Last Updated: Thursday, 29 October 2009
by Jim Moore,
Director of Government Programs at The Rensselaerville Institute
Last month the National Performance Management Advisory Commission did us all a great service in issuing a draft of its’ Performance Management Framework. While not yet in final version, it is clearly an impressive work. The Commission makes clear that transition to a robust performance management system requires a cultural change for governments ready to accept the challenge of ‘delivering on what we promise.’ The new culture requires all hands to learn to use data for forecasting and improving the delivery of services.
Let’s be clear. Many cities, counties and some state departments are well advanced. Many more have improved “public reporting.” But the Commission is clear: reporting what happened is not “managing performance.” And, while some units and sectors of government are well advanced, health and human services tends to lag behind because of the inherent difficulties in predicting how the recipients of services will respond to what is offered Community development and neighborhood stabilization are perhaps even more difficult. How about measuring prevention… of crime, of mental health, illness?
The challenge of this cultural shift is significant, but there are relatively simple tools and methods government leaders and managers can use to speed the journey within all the limits of jurisdiction, budget pressures, and inertia. PPMNR invites members to join a forum co-hosted by the Rensselaerville Institute to discuss possible first, second, or fifth steps which will help you move your organization into the performance management culture…. Please respond to the questions posed here to indicate where you would like the dialogue to begin and proceed in the forum. (Please see below to download a document on TRI's method.)
TRI defines 5 steps in the movement from performance measurement to “managing for outcomes.”
1. We must start with the end in mind, as Steve Covey recommends. How do we define the results, the outcomes that we seek for our citizens and our community? What is it our program, our department, our agency is seeking to achieve? We like the AGA’s emphasis on defining outcomes in plain language that engages our public supporters and constituents. The call it the Citizen-Centric report; we call the contents of such a report ‘customer-centric outcomes.’
Should we start our conversation by discussing how to define such outcomes and tackle some of those most difficult with examples?
2. Defining the desired results in plain language is a bit of a challenge, but the real step into serious performance management occurs when we set and publish a Target… a commitment for what we intend to accomplish during a specific time period. Now we have ‘skin in the game’ and we are committed to the path of improvement. Few if any jurisdictions are venturing here, and for good reason. They make lack benchmark data for these new customer-centric outcomes. We have been measuring effort and expenditures and services, but not outcomes. So, how do we shift to making reasonable projections of success?
Would you like to share experiences with others who have taken this entrepreneurial step and discuss the critical nature of target setting?
3. Having defined the outcomes and commitment targets, we had best get a handle on how we can measure our progress to attainment so that we can manage to the result desired. Would it be great if we could elaborate our ‘theory of change’ with such clarity that we can identify a set of “predictors of progress” toward our Target? Further, what if we could use baseline data to forecast in which month or quarter these predictors will be met, and thus insure we are on track to success… or if off track, we can adjust as needed.
Surely this is done in many government departments in terms of services provided. But if our outcome is not the services offered, but the number of customers who use the service to improve their condition or behavior, this becomes more challenging. It’s like de-constructing the service design to determine who responds positively, how many and when. Having done this analysis, and testing it in real life, we now have the data we need to make program improvements.
How many are interested in looking at case studies of how others have built a program improvement method into their performance measurement system, integrating the two. What does this mean for the organizational culture, employee empowerment, ‘self-managed worker or work teams,’ lean practices and other leading edge practices? How does this method generate the data for Citizen-Centric reporting?
4. The fourth step is making use of the data. One of the highly tuned skills of American government is collecting data… reams and reams of data. One of the least practiced skills in government is reflection on and learning from the data. Often this is because we are collecting data for others… not useful to managers, or we are collecting data which doesn’t educate us. Customer-centric data runs most of the private sector. Just a glance at our healthcare reform debate tells us how little the patient data is used… not available to the attending physician, scattered over many locations, etc.
How do we use customer-centric data for program management, program improvement, policy review and testing of new policy approaches? What data is most useful? What data educates the public and legislators?
5. The fifth step in converting from managing services to managing for outcomes comes back to the manager/leader roles. Some of the challenges are in managing the government delivered services. Others come from achieving outcomes through contracted providers. How do we establish alignment from strategic decision makers through the complex administrative web down to and including the front line worker. TRI believes there are tools which link all parties to and with and for and through the customer-focused outcomes. Are we ready to discuss these management challenges?
Jim Moore is the Director of Government Programs at The Rensselaerville Institute
, and is based in St. Louis. Since 1980, TRI has supported Outcome Management and real-time program evaluation for government, foundations, and charities in the US and the British Commonwealth. TRI’s Investing for Outcomes is in place in many program areas including social services, education, public health, community development and environmental services. As director, Jim manages a team which partners with public sector and not-for-profit community leaders in securing measurable consumer-centric outcomes. TRI outcome management method contains quality improvement tools which are easily incorporated into web-based IT solutions. TRI has assisted state and local organizations embed their tools in such systems, including Ohio web-based planning and reporting system for substance abuse programs.
After 20 plus years in public and not-for-profit administration and consulting, Jim joined TRI. He is experienced in outcomes management and program improvement in workforce development, behavioral health, prevention and treatment in public health, children’s services programs, Community Action Programs, service for the developmentally challenged as well as TANF public assistance programs. The balance of the TRI government team has like experience in public sector and not-for-profit management and service.
Downloads
Investment Management Summary.pdf
Tags
