Defence Magazine

Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet Dr Peter Shergold: "I want public servants with a fire in the belly about managing projects and delivering programs on budget, on time, to the highest quality standards." Photo provided by Prime Minister's Press Office.

At the media conference at which the Prime Minister announced his new ministry on October 22 [2004], he responded to a question on the rationale for establishing a new Department of Human Services. His answer was revealing:

"I think one of the things we lack in the Public Service both at a Commonwealth and a State level is a consolidated focus on the efficient and timely and sympathetic delivery of services. We tend to look at service delivery as an afterthought rather than as a policy priority."

It was an unscripted and unprompted response to the first question asked at the press conference. To me, it represented the clearest possible expression of the PM's genuine concern about the importance of implementation.

It was a similar concern that was behind the decision to establish the Cabinet Implementation Unit in October 2003. I commented then on my occasional frustration at the pace of delivery of a number of new government programs which were the concrete manifestation of Government policy. I expressed disappointment, also, at the accompanying red tape that too often seemed to impose costs on taxpayers, administrators and the beneficiaries of Government services.

Inertia is a constant danger to bureaucratic organisations. Change needs to be continuous - and for a purpose. I want an Australian Public Service that is admired as much for its ability to deliver policy as for its capacity to develop it. I want public servants who have a passion for implementing policy. I want public servants with a fire in the belly about managing projects and delivering programs on budget, on time, to the highest quality standards.

Let me articulate the implementation challenge as I see it. One: that the barriers to implementing policy are often not adequately identified and addressed when new government initiatives are first discussed. Two: that the development of policy is sometimes insufficiently informed by the experience of those who deliver programs. Three: and conversely, that those who implement programs often pay insufficient attention to whether their administrative processes of delivery align with the government's policy goals. Four: that broad appreciation for the role of project management, particularly as it relates to the delivery of services, is insufficiently developed. Fifth: that cross-agency initiatives can founder on the hidden rocks of departmentalism. Sixth: that too frequently delivery can be hindered by costly bureaucratic red-tape, beyond the measures that are necessary to ensure effective accountability.

If there were a single cultural predilection in the Australian Public Service that I could change, it would be the unspoken belief of many that contributing to the development of government policy is a higher order function - more prestigious, more influential, more exciting - than delivering results. Perhaps it is because I have spent so much of my career in line agencies, learning to deliver indigenous, employment, small business and education programs, that I react so strongly against this tendency.

There are, I discern, two other related assumptions: that it's not necessary to concern Ministers with the details of implementation; and that we don't need to worry about how we will implement policy until after we have decided what it is. Both premises are false.

But, precisely because these common views are generally unstated, they are the more difficult to overcome.

Let me now focus specifically on the issues of implementation and service delivery.

Here's a simple question. Is it better for a government not to have a policy of drought relief assistance, or to announce one and then fail to deliver it to farmers? I hope you recognise the question as rhetorical. Expectations raised and not delivered are hopes dashed. A key task of the professional public servant is to ensure that commitment is translated into real action.

How can we manage policy projects to achieve the results that the Government wanted and the public expected?

The underlying assumption behind these changes is not that public servants are generally incompetent or uncommitted. Rather, it is that implementation is inherently difficult and that no-one has yet found a way to repeal Sod's Law (depending which way you want to be politically incorrect, this is also known as Murphy's Law): if anything can go wrong, it will. The first corollary, of course, is that it will go wrong at the worst possible time. And, from my personal experience, there's also the Unspeakable Law: as soon as I mention something good to the Prime Minister, it goes bad; if I foreshadow something bad, it happens on schedule.

One of the most important ways in which these natural tendencies to failure can be avoided is by making sure that public policy is informed by the experience of those who have to implement it; those who work at the counters, in call centres and directly with communities. Good delivery should be guided by the experience and expertise of project managers.

I do not underestimate the implementation difficulties that we face. Public policy poses "wicked" problems, involving complex tradeoffs between values, goals and resources, delivered in an environment of political contest. Dealing with these issues often requires working across traditional administrative silos.

Of course, a lot of what is perceived as implementation difficulties might better be seen as expectation difficulties. Governments sometimes expect or hope for more than can be achieved - and if they don't, the public does. It is a constant challenge to keep expectations aligned with capabilities.

To overcome these problems, the Australian Public Service needs to build a culture across the public sector that values commitment and capacity to deliver as much as ability to develop good policy. And we need to establish systems and structures that support that ethos.

The work of the Cabinet Implementation Unit is a good example of structural and systemic change directed at cultural transformation.

In the first year of the unit's work, we have made some very useful changes to the system. We have exploited the power of Cabinet as the "gateway". We have changed the systems and forms for putting policy proposals to Cabinet to ensure that Ministers, collectively, have sufficient implementation information before them when they consider new proposals. It is the role of the public servant to ensure that government takes its difficult decisions with eyes wide open.

Cabinet submissions are now required to address implementation. Proposals for significant changes that involve moderate to high risk now need explicitly to address the scope, milestones, risks, impacts and governance arrangements which provide the delivery framework.

We have sought to exploit the power of Cabinet as "checkpoint". Part of the unit's work involves reporting back to the decision makers. After the Cabinet's decisions are taken, we require (for key decisions) a detailed implementation plan. On the basis of these plans, we report progress against milestones quarterly to the Prime Minister in "traffic-light" format. Amber and red lights apply to measures which are at risk of running significantly behind schedule and, most importantly, focus attention on what can be done to bring them back on track.

I emphasise that amber and red lights are not necessarily a criticism of the responsible agency. Delays are often due to reasons that are outside an agency's control - protracted negotiation with the States, for example, or a failure to secure the passage of enabling legislation or management problems within a contracted delivery organisation. But whatever the explanation, warning lights are an effective indication that something needs to be done. Often the barriers can be overcome. Sometimes expectations need to be adjusted.

The unit also undertakes retrospective reviews of selected key initiatives, particularly those that involve the coordinated activity of a number of agencies. The objective is not only to provide assurance to Government that initiatives are being well-delivered, but also to identify lessons that can be transferred to other projects.

I am already persuaded that the "traffic light" report to the Prime Minister and his Ministerial colleagues is a very powerful incentive for organisational learning within the Commonwealth public sector. Similarly, the unit's reviews of policy initiatives that straddle portfolio boundaries have had a beneficial effect in getting agencies to reflect on how their coordination can be progressively improved.

We have learned several things from the first year of the Cabinet Implementation Unit's operations. First, and perhaps most important, that the majority of government initiatives are delivered well, within budget and on time. Second, that there is quite a lot of project management capacity in a range of agencies across the APS, eager to gain greater recognition. Third, there is increasing acceptance of the need for planning as monitoring.

A very clear lesson from the new requirement for agencies to provide implementation plans is that this project management capacity needs to be spread more widely, not only to the management of procurement and infrastructure but to the delivery of human services. More agencies should have the integrated information and financial management systems to support project management. Training and accreditation needs to be more widely available, and tailored to the challenge of program delivery.

The next challenge is to ensure that the performance of the APS - as a coherent whole - is lifted; and to ensure that the implementation of delivery is viewed as just as important as the development of policy. Project management - whole-of-government project management - is crucial.

Effective implementation is crucial to the public perception of government. For let us remember that although public servants can and must learn from the private sector, that what we do remains distinctive. The effectiveness with which we do our business is fundamental to our democratic system. We must never forget that those who receive government services are not customers. They're far more important. They're citizens.

This is an edited version of Dr Shergold's speech to the Australian Graduate School of Management/Harvard Club of Australia in Canberra on November 17, 2004.

Defence

Public Service

Plan and deliver - the new culture

Are we focusing too much on delivering policy ahead of services? Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet Dr Peter Shergold wants to build a culture of implementation across all departments.