When is a bribe not a bribe?

I was intrigued by a recent report in the Guardian "Whitehall supplier offers year's worth of free contracts while times are tough" (see: http://bit.ly/eY18CH).

On the face of it this seems laudable; ostensibly, as part of  their 'corporate social responsibility' agenda, KPMG are offering very low cost or no cost consultancy to government. The rationale, as stated by their head of public sector, Alan Downey is: "Government is turning to firms such as us to help them carry out its major reforms but without a willingness to pay. We can't afford to do it indefinitely, but we can in the short-term."

All well and good you might think. But I was interested in what was said in the next breath: "We're hoping to position ourselves well when the government decides it is willing to pay."

So, as in other walks of life - there's no such thing as a free lunch. No big surprise there - but it did get me thinking and raise a number of interesting questions: how many firms can afford to do this? What does that mean for small and medium sized enterprises - firms that this government has said it wants to see get a greater proportion of public sector work? And perhaps most pertinent of all, two related questions: should the government be accepting 'free' consultancy? And is there an expectation created that such free work will be rewarded by future (paid-for) contracts?

Perhaps I'm being too cynical and unkind when I answer the question: when is a bribe not a bribe? With - when its dressed up as 'corporate social responsibility'. But such an approach - albeit forced upon people by the austerity regime - does seem to me to be potentially anti-competitive.

What's your view?

UK Spending Cuts - a Damp Squib?

I have to say that I was heartily disappointed by the spending cuts announced last week. Not so much for what was said - though the asymmetric impact on the most vulnerable in our society is in itself disappointing. No; it was actually more for what was left unsaid.

What I see now is effectively 'target savings' that UK departments have to meet. That is - their budgets have been reduced going forward. But there is no detail saying how those savings will be delivered. So my fear is that we will have a non-strategic, 'salami-slicing' approach, where departments cut internal budgets by an arbitrary percentage across the board.

In my view, this is an opportunity missed. Times of pressure and challenge are precisely the times during which a more strategic approach is required, so that service provision can be prioritised around key outcomes - those things that can help make the UK a better place.

As highlighted in the recent report from the Public Administration Select Committee entitled 'Who does UK National Strategy' (click here for a link to the report), I suspect the problem lies in a lack of both appetite and capability in strategic thinking. Sadly, the report concludes that the problem is pervasive amongst both the UK Senior Civil Service and minsters - with some honourable exceptions in both camps. So there is often a lack of clarity about what the key strategic outcomes are for any given department. That makes it pretty difficult to prioritise sensibly.

I fear that the result will be further asymmetry in terms of impact - despite the conspicuous overuse of the word 'fair' during the announcement itself. That is - the most vulnerable citizens, businesses and communities in our society are often the hardest (and therefore the most expensive) to reach. My guess is that, as the cuts translate into operational reality, it will be precisely those services that are reduced or eliminated first.

Hopefully I am wrong and the key Department's of State do indeed have their Baldric-like cunning, strategic plans in place for safe-guarding outcomes and prioritising services. Time will tell.