Demand Driven Economy
Democratic society must have a demand driven economy. The economy is the measure of activity serving the members of our democratic society. As democrats we believe every person counts, matters and must be respected. Therefore every person’s needs are paramount. Very high bar perhaps, but that is nonetheless the point expressed by equality before the law.
On top of that, students of business know that a business with productive capacity to serve no demand has no purpose and is therefore doomed.
We have interesting industry examples which perhaps may be contrasted only by scale, some are one-to-one services such as dentists, lawyers, doctors, barbers and so on. Others are one to many services such as banks, electrical utilities, automobiles, telephones, and so on. In every case, there must be adequate demand for the business to exist and remain viable.
So I argue for an economic rethink, wherein demand leads creation and delivery of productive activity. Currently, our industrial sectors have come a long way from Henry Ford’s famous suggestion, “You can have any color so long as it is black.’
We have supply side developments.
Focus groups were started to figure out which option the firm should produce, which would be most likely to spread out the cost of overhead to make it as small as possible per unit of output.
We had mobility research done by Ford Motor Company in response to the Edsel which met total lack of demand. Mr. Lee Iacocca included that research package and its outcomes in his severance package when he left Ford. That research was a breakthrough in that it asked open-ended questions about people’s expectations for mobility machines. The result was Mr. Iacocca started the production of minivans in setting a supply specification to meet Chrysler’s interpretation of that demand specification. Seems it was pretty close.
Even then, it took until the Financial Crisis of 2007 through 2009 to train automakers to not download their overproduction onto their dealership networks.
We now have terms like “patient-centred”, “user-centric” and other terms to suggest the supplier is focused on the needs of the end user. Interestingly, the 1960 approach of open-ended research is still not the default user specification setting model. For instance, check out the terms and conditions of use, privacy policy statements and other one-sided lengthy legal documents to which users are expected to simply, “Agree” or “Don’t Agree”, “Yes” or “No”. Is it any wonder Ann Cavoukian’s institute promoting Privacy By Design has the importance it has?
So yes, we do need demand to lead our economic development, but we have a long way to go.
Michael Klein March 25, 2019
Monday, March 25, 2019
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Trust is maintained by Transparency
Globe editorial: The SNC-Lavalin saga won’t end until the whole story comes out
The Globe and Mail March 22, 2019
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-the-snc-lavalin-saga-wont-end-until-the-whole-story/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Globe%20Opinion&utm_type=text&utm_content=GlobeOpinion&utm_campaign=2019-3-23_17&cu_id=duF4Be0wsCfC2EFDKe%2BaydZcn7xjnYRB
Interesting headline and conclusion for the editors of the Globe and Mail.
The machinations, hypotheses etc. are obviously interesting as they are selling ink and air time. My particular interest, however, lies in transparency in the carrying on business of the people’s government. Alas that has never been how our governments have acted.
Suppose a firm, e.g. SNC Lavalin, came forward in pursuit of a ruling for a Delayed Prosecution Agreement. As Kim Campbell so ably pointed out, prosecution was going to happen even with a DPA, what the firm was pursuing was merely a matter of timing.
What if the opening discussion had been held in the public eye? What if the firm was asked to specify exactly which factors to its case it felt must be confidential? What if the firm had to make a case for confidentiality for each factor separately? What if the firm then had to make a case for confidentiality of the matter as a whole?
What if there was a government test for confidentiality required because the default procedure was to have everything done in public? Exceptions might be made for only those factors not already in the public domain and not germane to the process of administration of justice which would do additional harm.
Had the government’s default position been to carry on its business in public, imagine the case in hand, namely SNC Lavalin and the DPA.
What information and opinion would we have formed regarding all the characters in this story?
Would the Loyal Opposition would have been better able to carry out its duties as part of the public process?
I think this case proves the point that we would be far better served where government business is by default carried on in public.
Indeed, the whole story would have come out as it unfolded, rather than through interpretations and misinterpretations after the fact and we would have a much more fulsome understanding of the issues considered in setting and carrying out policy.
Michael Klein March 24, 2019
The Globe and Mail March 22, 2019
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-the-snc-lavalin-saga-wont-end-until-the-whole-story/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Globe%20Opinion&utm_type=text&utm_content=GlobeOpinion&utm_campaign=2019-3-23_17&cu_id=duF4Be0wsCfC2EFDKe%2BaydZcn7xjnYRB
Interesting headline and conclusion for the editors of the Globe and Mail.
The machinations, hypotheses etc. are obviously interesting as they are selling ink and air time. My particular interest, however, lies in transparency in the carrying on business of the people’s government. Alas that has never been how our governments have acted.
Suppose a firm, e.g. SNC Lavalin, came forward in pursuit of a ruling for a Delayed Prosecution Agreement. As Kim Campbell so ably pointed out, prosecution was going to happen even with a DPA, what the firm was pursuing was merely a matter of timing.
What if the opening discussion had been held in the public eye? What if the firm was asked to specify exactly which factors to its case it felt must be confidential? What if the firm had to make a case for confidentiality for each factor separately? What if the firm then had to make a case for confidentiality of the matter as a whole?
What if there was a government test for confidentiality required because the default procedure was to have everything done in public? Exceptions might be made for only those factors not already in the public domain and not germane to the process of administration of justice which would do additional harm.
Had the government’s default position been to carry on its business in public, imagine the case in hand, namely SNC Lavalin and the DPA.
What information and opinion would we have formed regarding all the characters in this story?
Would the Loyal Opposition would have been better able to carry out its duties as part of the public process?
I think this case proves the point that we would be far better served where government business is by default carried on in public.
Indeed, the whole story would have come out as it unfolded, rather than through interpretations and misinterpretations after the fact and we would have a much more fulsome understanding of the issues considered in setting and carrying out policy.
Michael Klein March 24, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Trust - Processes
The Government of Canada & SNC Lavalin
We have a situation where wild allegations are flying, expressed with anger and resentment in terms of self-righteous indignation.
That suggests to me a system failure.
With my cursory look at the stuff coming out, I think I see at least a difference of style, certainly a difference of expectations about how the process should unfold.
I assert all efforts were made with best of intentions, even including the original writing of the statute within a budget omnibus bill. I suspect a need was seen to be addressed rather urgently, hence the format of including the statute within a budget bill.
I suspect no record was made of considerations of operating procedures required to realize the intent of the statute. Thus I further suspect no procedural rules were included, that is no standard operating procedure with sequential tasks for delivery.
That means at the time of the first test case for the statute, the sitting Justice Minister had to come up with those procedures with the hope they would meet the eventual court challenges. The Minister, as our government has done since Confederation, was assumed to know how to craft these processes without consulting other ministries or anyone else, unless the Minister chose too. This would be treated much like experiential learning, where the work would be completed and eventually tested in court.
Additionally we have a Prime Minister with a set of expectations and a Justice Minister with another set of expectations about the style and manner of doing government business.
Each of these people face respective sets of challenges, which are probably not the same for each. They then proceed to try to meet their own challenges by working together. Having two sets of perspectives is highly likely to create miscommunication. If this situation is not managed carefully, it can easily lead to frustration and eventually hard feelings.
However, this is all taking place in the world of big P politics. There is an election looming. When parties opposing the incumbent in this election hear of disharmony in the government, there is a tendency to put it all into as bad a light as possible, complete with personal attacks. Of course the people accusing, simply by virtue of being accusers, put themselves into the position of being holier than the accused. The harsher the wording of the accusations, the more effective this becomes.
Interestingly, this is a case where the parties to the confrontation have not broken any laws. This is not an actual scandal, but no actual scandal makes it hard to sell papers, so many political commentators have chimed in using the exact same terminology as the accusers.
Now all that wall paper is making it look like we actually have a wall.
I think all parties should take this opportunity, especially as there is no threat of jail time for any party wishing to co-operate fully, to re-examine the processes at play here. The processes of intra-cabinet decision-making and the processes of applying and possibly amending the statute.
Everyone seems to be “losing the plot”. The plot is the democratic governance of Canadian society in the effective manner expected by Canadians. Simply slinging allegations and counter allegations, seasoned with personal attacks, serves absolutely no useful purpose.
Let’s all get real here folks!
Michael Klein March 7, 2019
We have a situation where wild allegations are flying, expressed with anger and resentment in terms of self-righteous indignation.
That suggests to me a system failure.
With my cursory look at the stuff coming out, I think I see at least a difference of style, certainly a difference of expectations about how the process should unfold.
I assert all efforts were made with best of intentions, even including the original writing of the statute within a budget omnibus bill. I suspect a need was seen to be addressed rather urgently, hence the format of including the statute within a budget bill.
I suspect no record was made of considerations of operating procedures required to realize the intent of the statute. Thus I further suspect no procedural rules were included, that is no standard operating procedure with sequential tasks for delivery.
That means at the time of the first test case for the statute, the sitting Justice Minister had to come up with those procedures with the hope they would meet the eventual court challenges. The Minister, as our government has done since Confederation, was assumed to know how to craft these processes without consulting other ministries or anyone else, unless the Minister chose too. This would be treated much like experiential learning, where the work would be completed and eventually tested in court.
Additionally we have a Prime Minister with a set of expectations and a Justice Minister with another set of expectations about the style and manner of doing government business.
Each of these people face respective sets of challenges, which are probably not the same for each. They then proceed to try to meet their own challenges by working together. Having two sets of perspectives is highly likely to create miscommunication. If this situation is not managed carefully, it can easily lead to frustration and eventually hard feelings.
However, this is all taking place in the world of big P politics. There is an election looming. When parties opposing the incumbent in this election hear of disharmony in the government, there is a tendency to put it all into as bad a light as possible, complete with personal attacks. Of course the people accusing, simply by virtue of being accusers, put themselves into the position of being holier than the accused. The harsher the wording of the accusations, the more effective this becomes.
Interestingly, this is a case where the parties to the confrontation have not broken any laws. This is not an actual scandal, but no actual scandal makes it hard to sell papers, so many political commentators have chimed in using the exact same terminology as the accusers.
Now all that wall paper is making it look like we actually have a wall.
I think all parties should take this opportunity, especially as there is no threat of jail time for any party wishing to co-operate fully, to re-examine the processes at play here. The processes of intra-cabinet decision-making and the processes of applying and possibly amending the statute.
Everyone seems to be “losing the plot”. The plot is the democratic governance of Canadian society in the effective manner expected by Canadians. Simply slinging allegations and counter allegations, seasoned with personal attacks, serves absolutely no useful purpose.
Let’s all get real here folks!
Michael Klein March 7, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
