Upload
dipartimento-della-funzione-pubblica-progetto-valutazione-delle-performance
View
574
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Accedi alla pagina dell'evento: http://qualitapa.gov.it/iniziative-in-corso/valutazione-performance/valutazione-performance/il-percorso-2011-2012/eventi-realizzati/ Il Dipartimento della funzione pubblica ha dedicato in occasione del ForumPa 2012, un'intera giornata al Performance management nei Comuni.Nella Prima Sessione è stato affrontato il tema chiave della funzionalità ed efficacia dei sistemi di Performance Management nelle amministrazioni pubbliche e del loro effettivo utilizzo a supporto delle decisioni strategiche ed operative. Le analisi svolte in ambito nazionale ed internazionale evidenziano che anche nelle amministrazioni in cui i sistemi di misurazione e valutazione delle performance sono ben organizzati non necessariamente essi sono utilizzati a supporto delle decisioni più rilevanti per l'amministrazione.
Citation preview
FORUM AP, Roma, May 17th 2012
Professor Geert Bouckaert
Managing performance: international and national trends
1.PI:Do we focus on the right things?
2.PI: Responsibility versus accountability
3.PI: Are we ready or not?
4.PI:Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
5.PI: Costs versus Benefits
6.PI: Supply versus Demand
7.PI: Use versus non-use (or abuse)
3
1.Performance and Focus
Inp u t O u tp u tA c tiv ity
O b je c tiv e s
E ffe c t
N e e d s
T ru s t
1.inp ut/inp ut: ec o no m y2.inp ut/o utp ut: effic ienc y/p ro d uc tivity3.o utp ut/effec t: effec tivenes s4.inp ut/effec t: c o s t-effec tivenes s5.effec t/trus t6.o utp ut/trus t7.inp ut/trus t
7
6
5
4
321
E nv iro nm e nt
1.Performance and Focus
Performance: What is our focus? And Why?
-the urgent or the important
-responsibility versus accountability
-depends on where you stand
Different PIs for different purposes
2.PI: Responsibility versus Accountability
R E S P O N S IB IL IT YR E S P O N S IB IL IT Y
W E A K S T R O N G
N OA C C O U N T A B IL IT Y
A C C O U N T A B IL IT YW E A K
S T R O N G
A
C 1
C 2
D 1 D 2
D 3 D 4
B 1 B 2
Macro-level
Meso-level
Micro-level
Input Activity Output Effect/Outcome Trust
Input Activity Output Effect/Outcome Trust
Input Activity Output Effect/Outcome Trust
2.PI: Responsibility versus Accountability
ExecutivePoliticians
LegislativePoliticians
Citizen/CustomerAdministration
(1)
(2)(3)
(4)
(5)(6)
2.PI: Responsibility versus Accountability
New or renewed instruments•1 Performance budgets and performance audits•2.General Citizen Charter•3.Contracts•4.Specific charters, SLA, surveys (satisfaction)•5.Hearings around contracts and performance•6.Ombud
2.PI: Responsibility versus Accountability
3.PI: Are we ready, or not?
• Performance administration
• Managements of performances
• Performance management
• Performance governance
3.PI: Are we ready, or not?
• Organisational readiness checklist
3.PI: Are we ready, or not?
Performance Administration
Managements of Performances
Performance Management
Performance Governance
Measurement
Incorporation
Use/non-use
3.PI: Are we ready, or not?
MANAGEMENT BY INDICATORS REQUIRES INDICATOR MANAGEMENT
-Guarantee Measurement + Incorporation + Use
-Watch Costs and Benefits
-Match Supply and Demand
13
4.PI: Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
Legitimacy
Technical Features
(Validity & Reliability
Functionality
1
4
7
3
2
6
8
5
14
F u n ctio n a lity
L e g itima cy
T e ch n ica l fe a tu re s:va lid ity a n d re lia b ility
o p timu m
1
1
1
0
A
B
C
4.PI: Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
15
1. Where are you now? (A)
2. Where would you like to be? (B)
3. How to get from A to B
4.PI: Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
• Selected
• Discussed
• Scored
• Evaluated
4.PI: Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
1. Whole of government indicators (means)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5Utility
Feasib
ilit
y
Indicator 1Indicator 2Indicator 3Indicator 4Indicator 5Indicator 6Indicator 7Indicator 8Indicator 9Indicator 10Indicator 11Indicator 12Indicator 13Indicator 14Indicator 15
4.PI: Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
5.PI: costs versus benefits
WHY IS THE OBVIOUS NOT SO OBVIOUS?
CBA of Indicators:Costs: creating, transferring, collecting, processing, storing,
making available, …
Benefits: comparing, registering change, improved decisions, better allocations, transparency, responsibility/accountability, learning, ...
5.PI: costs versus benefits
ASSYMETRIES OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
COST:
Unconditional, immediate, undisputable, tangible
BENEFITS:
Conditional, not (always) immediate, disputable, intangible
Different Costs and different benefits for different actors
5.PI: costs versus benefits
HOW TO CREATE A POSITIVE CBA?
-Reducing costs:
-Economy of providing and generating data
-Increasing Benefits:
-Increase level of needs/use (more demand);
-Avoid non-use (or abuse)
-Expand depth and scope (more supply)
6.PI: Supply versus Demand
Bouckaert & Halligan (2008) Managing Performance, International Comparisons, Routledge, London, p. 113.
6.PI: Supply versus Demand
HOW TO AVOID ZONES OF FRUSTRATION AND MISMATCH?
-Shifting from supply (availability) feeding demand (needs)
to demand generating supply
-Organising demand (problem driven: savings, capacity, quality, legitimacy, flexibility, mobility, …)
7.PI: Use versus Non-Use
• Incorporate
• Types of use: soft versus hard
• Context of use
• INCORPORATION
-Policy cycle
-Financial cycle
-Contract cycle
(St rat egic)p lan Evaluat ion
Monit oring
Feedback
Feedback
Evaluat ioncont ract
Implement ingcont ract
Designcont ract
Pol icy cycle
Cont ract Cycle
Feedback
Audit
Account ancy
Budget
Financial Cycle
Van Dooren Wouter, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge: London, p. 85.
• USE
-To learn
-To steer and control
-To give account
To learn To steer&control To give account
Key question How to improve policy or
management?
How to steer and
control activities?
How to communicate
performance?
Focus Internal Internal External
Orientation Change/future Control/present Survival/past
Exemplary
Instruments
Strategic planning,
benchmarking, risk analysis,
business process reengineering
Monitors and
management
scorecards,
performance pay,
performance budgeting
league tables, citizen
charters and annual
reporting, performance
contracts
Van Dooren Wouter, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge: London, pp. 101.
7.PI: Use versus Non-Use
HARD OR SOFT USE?
Van Dooren Wouter, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge: London, p.103.
27
7.PI: Use versus Non-UseContext of use
Q
t
O
I
(1 )Q
t
O
I
( 2 )
28
7.PI: Use versus Non-Use
Q
t
O
I
( 3 ) Q
t
O
I
Q m in
( 4 ) Q
t
O
I
Q m ax
( 5 )
7.PI: Use versus Non-Use
REASONS FOR NON-USE
-Insufficient quality-Psychological barriers: satisficing and bounded rationality-Cultural barriers: entrepreneurial vs bureaucratic; egalitarian vs
hierarchical-Institutional: balance of power; balance of professions
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-USE
-Over-claiming ‘best practices’-Weak institutional memories
7.PI: Use versus Non-Use
EFFECTS OF USING INDICATORS
-Functional behavioural effects:-Learning and Innovation-Steering and Control-Responsibility and Accountability
-Dysfunctional behavioural effects:
-Conditionality for functional and dysfunctional effects
1.PI:Do we focus on the right things?
2.PI: Responsibility versus accountability
3.PI: Are we ready or not?
4.PI:Trust good versus distrust bad PIs
5.PI: Costs versus Benefits
6.PI: Supply versus Demand
7.PI: Use versus non-use (or abuse)
SOME REFERENCES
• Bouckaert Geert, Halligan John (2008) Managing performance, International comparisons. Routledge, London, 440 p.
• OECD (2009) Measuring Government Activity. OECD, Paris (Edited by Christopher Pollitt, Geert Bouckaert, and Wouter Van Dooren), pp. 130.
• Pollitt Christopher, Bouckaert Geert (2011, 3rd expanded ed.) Public Management Reform. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 367,
• Van Dooren Wouter, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge: London, pp. 208
K.U.Leuven
Public Management InstituteParkstraat 45 bus 3609
B-3000 Leuven
Belgium
0032 16 32 32 70
www.publicmanagement.be
Further information