5.2 Specification of outputs
Having identified the outcomes agencies will work towards, it is also important to specify the outputs that will be most likely to achieve those goals. This specification tends to take place during policy development processes. Generally undertaken in “bite-sized chunks” strategic policy reviews will revisit an articulated policy issue and identify ways in which a problem may best be resolved. Usually, these processes will allow for a reassessment of current policy settings, but they do not always allow for an evaluation of current interventions. The limited nature of reviews (in order to keep them at a manageable scope) generally means that the range of activities undertaken by an agency will not be reviewed however.
The State Services Commission’s model for a managing for outcomes process provides for a planning process where the question of “what is the best way to achieve our goals” may be posed. In answering this question agencies should be able to move towards the specification of the outputs most appropriate for the achievement of articulated outcomes. Processes to support such a reassessment are not well-developed however. The New Zealand process of a baseline review is possibly the closest tool available, but this can be a negative and lengthy process for all agencies involved. In looking to provide for a complete reassessment of the outputs an agency delivers new and more effective tools may be required.
5.3 Identification of capability requirements
Identifying the outputs to be delivered will be insufficient if an agency does not also have the capability to deliver specified activities. A key aspect of a managing for outcomes environment will, therefore, be the development and maintenance of the capability required by an agency, or agencies, for the effective delivery of services. Capability is most often thought of in terms of people. However, whilst the human resources of an agency are an important component of its capability, so are the information systems and capital assets required by the agency to efficiently and effectively deliver the services identified.
The Managing for Outcomes process has suggested that identification of the capability each agency requires to deliver specified outcomes is something agencies should start to focus on over the 2003/04 financial year and beyond. As agencies are supposed to consult with central agencies as they work through the Managing for Outcomes process this could allow for some conversations about the issues facing individual agencies.
5.4 Implementation and Review
Finding ways of providing for coordinated delivery of services will be a core element of achieving results across some areas of government. Promotion of behaviours to support this collaboration will occur in a variety of ways, but if senior public servants take a lead by promoting better collaboration and coordination by designing and supporting more “joined-up” implementation systems (where appropriate) the required cultural changes may come about in a shorter time-frame.
As an integral component of effective strategic management, the review process does create some difficulties within a public management system predicated upon the assessment of performance for accountability reasons. These difficulties tend to arise because of the disincentives that may be placed upon reviews designed to identify both successes and the weaknesses associated with different programmes (particularly since the latter information is important for strengthening policy settings).
5.5 Conclusion
Strategic management at a whole of government level will only be effective if it helps to shape and inform organisational strategies. The two need to be aligned if outcomes are to be successfully worked towards. It is for this reason that, to the extent possible, departments must continue to “own” their statements of intent and planning processes, even if they incorporate more actors into those processes.
The strategic management system needs to be focussed on outcomes, and identification of the links between outcomes and outputs, identification of the capability an agency requires; and providing for ongoing review of the activities that support the strategic direction of both agencies and the government.
Ministers taking more ownership over the specification and coordination of outcomes; chief executives taking responsibility for working more effectively across sectors; and the development of tools and frameworks to assist agencies in identifying their intervention logic and capability requirements; and central agencies playing a greater role in supporting the development of joint outcomes are different interventions that may assist agencies as they move towards a managing for outcomes environment. This leadership should also help to build and disseminate the stories, rituals and routines identified as assisting in the promotion of cultural change.
