Managing Performance From Individual Indicators to Citizen Level - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Managing Performance

From Individual Indicators to Citizen Level Impact

Performance Management

includes activities which ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient

• manner. Performance management can focus on the

performance of an organisation, a department, an individual or even the processes to build a product or service, as well as many other areas

• Wikipedia

What are indicators?

Getting to Impacts

So how are we doing?

20 40 60 80 100 120

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Transfers to local government (Billions)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

% of qualified audits for local government

Still?

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number

Major Service Delivery Protests Public Opinion on delivery of basic services

Source: Municipal IQ Source: GCIS – based on Ipsos survey data

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

%

At impact level the picture is complex

• Performance monitoring takes place in the context
• f policy making and implementation, and the need

to see transformation

• The policy system is a transformation system,

within the development context

• Formal and informal sub-systems have a way of

influencing each other, as well as other elements of the acknowledged and institutionalised system

• Neglecting one of them may lead to other sub-

systems not functioning effectively

(Mintzburg and Waters, 1985)

So what is working well, and what is not?

• The system for government to monitor

government is very strong – DPME, TREASURY, DPSA, PSC, AUDITOR GENERAL, DCoG, SALGA …..

• The systems for citizens participation in

monitoring government are weak ….

We have an obligation to focus on citizen level impact

• The Constitution (Section 152)(1)(e) envisions a local government

system that ensures community participation in local government matters.

• White Paper on Local Government (1998) – sees local government

committed to working with citizens and community groups to find sustainable ways to meet their social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of their lives.

• Municipal systems Act (2000) (s16) obliges municipalities to develop

a culture of municipal governance that complements formal representative governance with a system of participatory governance and must for this purpose encourage, and create conditions for the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, including in the performance management system.

We have not activated the most granular level of governance in the performance monitoring system

• Ward committees have not worked in the manner intended.

Interactions are often formulaic and symbolic rather than meaningful.

• The link between councillors and citizens via the ward committee

system needs to be improved through translating IDPs into ward- level service improvement plans that respond to the specific needs of each ward.

• Greater emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring two-way

communication and interaction that enables citizens to express their needs and concerns as well as for citizens to be kept informed by councillors of key issues and developments.

Twenty Year Review: South Africa 1994 – 2014 (Presidency: 2015:27)

Empowering governance structures at the community level to undertake a monitoring role Some questions we need to ask and answer:

• Does the ward committee, ward councillor have access to

information (plans, budget commitments, contracts, service level agreements, norms and standards)?

• Are these plans and SLAs “monitorable”? i.e. are they SMART

and accessible?

• Do they have tools to monitor service delivery (social audits,

community surveys, access and analysis of complaints systems?)

• Do they have channels to report whether milestones are being

met?

• How are local governments empowered to influence budgeting

and accountability in expenditure by provincial and national functions (IGR structures, war rooms etc.)?

• How is Centre of Government accessing and acting on this

information?

• How is this system being built, strengthened and supported?

Measuring impact at citizen level

• Citizen surveys
• Social audits
• Monitoring and analysis of complaints systems
• Performance dialogues

(The value is dependent on the motives and incentives operating in the system)

Priorities

4028

2516 2408

1808 1130 934 830 773 677 488 397 383 363 162 145 102 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Roads and transport Housing Jobs and money Sanitation Education Water Health Safety Recreational facilities Electricity Geyser Retail and banking Solid waste Home Affairs SASSA Governance

Making sense of performance information through dialogue

Root Cause Analysis – a tool for problem solving

• Root cause analysis allows teams to uncover the

underlying causes of a problem

• It is a great way to get the focus away from

symptoms towards solutions:

• Eg: Clinic is dirty – why?
• Because the cleaners don’t do their work – why?
• Because we don’t have chemicals – why?
• Because they weren’t ordered – why?
• Because no-one told procurement that they had run out
• Because there is no stock control system for cleaning

equipment – Solution – Put stock control system in place

Unintended consequences

• M&E can have severe unintended consequences
• E.G The United Kingdom Health Commission which

found that pursuing targets may have unintentionally resulted in the deaths of 400 people at Stafford Hospital between 2005 and

• 2008. This was as a result of managers neglecting

areas of work for which targets were not set.

• M&E systems therefore need to be designed and

implemented carefully and cautiously, and should include measures to manage unintended consequences as they arise.

(DPME, 2014)

De Bruijn’s Laws

Decreasing Effectiveness – if the impact of monitoring information is very high (e.g. results in large bonus / humiliation) then there may be strong incentives for gaming rather than learning Mushrooming – M&E systems become bloated and lose their simplicity in the process Collective Blindness – the targets do not give a full picture Preservation of Bloated Systems – perverse systems are

• ften resistant to change, either because they become a ritual
• r because a system of external stakeholders grows to

maintain the system Decreasing Political Attention - there is often little political benefit in abolishing systems, and so political interest can wane, meaning that systems continue by default

Conclusion

• Scoring well against the indicators is not success, only

an indication of success – completely dependent on the completeness, quality and relevance of your data.

• The higher up you go on the results pyramid (towards

impact), the harder it gets to have indicators that tell the whole story.

• Monitoring should not be about blame and

scapegoating – it should be about identifying root causes and improvements. It should reveal, not

• bscure the reality.
• Be aware of the incentives that operate in a

performance management system, and actively seek

• ut unintended consequences and perverse incentives.
• A mechanistic and unthinking approach to performance

management can do more harm than good!

Some resources

• www.dpme.gov.za
• https://socialaudits.org.za
• https://bsc.cid.harvard.edu