Tag: Politics

Brexit – A Project Management Perspective

I have tended to shy away from Brexit in this blog and have concentrated on Marketing and Business Strategy.  However, with ten weeks until the UK leaves the EU, I think it is worth looking at the way government has handled Brexit over the last two years.  To do this, I am taking a project management approach.  As anyone who has read some of the articles I have written about Brexit, or indeed anyone who follows my twitter feed, you will understand that I am no fan of the policy.  I see Brexit as a self-inflicted wound on the UK economy.  Indeed, all economic projections on Brexit see it as doing significant harm to the UK economy.  It is estimated that a Brexit deal, as negotiated by Theresa May in the draft withdrawal agreement, will cause a 5% drag effect on the UK.  A no deal Brexit is calculated as causing a 9% drag.  Brexit is the UK economy hobbling itself.  HMS Britain is about to drop a heavy drag anchor which will slow growth and hinder international competitiveness; all for the nebulous concept of ‘sovereignty’.

I say nebulous because those who shouted loudest about parliamentary sovereignty are now the first to shout foul when that parliamentary sovereignty is exhibited.

But this blog entry isn’t about political views or whether there is support for Brexit.  It asks whether the project is being appropriately managed.

Dennis Lock defines the stages of a project in his book, Project Management, the standard text for all business students on that subject.  Perhaps by listing those stages and factors for success and failure given by Lock, we get an idea of how the Brexit project is proceeding and its likely outcome.

The stages of a project listed by Lock are:

  1.  Project Definition
  2. Preparation and Planning
  3. Project Design
  4. Purchasing
  5. Fulfilment
  6. Completion and handover

It is utterly clear that the Brexit project is badly defined.  The referendum question asked one question; whether the UK should remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU.  The result, narrow as it was, was that the UK should leave.  But that answer didn’t provide a single possible outcome.  There was a range of options available and those on the Leave side of the argument didn’t present a single solution.  Britain could leave in a ‘hard Brexit’ or no deal.  Britain could retain close ties with the EU, the EEA model as shown by Norway; or Britain could decide to have a limited relationship: The Swiss model.  It seems that no one in government can decide and cabinet ministers to this day still present different potential outcomes.

Nor was there space left for compromise in the negotiation process, as Mrs May’s ‘red lines’ severely limited the options available.  Clearly Brexit was a poorly defined project.

Lock then describes success and failure factors in project definition:

  1.  Project Scope needs to be clearly stated and understood
  2. Technical requirements are not vague
  3. Estimates of timescale, costs and benefits are not over-optimistic.
  4. Risk Assessments are not incomplete of flawed
  5. The intended project strategy is inappropriate.
  6. Insufficient regard is given to cash flows and the provision of funds required to complete the project
  7. The interests and concerns of stakeholders are not taken into account.
  8. Undue regard is given to the motivation and behaviour of the people who will execute the project
  9. Insufficient regard is given to how those affected by the project will adapt to change
  10. Approval of the project plan is given for political, personal or intuitive reasons without due consideration to the business plan.

Where to start with this list in respect of Brexit!

As stated above, the project scope was vaguely defined.

Technical requirements as a result were vague.  If a soft Brexit was chosen, the technical requirements were completely different to those of a no deal Brexit.

The two year timescale is wholly insufficient to achieve Brexit.  The officials who drafted the Article 50 clause admit this.  But given the short timescale of the article 50 process, it was wholly inappropriate for the government to trigger that clause with absolutely no contingency planning in place.  A better proposal would have to been to do the contingency planning, then trigger Article 50 for the negotiations.  At least with contingency plans in place, the government’s position would be informed and appropriate red lines set.

The government’s Brexit plans completely fail to stand up to any interrogation based on the above list.

With only weeks to go until the Brexit deadline, arguments are still ongoing about factors in the above list.  We should have moved on to the delivery aspects of the Brexit plan by now: project fulfilment.

Lock lists the success and failure factors at the project fulfilment stage:

  1.  Good definition of the project and a sound business case
  2. An appropriate choice of project strategy
  3. Strong support for the project amongst management, in particular those managers responsible for managing the plan
  4. Firm control of changes to the project
  5. Technical competence
  6. Strong quality culture
  7. Appropriate regard for health and safety of all those affected by the plan
  8. Good project communication
  9. Well-motivated staff
  10. Quick and fair resolution of conflict.

Again, where do you start with this list!

The Brexit project has been poorly defined and there is no sound business case for it.  We are actually in a position of a government with a solemn duty to do the best for the country and its people is actively engaged on a mission which does nothing but harm to those interests.

The choice of project strategy, particularly the choice to trigger Article 50 prematurely has been appalling.

Those put in charge of driving May’s Brexit plan have been hard Brexiteers wholly opposed to it.

Fulfilment has been technically incompetent.  We have had ferry contracts awarded to a company with no ships and a port lacking the necessary infrastructure for HGVs.  We have had a trial at an airport designed to hold 5000 HGVs where only 87 HGVs turned up.  It appears we have a government which cannot plan a traffic jam.

Project communication has been appalling.  No deal preparation papers were short, vague and lacking necessary detail.  Risk assessments were incompetently produced and their content was held as secret.  Even when MPs demanded access to them, there was no appetite to share their content.

Staff motivation is clearly absent.  DExEU has the highest staff turnover of any government department.  It is seen by many as the death knell of a civil service career.  Currently the department is advertising for staff who ‘don’t panic’ in the face of pressure.

It is clear that the government, in particular ministers, put in charge of fulfilling the Brexit project simply aren’t up to the task.

Lock explains that in project management there is a direct relationship between cost, time and performance.

It is estimated that Brexit is already costing the UK government around £600 million per week.

The performance and quality of project delivery has been appallingly poor.

Most critical is the time objective.  A project not started in time can hardly be expected to finish on time.  To paraphrase Napoleon, “There is one kind of robber whom the law does not strike at and who steals that which is precious; time”.

It is utterly clear that the Brexit project has been managed horrendously and that it has run out of time.  In such circumstances the best option is probably to abandon the project entirely.

 

Protected Food Names: The Next BREXIT Battle

Last week, Marcus Fysh, the hard Brexit-supporting Conservative backbench MP sent out a tweet evoking a post-EU Britain where we could enjoy American feta cheese and Chinese businessmen could quaff English champagne.

I found this tweet maddening as it highlighted some Brexiteers utter ignorance of current food protections and that by breaching them, British exports could be seriously endangered.

Let’s start with the American Feta.  What Mr Fysh does not seem to realise is that American ‘feta’ is a completely different product to the genuine Greek cheese.  Greek Feta is usually made from goat’s milk (and occasionally sheep’s milk).  The American version is made from cow’s milk.

American cheese, although there are some exceptions to prove the rule, is generally regarded as terrible.

Then there is the use of the term Champagne.  This has already been the subject of a long and bitterly fought trade dispute between America and France.  In fact a solution was only negotiated once the EU became involved and used its scale to exert influence on the US government.

Champagne has a PDO, a protected designation of origin.  This means that the use of the name champagne can only be applied to sparkling wines from that region of France.   The EU has negotiated with other administrations around the world to ensure that other wines do not use the term.

In America, some wine makers continued to use the term champagne to describe their wines.  In 2006 the EU and the US governments agreed that all new wine production would stop using the term champagne.  Wine that had already been produced could continue to use the name until stocks were exhausted.

As with most international agreements, there is a legal loophole.  This relates to the treaty of Versailles signed at the conclusion of World War One.  The treaty contained a clause to deal with a dispute on the naming of wines in France and Germany.  The US government was a signatory to the treaty but the US senate did not ratify the wine clause.

What this means is that US wine producers who have been in continuous production since the 19th century can continue to use the term Champagne as long as they use the statement ‘California Champagne’.

In the 1920s, America went into the prohibition era.  The sale and consumption of alcohol was all but banned (some individuals could get a certificate from their Doctor stating that they could consume alcohol, on prescription, for health reasons!).

What this meant was that the vast majority of wineries were shut down by the US government.  A handful, who were producing for export only, survived.

Even after prohibition, the US wine industry struggled.  It went into a steep decline and only recovered in the 1970s.

There are a handful of Californian wine producers (I can only find four) that can continue to use the term ‘California Champagne.  As most US wineries only date from the 1970s, they cannot use the term.

It is also worth mentioning that ‘California Champagne’ is a different wine from that produced in France. French champagne is a wine made from Chardonnay or Pinot Noir grapes.  ‘California Champagne’ tends to be made from Zinfandel grapes.

Of course, the term ‘California Champagne’ can only be used within the United states.  One winery bottles its export product under the term ‘California Sparkling Wine’.

Mr Fysh also fails to recognise the disparity between the size of the French wine industry and that of the UK.  UK wine production is a growing niche sector.  French wine production dwarves the UK industry.  Fysh is expecting an industry which employs around 1200 people to compete with one which employs twenty times that number.  It is like saying Morgan cars are a direct competitor of Ford.

There are effectively three layers of protection for speciality regional foods within the EU.

Products such as whisky are protected by a specific EU directive (the Spirit Drinks Directive).  Whisky is defined as; “grain alcohol matured in oak barrels for a minimum of three years”.  Scotch is given additional protection in that the maturation process must take place in Scotland.

Then there are PGOs.  These are protections where the location of the food production is protected.  For example, Scotch Beef and Welsh Lamb must be reared and produced in Scotland and Wales respectively.  Often it is the place of production alone that offers the protection.

Finally, there are PDOs.  These are protected designations of origin where there is a specific recipe, production method or list of ingredients which is representative of a particular geographic area.  Foods with PDOs include Parma Ham, Parmesan cheese, Melton Mowbray Pork Pies, Stilton Cheese, Rutland Bitter, Arbroath Smokies, Cornish Dairy Ice Cream and the Cornish Pasty.

To use a name with a protected designation of origin, it must follow the declared production process AND it must be produced within the declared geographic area.  For example, a Melton Mowbray Pork Pie must have its crust moulded around a wooden dolly, not rolled out with a rolling-pin; the pie must be produced within the specified area around the town of Melton Mowbray.

There are around 80 UK foods which are given EU-wide name protection. Until recently, there were campaigns to add further UK foods to the PDO/PGO list.  For example, in Scotland, campaigns were started to get both Dundee Cake and the Forfar Bridie PDO protection.

Geographic protections guarantee product consistency and quality.  They create a marketable branding identity.  They can add a price premium.  They can help to protect jobs and artisan production.

Most geographic protections have arisen from campaigns by producer groups, consumers and local people.  Many such groups have fought for years the ensure protected status.

And then along comes Brexit.

With six months to go until the UK leaves the EU, there is little solid information as to what will happen to protected name status after Brexit.  The UK government has stated that it intends to create a separate system of food protections.  The EU has put protected food descriptions near the top of their demands as part of the exit settlement.  The EU has stated that it will not revoke existing UK food name protections within the bloc after Brexit. However, if the UK does not reciprocate, that position could change.

However, six months to go leave insufficient time for protected food producers to plan for life outside the EU.

Clearly, the UK government can regulate as to what happens within the UK market.  It is questionable whether it will have the negotiating heft to demand that similar protections exist outside UK borders.

Food name protections are a factor in the UK negotiations at the WTO.  And the sharks are circling.

In New England, where Cornish fishermen and tin miners emigrated in the 18th and 19th centuries, pasties are a common food.  Producers in that part of the United States want to apply the description Cornish to their products.

American distillers have already stated that they want to reduce the prescribed maturation period for whisky from three years to two.  They want to mature whisky in metal tanks, not oak barrels.

Asian whisky producers want to describe their products as ‘Scotch’.

So what happens if Mt Fysh gets his wish? What happens if the UK accepts American Feta and sells sparkling wine to Asia with the description Champagne?

The likely impact on UK exports to the EU would be disastrous.  EU states would simply refuse to allow UK production into their markets.  Bear in mind that the vast majority of UK food exports go to Europe.  UK foods containing ingredients such as ‘American Feta’ would not be allowed into our biggest export market.

Then there is the impact on UK producers.  If American distillers flood our market with 2-year-old gut rot;  if Chinese distillers start producing ‘Scotch’ for their domestic customers; the impact on the Scottish distillery industry will be disastrous.

With his crass, and frankly insulting, tweet, Marcus Fysh is putting at risk premium food exports and thousands of UK jobs.