Results Based Management Workshop Setting context for Leadership Performance Measurement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Results Based Management Workshop Setting context for Leadership Performance Measurement PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 267536-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Results Based Management Workshop Setting context for Leadership Performance Measurement

Description:

Janice Gross Stein, The Cult of Efficiency. 10. Defining the Concept of Accountability... Country coverage for most indicators is patchy. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:60
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: EndU60
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Results Based Management Workshop Setting context for Leadership Performance Measurement


1
Results Based Management Workshop Setting context
for Leadership Performance Measurement
  • Ging Wong
  • Andrew Graham

2
Objective
  • Set the Project in context of Results Based
    Management developments in Canada and elsewhere
  • Provide an overview of the linkages of results,
    accountability, performance measurement and risk
  • Suggest ways that the Project can uniquely
    support the effective transfer of relevant and
    useful elements of RBM

3
ACCOUNTABILITY
RISK
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
4
Flexibility and Control
  • Tension in management thinking and practice
    between structure/accountability and
    initiative/flexibility.
  • Challenge is how to create a balance that
    recognizes public sector accountabilities that
    create very high levels of expectation with the
    need to get the job done, i.e. meet the
    objectives of the program.

5
Flexibility and Control
While flexibility is becoming essential, the
public is not willing to forsake accountability
to achieve it. Confronted with antiquated systems
of governance, managers must exercise leadership,
not to in an anything goes manner. In short
mangers face the challenge of developing an
alternative form of accountability that allows
for greater flexibility of action. Feldman and
Khademian
6
Flexibility and Control
  • Public Sector accountability is complex and
    varied
  • It is changing with the role of public servants
    changed, becoming more involved
  • Understanding accountability in the public sector
    means understanding that there is a continuum of
    accountabilities from operational to policy to
    political

7
Flexibility and Control
  • Reality that there are significant gear
    slippages in public sector accountability in
    which the day-to-day at times takes on a much
    greater significance than so-called higher level
    accountabilities for policy outcomes
  • In the public sector it is more likely that a
    failed program can run really well and a
    successful one can founder on details

8
Defining the Concept of Accountability.
The basic notion of accountability is that those
acting on behalf of another person or group
report back to the person or group or are
responsible to them in some way. - Owen E.
Hughes, Public Management and Administration
9
Defining the Concept of Accountability.
Accountability is about evaluating performance,
meeting legitimate standards, fulfilling
legitimate commitments, and holding responsible
those who fail to meet the standards. The right
to judge government performance flows naturally
from the role of citizen, as does the right to
sanction those who fail to meet the standards.
Janice Gross Stein, The Cult of Efficiency
10
Defining the Concept of Accountability.
  • From a management perspective, accountability
    runs the full gambit of activities, from the
    specific to the general
  • In the public sector, this means from detailed
    administration to accountability for program
    outcomes
  • At no point is this either easy or simple.
  • There are no fire walls between the detailed and
    the general.

11
The Accountability Continuum
Public mangers do not have the luxury of
separating out expectations for flexible
leadership from demands for strict accountability
in the form of structures or guarantees that
check and limit management action. They must
grapple with both. - Feldman and Khadamian
12
The Accountability Continuum
INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY
COMPLIANCE
OUTPUTS
MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS
OUTCOMES
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM COEFFICENTS COEFFICIENTS
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
INFORMATION
13
Sustained accountability through results based
management
  • Key trend in governments in Canada
  • Federal government and provinces have adopted
    various methodologies

14
Based on simple model of organizational learning
and adaptation
15
RBM leads to consideration of key elements of a
management framework
  • Effective statement of goals and outcomes
  • Performance measurement systems

16
RBM leads to consideration of key elements of a
management framework
  • The role of monitoring and control in execution

17
RBM leads to consideration of key elements of a
management framework
  • The role of evaluation in determining outcomes
    and the validity of the of the outcome
    expectations
  • Means to develop organizational learning across
    complex systems in both implementing and adapting
    policies (case studies, etc)

18
desirable properties of performance
measuresPerformance measures have a number of
desirable properties. Most of these can be
dispensed with fairly quickly to focus on three
key problemsrelevance and balance?Performance
measures such as those embodied in the IDTs are
undoubtedly relevant. There are, however, two
problems of balance. First is that the measures
may not span an agencys portfolio. For example,
the health targets in DFIDs PSA exclude health
activities outside of the top ten recipients. And
the targets as a whole do not apply to activities
in middle-income countries. The second problem of
balance is that, for reasons discussed below, it
is better to have a set of indicators spanning
the range of the log-frame from inputs to
outcomes.measures known, understood and
trusted?Performance measures used in development
are usually clearly defined and well understood,
at least by those who work directly with them.
There has been some tension between top-down
setting of targets and a more participatory
approach. This has also been a factor behind the
promotion of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) as rivals to the IDTs. Data quality can be
more problematic. The IDTs include maternal
mortality, for which data are notoriously
unreliable. The measure was included in DFIDs
first PSA, but when it came to reporting DFID
told the Treasury that data were unavailable.
Country coverage for most indicators is patchy.
But the more serious problem is the timeliness of
the data, discussed below.affected and
attributable?Changes in performance measures
should be affected by the activities of the
organisation and the extent of the effect
measurable (attributable). However, attribution
becomes harder to establish as we move through
the log-frame from inputs to outcomes. As we saw
above, USAID has abandoned claiming that changes
in economic outcomes can be attributed to its
work.achievable?Targets should be achievable, but
not too easily. Most analyses suggest that the
IDTs will not be met, although there is regional
variation in performance. But this is not the
same as saying that they could not be met if aid
and government resources were better focused
toward meeting them.linked to existing management
systems?Organisations will already have in place
management information systems. The rise of
results-based measures was in part a response to
the fact that existing systems focused on inputs
and internal activities, such as spending and
staffing, rather than achieving outcomes. But new
results-oriented systems should not be separate
or parallel to these existing systems. There are
two further problems here aggregation (can the
various measures be added up to summarise
performance for regions, sectors and the agency
as a whole?) and alignment (do the data tell us
about impact on the outcomes of interest?)
19
three key problemsThe above discussion identifies
three problem areas. These problems are less
severe (though present) when using RBM at the
project level, becoming more intense as we
attempt to measure results at country level or
for the whole portfolio.data availability?Data
become available only with a time lag, this being
particularly so for developmental outcome
measures like infant mortality and
income-poverty. DFIDs PSA covering 2001-2004
includes amongst its targets 'a decrease in the
average under-5 mortality rate from 132 per 1,000
live births in 1997 to 103 on the basis of data
available in 2004'. Implicit here is the
recognition that data available in 2004 will
probably be for 2001, namely the start of the
period of the current PSA. How can results of
current strategies be judged on the basis of
results achieved before the strategy was put in
place?attribution?It is very difficult to
attribute changes in developmental outcomes to
the activities of an individual agency. This
problem is encountered where agencies work
together, as in sector programmes or providing
budget support, or for agency performance at the
country level. One agencys support to public
sector reform in an African country (providing
the funds to pay for retrenchment packages) had
as the outcome indicator maternal mortality. It
is difficult to imagine what sensible use could
have been made of maternal mortality data (even
with no time lag) to judge the performance of
this programme.integration with existing
management information systems?All donor agencies
have some sort of monitoring and evaluation
system at the project and programme level which
should provide a basis for both feedback at the
project level and 'feed-up' to management. But
how do these systems tackle the problems of
aggregation and alignment
About PowerShow.com