Why not tinker if it produces results?

---

Mahmudur Rahman
The bureaucracy established by the British may be a pleasant repast for those cynically inclined towards power but it is not of any humour to the general public. The Prime Minister herself was frustrated enough by red tape-ism to encourage ad-hoc measures in an effort to inject speed and dynamism in decision-making and implementation. The recent approval by the cabinet of a bill to allow for quick decisions on power and energy issues for a certain period is another initiative to side-step bureaucratic processes that can impede pace.
There are arguments for, and against, the concept but time has come to re-examine such processes in the light of modern day management. A multinational company's Managing Director was not amused to find one day that it required some 37 signatures for an item to be cleared to leave his company's premises. The galling part of it was that of these 37 individuals, only a few actually understood why they had to sign the otherwise inoffensive piece of paper. An order for a review revealed that while such a lengthy process was required in the days of yore, modern technology usage could cut down this to a mere seven illegible scrawls. The lesson learnt was to constantly question the current process in quest of further improvement.
The emergence of a spat between the government and some donor agencies over the move to tinker with "trusted" processes has added spice to the debate. The suggestion that rules governing experience of bidders and organisations in considering major projects should be relaxed is a major bone of contention. That certainly makes sense. Then again it doesn't. For instance, the Jamuna Bridge construction was entrusted with a major, well experienced company with strong local partners and due diligence was given by donors and government in examination of all bids. Now that cracks have developed a new process has begun to award a contract to another company to have this remedied. All well and fine but was there no clause for such remedy to come from the contracted company in the agreement that was gone over with a fine tooth comb even by the donors? Apparently this was not so.
Then where does the fault lie? It has to be either with the bureaucratic process that left a loophole, the donors (perish the thought!) for not having a tooth comb fine enough, or the holes in the experience (or lack of it) of the company concerned. Strangely enough no one is particularly vocal in raising any of these questions.
Nor is the case any different for government-funded roads and such being built and inaugurated with fanfare only to be soon relegated to pot-holed communication channels. All of such built by reputable construction contractors properly enlisted. That's when the case for relaxation of experience criteria comes up.
If no one got the chance to prove themselves they would never gain the experience and the fresh graduates often have this particular gripe when they find themselves ineligible to apply for a job because they don't have experience. And new people making mistakes are far more acceptable than proven (?) companies doing the same thing. In both cases the remedial clause for construction not lasting its intended life requires to be in place and given effect as well.
E-mail: mahmudrahman@gmail.com