The bigger issue is a broad one, and it's not specific to this list -- it's just a thing that tends to happen when you're not pushed to be more specific...
Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have names but it's not clear to me what exactly someone is going to actually *do*. (Examples here are "Work closely with the MoE" or "introduce eHOME" or "broaden support for BPO"...)
If the government gave me a cheque for $1m USD today and said "Go do this", I'd have no idea what they wanted. I'm apparently supposed to... boost productivity...? somehow? with a home-office? How do we currently measure productivity? What is it today? 7.2? Luckily they aren't asking people like me to help and hopefully we'll hear from the experts soon about what these things actually mean.
As Marc hinted, it seems like 7, 8, 9, and 10 are specific and I agree these sound like good ideas. But they kick the can down the road since they still have to figure out what goes in those acts.
This list has, what sound like, a lot of good objectives -- big ambitious goals of things to get done -- however the end-results aren't clear to me... I know it's a short list, but "we'll introduce e-Home" is far off from "by the end of 2017, 1,000 workers will be working remotely with no negative impact on productivity or employee satisfaction, and a reduction of total overall recurring cost of employment (electricity, office space) by 5% per person".
Part of defining something you're going to do is defining how you're going to measure it, and governments are in the shittiest position ever, where their goals also have to act as marketing material.
To make things worse, since this game is played by pointing out broken promises ("look! he said he'd get 1,000 people employed from home! he only got 800!") rather than rewarding ambitious goals and 80% progress, the safe thing to do is be as vague as possible.
This morning I was wondering... what would this look like if it were a company...? Let's say Netflix.
- You can't opt-out. You *must* pay every year for your subscription.
- Every so often, you can vote for who the CEO and the VPs will be for the next few years
- There were two teams:
- The Jobs team, following Steve Jobs' style of perfection at all costs, and
- The Zuck team, following Mark Zuckerberg's style of move fast and break things.
- The Jobs and Zuck teams are far from best friends. They insult each other in meetings and probe each others' finances around voting time
- The choices aren't "winner-takes-all", but result in a mix where maybe the engineering lead was on the Jobs team, and the marketing lead was on the Zuck team, and they have to work together despite their differences.
- And there's a special "inner circle", that the CEO gets to pick, and will be all one team (Jobs or Zuck)
How likely are we to get a good experience from Netflix with this arrangement... ?