PROCESS VS. RESULTS
August 12, 2008

One of the biggest problems in government is that there is too often a preoccupation with process and not enough interest in results.  Sometimes, in fact, there is no interest at all in results.  We see time and again, new programs and new initiatives launched with great fanfare, but rarely do we ever see the end of year report card on how those programs are working.  Are we getting the desired benefits? Is it on schedule and within budget?  You don’t hear those questions too often, do you? 

The primacy of process is especially detrimental to our procurement system.  Misguided members of different watch groups and oversight groups are constantly criticizing every federal procurement.  Their advice is always the same: more controls are needed or procedures were not followed correctly.  Of course, these same critics never tell us what controls are needed, how are they to be established, who will be responsible, or what are the performance metrics needed to see if they are working.  Nor do we ever hear anything about existing controls and procedures that are not effective and should be replaced.  We just hear a constant din about more procedures, more process, more review, more oversight. 

Preoccupation with process and the comparative lack of interest in actual results comes at a great cost.  Perhaps it is time better understand the unintended consequences and huge costs that will result if focus only on the process and never on the results. 

.  My own home town of New Orleans, and the contracting associated with installing blue tarp on leaky roofs after Katrina, offers a prime example.   Homes such as mine in the lower 9th ward were completely wiped out during Katrina, but many others survived with extensive damage to their roofs.  The federal government stepped in and contracted with a large business for blue tarp to cover the roofs as a temporary fix at a cost of $175/square.  The prime contractor then subbed out the work for $75/square.  Sub #1 then subcontracted the same work at $30/square.  In the end, the company that actually manufactured the tarp was paid $2/square.  The disturbing part of this sad case is that the government contracting officers properly followed all the processes and were sensitive to regulations, for fear of punishment for making even the slightest procedural error, blindly following an antiquated procurement process even though it resulted in huge additional costs to the taxpayers.

But how can this be? For years, government has systematically undervalued the judgment of our federal contracting officers to make sound decisions that would represent the best possible value to taxpayers.  Instead, we have mandated and legislated that they follow the process at all costs, and when problems arose, the government addressed those issues by piling on more guidelines and rules to an already tottering system.  It would seem that getting the best possible value for every taxpayer dollar is just not as important as a blind allegiance to the process.  To quote management guru Drucker again, “there is a big difference ‘between doing the right things and doing things right.  And there is nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all.” 

By no means am I suggesting we look the other way at contractual irregularities or accept rules violations.  But, we need to consider changing the “gotcha” culture and instead emphasize the need for greater accountability by professional contracting officers for the final product.   Our goal should be to establish a higher standard where contracting officers accept accountability for the procurement award results, good or bad.  But to succeed, we will need to give our federal employees the freedom to exercise personal initiative and we will need to give our procurement professionals the ability to make mistakes, without calling each misstep a criminal offense that becomes a career ender.

As a taxpayer, I hope that, never again, would the government repeat the blue tarp fiasco.  Results do matter, and are more important than a blind allegiance to a process that is often unconnected to actual outcomes, and often subject to re-interpretations and retroactive revisions.   

Our federal procurement officers are a magnificent group of dedicated professionals.  We need to give them more flexibility and more freedom to make great decisions.  If we want better, faster, cheaper goods and services, we need to raise the bar and focus on getting results rather than adherence to some process orthodoxy that no longer serves. After all, we are Americans, the most creative ingenious people on earth. We can do better.