The business of task forces
Prime Minister Imran Khan has established a number of task forces
The writer is a public policy expert and an honorary Fellow of Consortium for Development Policy Research. He tweets @hasaankhawar
Prime Minister Imran Khan has established a number of task forces on issues such as civil service reforms, austerity and government restructuring, local governments, accountability, housing, etc. These high- profile task forces include individuals of notable credentials.
Yet, the idea behind these task forces is hardly new and similar structures have been tried in the past, in the form of committees, working groups and commissions, often with no significant results. Shehbaz Sharif, for instance, formed countless such committees in Punjab, engaging many of the same individuals who are now serving on the PTI’s task forces.
However, just because such committees failed in the past, does not mean that these are a bad idea. Yet, it is critical to learn from the past.
Firstly, for such task forces to be effective, they need political ownership. Mere approval by the prime minister is not enough. They need to be taken seriously, given regular audience to the chief executive and their recommendations should be duly considered and adopted. Only then can such a model gain credibility.
What is even more important is the life of such task forces and the deadlines given to them. Most of these committees initially meet with great enthusiasm, then with lesser frequency, finally dying their own death. Rarely do such committees get formally de-notified. Ideally, the notification that gives life to such forums should also carry their death warrant and clearly spell out the date for their dissolution to keep them on track.
In the past, I have seen various notifications directing such especially-formed committees to submit proposals in an unrealistic time span, such as 14 days, on issues that need much deliberation. The committees hardly convene their first meeting in the given deadline, let alone give serious advice.
Even more interestingly, the rules of engagement for these committees are often unclear. Most of them try to reach consensus and in the process ignore dissenting voices and dilute proposals in the search for broader agreement. Consensus in such forums should be discouraged and instead they should be asked to put forward 3-4 options to accommodate varying viewpoints.
Furthermore, the decision-makers often get confused on whether to have experts or stakeholders as members of such committees. Mostly they tend to include both, where stakeholders with vested interests try to overrule views of experts.
In many cases even the stakeholders are not fully represented. The task force on civil service reform, for instance, was reportedly criticised for being dominated by one group of the civil service. Ideally, these committees should only have experts as members, who can then consult all stakeholders and give professional advice.
Participation and attendance in these task forces present another area of concern. Government representatives frequently delegate their membership to lower rank officials who have no meaningful contribution to make, whereas private members wrestle with their schedules and ever shifting meeting dates, resulting in poor attendance. The committees at the time of the notification should include a pre-scheduled list of meetings so that members know the expected time commitment and can block their calendars accordingly.
Lastly these committees mostly work without any technical support. Such forums can be great sounding boards or can set the strategic direction but they need someone to do the detailed work on their direction and present it to them for validation or decision. This perhaps is the weakest area and in the absence of such support these committees often end up relying on low-capacity government departments to provide run-of-the-mill research leading to poor quality decisions.
If the PTI government is serious about getting good advice from these task forces, it should do some thinking on their functioning and provide an effective framework for them to deliver. Or else they are not likely to yield results any different from the past.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 18th, 2018.
Yet, the idea behind these task forces is hardly new and similar structures have been tried in the past, in the form of committees, working groups and commissions, often with no significant results. Shehbaz Sharif, for instance, formed countless such committees in Punjab, engaging many of the same individuals who are now serving on the PTI’s task forces.
However, just because such committees failed in the past, does not mean that these are a bad idea. Yet, it is critical to learn from the past.
Firstly, for such task forces to be effective, they need political ownership. Mere approval by the prime minister is not enough. They need to be taken seriously, given regular audience to the chief executive and their recommendations should be duly considered and adopted. Only then can such a model gain credibility.
What is even more important is the life of such task forces and the deadlines given to them. Most of these committees initially meet with great enthusiasm, then with lesser frequency, finally dying their own death. Rarely do such committees get formally de-notified. Ideally, the notification that gives life to such forums should also carry their death warrant and clearly spell out the date for their dissolution to keep them on track.
In the past, I have seen various notifications directing such especially-formed committees to submit proposals in an unrealistic time span, such as 14 days, on issues that need much deliberation. The committees hardly convene their first meeting in the given deadline, let alone give serious advice.
Even more interestingly, the rules of engagement for these committees are often unclear. Most of them try to reach consensus and in the process ignore dissenting voices and dilute proposals in the search for broader agreement. Consensus in such forums should be discouraged and instead they should be asked to put forward 3-4 options to accommodate varying viewpoints.
Furthermore, the decision-makers often get confused on whether to have experts or stakeholders as members of such committees. Mostly they tend to include both, where stakeholders with vested interests try to overrule views of experts.
In many cases even the stakeholders are not fully represented. The task force on civil service reform, for instance, was reportedly criticised for being dominated by one group of the civil service. Ideally, these committees should only have experts as members, who can then consult all stakeholders and give professional advice.
Participation and attendance in these task forces present another area of concern. Government representatives frequently delegate their membership to lower rank officials who have no meaningful contribution to make, whereas private members wrestle with their schedules and ever shifting meeting dates, resulting in poor attendance. The committees at the time of the notification should include a pre-scheduled list of meetings so that members know the expected time commitment and can block their calendars accordingly.
Lastly these committees mostly work without any technical support. Such forums can be great sounding boards or can set the strategic direction but they need someone to do the detailed work on their direction and present it to them for validation or decision. This perhaps is the weakest area and in the absence of such support these committees often end up relying on low-capacity government departments to provide run-of-the-mill research leading to poor quality decisions.
If the PTI government is serious about getting good advice from these task forces, it should do some thinking on their functioning and provide an effective framework for them to deliver. Or else they are not likely to yield results any different from the past.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 18th, 2018.