After placing the broom through the bureaucracy, the Auckland Plan is next on the cleaning list
Yesterday in my AND THIS IS WHY THE BUREAUCRACY NEEDS THE BROOM essay I ran two separate but intertwined pieces on why essentially yesterday the bureaucracy needs the broom.
In this post I am going to repost the second half on the Auckland Plan essentially needing a broom and redone. On Monday I will use material from the Sydney Plan and how it can help reshape an Auckland Plan MK2.
Before the repost a quick video on the Sydney Plan as a prelude:
THE AUCKLAND PLAN AND THE BUREAUCRACY
I am going to repost a story from last year on the Auckland Plan and the bureaucracy as it ties into the bullet points above – especially around senior managers and workers. The story:
NEW SENIOR STAFF TO ASSIST AUCKLAND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
WHILE THERE WERE CUTS AT THE LOWER LEVELS.
I remembered when I applied for a job that dealt with the implantation side of the Auckland Plan and how I got a phone call (and I had to make one later on because the HR department “forgot” to update me) after progressing through various recruitment rounds only to find out that job no longer existed due to “budget cuts.” Those budget cuts were the review that was happening in the Planning division of Auckland Council at the time. So after being told of budget cuts did I see three new positions for Auckland Plan implementation open up although this time for three senior managers.
And here they are – this from Auckland Council
NEW STAFF TO BOOST DELIVERY OF AUCKLAND PLAN
Auckland Council’s Chief Planning Officer Roger Blakeley has appointed three new senior staff after a review of the planning division saw a realignment of responsibilities designed to future-proof the council’s strategy and planning team and help to create the world’s most liveable city.
Roger Blakeley says that the first four years of the division were about establishing the planning framework for a unified Auckland, developing long-term strategic plans to guide Auckland’s development.
“Our focus now is to build on those foundations and shift towards delivery on the ground, as well as completing some of the major planning work such as the council input to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan process.
“This is about turning the Auckland Plan’s ambitious goals into reality, delivering value for money and action on the ground for residents, customers, citizens and visitors. It is also about scanning international trends amongst liveable cities and providing high level strategic advice to the council.” he says.
“I’m thrilled to fill these three key roles with high calibre candidates, each with a wealth of knowledge and experience in their field.”
They are:
Kataraina Maki has been appointed General Manager, Community and Social Policy. This is a new role created to lead the development of high quality community and social policy advice for the Governing Body and its committees. She has a strong record of achievement in community policy-funding and social policy environments in local and central government. Her most recent role has been as the General Manager of the Glenn Enquiry into child abuse and domestic violence. She is currently based in the Bay of Plenty.
Chris Parker has been appointed Chief Economist until August 2016 while Chief Economist Geoff Cooper is on sabbatical at Princeton. He will provide advice on Auckland’s economic issues for the Mayor and elected representatives. He also will provide advice on the state of the Auckland economy to the Auckland community. Chris currently works as a Senior Economist for the NZ Institute of Economic Research. He has extensive experience in cost-benefit appraisal and developing policies, regulations and public investment strategies. He has provided economic advice on the City Centre Masterplan, City Rail Link and the additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing and other major transport projects. He is currently based in Wellington.
John Mauro has been appointed Chief Sustainability Officer. In this newly-created role, John will promote sustainability practices within council and in Auckland generally. John recently worked as Principal Transport Planner in the council’s Strategy and Research Team. Before that he worked for a US organisation and was responsible for mobilising business support for major transport legislation, and as a climate policy analyst in the Mayor of Seattle’s office, where he helped the Mayor establish a coalition of one thousand US mayors for climate protection. He has also had experience in working with non-government organisations promoting liveable communities and smart growth. John brings leadership skills, policy understanding and experience working at a senior political level.
Further senior staff appointments will be announced in the near future…..
—-ends—-
The podcast on the new Auckland Development CCO will be put up later in the afternoon. But I hold the suspicion of too my chiefs at the top and not enough Indians at the bottom to get anything meaningful really done. Remembering while the Auckland Plan annual update gave the implementation a pass rate, three of the big key factors that affect Auckland’s health were still off target….
—ends—-
The Auckland Plan gets its first three-yearly review where pretty much everything is on the table with the Auckland Plan. This opportunity would ideally allow the Auckland Plan to get some more whole scale changes put into it that actually reflect Auckland’s natural evolution.
Yesterday in my A REMINDER: SYDNEY AND AUCKLAND ARE DIFFERENT TO OTHER AUSTRALASIAN CITIES I mentioned:
The Auckland Plan comes up for its three-yearly review where the Council has its first opportunity to alter the Auckland Plan substantially in order to adapt to the natural evolution of Auckland. After looking back at the last three years as well as looking forward to the next three I think I can safely conclude what should happen with the Auckland Plan after its review.
That is the simplest and most cost-effective thing to do is actually chuck it. Yes I mean chuck the Auckland Plan and start over from scratch. It wont effect the Unitary Plan but it will influence the Long Term Plan slightly so no need to worry there about those two plans needing a re-write.
Re-do the Auckland Plan based around the actual New Transport Network that starts being rolled out starting with South Auckland next year. Why? You will find development will follow what is essentially a hub and spoke model stemming out of the New Transport Network, especially if people want to move around efficiently.
So where does mentioning three senior managers, the bureaucracy, and Orsman’s article come into play for the Auckland Plan review?
These points I made earlier come into play:
-
Clear linear structure that defines the roll between manager and worker with a clear line drawn between the two. That said there is nothing wrong with a work traversing into the management side of the line as that could indicate someone is ready for a promotion. But a manager traversing into the worker side of the line will indicate micro-manager. If this happens and you get a micro-manager it is best to get rid of them immediately as I have never known micro-managers to be beneficial to a project nor team
-
Finding too many chiefs and not enough cooks? Get rid of all of them and start over as that project has become rather salvageable. Next time round and this applies to just about everything find people who can work in a full autonomous environment and have managers that can back it up. Autonomous workers will work both own their own and in teams very easily and without intense level supervision (that micro-managers do). When teamed with a manager who knows how autonomous workers work and can get the clear defined macro-framework set in place two things can be achieved:
- Tasks divided up to requirements often to the specialist skills an individual team member might have. With this unofficial group leader roles come and go as required to facilitate the project efficiently
- Removes the need for middle management just about entirely. Any middle managers needed should be drawn from the workers pool when a project manager is needed as mentioned above with autonomous workers. So basically middle managers are causal and needed on demand only. Otherwise they are with the rest of the workers at all other times
-
Senior Managers and Executive Managers are set with very clear defined roles, expectations from the Governing wing from Council, know the line between manager and worker, and set with stringent KPI’s for which if missed, well you know the rest. Senior Management positions should not be created either as glorified positions that a worker or even a set of workers with an as-needed middle manager should be doing.
………..
Looking at the three new senior managers in place that would oversee this review, factored in that the last annual review on the Auckland Plan had stated that productivity in Auckland is slipping I am wondering if the bureaucracy is up to the actual task needed.
Because I have the very sick feeling in my gut it is not. What I call the warm and fuzzies that would be covered in “Economic, tourism, events and culture” (something I gutted in my Long Term Plan Budget calculator (see: BUDGET CALCULATOR – HOW WOULD YOU SET THE LONG TERM PLAN)) review rather well while “Transport” and “Auckland Development” will be shunted to the back page like the Cost of Growth Study out earlier this year.
Yet it is Auckland Development, and Transport that need to be extensively redressed in the Auckland Plan if we want to stop productivity slippage in the indicators. And to stop that slippage using the ‘spoke and hub’ approach dictated by our transit system would be better suited for Auckland and in the Auckland Plan than what the Plan currently has.
It is a reason why I say CHUCK the Auckland Plan entirely and start over. The problem the bureaucracy has too much “invested” in the Auckland Plan and hence the broom.
What you need is ten Geographers (Geographers are multi-talent and no two Geographers are the same with the very diverse range of specialities in both Human and Physical Geography) and a manager (who is also a Geography and maybe a Public Policy analyst too) to redraw up the Auckland Plan that is adapted to the ‘spoke and hub’ model. As you have human and physical Geographers on board the following are covered:
- Climate Change adaptation
- Cartography and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
- Population and Health
- Transport Planning and Economics
- Urban Planning and Economics
- Physical Environment Relations so needed under the Resource Management Act
- Human Demographics and Relations (how communities interact with each other and the big City)
- Economic Geography (tourism is often lugged in here)
- Resource Management
So let the Geographers at the Auckland Plan and I bet you will find the Auckland Plan more suited to Auckland’s natural evolution and one communities can relate to easily (more so than now).
Finally I know the above is going to stir a nice hornets nest. But hey not employed by Council nor am I their “friend” either. I am hear to report and comment on the issues in an independent manner. That is the core mantra of Talking Auckland.
“TALKING AUCKLAND” TALKING AUCKLAND ISSUES WITH YOU (NOT AT YOU).
———-
As a comparison I believe the Auckland Plan has four “sections” and 15 chapters to “guide” Auckland’s development through to 2042. All are generalistic and nothing apart from the City Centre (the Southern Initiative has fallen off the RADAR again) is place specific. Not when compared to the Sydney Plan that has four sections (plus the Vision at the beginning like the Auckland Plan does) which are all place specific (whether regional or local). Also the Sydney Plan is some 146 pages (embedded below) while the Auckland Plan is 380 pages plus addendum. So for to the point and less fluff I think Sydney wins that one….
There is technically a fifth section in the Sydney Plan called the “Sydney Subregions” where Sydney has been broken down into six subregions so that you can find out what is going out at a more localised level with the earlier four sections that cover everything at a regional level. The closest the Auckland Plan gets to that kind of detail is the ten Metropolitan Centres which are named but that is pretty much it. In other words pins on a map and that is it. Nothing tying back into the wider regional “stuff” so set out in the 15 chapters and four regional sections.
So indeed the Auckland Plan needs a broom if we are ever to have a master document to the same quality, level, and ease of understanding compared to our main competitor Sydney. Especially if again Sydney can deliver a concise place related and place making master plan at 146 pages and for 380 pages plus addendum all Auckland gets is generalistic fluff.
More on Monday
The Sydney Plan
Talking Southern Auckland 