6.4 Towards managing for outcomes
The proposed principle for performance measurement suggests that if managers are to effectively manage for outcomes, and be held accountable for the delivery of outputs, sound systems that provide for both the evaluation and assessment of performance are required. These systems should inform each other, but not constrain the ability of managers to learn from mistakes in identifying the most appropriate mix of interventions to assist in the achievement of outcomes.
Previous sections of this chapter have identified different ways in which accountability and evaluation of interventions could be provided for. In essence, both suggest that cybernetic systems allowing for specification of objectives, implementation of programmes, and assessment against appropriate indicators will be appropriate. It is also likely that the two systems should inform each other – particularly if chief executives are to be accountable for undertaking and acting upon evaluations.
These interlinked systems will, however, continue to create tensions for those trying to determine what it is they are and are not accountable for. These tensions might possibly be resolved by being clear about the different expectations on actors, and through the use of performance indicators throughout the system that are designed to meet the different needs associated with measurement of output delivery and achievement of outcomes.
Performance management in a managing for outcomes environment will require provision for both accountability and a learning environment within the one public management system. Providing for this dichotomy will require a significant cultural change within the New Zealand model.
In some areas agencies (and chief executives as a proxy for the agency) will need to be given room to make mistakes, whilst still being held accountability for the decision-making processes they make as a result. In other words, we need to develop a culture that holds Ministers and chief executives responsible for the articulation of outcomes; and accountable for the identification of outputs most likely to achieve those outcomes, efficient delivery of those outputs, evaluation of whether anticipated results have been achieved, and amendment of activities if evaluation shows that results have not been achieved.
Performance indicators for outcomes become important tools assisting in evaluation processes, but indicators of outputs will remain equally important for driving accountability systems within this framework. Looking towards the next chapter, performance indicators for outputs will also be important in providing the information needed to assist in identifying the level of resource required by an agency if it is to effectively and efficiently deliver those outputs.
Development of a culture that provides for both accountability and a learning environment will need to be promoted by the use of “best practice” examples, systems that support evaluation as strongly as those systems that support accountability, and continual reinforcement of the need for both in the public statements of Ministers and senior public servants.
