Performance Management Reporting

In my previous post I outlined a 4 step process for a successful performance management program. to recap:

1. Report performance metric data on pre-defined schedule.

2. Analyze data for troubling trends or missed targets. Operationally research root cause of problems.

3. Provide corrective action for metrics where target was missed or data is trending in wrong direction.

4. Repeat process for next reporting period.

I'll focus on the first step in this blog post as part of the overall attempt to develop a performance management lifecycle outline. Most of the set up work in a successful performance management program will be in this area. Each metric should have a well defined set of counting rules, methodology for collecting data, and a reporting period. Other attributes such as priority, stakeholders, etc may also be important, but the core is in the definition, methodology, and reporting period. Depending on the type of agency, there are a number of pre-defined definitions and counting rules (for an example, see this previous post) so no need to re-invent the wheel if those measures are agreeable. Data systems will vary by jurisdictions but the methodology will depend on their ability to generate performance data.

Once the difficult part of defining the metric and its data is complete, requiring managers to report their data on a regular time frame is essential to a successful program. The time frame should be regular and the metrics required should not change often. Getting managers to buy into the program will depend on the level of effort and predictability in each reporting period. If they are responsible for a large number of metrics then a less frequent reporting period is useful (annually or semi-annually). The trade off is slow feedback when metrics take a turn for the worse or when any new initiatives are launched. For less measures, more frequent reporting (monthly or quarterly) is helpful in root-cause analysis and less burdensome as well. The important thing to remember is that reporting performance data often takes time and resources and managers will grow resentful of heavy, frequent reporting requirements, particularly if the benefits of which are not apparent.

After data is reported it will often need some "scrubbing" for any errors prior to undergoing step #2 above, trend analysis. We'll look at the specifics of that in a future post, but the important takeaway here is to make performance reporting well-defined and as simple as possible for relevant managers. This will help ensure that the agency has the performance metrics necessary to make data-driven decisions.

A Public Sector Performance Management Methodology

Performance management and measurement have taken on a number of different meanings with regard to application in the public sector. In some cases it's regarded strictly as data reporting and in others it takes on a more qualitative form. It may be useful to start a dialogue on coming up with an actionable, consolidated set of objectives and practices to better define what is meant by government performance management. Future posts will break down how to achieve each point in the outline I present here as well as an attempt at a comprehensive methodology for designing a performance management system. The hope is that the system not only provides data, but also a practical management tool for government leaders. First, a list of the stakeholders and their interests in a performance management system:

1. Government Administrators - Information and tools to help manage the day-to-day operations of their jurisdiction as well as to inform policy formulation. The ability to communicate operational data to the public.

2. Public Interests - Actively engaged citizens interested in keeping track of the services that their government is providing.

3. Academic Interests - Research groups hoping to harness public data for academic studies used in policy formulation.

The question then becomes how to organize a program that will meet the interests of all three stakeholders? Part of the current difficulty in getting governments to report performance data has been that guidelines have largely been written by external groups for the sake of providing data to a third party (i.e. academics, research orgs, etc), with few clear, tangible benefits for the governments providing data. There is always the promise of benchmarked data, the ability to compare metrics across jurisdictions, etc., but the governments providing the data are interested in more immediate benefits. I propose a simple system that is standard practice in the private sector but only seems to have recently crept into the public sector:

1. Report performance metric data on pre-defined schedule.

2. Analyze data for troubling trends or missed targets. Operationally research root cause of problems.

3. Provide corrective action for metrics where target was missed or data is trending in wrong direction.

4. Repeat process for next reporting period.

And in its simplicity the above process will satisfy all three stakeholders. The government has a running narrative of operational data and the policies/actions it is undertaking for improvement. The public also has access to both the data on services that it needs as well as information on government policies. Assuming that the jurisdiction picked a standardized set of metrics, academic groups will have access to data for research purposes. Everybody wins!

The above is a simplification of a system that I will flesh out further in future posts, but the idea is to plant the seed of thought. I've looked at various websites and have yet to find this sort of methodology being advertised on government sites and it would be interesting to see it in practice (though I in no way take credit for this as an original idea. It's basic root-cause analysis. The hope is to find tools relevant to the public sector to implement said analysis). As always, I welcome feedback on this concept, and look forward to providing more detail.