The second point is a more complicated one. I don’t believe that you should have to make a choice between a “higher calling” and being adequately compensated for your talents. In the same argument I think we underpay our teachers, fire fighters, policemen and military. Now mind you, i am not suggesting that everybody is ONLY motivated by financial considerations – even in the private sector it is not always money but job satisfaction etc.

I think we can both agree that a more fundamental change and innovation to government is probably due.

Hope you are well.

Zia.

I for one do not believe that running government like a business is necessarily a good thing. The objectives are distinct, and the incentives should be as well. Almost every single performance metric for public officials you quote is oriented to the short term, and we all know how an emphasis on near term objectives can severely compromise the longer-term viability and health of a society. Your argument is also predicated on the fact that monetary incentives are the underlying driver of personal performance in both cases. I would maintain that those who seek to govern and serve the public interest (should) do so for a higher calling. Perhaps I am being naive in this view, especially in our current vicious political environment.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that a new approach to the entire public sector is needed. This will entail changing the democratic process and institutions, rather than nudging our public officials incrementally in a particular direction.

Government should be for governing and governance alone.

Zia.

Zia.

A famous quote by Paul Graham that I think illustrates this perfectly says: “Consulting is where product companies go to die. IBM is the most famous example. So starting as a consulting company is like starting out in the grave and trying to work your way up into the world of the living.” Consulting companies bread-and-butter is SW services and IT services so commodization will happen to anyone that does not differentiate.

I think a mistake a lot of people make is thinking that HW and SW are two different entities that can be easily separated while keeping innovation and quality the same.

Finally, there are also examples of companies going the other way around as it is now the case with Microsoft teaming up with Nokia, Google purchasing Motorola Mobility and RIM being in no-man’s land. They can’t compete with Apple’s quality because they don’t control the Hardware platforms.

Apple is an excellent and exceptional example of this. I think exceptional is the right word by Apple has optimized for product excellence by (I am told) not giving Divisional VPs a P&L. From what I’ve heard from Apple employees, Steve’s message is (paraphrase) “build an excellent product and others will worry about the cost.” Sounds like people get to dream and make it a reality. It’s paying off.

Apple is to be respected for their continued macro-innovation of new platforms (iPod, iPhone, iPad) as well as their micro-innovations, such as Lion OS, which has simply blown past Windows on all key fronts of function, speed, comfort, integration, intuitiveness, and more.

Time to market continues to be an important factor. Now that Apple is “getting their first” (beating MSFT and Google to the best phone, pad etc.), Apple’s growth is more explosive and with a more mainstream consumer audience, where user experience and ease of use matter.

So the right question might be will Boards, CEOs, and executive teams in corporate America have the vision, trust, and guts to embark in the creation of a similar corporate culture for their company?

Great post. Here is yet another alternative: Buy a Saas offering: there are few reasons for IT to be involved in the process and Business users will be driving the decision!