Change for change's sake

One thing I can't get my head around is the obsession of government, both national and local, with change. Virtually every management course you see advertised has a section within it called "Managing Change" or something very similar. What the courses obviously don't explain is that this is how to manage change if you have to, but that change is not compulsory.

The age-old proverb, which I agree with wholeheartedly, says "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". If things are running well don't mess them up. But these new would-be managers come back from their courses determined to put what they have learnt into practice. If they can't actually find something that needs improving they take something that is working well and experiment with that. They seem to think that if they can make something good even better they will be able to bask in the glory of a job well done. But in the majority of cases they just end up with a total disaster and a huge bill.

The National Audit Office has just reported that since May 2005 the Government has reorganized 91 departments at an annual cost of £200 million. Since 1980 25 new central government departments have been created and this was so successful that 13 of them no longer exist! Departments have been "re-branded" with huge amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on designing new logos and reprinting stationery. Departments have been moved, on a whim, from London to the far ends of the country, with most of the staff refusing to go. This means not only huge relocation costs but also significant recruitment costs of new staff and the loss of all the years of accumulated wisdom and experience which gets left behind. And for what???
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7066201.ece
In my own local authority of Follyville consultants recently spent over a year holding meetings and workshops with staff with a view to restructuring a department to improve efficiency and capability. They came up with a plan which was then debated and approved. But then the "powers that be" decided there was not enough money in the budget to put the plan into effect. Of course there wasn't ...... they had spent all the money on the consultants! What a gross waste of everybody's time and taxpayer's money.

When the Government points out the size of the National Debt, as though it is somehow the fault of the people at large, they should stop for a moment and consider the fact that a large part of that debt is not caused by providing extra services to the public but on buggering up the perfectly good services that were in place already.

Material Chaos

You would think that in this material world of ours, retailers would make it as easy as possible for people to buy things. Apparently not. The latest trend is to make it as difficult as possible for people to buy things.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.