April 06, 2006
Measuring Outcomes
Could agreement on key outcomes and measures of success help us agree on state spending?
Competing interests are fond of trotting out measures and rankings that support their political point of view. But suppose all Minnesotans could agree in advance on a few key outcomes — and the measures that would define success for those outcomes.
How might that change the way we invested our resources?
This is not a new idea. Government units at all levels employ measures of effectiveness (how well are we doing?) and efficiency (how much does it cost?) to services ranging from snow removal to pension fund management.
The State Planning Department began Minnesota Milestones in 1991 in the belief that a shared vision, clear goals and measurement of results would lead to a better future for Minnesota. It reported on 70 progress indicators to determine whether the state was achieving 19 publicly determined goals grouped in four broad areas: People, Community and Democracy, Economy and Environment.
The last Minnesota Milestones report was issued in 2002.
Further reading:
Minnesota Milestones: Measures That Matter
The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Rhode Island State and Local Government: A National Comparison
National Center for Public Productivity
What do you think?
1. Pick up to 7 policy areas where you think Minnesotans might be able to agree on results. Propose a measurable outcome for each area. (For example, 55% of people aged 20-35 have obtained a post-secondary degree.)
2. How well would your measure represent success for all Minnesotans? What additional measure might be needed to ensure that improvement occurred for low-income families, as well as middle and higher income families?
3. What policy choices are suggested by focusing on outcomes?
Comments:
<< Home
3. What policy choices are suggested by focusing on outcomes?
In my former corporate life, I was bemused by how top management set rigorous review processes for new capital spending and then never bothered to measure the outcomes. How did they know if the project performed as expected?
But it also made sense. The view through the windshield was more critical to the company’s health than the one in the rearview mirror. The business maintained a few key measures at the top to monitor how the company was performing, plus many predictive measures downstream to signal problems. Largely, the leader was focused on the future and what was changing in the environment.
Compared to corporate executives, legislators are subject to shorter time horizons, less agreement about goals and more second-guessing. That makes it natural to focus on more immediate consequences — not what might occur two generations down the road.
Still, I believe focusing on a few measurable outcomes for the state might help shift policy choices in these ways:
1. A renewed sense of shared purpose. Political parties tend to offer competing visions that summarize a litany of special interests. We might not be able to agree on a lot at first, but that would actually be helpful in establishing focus. A powerful vision for the state would articulate a few broad outcomes to be inspiring, with actual measures that would ground it in reality.
2. A longer investment time frame. Really important goals can’t be achieved in the short term, but require ongoing action. Defining the results we want enables better planning. Just as with retirement planning, course corrections will still be required as we go. But if we only focus on paying off the credit card each month, we’re stuck with that forever.
3. Less focus on causes and more on cause and effect. To the casual observer, a lot of policy discussion seems to proceed from political principle rather than good data about effects of actions taken. I remember Joel Kramer once asking something like, “What if vouchers were actually shown to improve overall educational outcomes. Would you support them then?” Making progress or failing to advance against our goals would force us to confront our own cherished assumptions.
4. Make it easier to change course. No one likes to be wrong. But shared goals with agreed-upon measures should make it less painful to admit it when something we supported doesn’t work.
Post a Comment
In my former corporate life, I was bemused by how top management set rigorous review processes for new capital spending and then never bothered to measure the outcomes. How did they know if the project performed as expected?
But it also made sense. The view through the windshield was more critical to the company’s health than the one in the rearview mirror. The business maintained a few key measures at the top to monitor how the company was performing, plus many predictive measures downstream to signal problems. Largely, the leader was focused on the future and what was changing in the environment.
Compared to corporate executives, legislators are subject to shorter time horizons, less agreement about goals and more second-guessing. That makes it natural to focus on more immediate consequences — not what might occur two generations down the road.
Still, I believe focusing on a few measurable outcomes for the state might help shift policy choices in these ways:
1. A renewed sense of shared purpose. Political parties tend to offer competing visions that summarize a litany of special interests. We might not be able to agree on a lot at first, but that would actually be helpful in establishing focus. A powerful vision for the state would articulate a few broad outcomes to be inspiring, with actual measures that would ground it in reality.
2. A longer investment time frame. Really important goals can’t be achieved in the short term, but require ongoing action. Defining the results we want enables better planning. Just as with retirement planning, course corrections will still be required as we go. But if we only focus on paying off the credit card each month, we’re stuck with that forever.
3. Less focus on causes and more on cause and effect. To the casual observer, a lot of policy discussion seems to proceed from political principle rather than good data about effects of actions taken. I remember Joel Kramer once asking something like, “What if vouchers were actually shown to improve overall educational outcomes. Would you support them then?” Making progress or failing to advance against our goals would force us to confront our own cherished assumptions.
4. Make it easier to change course. No one likes to be wrong. But shared goals with agreed-upon measures should make it less painful to admit it when something we supported doesn’t work.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
