This first appeared as an ASPANET On-Line column in July 2001.

What is "Managing for Results?"

by John M. Kamensky

"Managing for Results" is shorthand for a conceptual framework that reflects a fundamental change in the management cultures of governments across the globe. Ideally, it is a culture that is fact-based, results-oriented, open and accountable. Based on best practices observed in a range of governments in the US and abroad, I see a Managing for Results framework comprised of six major components. These cannot necessarily be sequenced in a step-by-step, linear fashion. However, the first component, creating the basic infrastructure, obviously is central to the overall effort.

Create the basic infrastructure. This includes an organization's 3-5 year strategic plan, its annual operating plan, its annual performance report, the development of metrics and the basic data collection system, data validity and verification procedures, and performance evaluations. In and of itself, this component often takes years to put in place and go through at least a couple cycles to shake out the kinks. At the federal level, the construction of this infrastructure is still underway even though agencies put together their first strategic plans in 1997 and issued their first performance reports in early 2000.

Link intended results to day-to-day operational management. The basic infrastructure creates the ability to manager for results. This, however, is not a metric for success. The key is using the system. Does it affect day-to-day behaviors and conversations by managers and employees? Several tools for transforming an organization's culture to be more results-oriented and performance-based include (1) personal accountability by the top leadership, (2) the use of organizational and individual balanced scorecards to link targets to results, (3) the availability of live, transparent performance data to everyone in the organization, and (4) the use of individual and team written performance agreements tied to an incentives system.

Link intended results to decision-making cycles, such as budget, policy, and management. Performance budgeting is one approach for linking results to resources, both within an agency, with OMB, and with Congress. Policy decision-making - changing the service delivery methods, rethinking the programs used to reach intended goals, or rethinking the appropriate roles of the federal government in meeting a national goal - often stem from a longer pattern of information resulting from a performance system. This often implies the use of evaluation to understand the "whats" and the "whys" of a particular intended policy outcome. And the use in management decisions within an agency often helps inform the "how" the organization should be doing something.

Align organizational business systems around intended results. Other operational systems within the organization need to be synchronized with the overall strategic goals. This is important in the long run because it helps make the overall managing for results system sustainable for the longer term and not just an exercise in leadership by a few individuals. These would include the budget account structure, financial management systems, human capital strategies, and the organizational structure itself.

Link intended organizational results to the bigger picture, such as outcomes that span other agencies, programs, and levels of government. Most significant policy outcomes in government cannot be achieved by any single agency. Collaboration, networks, and partnership are keys to successfully managing for results. Some believe that a very different skill set will be needed by future leaders to be successful in this component. A series of tools help do this, including the use of live, geo-centric, customer-centric transparent data available to an entire network, and the use of techniques such as logic models and CompStat systems like those used in New York City.

Align communications and accountability around intended results by engaging customers, stakeholders, and employees. Each of these groups have their own "lens of rationality" that must be factored into any success strategy. Like the component that aligns organizational business systems, this component helps ensure sustainability of the overall system. Customers - those directly benefiting from a service or program - have to be involved in designing delivery strategies and assessing quality and performance. Stakeholders - those who can grant or deny permission or resources to act - must be engaged in an ongoing dialog around the development, use, and reporting of performance and results information, or they will not use the data when they make decisions. And employees - those who deliver the services or results (and these include contractors and partners), have to be individually engaged in the mission, goals, strategies, and intended results of their organization.

Some of these components are more significant in some types of agencies than others, depending on their missions and the policy tools they use to achieve their missions. For example, an agency like the Department of Transportation's highway grants programs, which operate predominantly through states to achieve its goals, would need to invest more heavily in the component that links its results to the bigger picture of outcomes, such as reducing traffic congestion. However, an organization that directly delivers services, such as Transportation's Coast Guard, might focus more heavily on developing its day-to-day management component.

While there may be different emphases on the individual components, over time, all six components seem to be necessary for long-term, successful managing for results systems.