Absolutely. I think one thing we should do more of—we're already doing some now—is not giving a particular company a set of requirements of 1,500 pages, but rather giving them 100 pages that require a result, a result-based acquisition. Many of our allies use this, but we still tend to the view that every detailed requirement should be set out for the company to meet. I think that, if you give the companies more flexibility but make it very clear what you want in the end, you incent them to find efficiencies and economies while still reaching the end product.
I also think that more of an open dialogue between the public service in particular and the private sector would be useful, and it's one thing that over the course of the last two or three governments we've somewhat discouraged a bit. It's sort of risky if you're a public servant to go out for lunch with somebody who works for a company, as if somebody is going to shift a multi-million dollar contract because somebody buys you a cup of coffee.
I'm making a joke of it, but there's some truth in the fact that more dialogue would be useful—much more dialogue—and the fact that the dialogue shouldn't determine the final outcome. That's for the government to decide, but sometimes we bring industry in too late to realize that they cannot deliver what we're asking for, and it causes all sorts of delays.
I absolutely think you're right. Much more of this would be helpful.