|
I must say that as a student of the balanced scorecard methodology, particularly
its public sector application, I am impressed by your approach. However,
I would like to suggest a couple of modifications: (1) the arrows connecting
the dimensions seem to be wrongly directed, they may need to be reversed;
and (2) the base dimension labeled "Investments in Systems, Learning and
Growth," while appropriate may need further explication. In place
of "Systems, Learning and Growth," I would put the 7-Ss of Peters and Waterman,
that is, your "Systems" is interpreted to refer to Structure, Systems,
Strategies, Staff, Skills, Style and Shared Values (Culture). Investments
in these seven elements will undoubtedly produce learning and growth.
Philip Abode
Paul Epstein wrote: 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 (©The 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 |