I experienced this in my first job... A regulatory decision around approval of a new power line in California... where the consulting and regulatory costs of simply discussing whether the line should be built literally ran over $100 million. Paid for by all California power users in their rates.
The sad thing is the state of affairs can be used by any party that for any reason wants to fight anything it want (with money): just leverage environmental protection laws even when it's intellectually dishonest to do so, and win by miring the process in hundreds of millions of dollars of total waste.
Of course that's just the abuse of law/process side of things. Separately we've seen the loss of expertise in house within governments and the rise of consulting firms required to do everything.
There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten.
If anyone hasn't read The Power Broker about the rise of Robert Moses, it's a great read: You can disagree with much of his methodology/power hunger/abuse of people, and you can certainly disagree with what he built, but what he did demonstrate is that the people with the plans who can execute while everyone else is talking about grand dreams can GET STUFF DONE.
We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms.
Let's be honest, consulting firms never feel ownership. Their deliverable is that beautiful PDF. No PDF ever built any grand infrastructure.
And the Golden Gate Bridge, and the New York subway, never even had the glorious joy of benefiting from either PDF or PowerPoint.
Let's admit it, when it comes to building infrastructure we've completely failed and we need to have a serious wake-up call.
Sadly most people have no idea how bad it has gotten because when they spend a hundred million dollars collectively deciding whether to build a power line in the San Diego desert, they barely notice that they're paying an incremental portion of a penny more for every kilowatt-hour of power.
I have read the Power Broker, and I don't think it really has anything to do with getting things build in spite of regulations. Sure he got things built, but the modern regulatory state wasn't really an issue in the 1950s.
Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.
People tried to use all kinds of methods to stop all kinds of Robert Moses projects, but he was always there faster than them or literally breaking through ignoring them.
Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
Thankfully though, he didn't have the wherewithal to power through everything he wanted to do. I get your point. But the balance is going to vary a lot depending upon your priorities.
Robert Moses is a prime example of how a misguided despot can ruin everything for generations to come.
Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.
If the prime example is also to learn about budgeting from Moses, The Power Broker also describes how he would deliberately lowball costs to get them approved, and then force politicians to cover the overruns because the projects were a sunk cost.
> There was a time when cities built their own transit!
I think working for a government used to be an attractive option. No it'd be extremely hard to justify accepting a government salary for the same job you could be doing for the contractor for literally 3x the money and far better working conditions.
To be honest, I'd have to be paid more to work within a government system than for a private employer to put up with governmental BS and lower job mobility.
If you're at a point where the money isn't as important as stability it could be worth it. As a close relative of mine who was a lifelong state bureaucrat put it "you have to rape a kid to be fired but you'll keep your pension unless you video tape it" which based on other things that happened in his department over the years is an exaggeration but not a big one. I'd definitely consider working for the government after my house is paid off.
Funny you mention that. Once money is no longer an issue, I'd consider going to work for a university. Many of the same benefits (and drawbacks).
A few years ago, I seriously considered working for EdX as I believe in the mission, but all the EdX positions that were open were MIT employees (amazing benefits, fixed [and uncompetitive] salary structure) and we had two young kids at home so it wasn't the right time to consider that.
Darn that's sad. Once money is not a primary issue, I would much prefer working 80%, or 60%, whatever compared to just gaining more stability. Pushing papers, playing politics, losing touch with progress in real world (affecting employability), that's a bad direction in any age.
I don't know... having the threat of having a pension removed sounds like yet another terrible thing about working for the government. My private sector pension is my property, in a managed fund. The company can't do anything to it.
In the government you can lose your pension. In the private sector you can't. In both cases you have state benefits. How's that a benefit of being in government?
By "on their own terms" I meant prison. Like if you do something bad enough to lose your pension it's because you did something so bad that you're going to jail for the rest of your life.
I still don't get it. Even if I go to prison I don't lose my private sector pension. Government pensions are worse because they have the option of removing them. They can't do that in private sector because it's not part of any contract or company control - it's a trust.
In all large companies I have worked (>10K employees), the level of bureaucracy is similar to the government and decision making is really slow. In my experience, "private is more efficient" is a myth and primarily driven by ideological reasons.
Have you worked for the government? I have (as an external contractor) and the level of bureucracy and waste was on a entirely different level than at even the most inefficient private company (a large bank) that I've worked for.
We are contractors that identify the most valuable features for the least amount of money.
We have worked with two state agencies and learned that entire philosophy is moot in a government agency because they dont care about the value of features and they dont care about saving money.
It was incredibly depressing and so we generally try not to work with government agencies.
I used to work for a business that sold a software platform to both government buyers and large private companies, and we saw absolutely no difference in inefficiency, waste, and fiefdom-building.
Those things are all absolutely a matter of organizational size, almost to the exclusion of everything else (including public/private distinctions).
Some of our most frustrating clients were the massive private sector companies that would kick around a proposal for six months, call meeting after meeting, and deal with an ever-changing cast of stakeholders who needed to sign off on this round.
At least in government there was less flux in who we dealt with over time.
1. Government is orders of magnitude larger than the biggest companies, and, whats' worse, the inefficiencies scale (my guess) exponentially and not linearly.
2. Government assumes democratic oversight, which is way more costly and time intensive to implement than the rule of the iron fist of the shareholders via board of a company.
3. A lot of the ways the government functions is passed as laws. If a private business needs to do a major change of strategy, say was the case with Tesla recently where they decided to get rid of the dealerships, they can implement it very quickly - whereas in government, an operational decision of this magnitude (say the IRS deciding to close local branches), would probably require changing many laws - which involves political bargaining and just general queue to get the new law passed in the parliament. BTW this is true even for much smaller stuff, like the template of the forms for tax returns - they cannot be changed willy-nilly, but need a new law to be passed (usually at a lower level than parliament, but still). Imagine facebook needing to go through some internal legislation process every time they change a form on their website - so much for "move fast and break things".
1) Federal government, yes, state governments, most of 'em, local governments, mostly not.
City and county-level governments are hugely varied in size, but it doesn't take much for a private company to be larger than vast swaths of them.
Of course, you're right that no private business is as big as the US federal government.
2) A lot of companies do have elaborate internal processes for getting anything done; the shareholders don't really do much for the day-to-day operation of a company, seldom where it comes to purchasing decisions.
3) It's really more regulations, which have to be changed in concert with laws, than laws themselves. Especially at the local level, governments have pretty wide leeway so long as they do things under a general framework of fairness and competitiveness (again, varies based on corruption at work....but private companies are corrupt, too; we just don't get to peek under the covers nearly as often.)
Outside pressure was the key determinant of waste and bureaucracy. Companies without competition (e.g. banks) had almost zero competitive pressure but most government departments always had at least a bit of democratic pressure.
The best run were companies under heavy competitive pressure or government departments that were transparent and closely watched.
I've worked as a government contractor in the past and cannot disagree more. The corruption I saw was almost entirely located on the side of the contracting companies using extremely shady tactics to sell junk to the government or encourage the funding of projects that would never see the light of day.
Who are you quoting there? Nobody in this thread. Nobody here was claiming private was more efficient - you've imagined that.
We were saying it was less beaurcpatic and a more pleasant working environment in the private sector.
Look at basic things like expense policies in government jobs. The pettiness of it will astound you. In the private sector I just get given a credit card and treated like an adult.
I disagree. Yes, large companies can be very slow and bureaucratic. However, they still have a profit motive which tends to drive action. Gov’t don’t have a profit motive, so for them, there is little that forces them to act beyond politics.
Right I think the rule is "very large organizations are slow and bureaucratic". Government is one but large corporations are another.
But I've also been really impressed with government work recently. The people at the post office on tax day were much nicer and more helpful than 80% of customer support I get from companies.
> There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten.
At the same time, you probably don't want your engineers making mistakes and not knowing about lessons learnt elsewhere; having some external expertise is likely good, even if most of the work is done by your own engineers.
> We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms.
I share your frustration, but there are evolutionary pressures at work here. The people most likely to be in government are those most likely to survive in it.
Seeing hard projects through does not increase your "fitness" much.
Knowing how to manipulate bureaucracies, build up little fiefdoms, acquire the pull to bring in expensive consultants, manage the reciprocal relationships with those consultants, etc. -- all this stuff does increase your fitness in a bureaucracy.
The only two proven ways to cut this Gordian Knot are smaller sovereign jurisdictions (suddenly those bureaucrats have to answer to people who are many fewer degrees removed) or executives with more unilateral power (authoritarianism/CEO-style governance). For better or worse, the American system has evolved in the opposite direction on both those poles.
Those are not contradictory. It is possible for corruption to thrive because of evolutionary pressure. It is even possible for it to do so despite the result not being obvious for the pressure applied and only a result of second, third, etc. order effects of the pressure.
If you're going to comment, make it substantiative. Arguing over the definitions of words, and not the underlying phenomenon, is the opposite of that.
If "corruption", as you prefer to call it, leads to selection pressures and selects for those most "fit" in the arts of corruption, then "evolutionary pressure" is a perfectly adequate metaphor, and likely helpful for analyzing the situation.
On a related note, the knee-jerk application of moral terminology rather than clear analysis to government issues is one of the principal hacks that corrupt bureaucracies use to perpetuate themselves.
On the other hand, such corruption is locally contained in scope. Maybe the trade off is worth it, to have some small local corruption to avoid it at the larger, higher levels.
Right, smaller govt can be more efficient in general but in the specific case of transit, having political units much smaller than the area of interest of most ambitious transit projects seems to do more harm than good.
Subsidiarity: The principle that government power ought to reside at the lowest feasible level (i.e. at the local or regional level, instead of the national or supranational level, unless the latter presents clear advantages.
If you have worked for Caltrans or any other public agency you would have experienced first hand why it take 10 State engineers to replace a light bulb......better yet google the Caltrans Director Sex Scandal case or Jay Shah the District 7 Contract manager Pay for plays or yet the Caltrans engineer serving a Colorado federal prison for smuggling restricted military material to China.......
Wow I had no idea they were actually already constructing this rail line, and it's actually going to go all the way into central San Francisco, that's great! I thought it was all just a vague idea and people wanted a hyperloop instead.
Sadly, Newson actually cut off the ends so now that it's going to be only in the Central Valley.
Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later.
But basically it's a fiasco.
And by the way, liberal blue Peninsula residents from Palo Alto etc have been the primary blocker for this entire project from the very beginning using environmental impact statements to try and kill high speed rail line going through their environments, something that would increase the value of their cities. It's really sad. Basically another version of we don't want to see housing built NIMBYism at its worst.
I think the original idea was to build the CV segment first as a fait accompli, not really Newsom's idea.
And yeah, as the most technically demanding parts (as well as benefitting the most people immediately) the bookends should've been built first.
See the whole debate several years ago with "technicals" vs "politicals" on the web.
Hilariously, the folks who likely voted against the bond measure are the ones that are going to be stuck staring at this monument to big government failure.
> Sadly, Newson actually cut off the ends so now that it's going to be only in the Central Valley.
Is this actually the case though? While so many outlets jumped on the news to say the project was cancelled, looking into it further it looks like design work will continue outside of the central valley, just not construction. There is too much partisan interference being run by the Trump administration at the federal level, construction will hopefully continue with the next administration in 2020.
> Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later.
From my understanding that was the plan from the start. Start in the central valley where the construction can bring the most stimulus, land acquisition and design would be more open, and force the route to be kept to.
Newsom clearly rejected the existing plan, saying it would "would cost too much and take too long.” It could take an indeterminate amount of time to formulate a new plan and restart construction. The Second Avenue Subway in New York was stalled more than 30 years after construction started.
> Newson actually cut off the ends so now that it's going to be only in the Central Valley.
No, he didn't. Newsome announced that construction would proceed on the part that was already an announced as the initial construction segment with federal construction funds committed and that only design and environmental work would proceed on the rest while additional federal and/or private funding was secured for construction.
Which was pretty much a big nothing announcement, since that was pretty much already how things were working (sure, it was theoretically possible for the state to fund construction on other segments without outside funds, but it hadn't planned on doing so), but was quickly seized on by enemies of the project (including the Trump Administration) as being something other than it was.
Which is all not to excuse Newsome; at best, his handling of the matter was grossly incompetent.
> “Let’s be real,” the new Democratic governor said as he announced a scaled-back plan for high speed rail. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and take too long.”
If there is not a concrete plan that is viable, the project could sit in the "design and environmental review" phase indefinitely without moving forward.
Yes, the non-substantive framing language around the substantive announcements sounds very different than what was actually announced, but what was actually concretely announced—that construction would proceed as committed on the ICS and that design and environmental clearance activities would proceed on the rest while the state sought federal and private funding—is exactly a continuation of the status quo ante.
Whether Newsome was trying to be seen as “doing something” about an issue that was perceived as a problem without actually concretely doing anything or whether he was trying to kill the project by giving political fuel to it's enemies while being able to say to supporters of the project that he had take no concrete steps against it is unclear or whether perhaps he planned concrete changes that somehow were below the level described in the announcement but his staff drafted an announcement that was too high level to capture the substance of the change is hard to say.
Okay. So the project is $44 billion over budget, and the consulting contracts (not just the overages, but the entire contracts) add up to less than $2 billion. Where does the other $42 billion in overages come from?
There are some parallels here to London's troubled Crossrail project. Politicians and civil servants took their eyes of the ball and turned project management almost completely over to the private sector. For years, everything was apparently going fine and the project was on time and on budget. Suddenly, just weeks before it was supposed to open in 2018, it was revealed to be years behind and potentially billions over budget.
Everybody expected it to open in 2012, people even got plane tickets for flights departing from there, but then it never opened. With all the cost accumulated since then, it would have been cheaper (and faster) to just tear it down and rebuild from scratch.
The common denominator is CONSULTANTS and an over reliance on the private sector to get things done. Consultants get paid proportionally to the number of hours they bill. It is obvious that that doesn't optimize for efficiency. But politicians fall for the same trick again and again...
Consultants get paid to do what you want them to do.
If the government contracts for some consultants and lets them "take over", then it's their fault. They were either unclear in their direction, providing incorrect direction, or incompetent at managing the contract.
If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one.
Really, since federal funds went into this, the agencies managing this should be investigated by the federal government and the state should have to pay back the funds that they mismanaged.
Even the ones who saw this coming probably had no real way to work around it. I read a quote once - I can’t remember who said it and am too lazy to google it - but it was something along the lines of “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel”. It’s supposed to be inspirational, but to me, it’s the most depressing fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life because it’s so accurate. They won’t remember that when you said “this timeline is unrealistic” that you were right, all they’ll remember is that you made them feel bad. The brutal accuracy of it, though, has definitely inspired me to stop trying - I do what I’m told and no more, because trying to be helpful or actually be forward thinking is a surefire recipe for disaster. I do make people “feel” good, though, except on here where I’m “salty”.
I'm assuming you mean you try to give people honest feedback, but people object to it because it's too harsh?
It's completely possible to honest, assertive and kind at the same time. I see this false dichotomy all the time: "be honest and make enemies" or "be silent and watch a project tank." There's a third option: be frank and kind. (And yes, there are environments where no form of honesty, gentle or harsh, is welcome -- smile, put in your 40 hours and try to find employment elsewhere.)
If you're constantly angering people with your honesty, the problem is not with your honesty but with your people skills. You need to cut the pity party and take a hard look at your communication habits.
There's a difference between owning the job in organization and farming it out completely. You don't need to have all competencies inside your org, but you better have some kick-ass people you can trust that can ensure you're not scammed by external consultants - or who know how to talk with contractors so that the project is not catastrophically buggered by nonsensical behaviour and unrealistic expectations of your org
Let's say you want to build a house. If you know what you're doing, you could put together the plans, get the approvals, order the materials, and hire various contractors to get the work done (masons, carpenters, electricians, etc)
In that case, you are acting as your own general contractor. If you don't have the skill to do all of that, you can hire a general contractor to do those things for you. In that case, you are approving timeframes, designs, materials, and money. All this is based on what the GC is saying. You are working at a higher level, and paying for their expertise.
However, you have to also determine if what the GC is saying is realistic, as well as if what you are asking is realistic.
If the GC says they can build the 2000 square foot house for $20K, they are not being realistic. If you require that all windows be bullet proof and cost the same as normal glazing, you are not being realistic.
Either way, you're ultimately responsible, just like the state of CA is for building this rail line.
The short of it is, unless you know what you are doing, don't get involved in building a house. Buy one that is already built and get a good inspection.
I immediately thought of these sort of flops when I musk/spaceX announce the boring company.
These things happen all the time. Where I live (dublin), the overcoat scandal du jour is a big hospital build that is costing 300% over budget, due to this sort of failure.
Then follows the finger pointing, moral righteousnous, promises that heads will roll, long, boring speeches (we are very good at these here) about greed and accountability.
But... like enterprise software contracts... all the agreements are carefully designed so that liability doesn't stick to you when failure inevitably comes.
Anyway... Musk. Being this name-brand business magnate makes avoiding liability much harder. If they were contracted to do a boring priject, they'd naturally have something riding on success. Boring company is just an example, but name brand contractors for city level projects may be useful... A good name to put on the line.
Calling a lot of these contractors "consultants" is rather misleading. WSP--the biggest contractor--is the "rail delivery partner." They're responsible for overseeing everyone else, dealing with environmental review, dealing with engineering contingencies, etc. $700 million sounds like a lot for a "consultant" but seems pretty reasonable for what is basically the general contractor on a $50-100 billion engineering and construction project.
It's amazing how terrible we've become at public works.
The Golden Gate Bridge was built in 4 years. Ahead of schedule and under budget!
The Bay Bridge took 5 years, also ahead of schedule and under budget.
This was the 1930s. Imagine what people thought would be possible in the futuristic 2000s. Surely we've gotten a lot better at building things in nearly a century? Better technology, machines, engineering, materials...
Well, recently we rebuilt a small portion (just 2.2 of 8.2 miles) of the Bay Bridge. It took 11 years to build. Years behind schedule and 2,500% over budget.
Seriously, why isn't this considered unacceptable? It's such a shame compared to what we could be accomplishing.
11 construction workers died building the Golden Gate Bridge, and 28 died building the Bay Bridge. There is something to be said for modern construction standards just being much safer, although also slower. Environmental impact studies and staggeringly high labor costs also make things more expensive, of course.
Monopolistic bureaucracies incentivize risk avoidance over accomplishment of goals, especially government bureaucracies.
That's the core issue with big projects. Private entrerprises accomplish them all the time, as long as its THEIR MONEY and their gain.
Governments in the US have, over time, allowed for more and more red tape that primarily exists to minimize risks and liability to the government employees overseeing contractors on large projects. This red tape creates a maze of rules and regulations that ensure that only contractors whose primary expertise is navigating the maze get the work. The secondary expertise of actually accomplishing the task is secondary to both the enterprise and the government managers.
This is an observation that I make as someone that once upon a time had to deal with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) when building software for the US Federal Government.
Reducing risk is like everything else:
Eventually, you hit a point of diminishing returns, and the government red tape, especially for large entities like the California DOT, only grows more complex over time. You never see anyone trying to simplify it.
Largely because we decided not to build public works.
When we do get one, the pressure is so high to succeed and to cut costs that people reliably focus on outsourcing responsibility and notional cost-savings, and then when that falls through on recrimination and fixes. We pressure private profit-seeking companies to make "bids" without putting up any kind of collateral, on the chance that if we did it we might waste money employing some extra labor or employ a union.
Something like 50% of the politicians in this country simply doesn't believe we should do anything as a public work. They do not believe in public works. They will actively sabotage public works in the hope that they will go overbudget and prove their philosophy correct. Compromising with these people instead of cleansing their ideology with holy fire nets "public-private partnerships" and "bid processes" and "inquests" and "deadlines" and "being cancelled in disgrace" and thus further anxiety about the next project, but an inability to compensate with higher bids.
Things would be a lot easier if we just wanted to build things, and paid people to build things, even if this meant getting into the business of building things. Instead, we want to be dramatic in our compromises, pretend that waterfall infrastructure planning is viable and can achieve perfect efficiency and predictability, treat limited liability corporations as moral actors which can be held culpable for giving us the lies we asked for, and regularly re-avow our faith in the market.
Oh, let's not let the other half of the politicians off the hook entirely either. I mean, there's a reason that some proportion of each contract must go to minority owned businesses, or that employers must be union shops that pay at least the median wage, or...
And if we were still willing to kill people when making those projects, they might go a little bit faster.
Sounds like no one person or group wanted to take responsibility for the project. If the project fails, they wanted the blame to be distributed among as many people as possible.
88 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadThe sad thing is the state of affairs can be used by any party that for any reason wants to fight anything it want (with money): just leverage environmental protection laws even when it's intellectually dishonest to do so, and win by miring the process in hundreds of millions of dollars of total waste.
Of course that's just the abuse of law/process side of things. Separately we've seen the loss of expertise in house within governments and the rise of consulting firms required to do everything.
There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten.
If anyone hasn't read The Power Broker about the rise of Robert Moses, it's a great read: You can disagree with much of his methodology/power hunger/abuse of people, and you can certainly disagree with what he built, but what he did demonstrate is that the people with the plans who can execute while everyone else is talking about grand dreams can GET STUFF DONE.
We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms.
Let's be honest, consulting firms never feel ownership. Their deliverable is that beautiful PDF. No PDF ever built any grand infrastructure.
And the Golden Gate Bridge, and the New York subway, never even had the glorious joy of benefiting from either PDF or PowerPoint.
Let's admit it, when it comes to building infrastructure we've completely failed and we need to have a serious wake-up call.
Sadly most people have no idea how bad it has gotten because when they spend a hundred million dollars collectively deciding whether to build a power line in the San Diego desert, they barely notice that they're paying an incremental portion of a penny more for every kilowatt-hour of power.
Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.
Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
I think working for a government used to be an attractive option. No it'd be extremely hard to justify accepting a government salary for the same job you could be doing for the contractor for literally 3x the money and far better working conditions.
A few years ago, I seriously considered working for EdX as I believe in the mission, but all the EdX positions that were open were MIT employees (amazing benefits, fixed [and uncompetitive] salary structure) and we had two young kids at home so it wasn't the right time to consider that.
In the government you can lose your pension. In the private sector you can't. In both cases you have state benefits. How's that a benefit of being in government?
We have worked with two state agencies and learned that entire philosophy is moot in a government agency because they dont care about the value of features and they dont care about saving money.
It was incredibly depressing and so we generally try not to work with government agencies.
Those things are all absolutely a matter of organizational size, almost to the exclusion of everything else (including public/private distinctions).
Some of our most frustrating clients were the massive private sector companies that would kick around a proposal for six months, call meeting after meeting, and deal with an ever-changing cast of stakeholders who needed to sign off on this round.
At least in government there was less flux in who we dealt with over time.
1. Government is orders of magnitude larger than the biggest companies, and, whats' worse, the inefficiencies scale (my guess) exponentially and not linearly.
2. Government assumes democratic oversight, which is way more costly and time intensive to implement than the rule of the iron fist of the shareholders via board of a company.
3. A lot of the ways the government functions is passed as laws. If a private business needs to do a major change of strategy, say was the case with Tesla recently where they decided to get rid of the dealerships, they can implement it very quickly - whereas in government, an operational decision of this magnitude (say the IRS deciding to close local branches), would probably require changing many laws - which involves political bargaining and just general queue to get the new law passed in the parliament. BTW this is true even for much smaller stuff, like the template of the forms for tax returns - they cannot be changed willy-nilly, but need a new law to be passed (usually at a lower level than parliament, but still). Imagine facebook needing to go through some internal legislation process every time they change a form on their website - so much for "move fast and break things".
City and county-level governments are hugely varied in size, but it doesn't take much for a private company to be larger than vast swaths of them.
Of course, you're right that no private business is as big as the US federal government.
2) A lot of companies do have elaborate internal processes for getting anything done; the shareholders don't really do much for the day-to-day operation of a company, seldom where it comes to purchasing decisions.
3) It's really more regulations, which have to be changed in concert with laws, than laws themselves. Especially at the local level, governments have pretty wide leeway so long as they do things under a general framework of fairness and competitiveness (again, varies based on corruption at work....but private companies are corrupt, too; we just don't get to peek under the covers nearly as often.)
Outside pressure was the key determinant of waste and bureaucracy. Companies without competition (e.g. banks) had almost zero competitive pressure but most government departments always had at least a bit of democratic pressure.
The best run were companies under heavy competitive pressure or government departments that were transparent and closely watched.
S.R. Hadden: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
Who are you quoting there? Nobody in this thread. Nobody here was claiming private was more efficient - you've imagined that.
We were saying it was less beaurcpatic and a more pleasant working environment in the private sector.
Look at basic things like expense policies in government jobs. The pettiness of it will astound you. In the private sector I just get given a credit card and treated like an adult.
But I've also been really impressed with government work recently. The people at the post office on tax day were much nicer and more helpful than 80% of customer support I get from companies.
At the same time, you probably don't want your engineers making mistakes and not knowing about lessons learnt elsewhere; having some external expertise is likely good, even if most of the work is done by your own engineers.
I share your frustration, but there are evolutionary pressures at work here. The people most likely to be in government are those most likely to survive in it.
Seeing hard projects through does not increase your "fitness" much.
Knowing how to manipulate bureaucracies, build up little fiefdoms, acquire the pull to bring in expensive consultants, manage the reciprocal relationships with those consultants, etc. -- all this stuff does increase your fitness in a bureaucracy.
The only two proven ways to cut this Gordian Knot are smaller sovereign jurisdictions (suddenly those bureaucrats have to answer to people who are many fewer degrees removed) or executives with more unilateral power (authoritarianism/CEO-style governance). For better or worse, the American system has evolved in the opposite direction on both those poles.
If "corruption", as you prefer to call it, leads to selection pressures and selects for those most "fit" in the arts of corruption, then "evolutionary pressure" is a perfectly adequate metaphor, and likely helpful for analyzing the situation.
On a related note, the knee-jerk application of moral terminology rather than clear analysis to government issues is one of the principal hacks that corrupt bureaucracies use to perpetuate themselves.
This limits what you can build to the size of a single jurisdiction, though. Devolve it to county level and you can never build any more rail at all.
I've heard this theory a lot but every time I hear of blatant corruption it seems to be in local politics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle
Subsidiarity: The principle that government power ought to reside at the lowest feasible level (i.e. at the local or regional level, instead of the national or supranational level, unless the latter presents clear advantages.
Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later.
But basically it's a fiasco.
And by the way, liberal blue Peninsula residents from Palo Alto etc have been the primary blocker for this entire project from the very beginning using environmental impact statements to try and kill high speed rail line going through their environments, something that would increase the value of their cities. It's really sad. Basically another version of we don't want to see housing built NIMBYism at its worst.
Is this actually the case though? While so many outlets jumped on the news to say the project was cancelled, looking into it further it looks like design work will continue outside of the central valley, just not construction. There is too much partisan interference being run by the Trump administration at the federal level, construction will hopefully continue with the next administration in 2020.
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/02/13/editorial-california-h...
> Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later.
From my understanding that was the plan from the start. Start in the central valley where the construction can bring the most stimulus, land acquisition and design would be more open, and force the route to be kept to.
No, he didn't. Newsome announced that construction would proceed on the part that was already an announced as the initial construction segment with federal construction funds committed and that only design and environmental work would proceed on the rest while additional federal and/or private funding was secured for construction.
Which was pretty much a big nothing announcement, since that was pretty much already how things were working (sure, it was theoretically possible for the state to fund construction on other segments without outside funds, but it hadn't planned on doing so), but was quickly seized on by enemies of the project (including the Trump Administration) as being something other than it was.
Which is all not to excuse Newsome; at best, his handling of the matter was grossly incompetent.
> “Let’s be real,” the new Democratic governor said as he announced a scaled-back plan for high speed rail. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and take too long.”
If there is not a concrete plan that is viable, the project could sit in the "design and environmental review" phase indefinitely without moving forward.
Yes, the non-substantive framing language around the substantive announcements sounds very different than what was actually announced, but what was actually concretely announced—that construction would proceed as committed on the ICS and that design and environmental clearance activities would proceed on the rest while the state sought federal and private funding—is exactly a continuation of the status quo ante.
Whether Newsome was trying to be seen as “doing something” about an issue that was perceived as a problem without actually concretely doing anything or whether he was trying to kill the project by giving political fuel to it's enemies while being able to say to supporters of the project that he had take no concrete steps against it is unclear or whether perhaps he planned concrete changes that somehow were below the level described in the announcement but his staff drafted an announcement that was too high level to capture the substance of the change is hard to say.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-scale-of-crossr...
(And, for an even more crazy civil construction project failure, see Berlin Brandenberg Airport)
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar...
The common denominator is CONSULTANTS and an over reliance on the private sector to get things done. Consultants get paid proportionally to the number of hours they bill. It is obvious that that doesn't optimize for efficiency. But politicians fall for the same trick again and again...
If the government contracts for some consultants and lets them "take over", then it's their fault. They were either unclear in their direction, providing incorrect direction, or incompetent at managing the contract.
If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one.
Really, since federal funds went into this, the agencies managing this should be investigated by the federal government and the state should have to pay back the funds that they mismanaged.
It's completely possible to honest, assertive and kind at the same time. I see this false dichotomy all the time: "be honest and make enemies" or "be silent and watch a project tank." There's a third option: be frank and kind. (And yes, there are environments where no form of honesty, gentle or harsh, is welcome -- smile, put in your 40 hours and try to find employment elsewhere.)
If you're constantly angering people with your honesty, the problem is not with your honesty but with your people skills. You need to cut the pity party and take a hard look at your communication habits.
>If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one.
How are these not contradictory?
In that case, you are acting as your own general contractor. If you don't have the skill to do all of that, you can hire a general contractor to do those things for you. In that case, you are approving timeframes, designs, materials, and money. All this is based on what the GC is saying. You are working at a higher level, and paying for their expertise.
However, you have to also determine if what the GC is saying is realistic, as well as if what you are asking is realistic.
If the GC says they can build the 2000 square foot house for $20K, they are not being realistic. If you require that all windows be bullet proof and cost the same as normal glazing, you are not being realistic.
Either way, you're ultimately responsible, just like the state of CA is for building this rail line.
The short of it is, unless you know what you are doing, don't get involved in building a house. Buy one that is already built and get a good inspection.
I immediately thought of these sort of flops when I musk/spaceX announce the boring company.
These things happen all the time. Where I live (dublin), the overcoat scandal du jour is a big hospital build that is costing 300% over budget, due to this sort of failure.
Then follows the finger pointing, moral righteousnous, promises that heads will roll, long, boring speeches (we are very good at these here) about greed and accountability.
But... like enterprise software contracts... all the agreements are carefully designed so that liability doesn't stick to you when failure inevitably comes.
Anyway... Musk. Being this name-brand business magnate makes avoiding liability much harder. If they were contracted to do a boring priject, they'd naturally have something riding on success. Boring company is just an example, but name brand contractors for city level projects may be useful... A good name to put on the line.
Just a thought.
That rangeright: they "estimated" the project would cost $33B and be done in 12 years .... 12 years ago. And now they want $100B and 30 years.
Such companies have an obvious profit motive to cause overruns.
This is why we need regulations.
They all have been and will be captured by either crooks or fanatics - that's the whole point of having a system of coercive no-opt-out government.
The Golden Gate Bridge was built in 4 years. Ahead of schedule and under budget!
The Bay Bridge took 5 years, also ahead of schedule and under budget.
This was the 1930s. Imagine what people thought would be possible in the futuristic 2000s. Surely we've gotten a lot better at building things in nearly a century? Better technology, machines, engineering, materials...
Well, recently we rebuilt a small portion (just 2.2 of 8.2 miles) of the Bay Bridge. It took 11 years to build. Years behind schedule and 2,500% over budget.
Seriously, why isn't this considered unacceptable? It's such a shame compared to what we could be accomplishing.
That's the core issue with big projects. Private entrerprises accomplish them all the time, as long as its THEIR MONEY and their gain.
Governments in the US have, over time, allowed for more and more red tape that primarily exists to minimize risks and liability to the government employees overseeing contractors on large projects. This red tape creates a maze of rules and regulations that ensure that only contractors whose primary expertise is navigating the maze get the work. The secondary expertise of actually accomplishing the task is secondary to both the enterprise and the government managers.
This is an observation that I make as someone that once upon a time had to deal with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) when building software for the US Federal Government.
Reducing risk is like everything else: Eventually, you hit a point of diminishing returns, and the government red tape, especially for large entities like the California DOT, only grows more complex over time. You never see anyone trying to simplify it.
When we do get one, the pressure is so high to succeed and to cut costs that people reliably focus on outsourcing responsibility and notional cost-savings, and then when that falls through on recrimination and fixes. We pressure private profit-seeking companies to make "bids" without putting up any kind of collateral, on the chance that if we did it we might waste money employing some extra labor or employ a union.
Something like 50% of the politicians in this country simply doesn't believe we should do anything as a public work. They do not believe in public works. They will actively sabotage public works in the hope that they will go overbudget and prove their philosophy correct. Compromising with these people instead of cleansing their ideology with holy fire nets "public-private partnerships" and "bid processes" and "inquests" and "deadlines" and "being cancelled in disgrace" and thus further anxiety about the next project, but an inability to compensate with higher bids.
Things would be a lot easier if we just wanted to build things, and paid people to build things, even if this meant getting into the business of building things. Instead, we want to be dramatic in our compromises, pretend that waterfall infrastructure planning is viable and can achieve perfect efficiency and predictability, treat limited liability corporations as moral actors which can be held culpable for giving us the lies we asked for, and regularly re-avow our faith in the market.
And if we were still willing to kill people when making those projects, they might go a little bit faster.