The most expensive decision in government isn’t the one that goes wrong. It’s the one that never gets made

Originally posted on LinkedIn

I spent over two decades as a frontline investigator with the Queensland Police Service. I know what it looks like when a system works, and I know what it looks like when good people are trapped inside a system that doesn't.

I also know that the people most frustrated by slow, legacy-driven government procurement are rarely the vendors on the outside trying to get in. They're the managers and executives on the inside — the ones who can see exactly what needs to change, who have the mandate to lead, and who run headfirst into a wall every time they try.

This is written for them.

In the private sector, this decision would already be made

When a well-run private organisation is presented with a credible case for change — better efficiency, measurable return on investment, material reduction in staff burden — the response from good leadership is almost reflexive:

“We’d be irresponsible not to pursue this.”

Boards move. Budgets shift. Pilots get approved. The organisation acts in its own interest and in the interest of the people it serves.

I've watched the same conversation play out in government contexts, with the same compelling evidence, the same ROI modelling, the same operational urgency — and the response is entirely different.

Not because the leaders are less capable. Not because they don't understand the value. But because the system they operate in is structurally designed to slow them down.

That's not a criticism of individuals. It's a structural problem that deserves a structural conversation.

Let's be fair about what government is navigating

Before I go any further, let me be clear about something: government procurement frameworks exist for legitimate reasons.

Public money carries public accountability. Taxpayers, auditors, ministers, and the communities government agencies serve all have a stake in how funds are spent. Competitive procurement processes are designed to prevent favouritism, ensure value for money, and protect the integrity of public investment. These are not trivial concerns. They are the foundations of trust between government and the people it represents.

I accept that completely. Any serious conversation about reform has to start there.

But accepting the purpose of a system and refusing to question its execution are two different things. And right now, the execution is failing the very people it's supposed to serve.

The ROI that never gets counted

Here's the question I'd like every government executive reading this to sit with for a moment:

When your agency assesses the cost of adopting a new platform or system, does the business case include the full cost of not adopting it?

In my experience, it rarely does.

The annual budget cycle rewards caution. It measures what is spent. It rarely measures what is lost — the hours consumed by manual processes that could be automated, the rework generated by inconsistent practices, the frontline capacity consumed by administration that should never have landed on a frontline officer's desk in the first place.

I'll give you a concrete example. During a live operational pilot with the Queensland Police Service, we measured what happened when domestic violence investigators used structured, AI-assisted investigation management instead of manual processes. Report preparation time dropped from approximately four hours per matter to around twenty minutes.

When that efficiency was modelled across an enterprise-wide rollout, the projected return was the equivalent of approximately 4,000 officers returned to frontline duties.

Not new hires. Not additional budget. Officers who already exist, already trained, already on the payroll — freed from administrative burden and returned to the communities they serve.

That is not a technology claim. That is a workforce and community outcome. And it was demonstrated in a live government environment, with real investigators, on real cases.

Now tell me: what is the cost of not acting on that? Most government procurement frameworks were never designed to answer that question. Perhaps it's time they were.

The process designed to protect value Is destroying it

Government procurement frameworks were designed to ensure competitive tension and protect public funds. I understand and respect that intent.

But here is the paradox: the process itself has become one of the most significant barriers to the outcomes government is supposed to deliver.

A formal tender process in many government jurisdictions consumes 18 to 24 months from initiation to contract. It demands substantial internal resources. It disadvantages innovative, specialist providers in favour of large incumbents who can absorb the cost of compliance. And it forces technology decisions to be made based on a static specification document written before anyone has actually seen the solution operate in a live environment.

By the time a contract is signed, the technology landscape has often moved. The problem that was urgent 18 months ago has compounded. And the agency has spent a significant portion of its budget not on the solution, but on the process of acquiring it.

There is something worth questioning in a system that spends more energy evaluating innovation than enabling it.

This is not about bypassing accountability

I want to be direct here, because this argument is sometimes misread.

Calling for smarter procurement is not calling for less accountability. It is calling for accountability that is fit for purpose in a modern operating environment.

Most jurisdictions already have mechanisms that allow agencies to engage directly with suppliers under legitimate business justification — operational urgency, time-critical need, or the requirement to assess a solution's fitness before broader market rollout. These pathways exist. They are underutilised — not because they aren't available, but because using them requires courage.

It requires a leader to stand up and say: "The status quo is costing us more than the risk of moving."

That is the conversation I'm inviting.

The change-makers are already in the room

I've had the privilege of presenting to some of the most senior policing and regulatory leaders in Australia. I've sat in rooms with Assistant Commissioners, agency heads, and executive directors who understand exactly what I'm describing. Many of them have lived it personally.

They are not the problem. They are, in many cases, the solution waiting to be activated.

The frustration I hear most often is not "we don't want to change." It is "we want to change but we don't know how to get there from here."

That gap — between strategic intent and operational reality — is where innovation goes to die in government. And closing it doesn't require a revolution. It requires leaders who are willing to use the tools they already have, make the business case with full transparency, and take ownership of the outcome.

The community those agencies serve is not well-served by a system that protects itself from innovation.

A respectful challenge

If you are a government leader reading this — a director, an executive director, a deputy commissioner, an agency head — I'd ask you to consider one question:

Is there a solution in front of your organisation right now that you know would make your people more effective, your outcomes more consistent, and your community better served — but you haven't acted on it because the path forward felt too hard?

If the answer is yes, I'd suggest the harder question is this: who is paying the price for that delay?

It is not the vendor. It is your investigators, your compliance officers, your frontline staff — and ultimately, the people in the community waiting on the outcomes your agency exists to deliver.

The bravest thing a government leader can do right now is not to approve the biggest budget or launch the most ambitious program. It is to stand up inside their own organisation and say: "We can do better than this, and we're going to start today."

That kind of leadership doesn't wait for the perfect procurement pathway. It builds the case, uses the available mechanisms, and moves.

Craig Doran is the Founder and CEO of Comtrac. A former Queensland Police Service investigator, Craig left QPS a decade ago after leading an internal initiative to build a digital brief of evidence system for frontline investigators — a project that stalled not for lack of merit, but for lack of institutional momentum. He built it anyway. Comtrac is now used across 42 Commonwealth and State law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and in 2025 was awarded the National Telstra Best of Business Award for Innovation. Craig knows what it costs when government doesn't move. He lived it.