THE BIG PICTURE
Performance measurement theory and techniques are designed to help leaders and managers assess whether or not their organization and its programs are progressing or failing. Prior to the 1990s most measurement indicators used by government were geared at counting simple matters of "inputs" (numbers of things that go into a project: people, time spent on a project, etc.) and "outputs" (things produced: miles resurfaced, garbage cans picked up, etc.). While helpful to a point, this approach of utilizing measurement to determine successful activity fell short of telling whether or not the goal of an organization or program was being achieved. All you could really tell was how much of something went in and how much of something else came out, but not much more. In the last 30 years or so performance measurement began to focus on "outcomes." Focusing on outcomes enabled the leader and manager to understand whether or not the goal was being achieved. Instead of numbers of garbage cans picked up, perhaps they now also measured level of overall cleanliness in a neighborhood. Instead of just miles resurfaced, perhaps they examined roadbed condition for safety and comfort. You understand the difference? Outcomes add a dimension to the analysis that provides deeper insight into the achievement of the organization, and allows leaders and managers to develop a response grounded in the overall results they see their workers producing.
THE CLOSE UP
The Mission Statement of an organization or program is its blueprint. It tells you what the goals and expected outcomes to be achieved are. Harry Hatry is an academic who offered a very simple equation for constructing a Mission Statement. Essentially, a mission statement has two parts: To achieve “X”, by doing “Y”. Said another way, the Mission Statement tells you what the goal is, and then how it is to be reached.
The mission identifies desired outcomes in the TO ACHIEVE “ X” portion of its wording. The inputs, activities and outputs are touched on as well in the BY DOING “Y” wording. When a Mission Statement tells you these things succinctly and understandably it has achieved its most basic goal – informing the reader of what the program or organization expects of itself.
For example, one mission statement for PAD 314 might look like the following:
To prepare students for advanced positions in the public sector, by teaching them theories of leadership and skills related to performance measurement and management.
The article you read this week from Weiss and Piderit entitled, “The Value of Mission Statements in Public Agencies,” reinforces the importance of learning how to build and analyze mission statements. Not only do mission statements serve as markers to the public as to the purpose of an organization, but they may also accelerate implementation of goals and objectives for staff within that organization when crafted well. Most notably the research captured in the article suggests that mission statements can have an impact on actual performance, leading to positive or negative impacts. Although, the drivers for these results remain under researched. In the final analysis knowing how to build mission statements, mission statements that can “work,” is an important task to engage in and an important skill to learn.
When examining K-12 public school mission statements from two counties in Michigan, the authors were able to identify common themes across 304 schools. The themes, and method of rhetorical construction for the mission statements, suggested that different mixes of themes and styles could translate into impacts on performance. In particular, a focus on learning and an activist approach to text development seemed to result in learning gains for students.
While it is likely that different organizational domains will display differing results for what works and what does not in regard to spurring growth and change through the use of mission statements, the point is that this particular study revealed that there is in fact a level of impact from mission statements on performance – regardless of the exact drivers in play. This is a significant finding.
THE PARTICULAR
There are essentially five steps to be followed in completing the second paper for PAD 314.99 this semester:
1) Describe the agency that houses the program you are reviewing.
First identify the agency, its current leader, and the purpose of the agency itself. Then provide some background and history on the agency, highlighting how it has become the organization it is today.
2) Describe the program.
First identify the program, and explain its purpose. Explain what problem the program is intended to resolve, and how it is supposed to achieve this change.
3) Analyze the mission statement for the program.
Identify if the program has a mission statement. If it does have one, present it in the paper and critique it using Hatry’s formula discussed above. If it does not have a mission statement, create and present one for the program using the Hatry formula.
4) Develop a logic model for the program.
Building off of what you have learned about the program, present a logic model that addresses the main points from the mission statement discussed in item 3 (above). You might have to modify an existing logic model for the program, or develop your own. The logic model should at least include categories for inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. We will discuss logic models in depth next week.
5) Create some performance indicators for the logic model.
Once the logic model is presented, and it maps to the mission statement, you will be in position to create some performance indicators. These measures should explore areas included in the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes of the logic model. It is to the discussion of performance indicators that we now turn.
As Robert Behn notes in his article, “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures,” public managers measure performance to improve outcomes. While other perspectives on measuring performance exist, from those of stakeholders to those promoting accountability, the first priority of improving program outcomes is the primary one for public managers. And that is what Behn focuses on here.
Behn’s eight purposes for measuring public performance are noted on page 588 of the article, and then followed up on with a discussion of characteristics for measures (indicators) that could be constructed to satisfy each purpose on page 593. It is at this juncture that Behn attempts to begin tying specific types of measures to inputs, outputs and outcomes. And it is in this part of the paper that Behn’s exploration begins to offer you useful information as to your second paper. This is because once you have presented a logic model that maps to your program’s mission statement, you need to produce some indicators to show how you might go about measuring inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Finally, on page 599, Behn surfaces ways to think about actually building such indicators – and what the indicators should be addressing. Understanding these parameters, you should be in position to actually think about what the measures themselves will then look like. Not only what the measure will address, but also how it will be built. As we move into the coming weeks, indicator construction will also be examined more closely – along with logic models.
Lecture Notes for the Tenth Discussion Board
THE BIG PICTURE:
To keep an organization moving forward, leaders need to embrace strategic management as a means to improving performance. Strategic management is forward thinking in its efforts to prepare a path into the future. Performance management works with existing information gathered retrospectively by performance measures to improve productivity. When wed together, the three (strategic management, performance management, performance measurement) can become a formidable engine of growth and innovation.
Built into the strategic management process is the need to present outcomes across organizational functions, and links these to the success of the mission as part of a planned activity to be enacted. This recipe provides the connection between strategic management, performance management and performance measurement. The strategy for success is part of the ongoing review process of performance management and measurement. However, to make strategic management work, more is needed than just focusing on decision processes for the creation and implementation of strategy. Ultimately, strategic leadership is called for to weave a consciousness of achievement into the web that is created as part of the strategy/performance nexus.
Strategic leadership champions the use of strategies, missions, outcomes and measures as a comprehensive and cyclical process of improvement. Strategic leadership also insists on imparting the results of this work to the public in a clear and digestible fashion. One way this can be elegantly accomplished is with the use of a logic model to support the reporting of performance results. These results are then tied back into the original strategy that was designed to achieve the mission. As part of the cycle strategies can be amended, and then implementation processes adjusted, in a timely fashion to correct deficiencies that are backstopped with indicator generated evidence.
THE CLOSE UP:
As addressed in recent discussion board threads, and lecture notes, the mission statement is the blueprint for the logic model. If it is constructed well, the mission identifies desired outcomes in the TO ACHIEVE “X” portion of its wording. The inputs, activities and outputs are touched on as well in the BY DOING “Y” wording. When a mission statement tells you these things succinctly and understandably it has achieved its most basic goal – informing the reader of what the program or organization expects of itself.
For the purposes of PAD 314 the next step in the process is producing a logic model based on the mission statement. Here, the idea is to simulate the process that the organization or program will flow through on its way to achieving its stated outcomes. Part of the logic model’s purpose is to enable the creation of performance measures that accurately gauge progress that is, or is not, taking place. As you see in the more detailed discussion of a logic model found in the W.K Kellogg Foundation report about developing logic models, outcomes can be broken into short and long term outcomes. These concerns also take into account the importance of impacts in the process. This indicates that there are indeed stages that have to be passed through to reach the final destination desired. It also deepens the analysis provided by the logic model to illuminate the different phases of growth that must occur. The leader’s role is to define and then erect this entire structure – both in concept and in reality. From developing a vision, to embedding it into a mission statement, to shaping it through a logic model, and finally measuring the elements of that model, the leader is the central player in this ongoing operation. And a strategic leader envisions as much of the project as possible early on, committing it to graphic display when satisfied that the intent and lay out suit the needs desired.
THE PARTICULAR:
Logic models come in many shapes and sizes. The purpose of these models is well described in the readings for this week. In many ways, they are the graphic visualization of an organization or program from start to finish. Logic models are meant to represent the linear development, or progression, involved in achieving a purpose. Moving sequentially from inputs, to activities, to outputs, outcomes and impacts they present an image of how missions are to be actualized, carried out, and completed in order to address and resolve problems.
The most basic depiction of a logic model is displayed on page 17 of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation report on the topic. Offering the building blocks for constructing this type of work product, the write-up allows students to begin putting together a version of a logic model for their own purposes. But this is only the beginning of the journey in learning about these tools. By reviewing the remainder of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation document you will see that there are a variety of different formats that logic models can be produced in. Beyond this, by examining even a cursory selection of real world logic models it becomes clear how this technique has been adopted, adapted and innovatively manipulated by different industries to serve the same purpose – providing a structure for ideas about intention and fulfillment to be displayed. As you have also found in the readings, and see discussed above, the next step is to measure these areas of focus with indicators designed to track success or failure on the way to achieving desired goals. Next week we will get further into this aspect of the discussion as we tie mission statements to logic models, to indicators, in performance measurement systems.
