@bert_hubert@eupolicy.socialFrom a presentation I'm preparing right now:
"European governments have mostly rejected having (OR LISTENING TO) in house reality-based expertise" - am I wrong? Are there countries doing better? The impression I get is that governments prefer consultants they can ignore when they give unfavourable advice, or make sure they only get favorable advice. #mazzucato
I'm radicalizing on this: "If you are in charge of XYZ you should know all about XYZ!"
@bert_hubert ..it's very true but a recurring theme for years now sadly, we should work on more effective strategies to change this. Also I am not convinced the expertise is not there, but it is spread all over the place, not organised etc
(Ofcourse some very specific expertises may indeed me missing or in a too limited supply...)
@bert_hubert they have to believe their own lies, though. Don’t they? [cue well-known Internet gullibility meme]
@bert_hubert i dont think government deliberately ignores inhouse advice, yet the C-level selling of commercial companies combined with high percentage of insourced consultancy (due to budget cuts and an outsiurcing strategy) weakens the internal expertise voice.
@tsmeele The definitely do that, I'm afraid.
@bert_hubert for instance, universities that used to successfully run a full stack of services inhouse for ten thousands of staff and students less than 10 years ago, no longer trust themselves to run e.g. standard course management services in house, they are concerned about being able to *maintain* the level of expertise, even if currently still present. As interesting IT projects (innovation) get outsourced, these management fears actually become self fulfilling prophecy.
@bert_hubert this rejection is sometimes mutal. For Germany the hacker culture being dominated by leftist (the CCC was founded in a leftist newsroom) and being mostly liberal of the state bad kind, made cooperation hard and undesired by both sides.
Also: there is an impedance mismatch, politicians don’t understand that there are „mathematical“ facts like the problem with (crypto) backdoors. Hackers don’t understand law
Doing „better“: the US security services do an okay job at recruiting talent
@bert_hubert I'm about to find out as I recently turned from consulting to inhouse
@bert_hubert I would look to some Asian countries like Japan, China, Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea (gut feeling wise) - I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them wanting and focusing on in house reality based expertise.
@bert_hubert I worked for the UK government (if you'd still count that as EU) and I'd say that was only half true.
Lots of policy experts are in place, many with decades of expertise.
Outside consultants are usual - but mostly to expand capacity rather than replace it.
@bert_hubert not always true.
@aart you’d be in the not mostly part for sure!
@bert_hubert @aart I believe that cybersecurity has had the advantage of being relatively policy neutral for a long time. But I do believe the political debate is changing with topics like dependency on big vendors, cloud, international transfers, etc.. I wonder if that will affect the position of cybersecurity experts and their ability to also provide uncomfortable advice.
@bert_hubert The expertise exists within many European governments but does it reach where it's needed when so many factors are in play?
@circl @bert_hubert this is also my experience. I know many expertised people at European government.
Also sometimes knowledgeable colleagues leave government because it is hard to have expertise in the field and make this count under different administrations.
@circl @bert_hubert and working with expertise in the field of cyber security, IT Service management, IT law etc for society is often experienced as a bonus. (Yes, we are hiring 
)
@circl @bert_hubert Management likes to surround itself with sicophants. Experts tend to call BS when they see it, and this is very much not appreciated.
It's definitely a systemic problem, but I don't think it's limited to government. I think any org with entrenched little management types is vulnerable to the same flaw: people with a little bit of power don't like to be challenged.
@bert_hubert Also the underlying reason why government fails at developing (and maintaining) its own software. It cannot see the means of production as essential to its operation... which begs the question, what in fact does government see as its core product?
@fschaap policy.
@bert_hubert The execution of policy, making it real, is more of an afterthought, delegated, too easily disavowed and/or its responsibility dispersed.
@bert_hubert I don’t think you’re wrong, but I think besides suppressing unfavourable advice, it’s also about avoiding responsibility. i.e. we’re paying consultants not only for the advice, but also to take the blame when things go wrong.
@bert_hubert the undesired advice from consultants is prevented informally and not subject to a public information act request perhaps? While an advice coming from inside the ministry by definition falls under the act.
@bert_hubert It is more that having expertise is a career dead-end. There are roughly three viable career paths for civil servants in government:
- operational work: not well-paid, but very good benefits and typically lifetime employment;
- policy: still not well-paid, but you get to sit at tables where really important decisions are made. That said, you are supposed to rotate to a different policy area every four years or so and there is serious salary ceiling;
(1/2)
- management: well-paid, but especially in the Dutch government it is considered uncool to have substantive expertise, because good managers do not need that...
Notable exceptions are the legislative lawyers, but they are mere vessels of the policy people's thoughts. At best they get to force the policy people to have vaguely coherent thoughts.
(2/2)
@bert_hubert Pournelle Was a bit a libertarian asshole. He was not always wrong, mind you.
@whvholst well aware
@bert_hubert The unhappy split is when you hit the divide between responsibility and accountability.
Many bureaucrats are happy to be responsible for the thing when it gives them power over the thing. They don't want accountability because they are then, as you note, in need of understanding it.
@bert_hubert It's about a good mix. Trust in professionals with know-how. But also having some people around to keep the shop in order. It becomes a problem when the bureaucrats start to brush off the craftsmanship as an at least equal voice in decisionmaking.
@bert_hubert For managers that could lead to micromanaging. I want the experts to know every nitty gritty and rely on them for it, not having to worry about keeping fully up to speed myself.
@bert_hubert At least you should know something about it. That would do for me already. Or, something I advocate, always pair a manger with an engineer or a scientist.
@bert_hubert one caveat: thinking that you know everything can be worse than knowing nothing. Understanding, listening and learning are imo superior traits to raw personal expertise. Individual experts can be wrong and often are.
@aristot73 I've yet to see proof that the generalists do better though. Most companies led by generalists do not innovate & leave most of the real work to other places. Which also means they can't innovate. A generalist can mind the shop perhaps.
@bert_hubert tbh, was thinking more about public sector
@aristot73 @bert_hubert UK civil service policy “professionals” were dismal at this when I was working there (2017/2018)
@bert_hubert we hear so much about „decluttering bureaucracy” and so on. If you reduce bureaucracy, you necessarily remove institutionalised specific learnings. Every bit of bureaucracy exists for a reason. Cutting it without understanding what this means or worse, trying to cut while trying to maintain the same results is futile. The discussion shouldn’t ever be on bureaucracy, it should be about the desired outcomes. Only then can you figure out what changes to bureaucracy are needed.
@bert_hubert I would even go so far that politicians who claim to „cut red tape and bureaucracy“ are either naive or very sinister in using that as a populist idea to push unpopular policies in the interest of „reducing bureaucracy“
@bert_hubert I think Apple tried that (read about it in Creative Selection by Ken Kocienda) but looking at iOS and macOS 26, it failed miserably…