|
A few
thoughts in response to Richard Rubendra's interesting story & query from
Qeensland, Australia, starting with the "disclaimer" that as detailed as Mr.
Rubendra's post to this list was, one can never have a true feel for what will
work in the local culture and situation without being there "on the
ground." So any suggestions must be viewed in light of local conditions,
and, if they seem useful, adapted to fit the local situation, rather than
adopted directly. But here goes:
First,
a few references from the U.S. that may be helpful:
Outcome Funding, A New Approach to Targeted Grantmaking by
Harold S. Williams, Arthur Y. Webb and William J. Phillips (ŠThe Rensselaerville
Institute, 250 pages, paperback). See http://www.tricampus.org/publications.htm for
more info, and to order it.
The "Outcome
Products" of The Rensselaerville Institute (TRI) may also be of interest.
See http://www.tricampus.org/outcome%20products.htm (Note,
as I sometimes work with TRI, if you follow up with them, please mention
me--Paul Epstein--as your reference to them.)
Also, from the
United Way of America, the 1996 manual Measuring Program Outcomes: A
Practical Approach may be helpful.
Also, as Mr.
Rubendra mentioned using a Balanced Scorecard approach, I humbly refer to my own
website for a quick take on a balanced scorecard approach I've been using that
is a little different from any of the private sector or public sector models
I've seen published, and that I think is more in tune with the way things work
to get to public outcomes (at least in U.S. communities) than any of the
published models. To see this, from my homepage, click on "Strategies that
Matter," than peruse that text and click on "Figure 1." My homepage is: http://www.epsteinandfass.com/
I'll wrap up
with a comment on Mr. Rubendra's approach. While I see the three phase
approach he lays out as entirely logical, I'd like to point out one danger in
taking the direction he has described. By starting with activity measures
that, from the description, are probably already being collected, and working up
to efficiency and then outcomes, the danger exists that the organization will
develop outcome measures driven entirely by what it is already doing, and not by
the actual conditions and needs of Queensland and its population. They can
end up being very efficient at doing the wrong things. I'm not suggesting
that they are, by and large, doing the worng things, but that a measurement
approach that builds up to outcomes from activities & efficiency, instead of
the other way around, is prone to institutionalize existing activities,
services, and strategies without testing whether those are really the
best. Chances are, there are a few activities or services that could be
dropped, and a few new ones--or new types of collaborations, services, or
problem-solving approaches--that could be attempted to better focus resources,
efforts, and services on outcomes. But opportunities to drop less
effective activities, and discover new, more outcome-focused approaches,
may be obscured if measurement starts with existing
activities.
The way to
avoid this problem--or at least reduce it--is to develop measures starting with
what Mr. Rubendra described as his "Phase 3": Start by defining desired
outcomes (I generally like to do this by getting managers to take the customer's
or community's point of view, rather than their own) FIRST, then working
backward to see how existing programs, services, and activities are really
focused on those outcomes, and what opportunities exist to focus them better on
outcomes. Chances are, there will still be good reasons to keep most
programs & services, but you'll at least create opportunities to
identify new kinds of startegies & collaborations (e.g., REALLY break
down those silos) that may better focus resources on desired outcomes.
Also, the "outcomes first" approach can help identify which of the many existing
activities are most strategic to measure, which are worth the added effort for
measuring and improving efficiency. In other words, by first focusing on
outcomes, and then working back to activities (or outputs) and efficiency, an
organization is more likely to end up being efficient at doing the RIGHT things,
and getting RESULTS THAT MATTER.
I hope these
references and thoughts are helpful.
--Paul
Epstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |