Management at Work
The main aim to privatize Indiana’s social-services system was to save taxpayers’ money in the amount of $1billion just over a decade and to improve the service previously delivered by individual caseworkers.
The new system was supposed to improve the operations of the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) connected with the implementation of medical insurance, welfare and food stamp programs.
As I personally see it, at first the plan was to make the process of faster and less complicated in some way.
The new system was supposed to make the gathered electronic data easily accessible by caseworkers located all over the state. Also it was supposed to make the process of applying for the services more available. It was expected that the client would be able to apply either online or over the phone.
Nevertheless, as it is said in the case, IBM as the contractor failed to avoid ‘inaccurate and incomplete data gathering’ and ‘incorrect communications to clients’.
Just couple of service failure examples, such as absence of returned calls, no feedback from operators of the call center in particular, prove that IBM and ACS acted to exercise no preliminary or screening control.
Unfortunately post action control carried out by them turned out to be not enough measure to fix the emerged problems and brought IBM as the main contractor to the breach of the contract.
Here I cannot but agree with the fact that only ‘valid performance measurement allows a firm to effectively describe and implement strategy, to guide employee behavior, assess managerial effectiveness, and provide the basis for rewards’ (Selto et al).
Thus, I may conclude that the new system negatively affected all FSSA levels of control, including financial, structural and strategic ones.
They tried to save or to earn money of the state budget, but altered the structure of service delivery to the public.
Strategic goal to get the service delivery improved was not reachable at all in the circumstances mentioned.
In my opinion, the bureaucratic, tenuous approach (not just control) of IBM and ACS was the main reason for the collapse of the privatization idea.
I think that it was not decentralization but centralization that was meant to improve the quality of operations offered by the organizations involved in the process of the service delivery.
As I see it, IBM even did not try to measure possible risks involved.
The privatized social-services system proved to be ineffective because the main contractor failed to
define the character of failures that cannot be accepted;
get all the employees loyal to the main goal to deliver the best service possible and not to think just of making money;
clearly understand the necessity of constant internal and external management control and employees’ performance evaluation;
carry the responsibility for delivering services of proper quality
(I mean that, perhaps, it was necessary to return people’s phone calls when it was requested by them and gather additional required information data till people get used to the new set of things);
define the boundaries of responsibility of outsourcing companies, interact with them on a more regular basis.
So, to make a conclusion, I would say that Indiana would never lose control of its welfare system if the state government was interested not only in saving taxpayers’ money but in delivering proper social services in a duly manner.
References
Frank H. Selto, Mary A. Malina. Choice and Change of Measures in Performance Measurement Models. (2003). Web. 26 Apr. 2016. ‹https://www.academia.edu/24741850/Choice_and_change_of_measures_in_performance_measurement_models›
