the essence of ‘managing for outcomes’ planning. the big picture review of the centre and other...

The Essence of‘Managing for Outcomes’ Planning

The Big Picture

Review of the Centre and other reviews have identified

• Real strengths in New Zealand’s public sector management

• And recommended a second generation of reform - evolutionary

In Sum …

Review of the Centre and other reviews have recommended

• Keep what works:

– Transparency, outputs, freedom to manage, financial management

• Shift the balance:

– More on outcomes & capability, “whole of government”, more central leadership

Managing for Outcomes

• Managing for outcomes is a significant change in the way departments manage their business

• It means an outcome focussed approach to planning, management, and reporting

Results are the Focus

• Intention is to improve the performance of departments

• Expected to strengthen link between public management and results Government wants to achieve “Managing the results chain”

Leadership

• Ministerial involvement in, and commitment to the devopment of the outcomes is encouraged

• CEs’ leadership crucial to the success of the new management approach

Accountability

• Departmental accountability for outputs is retained

• Departments also to be held accountable for ‘managing for outcomes’

We are All Involved

• Central agencies and TPK are involved in this change

• To contribute to its success , we have made a commitment to open and collaborative relationships with departments – providing support and adding value

We are All Involved

This will include

• Support for collaboration on sector or whole of government outcomes and services

• Brokerage, helping to share best practice

What Our Involvement Will Mean

• Being able to give good advice to departments on the concepts behind managing for outcomes

• Collaborating with each other to ensure well integrated, challenging advice to departments

A Learning Curve

• A learning curve is involved for everyone

• Start early, don’t overreach

• Don’t miss the good in the pursuit of excellence

Generic Planning Processand Agency Models

Bryan Dunne

Pathfinder Secretariathttp://io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/

Identify Vital Few

Outcomes

Define in Precise Terms

Measure as State

Indicators

Identify Areasfor Change

in State

Define / RefineIntervention

Logic

Agree ImpactMeasurement

Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions

Review ImpactEvaluation

Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Strategy Formulation

Optimising Performance

Ex Ante

Improving PerformanceA generic 10 step cycle

CapabilityCapability

ID & PrioritiseIntervention

Options


Options

Agency Function & FocusSome Work In Progress

Social Economic Environmental

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

O/C1 O/C2 O/C3 O/C4 O/C5 O/C6

Domain

Outcome

Operational Agency(primary focus: own clients)



Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

Domain

Outcome

Sector Focused Agency(primary focus: community; sector Intervention Logic)

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

Domain

Outcome



Population Agency (primary focus: population group of interest; the ‘vital few’)



Domain

Outcome

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

‘Whole of Government’ Approach

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

Domain

Outcome



Administrative Functions

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Region

Service

Risk, etc.

Domain

Outcome



Identify Vital Few

Outcomes


Measure as State

Indicators


in State


Logic


Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis



Ex Ante

Improving Performance



Options


Options

Identify Vital Few

Outcomes


Measure as State

Indicators


in State


Logic

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Limited Evidence of Impact

Strong Ex Ante Planning

Cannot Measure Impact?


Framework



Options


Options

Identify Vital Few

Outcomes


Measure as State

Indicators


in State


Logic

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Limited Evidence of Impact

Conceptual Ex Ante

Approach

Cannot Measure State Either?


Framework



Options


Options

Remember

• Build management, not outcome measurement, systems

• Focus on what matters most – the ‘vital few’ can help here

• Defining the vital few in precise terms, measurable if possible, gives greatest gains

• But conceptual (non-measurable) approaches will give ‘one-off’ gains … so pursue all the ‘vital few’

Remember

• Different types / uses of outcome measures

• State Indicators – identify where problems persist, monitor trends and identify where change is desirable (ie priorities)

• Impact Measures - significant technical challenge to measure impact but ongoing gains in outcomes needs impact feedback

• Takes time & perseverance – you may not get it right first attempt

Outcome Definitions

Greg Claridge

Roger Waite Pathfinder Secretariathttp://io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/

The purpose: Performance managementOutcome measures - a vital management tool

for identifying problem areas and gauging the effectiveness of an organisation’s activities, services, and outputs.

They indicate performance against ex ante targets or goals. Without this “feedback” information management can only guess the success (or failure) of their decisions.

Evidence trumps opinion every time

Types of Outcome Measures:*State Indicator: is the condition experienced by the community (or a specific group, entity or geographic area) at a given point of time. It is the result of all influences and actions - the impact and consequences of government action and the impact and consequences of actions and activities beyond the control of government.

*- see Pathfinder BB1 and Glossary‡ - aligned to PFA definition of “Outcome”

Impact Measure‡: the impact of one or more Government interventions in improving a state indicator.


Logic


Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Capability


Options

1. Identify Vital Few

Outcomes

2. Define in Precise Terms

3. Measure as State

Indicators

4. Identify Areasfor Change

in State



Ex Ante



Logic


Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Capability


Options


in State

3. Measure as State

Indicators

1. Identify ‘Vital Few’ OutcomesRemember: outcomes are most useful to management if they

are measurable, attributable to core activities, and timely.

The ‘vital few’ outcomes should:•be well aligned with the agency’s or business unit’s mission or purpose;•be linked to services, outputs and inputs (the things agencies manage);•collectively measure major outcomes from or across all dominant output classes;•measure the benefits experienced by clients or entities the agency manages;•be timely; and•support critical business decisions, including resource decisions.

2a. Define Outcomes in Precise TermsPrecise, unambiguous, written definition of changes

partially attributable to the activities of one or more agencies which:

• Is limited to the ‘vital few’ – defines, not measures, outcomes;• Clearly relates to the consequence of the agency’s outputs or activities

for the community;• Supported by knowledge of the influences driving outcomes;• Is focused on target groups for services;• Is linked to accessible source data; and• Aligned to the department’s mission

….but, do not exclude unmeasureable outcomes

1. The ‘Vital Few’ Outcomes

2b. Corrections: Outcome Definitions

2. Reducing Reoffending of offenders over a 12 month period following their release from a custodial sentence or from the begining of a community based sentence. (p19 Corrections Statement of Intent 2002/03)

1. Contribute to Safer Communities




2. Correction’s rehabilitation activities impact the behaviour of offenders




3. Supported by international research on reducing offender recidivism.




4. Focussed on a target group

5. Accessible data source




6. Aligned to the department’s mission: “The Department of Corrections contributes to community safety by:…

• reducing re-offending.”




2c. Ministry of Health: Outcome DefinitionsInterested in DALY: to minimise the numbers of

years of life lost….

DALY = years lost from premature mortality plus equivalent years lost to severe disability.

1. The vital few.




2. Clearly relates to the consequences of the Ministry’s activities.




3. Supported by knowledge of drivers…. “Evidence-based Health Objectives” 2001




4. Target group for services… “All New Zealanders throughout their lives”




5. Linked to accessible source data….NZ and other




6. Aligned to mission… “Good health and wellbeing for all New Zealanders throughout their lives.”

State Indicators

Greg Claridge

Roger Waite Pathfinder Secretariathttp://io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/


Logic


Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Capability


Options


Outcomes


3. Measure as State

Indicators


in State



Ex Ante



Logic


Framework

Design & Deliver

Interventions


Results

Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

Capability


Options


Outcomes


3a. Measure as State Indicator

Quantitative measure of prevailing situation that is:• Clearly linked to agency services, and groups or entities

receiving (or candidates for) services;

• Reported in aggregate terms, and separately for population groups, regions, business units, etc;

• Inform management decision-making,

• Measured in absolute terms; and

• Statistically robust

3b. Outcome Measures – the FABRIC attributes:

FocusedAppropriate

Balanced

Robust

Integrated

Cost effective

– On the agency’s missions, aims & objectives

– To, and useful for the stakeholders who are likely to use it

– Giving a picture of what the agency is doing & covering all significant areas of work

– Measure outcomes that have a strong linkage to core activities, based on accurate observations and calculations

– Into the agency, part of the business planning and management processes

– Balancing the benefits of the informatioin against the costs of measurement and management responses

(UK National Audit Office)

3c. Corrections: Recidivism Index (State Indicator)

• Reconviction based on a single event• Time to Reconviction = 12 and 24 months• Seriousness = reconviction to a Department

Managed Sentence and Imprisonment

• For Offences committed post release• Aggregated into Services, age, ethnic,

gender, offence and sentence length groups

1. Clearly linked to Correction’s services

2. Data can be disaggregated











3. An absolute (not relative) measure.

4. Statistically robust






3d. More Justice Sector State Indicators

3e. Ministry of Health: State Indicator

DALY = YLL + YLD

•Modifiability: The modifiability multipliers were then applied to the DALY estimates extracted from the New Zealand Burden of Disease Study to rank conditions.

•Distribution: Used to incorporate distributional concerns (Mäori compared to non-Mäori), or ‘equity’, into the burden of disease analysis.

Equity adjustor = 1 + [p (RR – 1) / p(RR – 1) + 1]

4a. Identify areas for change in State: Health

Prioritisation

4b. 13 Health ObjectivesThe 13 population health objectives (not ranked) are to: • reduce smoking• improve nutrition• reduce obesity• increase the level of physical activity• reduce the rate of suicides and suicide attempts• minimise harm caused by alcohol and illicit and other drug use to both

individuals and the community• reduce the incidence and impact of cancer• reduce the incidence and impact of cardiovascular disease• reduce the incidence and impact of diabetes• improve oral health• reduce violence in interpersonal relationships, families, schools and

communities• improve the health status of people with severe mental illness• ensure access to appropriate child health care services including well child

and family health care and immunisation.

4c. Identify areas for change in State: LTSA Target

Group

5. Steps to developing good State Indicators:• Identify the outcome information and decision-making needs of the Minister,

external stakeholders, and decision-makers and staff within the agency; Involve stakeholders early.

• Identify the crucial outcomes sought from the agency’s (or business unit’s) mission;

• Identify good practice via literature sources and knowledge of other agencies;

• Specify how dominant activities (outputs) are intended to influence outcomes;

• Specify indicators in measurable terms against each outcome;

• Specify the groups for which indicators will be reported;

• Specify data collection and verification systems; and

• Get Ministerial endorsement of the outcomes and measurement system, and senior management approval to access the resources needed to measure indicators.

Wrap

• Key attributes or FABRIC• Time and patience: this is not an easy process• Limitations of outcome based management• Next steps:

– Outcome definitions and state indicators are the necessary precursor to IMPACT MEASURES

– Development of evidence based, demonstrated performance management systems

the essence of ‘managing for outcomes’ planning. the big picture review of the centre and other...

Documents

government outcomes

outcomes capability

results government

focus intention

public management

good advice

way departments

central leadership