Policy needs to be written involving the people who actually understand the work that will be impacted by it, otherwise you get a fair amount of nonsense. There's nothing worse then politicians and the most senior bureaucrats (who work with the politicians) getting together, coming up with something, and passing a new law only to spring it on the rest of us and then be told that they just banned water quality testing by accident. (That one is a made up example, but this type of thing does happen.)
So in that sense, yes you need people involved. But you need the right people. If you try to bring every relevant agency in and craft a policy that covers every situation, what you get is deadlock as every agency talks amongst themselves after every proposal. It takes years to get anything done that way. Then when you Do finish it, you get a policy so complicated that nobody can understand it, and following it costs a fortune.
It's a hard thing to get right, which is why I much prefer objectives and guidelines rather then policy and procedures. Tell me what goal you're trying to accomplish, and then let the experts figure out how to do it. That's what you pay us for.
(IT is really bad for that type of thing. Software companies like to pitch product to senior managers because they can use buzzwords and glossy brochures to propose all sorts of benefits. Experienced IT staff are much better at seeing through the bullshit. So whenever management comes in and says "hey we're getting X software!", everybody in IT groans. It's usually the worst choice for the job and was picked for all the wrong reasons.
Had they instead said "we need something to do this, find us the tools", we could have gotten better stuff for cheaper.)
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 16:27 (UTC)Policy needs to be written involving the people who actually understand the work that will be impacted by it, otherwise you get a fair amount of nonsense. There's nothing worse then politicians and the most senior bureaucrats (who work with the politicians) getting together, coming up with something, and passing a new law only to spring it on the rest of us and then be told that they just banned water quality testing by accident. (That one is a made up example, but this type of thing does happen.)
So in that sense, yes you need people involved. But you need the right people. If you try to bring every relevant agency in and craft a policy that covers every situation, what you get is deadlock as every agency talks amongst themselves after every proposal. It takes years to get anything done that way. Then when you Do finish it, you get a policy so complicated that nobody can understand it, and following it costs a fortune.
It's a hard thing to get right, which is why I much prefer objectives and guidelines rather then policy and procedures. Tell me what goal you're trying to accomplish, and then let the experts figure out how to do it. That's what you pay us for.
(IT is really bad for that type of thing. Software companies like to pitch product to senior managers because they can use buzzwords and glossy brochures to propose all sorts of benefits. Experienced IT staff are much better at seeing through the bullshit. So whenever management comes in and says "hey we're getting X software!", everybody in IT groans. It's usually the worst choice for the job and was picked for all the wrong reasons.
Had they instead said "we need something to do this, find us the tools", we could have gotten better stuff for cheaper.)