Over the last thirty years successive U.K. governments have delivered more and more public services via contracts, usually with private companies. This is in addition to the procurement of complex systems such as defence products and services.
The foundation of any contract is a clear definition of what is required; when, and how much will be paid.
A problem with contracts for complex systems is that, over time, what is required may change. What is required is often difficult if not impossible to define when the purpose of the contract is delivery of services to people.
The outcome in both cases is that the focus becomes the meeting the requirements set out in the contract rather than fulfilment of the purpose that the contract is intended to deliver.
This divergence of contracts from the purpose can been seen in defence procurements that take many years to deliver. The desire for a firm price means the contracts include fixed requirements and labyrinthine change control procedures. The purpose evolves but the contract fails to keep up, as huge effort, and cost, is expended on managing the interface between the Authority and the Contractor. A more agile approach to contracting based on collaboration rather than confrontation; where the goal is delivery of the purpose rather than compliance with the process, is long overdue.
In other areas of public service such as social care contracts are put in place where it is impossible to codify the purpose in taut contractual terms. The contract is fulfilled; the service fails. It is time to question the wisdom of contracting for such services.
Contracts are a fundamental of business, however they are not a panacea. For U.K. governments they appear to have become the hammer for which every problem is a nail. We need a more subtle and agile approach.