Are we ready for system change?

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

The term, system, has different meanings, but with respect to the subject discussed here, a system is “a defined way to accomplish something so that a desired result can be obtained consistently.” This applies to anything from baking a loaf of bread to governing a country. For example, to bake a loaf of bread one must follow a recipe that specifies the amounts of ingredients, how to mix them, and for how long to bake at what temperature. When the recipe is followed accurately, it is expected to produce a loaf of bread that is appealing to the customer, every time. On the other hand, if a baker does not have a recipe, or a proven method, and his trials and errors produce bread that the customers do not want to buy, the baker will go out of business. Similarly, when a government lacks a system for governing, it can cause institutions to fail and eventually bankrupt the country. There are enough examples of such situations to be seen around the globe.

The goal of this write-up is not to discuss what constitutes a system or the requirements to make one work; instead, it is draw attention to one feature that is noticeably alien to Sri Lanka and its existing systems: the feedback mechanism. This omission can contribute to the breakdown of a system no matter how good its intentions or its implementation can be. That does not imply that a feedback mechanism is the only missing link to prosperity, but addressing the rest will have to wait for another time.

The feedback component of a system refers to the mechanism in place to monitor the quality and quantity of the product, or service, the system is designed to deliver and take necessary actions to maintain them at expected levels. It has two aspects: quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC). Quality assurance is preplanned and applies to all processes and personnel associated with the system. It is built into the system to ensure quality and quantity under routine or normal operating conditions. Quality control applies to the product, or the service delivered by the system, and it is performed by dedicated personnel once the system is in operation. The quality control personnel inform the operators if the system is working as expected or not so that they can take appropriate actions. QA is proactive, and QC is reactive. A system without this feedback mechanism is as good as having no system. For example, the baker omits to put the right amount of ingredients per recipe and bakes a low-quality loaf of bread. If the customers keep buying the low-quality bread without complaint, the beaker will continue to do so and make more profits. But, if the system allows for the customers to return the bread and requires the baker to make a refund, he will make sure that it will not happen again. This way the feedback mechanism ensures accountability or taking ownership of one’s actions. The lack of accountability is the root cause of corruption and a myriad of other abuses.

Having a feedback mechanism is not a new concept by any means; in most industrialised countries, the feedback mechanisms are built into the systems for all functions. Be it a grocery store, the Supreme Court, or the governing body, they all have systems in place for their customers to express their opinion on the service they received. Such systems maintain the stability of a country irrespective of who or which party is in power.

Here is an example of how the feedback mechanism works in real life: The Education Index 2023 ranks the United States as having the best education systems in the world, followed by the United Kingdom, and Germany; Sri Lanka ranked 66th in the same survey. The US federal government funds only 10% of the education expenses while the rest comes from local taxes. In this system, the performance of the students as well as that of the teachers and the administrators is monitored routinely. There is a method in place for data gathering, analysis, and making them available to the administrators and the taxpayers, i.e., the customers, to take corrective actions if things do not work as expected.

If the students do not do well in a particular class, it is possible to analyze the data and identify if the cause of the issue is related to the students, the teacher, or the system. If it is found to be the teacher’s shortcoming, the administrator is responsible for fixing it. The administrator is answerable to the school board which comprises volunteers elected from the community by the community. Except for high performers with long service records, the teachers and administrators have temporary employment contracts with the school district. This is an important control mechanism for ensuring satisfactory performance and quality education. The pay raises, promotions, and employment extensions are based on their performance. The data analysis and student feedback from parent-teacher meetings, which are necessary, are taken into consideration at periodic performance evaluations of individuals and the system. This puts a heavy emphasis on accountability; you are responsible for your actions, which impacts not only the public good, but also your own success. It allows for the rewarding of good performers and weeding out the poor performers. This maintains the quality of education and prevents the wasting of taxpayer money for paying nonperformers or non-productive schools. If the data point out that the schools district lacks sufficient funds for maintaining standards, then the taxpayers can decide to increase the taxes. If the performance of the school board is unsatisfactory, there is the opportunity to remove them at the next election or recall immediately in extreme cases. Similar internal measures exist in higher education institutions as well.

This type of feedback mechanism and quality control measures are applicable to all employees, particularly for the private sector employees that make up 85% of the workforce. Unfortunately, the enforcement of the systems for federal government employees is less rigorous, but the mechanism for removing poor performers, including presidents or Supreme Court judges, exists in the books.

This is merely an examination of how the feedback system works in ensuring meritocracy, accountability, and efficiency, but not a recommendation for adopting the US systems for Sri Lanka by any means. This shows the importance of having reliable data and making it available to the right parties: transparency. Without data nobody can make pragmatic decisions. With modern technology, it is not difficult to put in place a system for gathering data and providing feedback. Unquestionably, such measures will have enormous benefits to the country. But the larger question is whether we are ready and willing to accept such a change.

Needless to say, those who benefit from the absence of meritocracy and accountability will fight tooth and nail to prevent any change. But in a democracy, they will have to bend to public opinion at one point. The question is whether the rest of us, the majority, know what we are asking for. Are we willing to play our role in making the feedback work? Are we willing to fix the education system instead of sending our kids for private tuition classes there by spending twice for the same thing? This is a waste of funds; money that could be better spent on improving the quality of life or invested, instead. Will we be satisfied if the most qualified person gets the job and not the one who supported the party in power? Are we willing to work for pay hikes and promotions instead of expecting guaranteed pay hikes and promotions for not doing the job?

They are all done for the good of the individual or selfish actions at the expense of the wellbeing of the fellow citizens or the country. The disastrous consequences of this behaviour are all around for us to see. We will have to adapt to new things that did not exist during our lifetime. Is it worth? That is the most consequential decision that this generation will ever have to make. The answer should be an unequivocal affirmation. There are examples of the destinies of those who said yes and those who said no around the world for anyone to see. Sri Lanka is the only Asian country placed in the alert category in the fragile state index in 2023. That is certainly not something to be proud of as the line between a fragile state and a failed state is a blurry one. For the sake of the future of this country, we have an enormous responsibility to learn, educate others, and do the right things. We and the future generations deserve better. No country can develop without meritocracy and accountability. They are not socialist or capitalist values; they are human rights.