1  Introduction

Building a picture of an effective public management system is akin to developing and then building a jigsaw. A number of disparate and ill-shaped component parts need to be placed in appropriate settings to create a unified and recognisable image.

Developing an effective results-oriented public management system is even more difficult than the analogy suggests, because the image has to be more than an illusion. It has to be a workable model that merges history, goals and culture together to create an environment within which the needs and desires of a wide range of stakeholders are efficiently and effectively realised.

In seeking to develop an effective results-oriented public management system it is important therefore to not only paint the perfect picture, the hearts and minds of the systems’ designers and managers, in addition to those who develop and implement policy, also need to be captured or at least engaged. For it is only by changing the culture of the environment that the orientation of the public service will truly be aligned with any image created by the architects of that system.

This paper argues that an outcomes-oriented culture change across the New Zealand public management system has to be supported by structural and systemic change, in some instances moving away from “old” responses to the challenges posed by new institutional economic theories. It posits that whilst the challenges identified by these theories are still relevant, an effective outcomes-oriented public management system will respond to them through the use of a variety of levers. In some instances these will reflect market or contractual mechanisms, but in other instances softer – community-focused – mechanisms could prove to be more effective.

In other words, in shifting the New Zealand public management system towards an outcomes-oriented environment there would appear to be a need to refresh the current tenets of the system, whilst retaining those aspects of the system that lend it strength. The process of managing this change will require some level of understanding about what that environment will look like in the future, and preferably a common theoretical framework against which system changes can be tested.

The paper is based on a premise that the New Zealand public management system, and its component parts, is an institution that must be accountable to the people, through Parliament, and the services delivered through government agents[1] should be in line with achieving the objectives of the Government of the day. At the same time, it is recognised that the systems that provide for accountability must be sufficiently flexible to allow for innovation in the way agencies seek to deliver specified services.

Finally, the paper attempts to paint a picture of what the New Zealand model might look like in a managing for outcomes environment. This picture is not meant to be a prescriptive image, rather it has been provided with the goal of promoting debate around one concrete description of a potential future model. It suggests that shifting the culture of the New Zealand public management system to incorporate an increased focus on outcomes should be supported by both sending consistent messages about the need for an outcomes focus and mechanistic changes such as those identified below.

• The structures of the system need to support an outcomes focus in strategic management and coordination of policies and service delivery. This could be achieved through reassessment of ministerial structures and agency relationships.
• Regular strategic reviews should provide for the articulation of outcomes an agency or a sector will be working towards; identification of the capability required to deliver specified interventions; and the resourcing required to support the agency or sector in seeking to achieve the articulated outcomes.
• Two related, but separate, feedback loops are required to assess performance. The first should support the accountability requirements of the system and the second should support the development of a learning environment across the public sector. The two loops should inform, but not drive, each other.
• Accountabilities within the system should reflect the decision-rights provided to individual agents, and be supported by a culture that promotes responsibility for areas which agents are able to influence.
• Financial management systems should provide managers with the flexibility to deliver interventions identified as most appropriate in relation to specific outcomes, whilst retaining sufficient transparency of activities for effective Parliamentary oversight.
• Leadership, by Ministers, senior public servants and those in influencing roles, should model, promote and support the behavioural changes required to give these mechanistic changes life.