Your truly – Confused.
P2 – “It's probably just me but for some reason I find the financial gains by some of the ICCPM group for what appears to be pretty rudimentary business services is quite obscene. Especially when you consider that many of those individuals just so happened to be affiliated with the successful OneSKY contractor Thales.”
It is strange little set up; and, although not remotely qualified to evaluate the ANAO audit, or even dissect, for value, the things we have paid out for, the whole ‘thing’ just feels "wrong" - 'off'; from the beginning. I know, for a certain fact, that not everyone who works for government is a dummy; there are some extremely well qualified, very bright folk there scattered throughout the various departments. I also know that the ‘government’ through various departments ‘evaluate’ and ‘negotiate’ some very complex contracts. I wonder why at least parts of the One Shy project were not farmed out to ‘government’ departments? Even if there was a fee to be paid, surely keeping the bulk of this project ‘at home’ would have many benefits.
Why, for example are the ASA management drawing ‘expert’ range salaries not capable of providing the expertise and knowledge to this project? Looking down the list of ‘services’ provided one has to wonder if the military and civil experts could not have provided the services paid for: there seems little mentioned there which required ‘outsourcing’.
Take the “Development of change management process and documentation - integrated master plan etc (four down, top list)” Seems to me that the best folk to develop ‘change’ management is the department itself, from policy to paperwork; it is after all “their” department and those employed there are (or should be) placed best to evaluate and manage any changes.
Is it the avoidance of responsibility that creates this need for ‘outside’ consult and counsel. It provides a handy scapegoat and ‘in Montreal’ alibi. Which makes it fine to bring in consultants as and when required – provided those employed within the ASA are not drawing ‘expert’ consultant type salary for not taking the responsibility the consultant does.
You see what I am driving at – position, title and big money carry very real responsibility in the real world and you must earn it and get it right – that’s why the big bucks are paid. But to pay big bucks to someone who will simply dial 1300 Consultant every time a project or contract needs evaluation or managing seems borderline stupid to me. No doubt real dealings in the big world have nothing to do with the way ASA operate and it’s only public money anyway; always plenty of that.
Toot (puzzled) toot.
P2 – “It's probably just me but for some reason I find the financial gains by some of the ICCPM group for what appears to be pretty rudimentary business services is quite obscene. Especially when you consider that many of those individuals just so happened to be affiliated with the successful OneSKY contractor Thales.”
It is strange little set up; and, although not remotely qualified to evaluate the ANAO audit, or even dissect, for value, the things we have paid out for, the whole ‘thing’ just feels "wrong" - 'off'; from the beginning. I know, for a certain fact, that not everyone who works for government is a dummy; there are some extremely well qualified, very bright folk there scattered throughout the various departments. I also know that the ‘government’ through various departments ‘evaluate’ and ‘negotiate’ some very complex contracts. I wonder why at least parts of the One Shy project were not farmed out to ‘government’ departments? Even if there was a fee to be paid, surely keeping the bulk of this project ‘at home’ would have many benefits.
Why, for example are the ASA management drawing ‘expert’ range salaries not capable of providing the expertise and knowledge to this project? Looking down the list of ‘services’ provided one has to wonder if the military and civil experts could not have provided the services paid for: there seems little mentioned there which required ‘outsourcing’.
Take the “Development of change management process and documentation - integrated master plan etc (four down, top list)” Seems to me that the best folk to develop ‘change’ management is the department itself, from policy to paperwork; it is after all “their” department and those employed there are (or should be) placed best to evaluate and manage any changes.
Is it the avoidance of responsibility that creates this need for ‘outside’ consult and counsel. It provides a handy scapegoat and ‘in Montreal’ alibi. Which makes it fine to bring in consultants as and when required – provided those employed within the ASA are not drawing ‘expert’ consultant type salary for not taking the responsibility the consultant does.
You see what I am driving at – position, title and big money carry very real responsibility in the real world and you must earn it and get it right – that’s why the big bucks are paid. But to pay big bucks to someone who will simply dial 1300 Consultant every time a project or contract needs evaluation or managing seems borderline stupid to me. No doubt real dealings in the big world have nothing to do with the way ASA operate and it’s only public money anyway; always plenty of that.
Toot (puzzled) toot.