Or something similar...But only if we can keep those experts here...
From memory MoW had some successes but also some utter disasters. One of the problems of resurrecting it is where would you get the expertise it once had. Some will say no problem the demise of private industry will provide people to fill those slots.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300827129/max-rashbrooke-reviving-a-modern-ministry-of-works-necessary-to-cope-with-modern-infrastructure-demands
An interesting read.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:11:50 -0800 (PST), John BowesBut only if we can keep those experts here...
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Or something similar...
From memory MoW had some successes but also some utter disasters. One of the problems of resurrecting it is where would you get the expertise it once had. Some will say no problem the demise of private industry will provide people to fill those slots.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300827129/max-rashbrooke-reviving-a-modern-ministry-of-works-necessary-to-cope-with-modern-infrastructure-demands
An interesting read.
Yes it is - but there was one important issue not covered - that for
anyone who actually did any work there were 3 more required - one to
manage, a second to provide on-site supervision and a third to hold up
the other shovel.
Seriously though the MOW was a synonym (as were many other government >departments) for over-employment and total inflexibility (whatever
they built came at whatever cost they dictated).
We have no problem with delivery of current government projects - the >solution is to ensure value-for-money contracts and quality oversight
from Cabinet Ministers of their respective portfolio managers that
extends all the way down to those that are supposed to get stuff done.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:11:50 -0800 (PST), John BowesBut only if we can keep those experts here...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or something similar...
From memory MoW had some successes but also some utter disasters. One of the problems of resurrecting it is where would you get the expertise it once had. Some will say no problem the demise of private industry will provide people to fill those slots.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300827129/max-rashbrooke-reviving-a-modern-ministry-of-works-necessary-to-cope-with-modern-infrastructure-demands
An interesting read.Yes it is - but there was one important issue not covered - that for
anyone who actually did any work there were 3 more required - one to
manage, a second to provide on-site supervision and a third to hold up
the other shovel.
Seriously though the MOW was a synonym (as were many other government departments) for over-employment and total inflexibility (whatever
they built came at whatever cost they dictated).
We have no problem with delivery of current government projects - the solution is to ensure value-for-money contracts and quality oversight
from Cabinet Ministers of their respective portfolio managers that
extends all the way down to those that are supposed to get stuff done.
--
Crash McBash
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 11:29:34 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The old MOW was incredibly inefficient which is why it was scrapped. We need government to keep out of business and stick to governing.
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:11:50 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Or something similar...
From memory MoW had some successes but also some utter disasters. One of the >>>problems of resurrecting it is where would you get the expertise it once had.
Some will say no problem the demise of private industry will provide people to
fill those slots. But only if we can keep those experts here...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300827129/max-rashbrooke-reviving-a-modern-ministry-of-works-necessary-to-cope-with-modern-infrastructure-demands
An interesting read.
Yes it is - but there was one important issue not covered - that for
anyone who actually did any work there were 3 more required - one to >>manage, a second to provide on-site supervision and a third to hold up
the other shovel.
Most can probably picture that image - the nature of some work does
mean that often there will be periods when not all of a team are
phsically active - and it is often illustrated by minor road repairs
in an urban setting - the the large projects which MoW typically
handled.
Seriously though the MOW was a synonym (as were many other government >>departments) for over-employment and total inflexibility (whatever
they built came at whatever cost they dictated).
Certainly some were - Railways with staff employed at a station that
had not had a train through for months was claimed by Prebble. Muldoon
and his mates used such make-work to hide unemployment - and it also
gave rise to at least a small amount of favouratism with the
opportunity to select who got those make-work jobs.
A project that was quite similar to an MoW method of management in
recent times is the Kaikoura Earthquake Rebuild, following a 2016
earthquake. It involved government engineers working on the gound with >contractors, both small and large, including locals for m the area,
working through issues as they became known with decisions being made
on the spot where necessary, and referred to other professionals where
needed on major issues. The finished product has not had the problems
of financing or quality experienced by some other major road projects
such as the Hamilton expressway and transmission Gully and the Kapiti >Expressway.
We have no problem with delivery of current government projects - the >>solution is to ensure value-for-money contracts and quality oversight
from Cabinet Ministers of their respective portfolio managers that
extends all the way down to those that are supposed to get stuff done.
Exactly - the sign a contract and just expect it to be done properly
attitude has not served us well . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:08:51 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,748 |