On Being a Professional: 3 Axions. Right Reasons, Attitude, Aptitude.

I've stated for a time my rubric of Professional Practice as a rhetorical question:

When it is ever acceptable for a Professional to repeat, or allow, a Known Fault, Failure or Error? [A: Never]

Some larger questions arise but won't be dealt with here, but they imply a meta-level, the "Profession":

• Define 'Known' (which needs a means of transmission), and
• What are, or should be, the Consequences of unprofessional conduct or performance?

Healthcare, Medicine and the Learned Professions (eg. Law) have a special (higher) onus of responsibility on them. In the scale of Professional Duty, they are the most stringent and demanding:

• Fiduciary Duty or Trust:
•  "involving trust, esp. with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary" [Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus]
• Fair Go, Fair Treatment.
• No Rules, Buyer Beware.

I argue that the Fiduciary Duty implicit in the Practitioner/Patient contract and relationship is demonstrated in the Hippocratic Oath, "First, Do No Harm,..."

This is a very high standard.

I take it to mean that Practitioner always places the Patients' welfare and health above their own concerns and needs, and those of their employer, supervisors and Professional Bodies.

Internal to this, I assert that the more radical or extreme the effects or possible adverse outcomes of the treatment/procedure are on the patient, they higher the duty of care. A variation of "Your Life in Their Hands".

• A surgeon or Intensive Care Physician can trivially cause immediate death or terrible permanent injuries. They have the highest level of Fiduciary Duty towards their Patients.
• Whilst the maker of a prosthetic device needs to avoid transmission of diseases, the use of toxic elements and have the device work safely. There is still a Fiduciary Duty towards the Patient, but it is much closer to the "Fair Go, Fair Treatment" level.

I'm positing three axions of Professional Practitioners, especially those with a Fiduciary Duty to their clients:

• Clean Motivation of Entry into and Practice in the Discipline: not Money, not Status, not Power/Prestige/Influence.
• If a Clinician is practicing because of the money, not primarily for providing good Patient Outcomes, they will routinely fail in their Fiduciary Duty.
• This is counter to the best interests of the Patient.
• A focus on pecuniary rewards will not sustain a Professional for their full working life. Once immediate goals are satisfied, what then? More of the same, or Just Cruising, not Caring?
• Caring for others outcomes is the first requirement for Quality and Continuous Improvement.
• Those who espouse, or act out, "Care Factor Zero", will not and cannot provide good Quality practice. If they have a Fiduciary Duty to others, they should be relived of duty without delay.
• Continuous Active Learning and Improvement.
• This isn't the 20-hours/year of mandated CPD (Continuing Professional Development).
• It's an inherent self-monitoring, self-examination of process, procedures and outcomes leading to Improvement in Quality of Care and Process (efficiency and effectiveness) and Adaptation and Improvement of Practice.
• A trusting and safe environment, "The fundamental Clinical Requirement", for the patient to "open up" into a full, frank and unstinting clinical communication.
• As human beings, we have 90 seconds to make a first impression. Recovering from a poor or antagonistic first impression is possible, but lengthy and time-consuming.
• Within that time, any clinical professional has to establish a basis of communication with the patient where they can be fully open, honest and complete in the clinical dialogue.
• "Why didn't you tell me before/when I asked" is the calling card of failure in this fundamental clinical requirement.
• Patients are both fully informed experts and ignorant. They know absolutely the experience of their own bodies, but can not be Clinical experts, even if they are trained in the field. This contradiction requires the clinician to both respect, not discount or ignore, what the patient is telling them and to fully draw out the patient experience. The patient will not be aware of apparently trivial or obvious details that are critical for swift, correct diagnosis by the clinician.

Lastly, there's the matter of Talent.

Some people are gifted in a field and given the same degree of training and practice, outperform us "mere mortals" by many times. Some might say "orders of magnitude".

The proof is Elite Athletes and Professional Sports. Talent counts, not just perseverance, determination and desire. Professional teams pay massive amounts for their stars, not 'the pack'. In professional tennis and golf, it shows up in earnings, both tournaments and sponsorship. The notional performance differences between #1 and #100 are small (<1% or 0.01%), but earnings are different by powers of ten. Talent counts as much in the clinical setting as on the sports field - and the results are similarly different.

Professions don't do themselves favours by allowing those of limited Talent to practice.

It diminishes the field and fails the patients.

Ironically, through the Dunning-Kruger effect (tone-deaf performers self-assess as virtuosos), this can institutionalise perverse selection and assessment regimes:

   when the professors are tone-deaf, they reward those like themselves and remove all others.

Exemplified by the claim: "I'm the Best XXX in the South-West/North/Area/City/State/..."

It's an error of logic of the kind: "compared to what? by whom?"

The Dawkins Appropriation: Not just wrong, dangerous

[Post moved to other blog.]

Richard Dawkins is credited with the observation:

there is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work. [italics added]

Sounds reasonable, sounds obvious, sounds good. But it is wrong.

As Medical practice subsumes other techniques and modalities, how well does it do it?
How well can it do it?

This is the same problem as learning a new language.
Without the Culture and Context, the learning is seriously compromised.

Yes, you might have some fluency, some ability to get yourself understood and able to hold modest conversations.

My thesis:
 the Culture, Theory, Practices and implicit knowledge and models underpinning a technique, therapy, practice or modality cannot be separated from it.

 Secondly, it's called "practice" for a reason. Like playing a musical instrument, to become accomplished in the art, you need a lot of practice to build the skill. But then you have to maintain the level of practice to maintain the skill. Mere performances won't maintain concert-level skill, and worse, infrequent performing result in lessening of skills. At some point you are back to "amateur" status.

"Cherry Picking" can only lead to sub-optimal results, or worse, real harm to patients through ignorance and poor techniques.

Specifically:
Can Doctors perform Acupuncture or Spinal Manipulations as well as native trained, specialist practitioners? Those who practice their craft daily.

I argue, not nearly.

So why does Dawkins make his statement, if it works, it ours? It's so trivially wrong and dangerous as to be absurd.

At best it is an ignorant and unwise sentiment, at worst disingenuous and mendacious.

It's a great sound-bite and simplistic rationalisation - and has been endlessly repeated by the proponents of the Medical Healthcare Treatment Only (all other banned/illegal) school of thought.

If Dawkins had said:

Medical Healthcare will embrace and accept as whole specialities what are now regarded as Alternative Modalities or Treatment when they are shown "Safe and Effective",

then I'd agree with him.

Dawkins thinking on this seems to be mechanistic, based on the Classical Science/Physic notions of absolute knowledge and predictability.

Only for the brave? Doom and Gloom analysis of "USA Inc" + solutions.

This report, co-authored in early 2011 by Mary Meeker of KPCB (Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfied, Byers) the legendary Silicon Valley Venture Capital firm, is deeply challenging.
Long PDF and Short PDF available as well.

It's not your average "Doom & Gloom" report or "The Sky if Falling, all is lost, get to the Bunkers" shrill fear-mongering.

This is solid analysis backed by good research and unrelenting numbers.

These folks know their way around a balance sheet, their record speaks for itself. If you can't refute it, you have to believe and act on it.

The headlines for me are dual:

• If nothing changes, within 15 years the USA won't be able to pay its bills [like Greece and Spain], and
• these folks are very positive. They layout the strengths of the US Economy and its people and a game-plan for getting back into the black.

So, look at the video [43mins] and pull down one or more of the PDF's if you like, I'm not only suggesting that this is not something that everyone should read, but that people should carefully consider beforehand if they even want to read this. It's not said, but the GFC was just the beginning...

Be prepared to read some deeply disturbing and challenging data/analysis, I found it quite sobering.
The authors pointedly don't dwell on the negative outcomes or consequences inside the USA and for the rest of the world. There will be many commentators only too glad to bang that drum and instil "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" into a wider audience.

BUT, the whole reason Mary and her team spent a small fortune constructing this report, is they, the acknowledged experts in analysing the operations of any business, not only think there is hope, but think solutions are possible and achievable. This comes from a fundamentally positive 'frame'.

That they did the research, produced the analysis and published it, is a massive vote of confidence by some of the world's best financial minds in the resilience and capability of "USA Inc" and that solutions are within the grasp of Americans. The solutions may not be easy or palatable, but they are achievable.

This report is about Hope and Inspiration, don't lose sight of that when you read it.

Vote [1] Independent: Gillard vs Abbott - why we hate them both.

The last newspoll in May-2012 had Gillard and Abbott both with  disapproval ratings of ~60%.

Who cares about the approval ratings jiggling up and down a little with one or the other sneaking 'ahead' by a single point? It's all noise.

The BIG message here for these leaders and their parties is: the electorate hates you both, equally and with a passion. Almost the only folk still supporting either leader and party are the rusted-on faithful. The rest of us want "None of the Above".


This is why we have the hung Parliament, with the balance of power being held by Independents.

The Greens may be a safe bet "to keep the Bastards Honest" in the Senate, to borrow Don Chip's line, but intense disapproval of major parties will not translate into lower-house support for the Greens. They have yet to earn that support from the majority of voters.

There are around 500-days until Gillard has to go to the polls.

Is that enough time for strong independent candidates to declare themselves in all the lower house seats? I've no idea.

It would be so wonderful if Abbott or Gillard lost their seat to an Independent, in much the same way that the electorate of Bennelong "sent a message" when they replaced PM John Howard in 2007 with Maxine McKew. But only for a single term: The ALP got sent another message when she wasn't reelected.

We are in this "Tweedledee, Tweedledum" situation exactly because of all the "sophisticated" tools that political parties have used and refined over the years.

When Dr Gallup invented sampling theory for his PhD thesis and showed it comprehensively worked in the 1948 election of Truman, we embarked on this course towards "identical candidates and parties".

Simple survey techniques have been supplemented with frequent, targeted polls, "focus groups" and enhance with technology.

But the Political Party's analysis and use of this data to create "Perfect Candidates" and "Perfect Policies" has a monumental flaw: it can only tell you what to leave out, or not do, it cannot tell you what to do, what is missing.


A perfect example from my Industry, I.T., is Microsoft versus Apple:

Microsoft has products and a persona perfectly constructed from Opinion Polls and Focus Groups. Apple builds stuff it is passionate about, that springs from a clear well-expressed vision and worldview and is intentionally, not for everyone. 

Until 5 years ago, you would've said Microsoft had won hands down. Now Apple is so far ahead on all measures and Microsoft results so poor in absolute and relative terms, that there is simply no contest. The business press has called for the firing of the long-term Microsoft CEO and a set of commentators are now waiting for them to fail.

The lesson from MSFT v AAPL?

Pandering to the whims and desires of the masses and attempting to "never offend anyone" yields short-run benefits, but in the long-run guarantees all but the most faithful hate you with a passion. The majority of people will only buy and use your product if they have no other choice. Look at the share price and revenues since the 2007 launch of the iPhone... It had stopped being a contest before then, now the iPhone and iPad have "nailed shut the coffin" on Microsoft's business model.

Apple and Steve Jobs have, since the 1984 launch of the Macintosh, shown that they put Great Design ahead of everything else. Without Jobs in the company to solidly maintain this stance with upper management and the board, the company floundered, almost to the point of extinction.

When Jobs returned with the same core philosophy but now with the skills to profitably implement it, the turn-around of the company has been nothing short of amazing to those who don't understand the rule, and more than comforting to those who do understand this philosophy.

This is the "secret sauce" of Apple and Steve Jobs: Stay true to your deeply-held Beliefs.
Jobs' 2005 Commencement Address for Stanford says more.

You cannot "cut your way to success" in business, nor elsewise achieve greatness through appeasement, placating and being "politically correct" - newspeak for "never offend anyone". Being a reed that blows in the winds of opinion does not buy you friends, influence or respect.

This is why Australian voters don't just dislike, but actively hate, the major parties, their leaders and their policies:
 they don't have the guts and gumption to strongly state their message and stick with it.
If you have real, strongly-held beliefs, you will have a whole raft of people disagree with you, but they will admire and respect you for it and given the choice, grudgingly allow you to get on with it.

Voters know too well that the party hacks they vote for locally will, when given the choice between the interests of their own electorate and "the party", consistently not put the interests of their constituents first.
So why vote for someone that won't stand up for you and your interests when it counts???

This is exactly why strong, capable Independents are being increasingly elected.

Voters know that Bob "mad hatter" Katter will fight to the death for them. He might hold a bunch of crazy and unimplementable views, but he is passionate about his electorate and volubly so. Love him or hate him, you have to respect his passion, his work ethic and commitment to his constituents: this is real Public Service, putting others interests ahead of your own.

So this is why my recommendation for the 2013 Federal election is:

Vote [1] Independent.

Because if you don't vote the bastards out, nobody else can.

If you don't have a strong, capable Independent standing in your Electorate?

You still have many avenues to make your views known, though there are few I can write about.

Just be sure when you do share your views and attempt to influence others, that you don't fall foul of the Electoral Act.

You cannot advocate that people don't vote nor that they vote 'informal', especially not that they avoid being on the electoral rolls. We are a Democracy and this entails a duty to care, it relies on your active engagement, not passive acceptance of the Status Quo and wishy-washy 'statements' that waste your vote.

Voting is compulsory in Australia (we're such an apathetic lot and seemingly love to obey authority!) and failing to vote for a good reason attracts a $25 fine. The penalties for advocating others not vote are considerably harsher and more onerous (court appearance, not a fine, possibly criminal offence) than an individual failing to vote.
To be clear: I support everyone casting a vote, this is fundamental to maintaining our Democracy.

IIRC, Somewhere around 4-6% of registered voters don't cast ballots on the day. I've no idea, nor any interest in finding out, if or where the reasons for not participating in the cornerstone of our Democratic process are tabulated.

Update 10-Jun-2012: The Financial Review has estimates that 20% [~3MM] eligible voters "choose not to vote". 2.88MM of 14.09MM people:

• 1.20MM not on the roll,
• 0.95MM don't turn up to vote (and face the fine)
• 0.73MM don't cast a formal vote

 To create change, you have to vote.

Think about it and make your vote count in 2013.

Egoless Practice: Becoming the Best in your Field

Jerry Weinberg coined the term, "egoless programming" in his 1971 book "Psychology of Computer Programming". Jerry describes the practice and mindset, and in 1977 co-wrote with Friedman, the definitive manual for practitioners:  "Handbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews: Evaluating Programs, Projects, and Products".

Is there a precise definition of "egoless programming" that could be expanded to a generic Professional Behaviour of "egoless practice"?

Johana Rothman is quoted by Jeff Atwood, presumably from a book, as saying:

Egoless programming occurs when a technical peer group uses frequent and often peer reviews to find defects in software under development. The objective is for everyone to find defects, including the author, not to prove the work product has no defects. [my italics]

When asked for a modern definition, Jerry pointed at Jeff's Ten Commandments of Egoless Programming.

The field of Reliability Engineering is aimed at creating near-Perfect (i.e. highly reliable) operation from imperfect parts and sub-systems. This approach can work very well, even when maintenance and fixes can't be done: the NASA Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, exceeded their 90-day design life by around 15 times, working from 2004-2010.

A working definition (unfortunately, of many parts):

• Egoless Practice is
• a Professional Behaviour
• designed to 
• routinely and reliably achieve
• as Perfect as Possible outcomes
• for the Client or Service Recipient
• by knowledgable and skilful
• Practitioners
• supported by systems, processes and procedures
• that actively monitor, examine and report performances,
• for both failures and successes,
• to systematically and without-backsliding improve 
• Quality, Performance and Process
• of Individuals, Teams and Organisations.

To Err is Human isn't a syllogism, it is an Iron-Clad Law.

It's the basis of the unending, relentless Professional Challenge:

• we're not machines,
• we cannot ever exactly repeat a process, not even twice, let alone the many times every day needed in Professional Practice, and
• our Minds and Bodies are always letting us down or tricking us in some way.

Simply stated: We are constantly making mistakes, inadvertently or not.

As people become older and wiser, they routinely report the veracity of "The more you Know, the more you understand how little you Know".

All Quality and Performance Improvement is predicated on engagement and care-and-concern for the people affected and the outcomes.

In the Quality Improvement approach, led by Dr Deming, the Fundamental Attribution Error, that Mistakes are due to people who have been inattentive, incompetent or negligent (or worse), is taught as a leading to The Blame Cycle, not corrective action.

Deming's Quality Improvement methodology/process is based on the tenet:

People, even the most competent and with the best will in the world, will make mistakes. The system is responsible for preventing or catching these incipient Errors before they turn into an Error, Defect or Accident. 

Dunning-Kruger effect: "unskilled and unaware of it" - doesn't go far enough. American Idol demonstrates, infinite self-belief without objective base: "I'm The Greatest, the Judges don't know anything!".

Psych Effects: We see what we expect to see, and cannot see things outside our 'range'.

Human Minds are "editing machines" par excellence, we all have very efficient perceptual filters, part of our competitive advantage over other species. We've learnt to leverage by many times the compute capacity we have by ignoring the unimportant, predicting what we expect to see and quickly generically classifying actions, words and behaviours.
Our brains silently select, delete, add and change what we sense in real-time and also from our memories.
It a necessary outcome of the processing problem: Our brains don't have the compute capacity to process (receive, recognise, analyse, classify, predict, react) the full input streams from our senses.
To reduce the load, we increase our focus and ignore everything else, even shutting down irrelevant senses and heightening those that are useful. This shows most clearly in extreme circumstances like accidents ("everything slowed down") or in a "killing zone" (those who can see, experience 'tunnel vision' of the danger, or their hearing is much heightened).

Our brains "edit" what our senses provide to avoid being overwhelmed and being able to react in real-time. Our brains develop models of the world, the objects and actors in it and of ourselves, then

Hence the immutable law of Quality: You cannot check your own work, you'll only see what you expect to see, not what's 'there'.

This is more than just "proof-readning".

Virginia Satir pointed out that the two most important faculties for perfect communication were denied us:

• We cannot 'see' inside anothers' head. We can't know what they are thinking and feeling, only infer it, and
• We can't see/experience ourselves as others see/experience us. (Which is why teaching communications skills with video/playback is a radical advance in the last 50 years.)

The unnoticed Crisis in Healthcare

[Post moved to other blog.]

This paper on solving the Quality of Care crisis in Healthcare, "An NTSB for Healthcare", made me wonder why nobody was talking about another long-running, endemic Crisis in Healthcare:

In trying to spend less, it costs more to provide less of a worse service.The more we try to cut costs, the more it will cost and there is no simple way out: the system is locked into this craziness.
Doing "more of the same" not only cannot break us out of the rut, it pushes us deeper into it

W. Edwards Deming, the person responsible for the Quality Improvement movement in Japan that also forced a revolution in manufacturing the United States in the 1980's, was very clear on this:

• When people and organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the ratio (Results of Work Effort / Total Effort), quality tends to increase and costs fall over time.
• However, when people and organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time.

Turning around any system spiralling out of control cannot be done by "more of the same", but needs careful attention to causes and the underlying systems. As Quality Improvement has repeatedly shown, focussing on "Doing Things Right First Time, Every Time", is a remarkably effective means of effecting even very large turn-arounds.

The definitive theoretical works on how this counter-intuitive effect presents in Computing, Virtual Memory "Thrashing", started in 1968 with the first paper on "Working Set" theory. It's not overstating the fact that without this work (theory + proof-in-practice) computers as we know them could not exist.

This is the counter-intuitive world that in Computing we call "Thrashing", in Catastrophe Theory a "tipping point" and in everyday parlance "past the point of no return" or "starting down a slippery slope". Even sometimes, "in a flat spin", meaning "with no way out".

These all occur when a system or thing is irreversibly pushed past a critical point or limit and then the rules of the game change. Much like stretching out the small spring from a retractable ballpoint pen renders it useless. It cannot be properly remade because the steel has been stretched permanently past its elastic limit. There's a different effect in "Memory Metals" which return to their original shape when heated, but you can't make springs out of them, only automobile body panels.

There are some other dynamic systems that most drivers are very aware of:

• Overbraking leads to the tyres skidding as the friction melts the rubber and you're suddenly sliding on a thin film of liquid rubber. For drivers encountering this for the first time, the though of releasing the brakes, not pushing harder, is usually terrifying. "ABS" braking solves this by automatically releasing the brakes and re-applying them.
• The opposite effect is high-powered cars spinning their wheels when accelerating. The wheels continue to slide until power is reduced enough to regain traction.
• Cornering or swerving too fast, usually in slippery conditions like ice, mud or rain, results in some or all the wheels losing traction. There are no good recovery techniques for an all-wheel slide. When only the back wheels have lost traction, the classic "steer into the slide" technique works - which for those new to it, is usually counter-intuitive.

In all these situations, once "traction is lost", control is lost unless specific recovery measures are taken.

Once a rubber tyre starts to slide, it will continue to slide at that and previously tractable speeds.

Recovery isn't just a matter of reverting just a little, but often quite a lot until the rubber stops melting or sliding. Once traction is restored, it will again stay adhering until the critical limit is reached again. "Good car control" is often staying just below the critical limit and maintaining maximum friction without slipping.

The necessary ingredient to create a system which can sink into "Reversal of Command" type dysfunction is two opposing system response curves:

• The "normal" response curve where increasing staff numbers (i.e.higher staff costs, more time per patient and more individual "slack" time) results in more throughput, but at the cost of lower "cost effectiveness" per patient, and
• The "stressed" response curve, where low staff numbers creates higher absentee and sickness rates, increases Medical Errors and Adverse Events, increases staff-overtime for those able to work, increased time-pressure creates more stressed staff, reduces their job satisfaction and radically increases turn-over. Because the total demand for care has not reduced, extra staff have to be found: either through overtime, substitution of under-qualified staff or hiring expensive Agency staff. Overly tired staff not only work slower, but miscommunicate more, are worse at detecting errors and omissions  and make inordinately more clerical errors, requiring extra time to correct.

There is an Optimum Staff Cost point: the most cases are treated for the lowest staff costs.

Attempting to reduce staff costs below this point is counter-productive. The "stressed" response curve takes over and increases staff costs whilst the overworked staff produce significantly worse outcomes.

The problem with large Healthcare and Hospital systems, is that nobody is tracking the dysfunction curve, only the headline "staff costs".

Because these events go unnoticed and unreported, total System Costs are much higher than they need be.

But without measuring them, who's going to believe it?

And if you don't believe it, why would you measure?

Teams and Departments can suffer similar system breakdowns in their culture, as described in this: the "Blame Spiral".

The crucial point is that the "Do it Right, First Time" Quality Improvement methodology, because it is based in real measurement and relevant reporting, catches these issues early and prevents minor culture issues from descending into massive dysfunction.

The Budget, The Promise, The Dividend

Australia is about to pass a pivotal milestone:
 the last Federal ALP budget to run full-term for perhaps a decade.

It is already notorious because of the commitment Kevin Rudd made in 2008 that this budget would be in Surplus and the Coalition's constant carping and criticism about the ALP's "incompetence" in every area, including financial management. The clamour from economics commentators that it is not just unnecessary, but unwise, is just part of the lead-up to this event.

So, my comments on why we are getting, The Surplus We Had to Have.


The Budget

With the Australian Federal Budget under a week away, the ALP is attempting to bring down a Surplus, seemingly only for Political reasons.

We'll only know the result in 18 months, at which point, believing current trends, the Coalition will be in power and will pick a figure that:
a) makes their case that the ALP were "incompetent at everything" and
b) uses the usual rhetoric of "the situation was much worse than we were led to believe, we have to make much deeper cuts and reduce or defer some or all of our promises".

I can't add to the debate over the economic pros and cons of "The Surplus we had to have", but can point to a deeper set of concerns.


The Promise

The Rudd/Gillard governments backed themselves into a corner a number of times by making unwarranted unequivocal statements (e.g. "there will be no tax on carbon" and "we will have a surplus in 2012/13").

But leaders before have done exactly this, or made outrageous gaffs, and not felt the same need to Keep The Promise. The current ALP leaders are holding themselves to their statements and in this, having the Opposition pursue them on their promises.

• Hawke: "No child (need/will) live in poverty by 1990".
• Keating: "The recession we had to have" and "Banana Republic".
• Howard: "That wasn't a 'core' promise".

This could be the result of a generational change. All Prime Ministers up to and including Howard (e.g. Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating) literally had to have "town hall meetings" and learn to deal with hecklers without the assistance of microphones, effectively what every stand-up comedian has to learn.

Younger ALP leaders, Latham, Rudd and Gillard, differ in two important ways:

• they've had limited experience dealing with hecklers and antagonistic crowds (think of the difference between TV-only comedians and stand-ups), and
• they joined the Party Machine (or the Union movement) almost straight from school. Unlike Ben Chifley, who had a career as an engine driver before moving into paid politics.

There are other effects, such as the logical/absurdist extension of Sampling Theory and Statistical analysis of surveys invented by Gallup and used in 1936 to predict FDR's upset election.

This 'surplus', head-line or underlying, real or faked, is entirely for Political reasons, and as such is an "own goal" for the ALP. At the very least, they've shown they are inflexibly wed to any and all their policy statements and can't see a way around themselves to "adapt, improvise, overcome" in response to changing circumstances and needs.

But the real concern for every elector/taxpayer is the overwhelming message from both major parties:

Politics trumps Public Good. They don't care what harm they cause in the pursuit of a short-term political advantage or goal.

This is our future, our jobs, our money they're playing with so cavalierly. There is no "Government Money" to spend, only taxpayers wages.


The (Efficiency) Dividend

[My previous piece on the "Triple Whammy" effects of waste in I.T. is useful background for this.]

Keating introduced the Efficiency Dividend, or really Automatic Budget Reduction, to Federal Government in 1986. Notionally, it was a systematic attempt for Departments and Agencies to be forced to realise, and hand back, the productivity gains due to Technology, I.T./I.C.T. particularly.

Which is fine sounding until you pick apart the assumptions and implementation.

I was caught up in the first I.T. Recession in Australia, at the end of 1990. Westpac laid off 500 contractors (for the abandoned project CS90) at Christmas. It was 1994 before Computing and I.T. graduates were back to 100% employment. For a while, a Chemistry or Geology graduate had a better chance of finding work in their field - very different to the industry cries beforehand of "we have a staff shortage crisis" and "I.T. it's a job for life".

That first I.T. Recession was because all the low-hanging fruit was picked: all Australian businesses and Government Agencies had hired more I.T. staff to automate their back-office functions and replace (low-level) clerical staff.

In 1990/1, I.T. staff were cut, just like all other staff.

Why is this problematic? Consider these three related points:

• If this was 1965 and government Agencies had to supply all now current services, would we ever have an unemployment problem? [How many people would it take for Centrelink, ATO, Medicare, etc to do their work and handle 800,000 unemployed?]
• I.T., like Marketing, is an intangible and an indirect cost. We do them both for a Business Benefit. But we don't measure, report or analyse I.T. benefits.
• I.T. is a Cognitive Amplifier. We use it to automate business processes and increase staff productivity. Rough estimates suggest a 10-100 times 'amplification'.

The Keating Efficiency Dividend is recognising all three points:  from all the money invested in Federal Government I.T. Systems, rather large savings should have been realised.

The workload, and notionally the workforce, of many or most Federal Government Agencies should scale with population size - growing at a long-term average of 1.5%. [18M in 1996, five times the 1901 size]

But after 30+ years of I.T. Automation, for the Public Service to have only achieved a 1% total savings either suggests:

• gross incompetence in either failed or unproductive/irrelevant projects,
• management fakery in reallocating savings to increasing empires, or
• an increased level of service, either numbers served or complexity and number of services provided.

But we don't know what's happened: what staff productivity or organisational efficiencies have been realised?

This is a massive management and reporting failure on behalf of the permanent Public Service, but an even greater failure of governance and insight on behalf of the Parliament they report to.

This leads to another set of points:

• Not all Government Agencies can achieve the same efficiencies as their workload and workforce are dependant on different factors,
• Different areas within Agencies cannot be expected to yield the same "efficiency gains" for the same reasons, their inherent workload scales from different factors, and
• "Percent maximum potential efficiency" is not calculated nor taken into account. The past improvement by individual Agencies, and the future savings possible, are seen as irrelevant.

The Productivity Commission [2004] reported that ICT was still the single largest factor driving (staff) productivity growth, yet there appears no intensive study of the APS (Australian Public Service) to which it has special access and interest, nor does there seem to be a recognition or refutation of this is Agency management practice.

If investing in I.T./I.C.T. is still the most cost-effective way of improving productivity, and hence of meeting the Efficiency Dividend, why are any Government Agencies apply the full 4% 'dividend' across all their organisational units?

If I.T./I.C.T investment is judged as not improving productivity, where is the evidence?
Pointing to a glaring omission of all Government Agency Annual Reports. Although they all have detailed reporting against "Key Outcome Areas", there are no output metrics.

Productivity is a measure of Output per unit of Input. Within the APS reporting schemes and managerial system/requirements, only Inputs (staff numbers and on-costs) are measured. Failing to even notice this gap, let alone address it, seems to me to be another monumental failure of the APS's management and culture.

Politicians, as managers of the APS, make decisions/directions are unpredictable, capricious and irrational. This is simply the nature of the beast. Politics is the Art of the Possible.

Which means senior managers in the APS have to deal with this insane world.

Down the organisation structures, staff never learn to relate their time input into economic value output. The simple cost/benefit equation at the heart of every business transaction that any 16-yo at MacDonald's learns is missing: wages have to be paid for.

This has led to an incredible blind-spot within the Public Service, resulting in systemic management and reporting failures such as not defining and collecting/reporting staff output data so year-on-year Productivity can be tracked.

What we can absolutely say about the 4% (1.5%+2.5%) Swan/Gillard Efficiency Dividend:

• it should not be evenly applied across all Agencies, but has to be because the necessary management data is missing.
• it should not be evenly applied within Agencies because the necessary data is missing.
• without evidence, APS managers are blindly acting. Should they be investing in more I.T./I.C.T. or reducing I.T. staff/budgets more than 4%?
• There will be uneven and disproportionate effects on the delivery of Government services.

Just because Politicians live in an extreme world is no excuse that they don't properly fulfil their Fiduciary Duty towards their constituents - the people who've entrusted to them their future livelihoods and living standard.

We, as taxpayers and electors, need to be demanding a much higher standard of management and governance from the Politicians representing us.

Is there any reason that the Public Service is not the best organised, best managed and provably most productive and efficient/effective organisation in the country? Why should the Public Service be less than the definitive model of good management and good governance? The standard that every organisation is judged by.

The only reason is that we haven't held our Politicians accountable for their performance.

We have let them get away with putting their interests ahead of what they are elected and paid to do:  husband the public purse, the taxpayer dollar, for the best possible outcomes and sustained benefits to the citizenry.