The government often says it wants to operate more like business.
Business knows that when the market chooses a particular way of doing business
(in this case buying professional services), you push that venue and you reward
those in charge for a job well done.
It seems GSA wants the market to buy more professional services from the
Schedule and less from OASIS, regardless of the success of OASIS, amply demonstrated
by the migration of government buyers.
The result: a surprise "voluntary" total turnover of the OASIS management team,
occurring late Friday, July 22. Remember Nixon’s Saturday night massacre, done
late on a Saturday to avoid news cycles?
Todd Richard's team is the repository of OASIS's institutional knowledge. Removing and replacing the team that created the success at OASIS is a poor business decision,
driven by myopic management.
Are there other factors at play here? Yes- but the bottom line is
removing an entire management team- especially in the 4th quarter - is not, as GSAs Tiffany Hixson wrote, "(As with all programs,
personnel changes and departures are) a natural part of professional development
and program evolution."
No, this is a most unnatural move at a very awkward time.
Not that I have an opinion.
Read Nick Wakeman's article on this: https://fcw.com/articles/2017/07/25/oasis-shakeup.aspx
Posts
