[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Setting up a performance measurement & analysis unit inpublic sector human services (excluding Health)
Comrades,
I would like to draw attention to the issue of efficiency and its measurement in the human service economy, particularly in the public sector. I believe we need to make clear what we mean when we talk of efficiency. Technically, efficiency refers to the relationship between input and output. Ceteris
paribus, I am efficient in the use a particular input if compared to "yesterday," I am able to use less of the same input to produce the same quantity of a certain output, or alternatively, for the same quantity of the input, I am able to produce more of the output. The same applies in comparison to
other producers. But the concepts of input and output are abstractions that need further clarification.
Input can range from all kinds of widgets, human efforts and skills to money. Output can mean a direct product of a production process, or a final outcome of a complex production-consumption process. For example, teachers use their time and skills to produce lessons plans and instructions--these are
direct outputs. These teacher outputs serve as inputs that students consume to produce the final outcome, learned skills or knowledge.
It would seem that our application of the efficiency concept depends on how we model the human service situation. Is it viewed as a manufacturing-like situation where relationships between inputs and outputs are well known, or is it viewed as an R&D-like situation, where such input-output relationships
are matters of discovery? Thus, efficiency needs to be qualified with an appropriate adjective which is not "technical" but "economic", as such, we are talking about cost efficiency.
Philip Abode
Fresno, California
Lois Heldenbrand wrote:
> 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
_____
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