The observation that government is good at developing policies and strategies but bad at executing them is often made in the media. However, attempts to analyse why this is the case are more rare.
Execution in government is quite different to execution in the private sector. In the private sector you can do anything you like as long as you don’t break a law. This gives you the scope to be innovative, flexible and quick with your approaches to execution.
In government, you can generally do something only if there is a law or regulation allowing you to do it. Even if you think of an innovative or flexible approach to execution, you can use that approach only if there is a law or regulation allowing you to do so.
This is because of the rigid regulatory frameworks of government, which require any implementation by public servants to be based on clearly defined legal mandates and authorities.
The procurement bottleneck
This is particularly the case with procurement, which is usually a key element of execution. Procurement of large government infrastructure programmes and projects is governed by the Public Finance Management Act and Municipal Finance Management Act, along with supply chain regulations issued by the National Treasury and dozens of instruction notes, practice notes and guidelines issued by both the Treasury and the Construction Industry Development Board.
Some of these practice notes and guidelines are open to interpretation. If the auditor-general has a different interpretation to the department’s bid adjudication committee, there could be a finding that the procurement is irregular.
— Successful project management in government is more of an art than a science.
This means all the expenditure related to the procurement is deemed to be irregular, and the Treasury will usually agree that the expenditure can be regularised only if disciplinary action is taken against the members of the bid committee, even if the committee members acted in good faith.
This has resulted in a situation where it is becoming difficult to get good, honest public servants to agree to serve on departmental bid committees. In addition, procurements are often delayed for months as debates regarding the interpretation of the regulatory frameworks rage back and forth between the line function unit, the supply chain management unit, the legal services unit and the bid committees.
Why private-sector methods fall short
Often, in an effort to improve execution, public servants are sent on project management courses, where they learn about project management methodologies commonly used in the private sector, including Gantt charts, critical paths and dependencies. However, sending officials on these courses rarely results in improvements in execution.
This is because the utility and effectiveness of these project management methodologies are limited in the government environment. Simple, basic tasks that are assumed to be done quickly as a matter of course in the private sector are often exceptionally difficult to implement in government due to the rigidity of the regulatory frameworks and the hierarchical decision-making of government.
Successful project management in government is more of an art than a science. It requires a particular type of character, someone who is willing to cross crocodile-infested rivers to single-mindedly ensure that the project is delivered timeously and effectively.
The challenge of authority and accountability
The implementation of large projects in government requires many different actions to be implemented by different people, often located in different branches of a department or even in other departments or spheres of government. The project manager is located in one branch of one department and does not have any formal authority over many of the people who need to implement key actions.
— We cannot afford self-inflicted losses in markets where we already have duty-free access.
When one of these people does not do what they are required to do, the project can come to a halt. To address this, an effective government project manager will escalate the nonperformance, first to the supervisor of the nonperforming official, and then up the hierarchy, if necessary to the relevant director-general or minister, to ensure that the action is implemented.
This requires courage on behalf of the project manager — escalating nonperformance of other officials is not a good way to make friends in government — and can be career limiting. More often than not, project managers in government do not escalate when someone else who is not under their direct authority does not implement the required action.
This is not to say the whole body of knowledge related to project management is not applicable in government. One of the fundamental tenets of this body of knowledge is the principle of single-point accountability, and lack of application of this principle is one of the common reasons for poor execution in government. While task teams or committees can play useful co-ordination roles, they cannot replace the need for a single person to be assigned ultimate responsibility and accountability for the successful implementation of the project.
A culture shift is needed
Improving execution in government requires a culture change in government. One of the cultures that needs to change is the belief among some top managers that it is beneath them to become involved in operational issues. However, projects and programmes are often delayed because of operational challenges, and this culture needs to change so all senior managers understand that fixing operational challenges is part of their responsibility. Operational issues that block execution become strategic issues until they are resolved.
Finally, successful execution is dependent on thorough planning. Too often, government programmes are well intentioned but inadequately thought through, with insufficient attention to potential unintended consequences, the strength of the logical links between programme activities and intended outcomes, and the depth and range of resources and work required for effective execution. The adage “less haste, more speed”, for which all good, experienced project managers have great respect, is often not followed. Again, this requires a change in culture, towards a culture that values careful and thorough planning, in addition to a sense of urgency.
• Phillips is director-general of water & sanitation. He has more than 20 years of experience as a senior manager across the three spheres of government, managing programmes and projects. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.