5 ms·
AFAIK this is common practice in many armies, where each group obtains a predetermined amount ('dotation') of goods (gas, ammo, clothes...) for a given period (
by natmaka 7y ago
AFAIK this is common practice in many armies, where each group obtains a predetermined amount ('dotation') of goods (gas, ammo, clothes...) for a given period (often a year), uses whatever it needs, then an accounting process takes into account whatever wasn't used in order to calculate the next dotation.
It seems consistent and efficient.
However it neglects human nature.
The soldiers want to avoid missing anything, they simply refuse to see their dotation reduced, therefore just before the end of the period they discreetly use (without any other reason) or destroy all unused goods.
Centralization and bureaucracy excel at breaking human will and things altogether.
- eckmLJE 7y agoIt's also a common practice in any department that has their budget determined this way, e.g. https://vimeo.com/27060669 https://vimeo.com/27060669
- p_l 7y agoI'm not sure if I have ever heard of any budgeting that didn't have exactly that problem. Perhaps budgeting on specific problems? That still might require separating budget for headcount....
- Blake_Emigro 7y agoYeah, I had a GF that worked for a government research department. The last quarter of the year the department staff did ridiculous things to ensure every penny of the budget was spent. Frivolous travel, non-relevant conferences, parties, etc. As someone who worked in the private sector and managed project budgets I was blown away haha.
- ikyriakidis 7y agoI have experienced this in the private sector as well...
- jonhohle 7y agoAnother one I dislike government programs that are “cut” when really they just have a reduced rate of increase, rather than a lower gross amount.
- joe_the_user 7y agoThe US and West were once bureaucratic but somewhat efficient societies - able to pivot beyond the average. But indeed, it appears things have degenerated to "what armies have done through the ages".
- natmaka 7y agoThis may be related to group size. If everyone knows at least remotely everyone, if as a consumer (of some product) or producer (of another product) I see those consuming/producing it... we aren't anymore cogs in The Huge Machine. Leopold Kohr was right.
- maxfan8 7y agoI'm not too familiar with the practice, but Zero-based Budgeting (ZBB) seems like it can solve this problem. It basically requires constant justification of the budget (as if you were making a budget from scratch) rather than looking at relative changes year-over-year. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-based_budgeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-based_budgeting for more.
- LMYahooTFY 7y agoIt's very unclear to me how this is all that different from basically any other means of allocating funds that people use. The only fundamental difference seems to be the rate at which you re-evaluate allocations. Conceptually I see how this mitigates the sort of waste described by the OP, but implementing it seems ridiculous. How would you conduct bureaucratic audits in the middle of military operations?
- someguydave 7y agoThat would only save money if the zero-based-budgeter is willing to fire all the humans who are making up bullshit to justify their budget.
- forkexec 7y ago"Use it [budget] or lose it." End of the year buying 100 $2500 toilet seats and 1000 $100 spools of wire. Welcome to government! PS: My mom was a civil service accountant with the Navy, and my dad and both grandfathers were USAF.
- masklinn 7y agoThat's absolutely not a "government" thing, it's an issue in every large organisation and large companies are absolutely not immune to it. Government just happens to be the largest of the large.
- nicoburns 7y agoYep, and the really interesting thing is when you combine libertarian principles with this insight. If large corporations (and large concentrations of individual wealth) are as undesirable as large governments, then the economic model starts to look very different!
- sova 7y agoOut of curiosity, how would a "libertarian" propose we achieve economic anything without large individual concentrations of wealth?
- masklinn 7y agoThe wording of your question confuses me, it's not clear whether you're asking about "large individual concentrations of wealth" as a cause or effect of "economic anything", aka are you asking how one can achieve economic anything without a pre-conditional individual concentrations of wealth or are you asking how one can achieve economic anything while avoiding the subsequent trap of large individual concentrations of wealth. In context and logically I would assume the latter as those large concentrations are why you get large organisations to manage them, but I wanted to be sure.
- 7y ago
- svartkanin 7y agoI workes for a big telecommunication company in Australia and they did tge same thing with theur yearly budget. At tge end of the financial year they would hire consultants for "ghost" projects that were supposedly starting in the future eventually. This meant that they could book the costs for the current financial year and reduced the chance of getting their budget cut due to unused money
- alfiedotwtf 7y agoAustralian University checking in. Use your budget, or get next year’s budget cut
- protomyth 7y agoThis is the guiding mantra of every US Federal grant program.
- crispyambulance 7y agoJust goes to show the mentality of bean-counters in times of abundance. Their ledger is the world and the world is their ledger, no exceptions. It's sad that we as organizations and citizens accept and perpetuate this kind of behavior.
- milliondollar 7y agoYes, in the Army there is even a term for this: spendex. (spend exercise). A lot of fun blowing through all your extra ammo at the end of the year!!!