Government agencies around Australia are standing up to support the campaign to end violence against women today for White Ribbon Day.
ALL THINGS P: The federal government wants to know which open data would be most useful to business, researc
We recently moved our readers to a new system. You may need to reset your password here to login.
Not a member ? Join here for free.
Forgot your password?
Home Features Thought Leadership ‘We need to move away from our focus on quantitative KPIs’
Text size :
DEPARTMENTSDepartment of Finance
TAGS Department of Finance, Evaluation, Jane Halton, Management, Performance and Accountability Act, Performance measurement, Public Governance
PGPA reforms require a big shift in the public service and it’s testing even the leaders of the agency running the show, admits Finance head Jane Halton. Measuring actual outcomes is a great aim but hard to do in practice.
The Enhanced Commonwealth Reporting Framework is forcing public servants to rebuild a culture of evaluation and develop the skills to measure the real impact of the policies and programs they implement, rather than just basic outputs.
The bureaucracy is not very good at acknowledging when something isn’t working, Finance secretary Jane Halton told a recent seminar organised by her department and the Australasian Evaluation Society. Neither is the government of the day, one might observe, in which case a more meaningful reporting framework is all the more important in the long run.
For those worried that greater transparency and more genuine accountability sounds risky, Halton pointed out the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act also demands “a more mature approach to risk”.
Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.
The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.
Stephen Easton is a journalist at The Mandarin based in Canberra. He's previously reported for Canberra CityNews and worked on industry titles for The Intermedia Group.
Read Related Content
Finance Secretary, Jane Halton is right to highlight the concern
about key performance indicators (KPIs). They have tended to be the things we
can count rather than the quality of the service, or the impact that service or
programme has had on an individual, family or group within the community. And
of course, outcomes might only start to be achieved after a number of years of
service or programme delivery.
But just because it is hard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
And while a focus on performance and KPIs opens agencies up to greater scrutiny,
this is what we expect of our accountability framework.
The Department of Finance has developed very good guidance
on the development of outcome and programme objective statements. When well
developed, outcome and objective statements provide a solid platform for the
identification of appropriate KPIs.
As Jane Halton identifies, a mature approach to risk also
needs to be taken in focusing on performance and KPIs. One reason why many managers
are reluctant to take responsibility for achieving KPIs is that they do not ‘control’
the performance. And this is the nature of outcomes, they are affected by our
own actions as well as a range of externalities (or external uncertainties).
Risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. The
starting point for mature service and programme risk management is the
identification of the potential external uncertainties and the clarification
with Ministers and Parliamentarians about the possible effects of changes in
the external environment and how agency managers plan to respond to any of
these uncertain events. The Department of Finance has done much to communicate
the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy which became effective on 1 July 2014.
And this is not just an issue within the public sector.
Broad-based business reporting, or the ‘Six Capitals’ approach to reporting on
outcomes in the for-profit sector has also broadened the reporting of KPIs which
go beyond a simple measure of profit or return on equity – ‘financial capital’.
Focusing on outcomes in relation to ‘human capital’, ‘manufactured capital’, ‘intellectual
capital’, ‘social capital’ and ‘environmental capital’ with KPIs will stretch
many private sector managers.
Strong, meaningful KPIs come from considered, well-developed
and clear programme objectives and outcomes.
In 2001 the International Federation of Accountants Public Sector
Committee published a definition of accountability. That says that “Accountability
is the process whereby public sector entities, and the individuals within them,
are responsible for their decisions and actions, including their stewardship of
public funds and all aspects of performance, and submit themselves to
appropriate external scrutiny.” And it is the all aspects of performance that
appeals to me. This definition shows that accountability is more than good
spending (stewardship). Accountability is for service delivery and achieving
programme objectives and outcomes. And this means looking at the quality and safety
standards of service and the impacts – short, medium and long term – that programmes
are having on individuals, families, groups within the Australian community,
and the nation as a whole.
Until we see meaningful KPIs about aspects of performance,
balanced with a mature assessment of risk to that performance, we will not have
a framework that enhances accountability.