How much wood would a woodchuck chuck…if woodchucking was outsourced to Serco?

This woodchucking data is not currently available due to holes in the Freedom of Information Act. However on past performance in similar outsourcing exercises we can safely make the following assumptions:

     

  • There would be woodchucking ‘efficiency savings’ according to both Serco and the government ministers involved. However these would be impossible to detect, since the woodchucking subsidy to Serco would be more or less equal to the amount of money currently being spent on woodchucking by the government woodchucking service, and the indicators used to measure performance would be changed during outsourcing.

  •  

  • There would be a flurry of woodchucking rate improvements at the beginning of the contract while Serco wanted to pretend they gave a toss about woodchucking,  something they have no expertise in, since they have no expertise in anything except subjecting their employees to humiliating management experiments. The increase in woodchucking performance would later turn out to have been the result of making the woodchucks live in constant fear for their jobs.

  •  

  • Over time the rate of woodchucking would drop significantly below that achieved while woodchucking was done in-house. Serco would bet that (a) woodchucking would not become a major political issue so their performance would be ignored and (b) the government department responsible for keeping them to their contract terms would not have the resources to do it.

  •  

  • Despite the dire performance of Serco in the woodchucking business, they would win the contract once more when it came up for renewal because they would have spent the intervening years ‘lobbying’ politicians, i.e. paying them, buying them nice dinners and offering them jobs after their ministerial careers are over.

  •  

  • The woodchucks would all receive a significantly lower salary for woodchucking than previously, and on worse conditions with worse job security. This would result in a lower of quality of life across the woodchuck population, and those woodchucks with a passion for chucking wood would leave their jobs in disgust at having to work for an employer who couldn’t care less whether the wood got chucked or not.

  •  

  • At some point there would be a catastrophic failure to chuck wood at all, as a result of a string of management failures and a failure by Serco to invest in woodchucking long term.  The lives of many people and woodchucks would be ruined as a result, but the responsibility for this would be borne by the government. At no point would Serco shoulder the financial burden of their failures.

  •  

  • Serco would go on to get more fat government contracts in other things in which they would have as much expertise as woodchucking (none), and with new safe ground occupied would proceed to abuse their position once more, milk the contract for all it was worth and run the service into the ground. Their detractors would be labelled ‘The enemies of enterprise’.

I want to photoshop this to say 'Serco: bringing parasitism to life' but I don't know how to use photoshop, or even have it on my computer

Share
Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to How much wood would a woodchuck chuck…if woodchucking was outsourced to Serco?

  1. Pingback: Outputs and Measurables: The Obvious Reality in 7 points

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>