RE: Setting up a performance measurement & analysis unit inpublic sector human services (excluding Health)

["Lois Heldenbrand" <HeldeL@mail.health.state.mo.us>]

Paul:

I concur with your comments and references to Rensselaerville Institute materials and concepts.  In Missouri, we have found that it is imperative to start with outcomes.  Otherwise, you will get business as usual.  However, change in public organizations is challenging and difficult.  Lois Heldenbrand

Lois Heldenbrand
Strategic Planning 
912 Wildwood
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone:  573-522-6987
FAX:   573-751-6041

>>> "Paul Epstein" <epstein@pipeline.com> 06/24/01 10:46AM >>>
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Epstein & Fass Associates (www.epsteinandfass.com)
140 Nassau St., Suite 9C, New York, NY 10038
Phone: 212-349-1719  Fax: 212-349-4054  e-mail: epstein@pipeline.com 

_____
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@raw.rutgers.edu and include the following command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe apmg your-email-address
Or use the form at http://raw.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/apmg/unsubscribe.html