparable standards at a more economic cost? This can present an opportunity to offer benefits gained when certain regulations/standards have been removed/modified in other comparable circumstances by similar organistions over time.
E.G. If we perform to this acceptable standard, as now applies in this comparable oraganisation, after year one of the contract we can agree that this requirement can be adjusted to reflect the higher standard or saving.
3/ Q. Do the performance requirements meet comparable local and international benchmarks?
A. Can we provide an evidentiary based financial and service matrix that can be used by the client to adjust the performance/price criteria against value add solutions. This often allows the client an opportunity to adjust the price that they are willing to pay to still meet their minimum expectations and have proof it is acceptable in comparable settings.
In summary we have to learn the “language” and needs of government departments, civil servants and understand the increasing use of risk and quality experts/auditors. The aim is to analyse the needs that really have to be satisfied. We can then offer a solution that still recognises those needs but is able to offer an alternative solution/process having minimal risk at reduced cost and/or with better term contract conditions.
Hey Lawrence thanks for taking the time to provide such a considered reply! Most valuable insights based on (what I know is) extensive experience in the art and science of responding to Government tenders.