Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Karrick t1_jace746 wrote

Reply to comment by ripstep1 in Consultants Gone Wild by ToffeeFever

Ah yes, let's ignore the systemic issues and blame the underpaid, overworked, and inexperienced people who are left after decades of budget cuts with the aim of trying to replace them with private sector contractors.

16

fieryscribe t1_jacm4qz wrote

It's in the report:

> On this last point, a number of people told us that MTA CC had a difficult time wrangling NYCT even with its consultants, but without the consultants it would have been impossible.
> ...
> Second, several consultants who worked on Phase 1 told us that the lack of internal capacity and a clear sense of what the agency wanted meant that consultants wasted time solving basic problems that should have been determined prior to hiring a consultant ... Specifically, we were told that instead of being handed design guidelines at the start of the project, it was the consultants who developed those guidelines first, sometimes in conflict with NYCT standards

11

Karrick t1_jacocct wrote

Tell me, who is going to manage the consultants on capital projects when there is no one left to manage the consultants on capital projects? Would it perhaps be other consultants instead of your "incompetent bureaucrats who have little expertise in their field"? Why yes, yes it would.

From the OP article: >By 2011, the MTA had trimmed its in-house capital projects management group of 1,600 full-time employees (circa 1990) to just 124, tasked with steering $20 billion in investment.

From your own quote: >Specifically, we were told that instead of being handed design guidelines at the start of the project, it was the consultants who developed those guidelines first, sometimes in conflict with NYCT standards

I would also point out that as the OP article touches on, incompetence and a lack of experience are not the same thing, especially where these decades-long megaprojects are concerned, but I feel like that fine a distinction might be lost on you.

6

fieryscribe t1_jacoqxo wrote

You should read the entire report. For example, they state that the NYCT could have done the initial designs since they had the standards and an in-house team:

> A review of detailed work modifications shared with us show that managing these interfaces between NYCT and Phase 1 designers meant that MTA CC had to instruct and pay its designers millions of additional dollars to redesign turnstiles after specifications changed, lay out new floor-tiling plans because NYCT objected to the proposed tiles’ dimensions, add internal partitions to public toilets, relocate CCTV locations, and revise the fire alarm system. Since NYCT had exacting standards, perhaps with new, experienced leadership who had a track record of planning, designing, and managing a megaproject, it could have designed the extension it wanted while also maintaining the project’s scope, schedule, and budget.

It's incompetence to hire consultants and then tell them to figure out what you want. That's what the report says.

You're also quoting me as saying "incompetent bureaucrats" when I said no such thing. That was some other guy.

My main point is that the MTC CC hired consultants, gave them free reign and relied on them for everything and then costs ballooned. That's incompetence. That's the wrong way to use consultants.

6

Karrick t1_jacqipe wrote

Apologies on the misattribution.

However, "having an in-house team" really elides the fact that the in-house team that is under 8% of what it used to be, staffing wise. And before you say "that's not the same team," it doesn't actually matter if that team is the specific team in question or not - it is indicative of a general and deliberate trend of downsizing knowledgable government bureaucrats that leaves public service with serious brain drain and manpower issues. It is not incompetence to have to hire consultants to manage consultants when there is no one left. It's making the best of what you have when given an otherwise impossible task. That is how government is forced to work these days. It doesn't matter how competent your people are if you don't actually have people.

It is borderline tautological that if you want functioning government agencies you have to actually have those government agencies instead of... no one.

10

fieryscribe t1_jadkrgs wrote

> It is not incompetence to have to hire consultants to manage consultants when there is no one left. It's making the best of what you have when given an otherwise impossible task.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. To me, if I was given no ability to manage my consultants, but forced to use them, that would be an inability to do something successfully. If I didn't kick it up and say it would be unsuccessful, that would be a failure of action too. If I was still forced to do so, the incompetence doesn't go away; it just includes those above me.

I do not malign those workers as being malicious, stupid or bad people. Simply, to me, they are incompetent in the literal sense of the term, especially if they were put in that situation (which necessarily means that those above them are also incompetent). Moreover, per the report, they used consultancies to fight the bureaucracy in the system. So they were willing participants in this quagmire.

For what it's worth, I just want efficient and effective government. It may mean that government(s) have in-house staff or they hire consultants. I think what this article elides, but the report emphasizes, is that our government is inefficient and ineffective (for a variety of reasons). We, as voters, should force government to be prudent with our money. I have no control over the various consultancies, but I do have some say in my government.

4

ripstep1 t1_jacsed7 wrote

It’s not the aim. It’s the core problem. Why work for a do nothing government entity when you can do real work in private industry

2