Originally published 4 September 2006. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
When C. Northcote Parkinson first mooted his theory in the pages of the Economist in the mid-1950s, could he perhaps have foreseen how relevant it might be to 21st century public administration?
Stated simply, the Law suggests that work expands to fill the time available; a subsequent variation applied to information technology said that data expands to fill the available storage space. How applicable is this thinking to the delicate arts of public participation and consultation?
Two particular aspects appear relevant. First, do consultations themselves expand to fill the time available? We are all familiar with debates which appear to go on and on…and on. We may witness a succession of consultations on different aspects of the same issue, and there are a growing number of complaints about what are perceived to be consultations about consultations about consultations. The danger is that only dialogue junkies become engaged, and many people just switch off. Is there maybe a case for fewer, shorter, better structured debates? The Government’s Code of Practice prescribes a standard 12 week period for consultations. This is basically a good idea as it establishes an easy-to-understand standard and consultees know what to expect. The downside is that this does not distinguish between a consultation intended for tens of thousands of the general public on the one hand, and a technical dialogue with a predictable number of specialist stakeholders on the other. So whatever the true requirements of the debate, having a formal consultation ensures that it will last at least 12 weeks. Add to this a sensible period for planning the consultation – and a realistic timetable for digesting the output and proceeding towards the outcome – and it soon becomes 6-9 months – hardly suitable for rapid decision-making.
But there is a second, wider issue. Are we in danger of over-using consultation – as the available resources (per Parkinson) use up their time by expanding the amount of consultation work until there’s nothing left?
Consultation is a little like health or education; in theory you can never get too much of it, and it is rather difficult to tell an enthusiastic policy-maker that enough is enough and that sufficient views and opinions have been gathered, and that maybe one should get on with the job of formulating what’s to be done. It is rather like the problem of the self-indulgent researcher. Most academics can point to the student who beavers away gathering evidence …and gathering more evidence ….and yet more, without recognising the moment when he or she has to stop and start writing up the thesis! Authors are prone to the same dilemma; when have you got enough material to start writing? Is a book that follows two years of research twice as good as the one that follows only one year’s work?
The truth is that many consultation professionals love gathering the evidence, and in these days of evidence-based policy-making, many feel they have carte blanche to gather as much as possible. But we all know that this activity can be a cop-out from hard decisions which sooner or later have to be taken. Politicians – whether local or national, are not above misusing consultation as a delaying tactic to avoid unpleasant choices. Did not Sir Humphrey Appleby once suggest it?
In these contexts, Parkinson’s Law is a definite threat to efficiency. The Gershon Report addressed a similar agenda, and public bodies searching for savings could do worse than to take a hard look at some of the over-blown, duplicated consultation exercises that impose additional work upon hard-pressed consultees but generally add little value to the decision-making process.
Trigger points
- Strike the right balance between gathering evidence and using it
- Avoid the proliferation of less necessary consultations
- Read the Institute’s 2004 Briefing Paper: What the Gershon Report Means for Consultation.
This is the 58th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement