As I begin a new chapter with PFMBoard as a partner, i would like my first post to be dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friend, John Short.
There are many ways to remember a colleague, but for me, one the most fitting is through the discusssions that we shared here on PFMBoard.
I looked back through the Board and came across what was probably my first discussion involving John, from June 2011. I had posted a question that had occupied many of us working on public sector reform:
Which come first - PFM reform or public administration reform?This post grew out of a series of macchiato discussions with John in Prishtina. My original "chicken-and-egg" dilemma gradually became a discussion about a coin: PFM reform on one side, public administration reform on the other, with regulatory reform holding the two together.
John, characteristically, took the metaphor further.
He reminded us that reform could not really be understood through isolated components. His own analogy was that the PFM cycle was like a chain:
it is only as strong as its weakest link. Good budget execution could not compensate indefinitely for weak budget formulation. And when discussion eventually turned to why all this matter, John's answer was characteristically concise:
service delivery.
Fifteen years later, in May 2026, I returned to PFMBoard with another question:
PFM Digitalisation - Technology REform or Governance Reform?The subject had changed - from PFM reform, public administration reform and regulatory reform to IFMIS, digitalisation, data and KPIs, and John replied, but his underlying message has not changed very much.
Technology had to reflect the real business processes of government. Financial systems had to connect budgeting with taxation, debt, procurement and investment. Financial information had to be linked with non-financial information and performance. And, most importantly, the quality of underlying data mattered.
His final point was unmistakenly John: if the financial and non-financial data are not good, adopting digital technology achieves very little.
Looking at those two discussions now - one in 2011 and the other in 2026 - I am struck by their continuity. Technologies change. Reform terminology changes. Institutions change. New methodologies and tools appear, but many of the fundamental questions remain the same:
- Are the different parts of government working together?
- Are reforms improving the whole system rather than individual components?
- Are we producing reliable information?
- Are we connecting resources with results?
- And ultimately, are public resources contributing to better public services?
In my experience working with John, he had an exceptional ability to bring discussions back to those fundamentals - usually with a metaphor, a challenging question, a touch of humour, and occasionally a reference to wine or rugby.
I learned a a great deal from John, particularly during his work in Kosovo, but also through exchanges such as these on PFMBoard. His knowledge was considerable, but what I will remember equally strongly was his willingness to discuss, question, disagree, explain and keep the conversation going.
Now, as I take on a new responsibility as a partner in PFMBoard.com, I hope we can preserve that spirit: not simply posting answers but asking good question; not treating PFM as an isolated technical discipline, but connecting it with governance, institutions, policy and service delivery; and leaving space for colleagues to challenge one another and think differently.
John will be greatly missed.
But his ideas - and the discussions he helped start - remain with us.
Slàinte, John 