Comments on: Police contract compliance – “you could go to prison for that mate” http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/police-contract-compliance-you-could-go-to-prison-for-that-mate/ Supply, Cost & Public Procurement Management Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:30:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Drew1166 http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/police-contract-compliance-you-could-go-to-prison-for-that-mate/comment-page-1/#comment-3228 Drew1166 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:54:39 +0000 http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/?p=3005#comment-3228 I agree with your analysis, and I very much much sympathise/agree with Francis M - there is definitely slack out there, and the "simple" impactful thing to do is mandate (centralise) and squeeze. Nonetheless the optimist in me hopes that once the reflex for "quick impact" decisions eases the Government's stated desire/intent to act in ways consistent with subsidiarity and disintermediation will allow/necessitate something similar to what I outlined to take place. I agree with your analysis, and I very much much sympathise/agree with Francis M – there is definitely slack out there, and the “simple” impactful thing to do is mandate (centralise) and squeeze.

Nonetheless the optimist in me hopes that once the reflex for “quick impact” decisions eases the Government’s stated desire/intent to act in ways consistent with subsidiarity and disintermediation will allow/necessitate something similar to what I outlined to take place.

]]> By: admin http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/police-contract-compliance-you-could-go-to-prison-for-that-mate/comment-page-1/#comment-3206 admin Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:26:33 +0000 http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/?p=3005#comment-3206 That's a great comment - but what I percive in the announcement is an impatience that the 'working together' stll doesn't always end up with the right solutions, so hence the idea to actually "legislate compliance" to the central deals. That clearly would " compromise the decision makers' freedom" as you put it, and that could have interesting consequences; particularly when combined with the election of police commissioners! I can just see some maverick commissioner making a stand against these 'centrally imposed dictats and contracts'! That’s a great comment – but what I percive in the announcement is an impatience that the ‘working together’ stll doesn’t always end up with the right solutions, so hence the idea to actually “legislate compliance” to the central deals. That clearly would ” compromise the decision makers’ freedom” as you put it, and that could have interesting consequences; particularly when combined with the election of police commissioners! I can just see some maverick commissioner making a stand against these ‘centrally imposed dictats and contracts’!

]]> By: Drew1166 http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/police-contract-compliance-you-could-go-to-prison-for-that-mate/comment-page-1/#comment-3183 Drew1166 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:42:20 +0000 http://blog.procurement-excellence.com/?p=3005#comment-3183 Peter, with regards to that tension you refer to at the end of your penultimate paragraph I think a solution would lie in local recipients of funding and the central funders: 1) accepting the tension; 2) working together to reach an understanding of what matters most with regards to the delivery of the local services; and then 3) limiting the exertion of central control/mandating to spend areas that can be usefully aggregated, but that are not perceived to impinge upon the local providers necessary freedom to decide how best to meet to meet their objectives. For example, uniforms, energy, office furniture, stationery (sorry for being obvious), insurance (some of it perhaps not all), etc. are unlikely to impact upon meeting local objectives. With regards to the spend areas where freedom is given/allowed, guidance/information/support could be made available, and its use encouraged/rewarded, but the decision makers’ freedom to decide how to spend the money should not be compromised; people who can sell the benefits of the support etc, and who can engage intelligently with the decision makers who spend the money should also be employed. Peter, with regards to that tension you refer to at the end of your penultimate paragraph I think a solution would lie in local recipients of funding and the central funders:

1) accepting the tension;
2) working together to reach an understanding of what matters most with regards to the delivery of the local services; and then
3) limiting the exertion of central control/mandating to spend areas that can be usefully aggregated, but that are not perceived to impinge upon the local providers necessary freedom to decide how best to meet to meet their objectives. For example, uniforms, energy, office furniture, stationery (sorry for being obvious), insurance (some of it perhaps not all), etc. are unlikely to impact upon meeting local objectives.

With regards to the spend areas where freedom is given/allowed, guidance/information/support could be made available, and its use encouraged/rewarded, but the decision makers’ freedom to decide how to spend the money should not be compromised; people who can sell the benefits of the support etc, and who can engage intelligently with the decision makers who spend the money should also be employed.

]]>