Outcomes That Matter
Report for ORL Key Project 5.1
JUNE 2007
Author: Fiona Johnson
Published by:
Department of Primary Industries Catchment and Agriculture Services
Acknowledgments:
The author wishes to thank the ORL 5.1 team for their endless enthusiasm and intellectual stimulation over the life of the ORL project and the development of the Outcomes Framework. I am particularly grateful to the members of the Adoption Strategy Community of Practice who have used the Outcomes Framework in its various forms and have contributed enormously to its' development. Finally, I have a deep gratitude to my research mentor, Dr Jean Sandall, whose patient guidance and encouragement has been invaluable.
Table of Contents
- Background
- Context – Department of Primary Industries
- Context – Rural Victoria
- Summary
- Critical issues for Program Managers
- Introduction
- Creating Value
- Competition and Rivalry
- Conclusion
- Outcomes Framework
- Outcomes Framework Questions
- Reference List
Background
Public sector Program Managers are faced with the difficult decision of what they should do to ensure the outputs they produce deliver outcomes that are valued by Government and the community. How do they choose what to do when the outcomes their purchasers fund them to deliver are often broad and there are many possible paths to take? They are always faced with the issue of limited resources within their program and within the public sector and so can't fully achieve the outcomes alone. They have to partner with other individuals or groups to fully achieve their program outcomes and they know that some of them will have little incentive to work with them. They need to take into account the views of the clients they are delivering to because experience shows that what the client wants is often very different from what the purchasers wants. As Program Managers they are held accountable for achieving their program outcomes even though changes are constantly occurring – often in surprising ways. Changes that impact on the effectiveness of their activities to deliver on their program outcome and even on the value purchasers see in their program outcomes. In fact, there are so many interrelated factors to consider that Program Managers know in their hearts that the plans they make are only dealing with a small part of what they need to manage and that the plans aren't really that helpful in guiding their decisions over time. Finally, at the end of the day they are very aware that their ability to maintain their resources depends on the decisions they make and how well that translates into the outcomes they achieve compared with other competing programs.
The challenge of delivering on outcomes has led Program Managers to draw on a wide range of tools and frameworks such as program logic, risk analysis and route to market strategies. Although these tools are useful in their own right, when there is so much to consider, the questions remain 'What are the critical issues I need to manage to ensure my program delivers an outcome that matters to the purchasers, the clients and the people of Victoria?'
This paper is part of a series of reports produced by the Victorian Government Our Rural Landscape project 'Linking policy and practice: increasing impact by more effectively connecting new products and knowledge with decision makers". The project team has examined trends in public sector governance (Petris 2005), social changes occurring in rural Victoria (Barr 2005) and drawn on policy case studies to develop approaches to network governance (Gooey 2005, Howden 2004, Hulme 2006) and service delivery (Johnson 2004, 2005). Drawing from this previous work, this paper begins by describing the context in which DPI Program Managers operate both in the public sector and in rural Victoria. The paper then draws on a range of literature from strategy, business management and public sector policy to describe the fundamental dimensions of the challenge Program Managers in DPI are facing. The paper concludes by outlining a practical framework for Program Managers to use to assist them in delivering outcomes that matter.
Context – Department of Primary Industries
Program Managers make decisions around what they should do to ensure that the outputs they produce deliver policy outcomes in the context of the system of government and governance they operate. In the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) governance has been strongly influenced by the public sector reforms now known as 'New Public Management' (NPM) (Petris 2005). These reforms were introduced by the Kennett government in the 1990s and drew heavily on theoretical perspectives from private sector management and economics. At a departmental level, the key elements of the reforms were - the increased use of market mechanisms and competition in the provision of services (eg contracting out, purchaser- provider split) and an increased emphasis on private sector management methods (eg explicit objectives and performance measures, output measurement (Davis 2004). Whilst the reforms associated with NPM have created significant benefits limitations have emerged.
In response to the limitations, Governments around the world are now implementing a range of governance reforms to NPM such as 'joined up government', 'integrated governance' and 'place management'(Petris 2005). The core of these reforms is to achieve government policy outcomes by facilitating the integration of services and by increasing collaboration across government.
In the public sector literature however, there are discussions that these changes to NPM are not enough and that a fundamentally new form of public governance is needed (Stoker 2006). It is argued that the public sector environment is now essentially different where government is expected to resolve complex problems around which the community often has disparate views as to what is a valuable outcome for government to pursue and how it should go about it. This new form of public sector governance is described as 'network governance' (Considine and Lewis 2003, Petris 2005). The key features include an acceptance by government that it is not in control of the policy outcome or of implementation and that Government is interdependent with the broader community and a host of government and non-government service providers if it is to deliver on its policy objectives.
In DPI the influence of NPM and these more recent public sector reforms on governance has been strong. Private sector style management techniques are widely used across DPI. A range of project management training courses are available and project management skills are specified in many position descriptions. The private sector approach has spawned a number of business wide initiatives such as the implementation of Australian Business Excellence Framework and the Balanced Scorecard. A strategic directions and positioning initiative has emerged which works across DPI to develop business and corporate strategies and positions units within DPI and within government (Wenn 2006).
At a program level, a project management approach is used across the majority of DPI with defined objectives, outputs and milestones. The use of program logic or theory of action to develop the rationale for projects is widespread with evaluation mandated using a standard tool (Bennett's hierarchy). A stronger emphasis on outcomes is emerging and has led to the introduction of 'route to market' strategies as an adjunct to projects and an active Evaluation Community of Practice that is providing additional evaluation tools to Bennett's hierarchy.
Although a purchaser provider model exists across DPI the level of rivalry experienced by Program Managers for funding varies considerably. In parts of DPI funds are allocated consistently to programs from year to year and program mangers allocate resources to their ongoing programs and performance is measured by outputs. At the other extreme, Program Managers compete annually for funds either from sources within DPI or from external organisations. Program Managers put forward new projects and can be competing with other programs within DPI and in many cases, programs from external organisations. Performance is increasingly measured through the achievement of outcomes. Rivalry is high amongst these Program Managers and attempts to encourage collaboration between groups has been largely unsuccessful.
Consistent with the reforms under NPM, the business of DPI has moved more and more into the area of public good with market failure used as a key criteria for determining funding priorities (AD 2006). This has resulted in two key changes. The first is the move of a range of functions out of DPI that could be provided by the private sector (eg. soil testing). The move of functions outside DPI means that Program Managers in DPI commonly work with partners outside DPI. PIRVic researchers partner with the private sector as they provide their 'route to market' for their research products. DPI Animal Health Officers partner with private sector Vets to manage disease outbreaks. Catchment Implementation Officers work with water authorities, local government and the private sector to deliver on catchment outcomes. This partnership approach is in line with the governance reforms under Joined Up Government and the increasing use of formal agreements such as MOUs and Service Level Agreements indicate the long term nature of many of these partnerships. The interdependence of DPI and their partners in delivering government outcomes has seen the formation of the Community Relationship Managers whose role is to initiate and maintain relationships with key DPI stakeholders.
The second impact of moving towards a stronger public good role for DPI is the reduced alignment between the priorities of clients (eg land managers) and those of DPI. This has meant that, for CAS and PIRVic in particular, traditional approaches that depend on the alignment of priorities between the parties such as extension are not necessarily effective in achieving program outcomes. In response to the need for non traditional approaches, CAS has formed the Practice Change Platform which aims to research change and build capacity in new approaches for DPI.
Context – Rural Victoria
In recent times it has been recognised that farming and rural Victoria in general is under going fundamental change (Barr 2005, DSE 2005). Barr reports on the emergence of three distinctive social landscapes in rural Victoria that are being shaped by global economic and social trends. The first is the agricultural production landscape. This landscape fits many traditional views of farming and rural Victoria and is characterised by low competition for land from other uses than agriculture. This means that land prices are low enough for farmers to be able to respond to the ever decreasing terms of trade for agriculture through increasing farm size. As a consequence farms are getting larger and the population is declining. The communities in agricultural production landscapes are focussed around farming and the towns are dependent on the health of the agricultural industries. Population decline means that towns are dying, services such as banks are leaving and service clubs are struggling to keep up membership. The age profile in agricultural production landscapes is getting older as the young have to leave for larger towns in search of work, education and experience.
The second landscape is the amenity landscape. This landscape is in areas where the land is close to urban centres, has good views, is near water or has a moderate climate. It is characterised by an increased population of small and lifestyle land owners who compete for land. As a consequence land prices have risen to a point that excludes most broad acre farming. Broad acre farmers are forced to explore paths to productivity that do not require land purchase such as off farm income or intensification. The population in amenity landscapes is constantly being fed by migrants from outside the district and from major urban centres. Land managers in the amenity landscape have very diverse .priorities and diverse levels of skills to put their plans in place (Hollier 2005).
The last landscape described by Barr is the transitional landscape. Transitional landscapes are characterised by changing agricultural land uses such as from wool to prime lamb and to alternative uses such as forestry and wind energy. The traditional land uses in transitional landscapes are no longer viable and land managers are seeking alternatives. Populations may not necessarily decline as there is some migration into transitional landscapes by people looking for a rural lifestyle because the price of land is cheaper than in the amenity landscapes. The changing land uses and population diversity in transitional landscapes brings inevitable conflict and the challenge is to mediate between the different uses without threatening the social cohesion of the community.
Summary
The challenges facing Program Managers vary considerably across DPI. Program Managers may or may not face significant rivalry for funds. Performance may be measured by outputs or by the achievement of outcomes. Program outcomes may be closely aligned with the priorities of land managers or substantially different. The program may need to partner with one other group to deliver on their outcomes or with a complex network of partners. Finally significant changes might be happening that impact on how their program is valued or on how effective their program is in delivering that outcome – or it might not.
Programs in DPI exist at each extreme and every combination between. This means the critical issues a program manager needs to deal with are likely to differ substantially to those of their peers but also change over time. The next section draws on a range of literature to identify the critical strategic issues for Program Managers and to guide the development of a tool to assist Program Managers reveal the critical issues their program is facing.
Critical issues for Program Managers
Introduction
The issues facing Program Managers in DPI (ie competition, change in the value of their program and the effectiveness on how they achieve their program outcome) are related to those of organisational strategy. Organisational strategy requires an organisation to deliberately consider their objectives, and the achievement of them, in the context of their internal capabilities (resources, funds skills etc) and their external environment (purchaser priorities, landholder priorities, competitors etc). The resulting strategy creates a set of principles and rules for the way activities, processes and resources are configured to achieve the organisation's objectives (Kaine 2007). Although DPI is a public sector organisation, the introduction of competition through the NPM governance reforms has increased the relevance of private sector organisational strategy to Program Managers alongside developments in public sector strategy.
Organisational strategy is a well developed concept from the private sector – in essence it is about ensuring organisational survival by producing profits. Private sector organisations do this in two ways. The first is to direct organisational effort towards the creation of value for customers. The second is to direct organisational effort into anticipating and out manoeuvring competitors' actions in their attempts to capture customers. In the public sector the role of organisational strategy is not as clear or as well developed as in the private sector. Although Moore (Moore 1995) sees that strategy is still an essential ingredient for a public sector manager he considers its purpose is not about survival but more about creating 'public value'. This means that the issues facing Program Managers are, like in the private sector, about directing organisational effort towards the creation of value. In the private sector this is about satisfying customers while Moore asserts in the public sector this is about satisfying "the desires that citizens express through the institutions of representative government' (Moore 1995). The introduction of competition for resources under the NPM reforms means that for Program Managers competitors exist and they must, as in the private sector, consider what effort they put into anticipating and out manoeuvring those competitors. The importance a program manager places on directing resources to anticipate and out manoeuvre competitors will depend on the level of rivalry that exists between the competitors.
The following explores the two critical issues for Program Managers of creating value and responding to competitors and how the variability that exists across DPI programs can be revealed.
Creating Value
The existing resources and capabilities the program manager has available creates boundaries around what value the program can create. Resources can be both tangible and intangible (Hubbard 2000). Tangible resources include items such as buildings, equipment and finances. Intangible resources are harder to define and are more varied. They include skills, reputation and value. Capabilities are the processes or systems that the program uses to coordinate the resources for productive use. Capabilities include decision making processes, reward systems and approaches to process improvement. In operating environments that are highly competitive it is important for Program Managers to understand which of the resources and capabilities have strategic value. Hubbard defines strategic capabilities as 'those capabilities that are rare, are better that the capabilities of competitors and are difficult to imitate or replicate'. To increase the unique value a program manager must not only know what the programs capabilities are but also which capabilities will be important to satisfying purchaser priorities.
Identifying purchaser priorities in the public sector, however is not straightforward. Two key challenges exist. The first challenge is to define the priorities where no true market exists to reveal the collective preferences of the 'citizenry' as role of the public sector has been defined increasingly as being in the area of market failure. Market failure occurs 'when prices lie – that is when the prices of goods and services give false signal about their real value' (Donehue 1991, 18 in Bozeman 2001). The assumption underpinning the concept of market failure is that private organisations allocate resources most efficiently under ideal conditions of competition, information flow and in absence of externalities. For the public sector to play a legitimate role these conditions must not exist (ie there must be market failure or efficiency must not be the key criterion for allocating resources). Given that the ideal conditions of competition rarely exist, two areas of analysis emerge that are relevant to identifying a purchaser's priorities. The first is to determine when and how markets are sufficiently imperfect for public intervention and how this aligns with the program capabilities. The second, is to understand if other criterion than efficiency exist that determine the priorities of purchasers and, if so, what are they.
The second challenge emerges because of the separation of purchasers and Program Managers (providers) in Victorian government. This means that changes in the preferences of purchasers are largely invisible to providers. In reverse, changes in the operating environment of providers that impact on the relevance of services to clients are largely invisible to purchasers. This is particularly an issue given the relationship between purchasers and providers is commonly mediated through contracts with performance monitored through specified outputs that are detached from any signals that might indicate changes in the needs of clients. It is therefore important for providers to understand the dynamics of the factors in their environment and the purchasers' environment and how they impact on the services they are delivering and the value they create.
The dynamics in the purchasers priorities can, at least in part, be predicted through the plans and priorities of the purchaser's purchasers. A key feature of the competitive operating environment for Program Managers in DPI is the distribution of resources through internal quasi–markets (ie. purchaser- provider model) (Stewart 2004). The 'purchasers' specify outputs or outcomes to be achieved and the 'providers' bid for the work and hence the resources. These quasi-markets operate at all levels of government and means that in one context an individual may be the purchaser and in another the provider. This creates a chain of nested quasi – markets linked through a hierarchy of plans where the preferences of the purchaser are constrained and informed by the preferences of their purchaser. For a program manager, it is not only important to understand how their program capabilities align with the priorities of their direct purchaser but also with the chain of purchasers' priorities.
For Program Managers understanding their strategic capabilities and the purchaser's priorities is not enough to ensure they create sufficient value to maintain a competitive advantage. One reason for this is that in the public sector the purchasers, who are paying for the services, are different from the clients who are the recipients of the services (Wright 1994, Alford 2001). This means that two, sometimes conflicting, perceptions of what is a unique and valuable service can exist. In addition, in the case of professional services such as health care, scientific research or education, what professional staff consider is valuable can be different again (Wright 1994). Program management is about identifying and rectifying deviations that will limit ability to achieve the planned outcome (Wright 1994). This means that understanding customer and client preferences must focus on identifying where the preferences of their customers and their clients align and where they differ.
For Program Managers in DPI, the ultimate clients are private land managers. Land managers priorities, at any given time, are a function of their needs and the imperatives imposed on them from their operating environment. Kaine states (Kaine et al 2007) that the needs of the land manager emerge from their farm context. Farm context is defined by Kaine as the network of variables in a farm system that shapes the benefits to be had from a farm innovation. The farm context, however, does not account for the dynamics in land manager needs.
The imperatives that are imposed by the operating environment depend on the business strategy and tactics the farmer is utilising to remain viable. Private land managers involved in farming enterprises broadly operate in industries where the direct rivalry between producers is low and the producers have limited control over the prices they pay for their inputs or for the prices they receive for their products. Prices for both the inputs and for the products can vary unpredictably over time as they are affected by climatic extremes such as drought and global production and demand. Survival for farmers depends on their ability to match the unpredictability in the operating environment by making the most of the good times and surviving the bad times (Wright 1984). Storing hay, off farm income, minimising costs, flexible cropping options are all part of farmers coping with variety and unpredictability in their operating environment. The adoption of innovations and farming systems that provide the flexibility to respond to the variety a farmer perceives to exist are one tactic farmers have to ensure survival.
Where low rivalry exists between producers the other option is to form cooperative relationships with other producers to increase their influence over the prices of inputs and of outputs to reduce their variability.
Land managers that operate in farming system enterprises where producers have some control over price can focus on differentiating their product through quality attributes such as product reliability, product features, service levels and branding. These approaches are evident in horticulture and producers that are part of 'food trails'.
Hence, to understand the gap between purchaser priorities and client (ie. landholder) priorities requires an understanding of the land holder needs and the impact of changes in the operating environment.
The reduction in the size and role of the public sector has created a complex organisational environment for public sector providers. Prior to public sector reforms, the services to deliver a policy outcome may have sat within one or perhaps two government departments. Services now however, span many private sector organisations with the public sector having a reduced role. This means that public sector providers are often unable to deliver the value that meet purchasers' priorities on their own. Three broad types of relationships exist - cooperative, coordinative and collaborative (Mandell 2006). Cooperative relationships only involve the sharing of information or expertise with each party remaining quite independent. Coordinative relationships involve the integration of services to improve efficiency. Participants see benefits from the coordination and although independent will make changes 'at the edges'. Finally collaborative relationships are when the parties come together in relation to a shared problem that they recognise they can not solve alone. They are no longer independent of each other and are willing to make significant changes to their operations. In the public sector, because of the distribution of authority and roles within and outside government, these relationships are often obligatory (Kaine 2007). This means that Program Managers must cooperate, coordinate or collaborate with partners who may see little value in the relationship, have very different organisational culture and priorities or may even be direct in direct competition for resources (Lourey 2005). To be successful Program Managers need to understand the services needed to deliver on the outcomes, who is delivering the services, and the complexity of the relationship required. They must then predict if the required services will be delivered in a way that is consistent with the outcome and if not what if anything they can do to ensure consistency.
Competition and Rivalry
The introduction of the purchaser provider model into DPI has created a competitive environment for Program Managers. The experience of competition however varies across DPI depending of the degree of rivalry that exists between competing programs. Rivalry occurs because one or more competitors feel the pressure or sees the opportunity to improve their position (Porter 1980). Rivalry intensifies as a result of a number of structural forces (Porter 1980). A slow or declining industry growth means that any expansion by one program must be at the expense of another program. The entrance of a new 'player' creates the same impact. This provokes a response from existing programs as they try to maintain their current share of the funding. Industries with high fixed costs, such as an inflexible workforce, increase the pressure for programs to ensure a constant share of the funding. Programs may respond by under costing work to ensure they 'win'. Where purchasers experience little or no costs in switching support from one program to another the funding environment will be seen as volatile and this will increase rivalry between programs. Finally, if a program has a limited number of funding sources they have high stakes in ensuring they maintain funding and will take strong moves against other programs.
All these structural forces exist in some parts of DPI and are virtually absent in other parts of DPI. Where rivalry is high, Program Managers with be focussed on using a range of strategies (and on seeking new strategies) to increase the value they create for purchasers and on anticipating and outmanoeuvring competitors.
Summary
The critical issues in creating value that a Program Managers needs to direct resources can be summarised as follows –
In summary, the Outcomes Framework asks Program Managers -
- To identify the programs strategic capabilities
- To identify which purchaser priorities the program can satisfy
- To identify when and how markets have failed enough for government intervention
- To understand if other criterion than efficiency exist that determine the priorities of purchasers and, if so, what are they
- To understand the priorities of the chain of purchasers so that dynamics in the purchasers priorities can be predicted.
- To understand where the priorities of the purchaser and the client ie land manager align and where they differ.
- To understand land holder needs
- To understand the impact of changes in the operating environment on land holder priorities.
- To determine what services the program will provide
- To understand the services needed to deliver on the outcomes
- To identify who is currently delivering any of the services
- To understand the complexity of the relationship required
- To predict if the required services will be delivered in a way that is consistent with the outcome and if not what if anything they can do to ensure consistency.
- To identify what changes will impact on the value of the program outcome or on the effectiveness of the program activities in delivering the outcome.
The relative use of the resources to respond to competitors will depend on the level of rivalry that exists between competitors. To understand the level of rivalry the Program Manager should consider –
- Is the industry that the program sits growing, stagnant or retracting?
- Are there new competitors entering the industry?
- Does the program (and its competitors) have a high level of fixed costs such as salaries?
- Do the purchasers face high, medium or low switching costs if they move from funding one program to another?
- Does the program (and its competitors) have a range of sources of funding that it can access?
Conclusion
The job of the DPI Program Manager to deliver on program outcomes presents a number of fundamental challenges. These challenges are related to control, uncertainty and unpredictability, and the divergence of priorities. How a Program Manager responds to these challenges depends on the level of rivalry they experience from other programs.
Public sector reforms over the past 20 years have resulted in smaller government, and the inter dependence of programs, individuals and organisations both internal and external to DPI. This means that Program Managers may have limited control over the successful delivery of program outcomes and need to have the skills and resources to understand if individuals and organisations will act in ways that contribute to program outcomes or , if not, what they can do about it.
The complexity of managing for outcomes, by its very nature, means that Program Managers will have large gaps in their knowledge and understanding. Uncertainty and unpredictability is the norm and planning and managing programs as if they are fully cognisant of the facts and the dynamics that exist will 'bring them undone". Program Management is about awareness of the residual uncertainty that exists and the impact that this uncertainty will have on the achievement of program outcomes. It is about understanding the implications of the inevitable surprises that will occur and being able to respond accordingly.
For Program Managers, delivering 'outcomes that matter' means creating public value. In the public sector, value emerges out of four key sources - the purchaser, the parent organisation, the client (ie. land manager) and the program team itself. Each of these sources of value has different priorities and different forces operating on them. To create public value the Program Manager needs to understand the priorities of each of the sources of value and also manage the inevitable tensions between them.
How these factors influence the Program Manager's priorities depends on the level of rivalry they experience. Where there is a high level of rivalry the stakes for the Program Manager are high. Program Managers will respond by trying to increase the likelihood of success by increasing their control, reducing uncertainty and unpredictability and minimising tensions between the priorities of key stakeholders. It is not hard to see how these factors could lead Program Managers to avoid complex and contested program outcomes. Where rivalry is low, the drive to meet these significant challenges is also low as the link between performance and securing resources is low. Again it is not hard to see that there is an incentive for Program Managers to avoid complex and contested program outcomes.
The delivery of 'outcomes that matter' has implications related to control, uncertainty and unpredictability and divergence of priorities for Program Managers. Not only are new skills and resources required to cope with these implications but also the principles that underpin the decisions made at a program and organisations level need to change. This means radical change for DPI and the implications for Program Manager and DPI should not be underestimated.
Outcomes Framework
The Outcomes Framework is designed to be used both in the planning phase and during implementation of a program. It is iterative in nature and although it is laid out in a linear fashion it has no real beginning or end. It is usual for Program Managers to commence with an outcome or objective in mind and even a program of activities. These are based on the current skills, knowledge, resources and relationships the program has available. The Outcomes Framework can then highlight the assumptions that underpin the program, highlight potential changes and reveal dynamics that will impact on the value of the outcome and on the relevance of the program activities to achieving the outcome. The iterative nature means that the user will need to return to different parts of the Outcomes Framework as answers to questions leads them to change either their outcome or their activities.
The Outcomes Framework is in the format of a series of questions which should be answered in conjunction with the Level of Evidence Framework (Table 1). This assists in identifying how reliable our knowledge is and leads us to reveal the assumptions we are making about the factors or dynamics that impact on the value or activities we would put in place. Decisions can then be made to do further work to test the assumptions or to proceed with implementation whilst looking for evidence from practice that our assumptions were correct or otherwise. Sign posts are provided to references and frameworks the program manager can use to test the assumptions.
| Code | Evidence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Systematic review and meta analysis of two or more double-blind randomised control trials |
| 2 | One or more large double blind randomised control trials |
| 3 | One or more well-conducted comparable studies |
| 4 | An uncontrolled experiment with clear results |
| 5 | Expert committee sitting in review |
| 6 | Peer leader opinion |
| 7 | Personal experience |
Table 1: Evidence Framework
Source: Adapted from Nuttley 2005
At points in the Outcomes Framework there will be questions related to relative alignment of the priorities of different groups. The Alignment Scale (see Diag 1) can be used to reveal issues with alignment that are likely to create tensions in the program that need to be managed.
Diag 1 : Relative Alignment Scale
Outcomes Framework Questions
1. Identify the programs strategic capabilities
| Resources and Capabilities area | Program resources and capabilities |
|---|---|
| Tangible Equipment Buildings Products Data bases Other |
|
| Intangible Reputation Relationships with partners Relationships with investors Relationships with land managers Industry knowledge Technical knowledge Skills Other Processes and Systems Stakeholder management Project management Budget management Laboratory systems Service delivery Culture Values Attitudes Informal structures Innovation Learning Other |
Strategic Capabilities
| Capability area | Program capabilities |
|---|---|
| What capabilities do you have that are rare? | |
| What capabilities do you have that are difficult to copy? | |
| What capabilities do you have that are valued by your investors? | |
| What capabilities do you have that are better than your competitors? | |
| What are the capabilities that meet all the criteria? |
Relevant references and frameworks:
Hubbard, G, 2000, 'Strategic Management Thinking, Analysis and Action', A, Green, E, Thomas and R, van Nooten (eds),. Pearson Education Australia. Printed in Malaysia, GPS.
2. Identify which purchaser priorities the program can satisfy
2a To identify when and how markets have failed enough for government intervention
| Market Failure | Yes – in what way? No |
Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Externalities – are there any impacts on others that are caused by the actions of the relevant individuals or groups? Eg Positive impacts – immunisation aor negative impacts eg pollution. | ||
| Public goods – Are the goods or services your program provides available to every community member who wants to use them or benefit by them and that use doesn't diminish their availability for others? Eg levee protection from floods. | ||
| Information failure- Is there poor exchange of information that results in uninformed decisions. |
Ha, A.. (2006) "Role of Government and Researchers' Incentives: Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension", Economics & Policy Research Branch, Working Paper, July.
2b What criterion other than efficiency exist that determine the priorities of purchasers and, if so, what are they?
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|
| What event has triggered the interest in investors | ||
| Describe the problem from their perspective | ||
| What are the strategic priorities of the investors that are relevant to what value your program can create | ||
| What principles are used in making the investment decisions ? What are the attributes of the programs and Program Managers that get support? Is there a pattern? Which principles appear to be most important? |
||
| How would your program create value for the purchaser? |
2c Understand the priorities of the chain of purchasers so that dynamics in the purchasers priorities can be predicted
| Question | Level of alignment | Level of evidence | Assumptions – impact if assumption incorrect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are there emerging policy changes? What are the principles that underpin the new directions? Are they aligned with the priorities of the current purchasers? | |||
| What are the priorities of your parent organisation? Are they aligned with the purchaser priorities? | |||
| What changes could occur that would change the investor's priorities? | |||
| What changes could occur that would change the priorities of the group that provides the investors with resources |
Relevant references and frameworks:
AD Investment Handbook 2006 www.dpi.vic.gov.au
AD Investment Performance Report 2005-06 www.dpi.vic.gov.au
DPI Corporate Plan 2004-07 www.dpi.vic.gov.au
3a. Understand land holder needs.
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Who needs to change? What are they doing currently? What do they need to do differently? How many need to change? Where does the change need to occur? How will we know we have been successful? | ||
| Who believes the issue your program is addressing is important/un important. Why do they think that? | ||
| What benefits does the change/innovation create? Who is this a benefit for? What are the physical and human contextual factors that these land holders share? Who does this create a cost in some way? What are the physical and human contextual factors that these land holders share? | ||
| What type of change do they need to make? What barriers does this create? |
Relevant references and frameworks:
Kaine Framework - Kaine G (2004) Consumer Behaviour as a Theory of Innovation Adoption in Agriculture, Social Research Working Paper 01/04, AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand.
I3 Framework – Murdoch et al 'Understanding people's response to biosecurity regulation'
3b. Understand the impact of changes in the operating environment on land holder priorities
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Have there been any changes in the markets, the weather or other factors external to the farm that impact on their profitability? | ||
| What impacts do these changes have to the benefits or costs your program creates for the landholders? Are these changes likely to stay for some time? | ||
| What changes could occur that would mean that your program is no longer relevant to land managers? |
4. Alignment
What changes could occur that would mean that your program is no longer relevant to land managers?
Diag 3: Relative alignment of stakeholder priorities
| Stakeholders | Relative alignment (see Diag 1) |
Issues | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchaser and Program capabilities | |||
| Purchaser and land manager | |||
| Purchaser and parent organisation | |||
| Parent organisation and program | |||
| Parent organisation and land manager | |||
| Program and land manager |
5. To determine what services/activities the program will provide
5a. To understand the services needed to deliver on the outcomes.
| Questions | Assumptions | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| What is the balance between the public benefit/cost and the private benefit/cost from the desired changes in practice? | ||
| Do the land managers see the achievement of the outcome as important, unimportant or are they un- interested? Which land managers? | ||
| Do the land managers see the changes that are wanted – - create a benefit for them? In what way? Describe the landholders. - Create costs for them? In what way? Describe the land managers. - Create little benefit or cost? |
||
Relevant references and frameworks:
Johnson et al 2006 A framework for selecting policy instruments in Natural Resource Management
5b. To identify who is currently delivering any of the services
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Who is important to help you achieve your outcome and the next steps you need to take? What role or services are they providing? Why are they providing that role or service? |
Relevant references and frameworks:
Hulme, A. 'Network Management Workbook' Department of Primary Industries, 2000
5c. To understand the complexity of the relationship required
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| How often and over what time frame do they need to play that role or deliver those services? | ||
| Do you need to invest in changes to form the relationship? Do they need to invest in changes to form the relationship? (skills, knowledge or equipment) | ||
| What are the specific requirements of the role/activity/outputs you want the partner to play? | ||
| How significant is the role of the other party in the successful delivery of the outcome? | ||
| Are you likely to work with this partner in the future? |
5d. To predict if the required services will be delivered in a way that is consistent with the outcome and, if not, what if anything they can do to ensure consistency.
| Questions | Assumptions | Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| How significant is this role to the partner? How well does it fit with their objectives? | ||
| Does the other party have to make changes to the way they work, use additional resources or develop new skills? Is so what are they? | ||
| Have you worked with this partner before? How successful was that partnership? | ||
| Are there any formal agreements eg contracts, MOUs between the partners |
Relevant references and frameworks:
Kaine, G and Keeble B 2007, Organisational Relationships and the Implementation of Natural Resource Policy, Department of Primary Industries
HowdenP, 2007, So you think you can manage in a complex network, Department of Primary Industries,
Kaine, G, Higson, M, 2006, Policy change as an innovation, Practice Change Research Working Paper 02/06 Department of Primary Industries
6. What changes will impact on
- The value of the program outcome, or
- The effectiveness of the program activities in delivering the outcome?
| Questions | Assumptions |
|---|---|
| What assumptions must be right to ensure the program outcome is still considered valuable? What level of evidence do you have to support those assumptions? | |
| What assumptions must be right to deliver the program outcomes? What level of evidence do you have to support those assumptions? | |
| What changes could occur that would mean the program outcome is no longer considered to be valuable? What processes do you have to predict and monitor for these changes? | |
| What changes could occur that would mean the program activities would no longer deliver the program outcome? What processes do you have to predict and monitor for these changes? |
Reference List
AD Investment Handbook 2006, Department of Primary Industries, www.dpi.vic.gov.au
Alford, J, 2001, 'Defining the customer in the public sector: a social exchange perspective', Working Paper, Melbourne Business School, Victoria
Barr, N, 2005, 'The Changing Social Landscape of Rural Victoria' Department of Primary Industries Tatura. pp, 4-17
Bozeman, B, 2002, 'Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do' Public Administration Review – March/April 2002, vol 62,No.2, pp. 145 – 161
Conklin, J, 2001-2005, 'Wicked Problems and Social Complexity¹' Chapter 1 in the book Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems, John Wiley & Sons. 2001-2005 CogNexus Institute, pp1-25.
Davis, G and Rhodes, RAW, 2004.'From hierarchy to contracts and back again: reforming the Australian public service' in Institutions on the Edge? Capacity for Governance edited by: Keating, Michael, Wanna, John and Weller Patrick. pp.74-98
DSE 2005, Regional Matters- An Atlas of Regional Victoria
Gooey M, Howden P (2004) 'The relevance of social and human capital to public policy development and delivery.' Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, Victoria.
Hollier C, Reid M, 2005 Improving Delivery Mechanisms for Sustainable Land Management in the Small Farm Sector, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
Howden PF & Gooey M (2004) Insights from social capital for managing complex policy problems. Paper presented to the 'Social Capital: Past, Present and Future Symposium', Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Hubbard, G, 2000, 'Stratetegic Management Thinking, Analysis and Action', A, Green, E, Thomas and R, van Nooten (eds),. Pearson Education Australia. Printed in Malaysia, GPS.
Hulme, A 2006, Network Management Workbook, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
Johnson F, Linehan C, Vigliaturo J, Beckingsale D 2004 'Science Product Development Framework.' Department of Primary Industries, Tatura, Victoria.
Johnson F 2005 'Outcomes Framework.' Department of Primary Industries, Tatura, Victoria.
Johnson, F, 2007, "Linking Policy and Practice: Increasing Impact by more effectively connecting new products and knowledge with decision makers", Department of Primary Industries, Final Report for Project ORL 5.1
Kaine, G, Lees, J and Sandall, J, 1994, 'Planning and Performance: An exploration of farm business strategy and perceptions of control', TRDC Publication No. 192, RIRDC University of New England Armidale, NSW 2351
Kaine G, Keeble B 2007, Organisational Relationships and the Implementation of natural resource policy. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
Kaine G, Lees J, Wright V 2007, An approach to predicting Demand for an Agricultural Innovation. Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Queenstown, New Zealand
Lourey, R, Kaine G, Johnson F 2005, The incorporation of Research Products into the Product offerings of provate Service Providers. Department of Primary Industries
Mandell, M 2006, Do Networks Matter: The Ideals and Realities. Governments and Communities in Partnership conference, Melbourne,Victoria
Moore, H, 1995, 'Creating Public Value Strategic Management in Government', Harvard University Press, London
Nutley S, Walter I, Davies H, 2002, From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Discussion Paper !. Department of Management, University of St Andrews,Scotland
Pannell, DJ, 2006, 'Public benefits, private benefits, and the choice of policy tool for land-use change', School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity. pp, 1-18.
Petris, S, 2005, 'Making Sense of Recent Developments in Public Sector Governance', Department of Primary Industries, pp, 1-42
Porter, ME, 'Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors', Collier Macmillan Publishers, London
Scholes, K, 'Strategy and structures in the public sector' Exploring public sector strategy, pp. 232-249.
Stewart, J, 2004, 'The meaning of strategy in the public sector', Australian Journal of Public Administration.63(4): 16-21 December 2004. pp, 16-21
Stoker, G 2006, Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration.2006; 36: 41-57
Wenn P 2006, DPI's Strategic Direction and Position: Communication & Ownership, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
Wright, V, 1994, 'The Strategic Implications of the Separation of Client and Customer Roles', Paper contributed to the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 7-10 December 1994, Wellington, New Zealand. pp. 1-11
Wright, VE, 1984, Farm Planning: A Business Management Perspective, Book, Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of New England.
