Recent commentary by Fintan O’Toole has helpfully refocused attention on a question many people inside public services already recognise: why delivery can fall short even when funding is available.
This isn’t about blame. It’s about how our systems are designed.
Where the System Struggles
Elected representatives are often pulled into solving individual problems for constituents — housing cases, planning issues, local services. That responsiveness matters, but it can crowd out time for scrutinising spending, programmes and outcomes.
At the same time, many delivery organisations face:
- Complex approval layers
- Centralised decision-making
- Limited flexibility at local level
For example:
- Housing projects stall despite funding because design or procurement capacity is stretched
- Capital budgets go unspent because approvals arrive too late in the year
- Local authorities are accountable for outcomes but lack control over timelines
These are system issues, not effort issues.
What Works Better
We see better results when:
- Responsibility and authority sit in the same place
- Oversight happens early, not after money is spent
- Local teams have clear mandates and decision space
Where local authorities have been given clearer delivery roles — such as focused housing delivery teams or streamlined capital programmes — outcomes improve and risks reduce.
Moving Forward
The opportunity now is to shift the conversation from critique to capability:
- Design systems that support delivery, not just control
- Strengthen local leadership within national frameworks
- Focus less on activity and more on outcomes
Commentary like O’Toole’s helps surface the issues. The real work is turning that insight into practical changes that make public services easier to deliver and better for citizens.
That’s a conversation worth continuing
Efficiency Doctors 
Leave a comment