 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 17:56:42
|
I have been a champion of clear and concise wording and I have tried to do that myself on Bantaba, many appear to be confused by having to write articles or information where the meaning of the words are clearly understood,here is an example of what I mean.
I for one am totally baffled as to what meaning the Author Saihou T.M.F. is trying to convey to the average Gambian reader,I would love a Bantaba member to give me a couple of clear sentences as to exactly what thoughts Saihou T.M.F is trying to express.
I am COMPLETLY lost.
My head hurts 
Performance management: Tool and processes for enhancing robust public sectors
Africa » Gambia
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Introduction
A fundamental assumption in General Systems Theory and Dynamics (as well as Cybernetics) is that it is based on the truism that for the system to be optimal, all its parts and systemic functional relationships must be in ample unison (based on the fundamental principle of unity amid diversity and diversity within unity). Equally, such relationships must be based on and underpinned by effective feed forward and feedback loops, if efficiency and effectiveness are to be obtained. This sounds rather mathematical and/or linear, strictly and only applicable to or for linear functionalism! But, to the contrary as it is indeed applicable to socio-economic and market relations which are also predicated on dynamic processes, constant evolution, wear and tear and need for change and replacement. Applying it to human society, it soon becomes imperative that the need to continually review and develop more robust and responsive social and economic development systems, relationships, methods and processes that are as participatory as all-inclusive in dealing with the underlying capacity challenges and systemic clogs, in so far as delivery of quality public goods and service are concerned, cannot be taken for granted. This is because the public sector is, at least in principle, viewed and embraced as a social and interacting system impacted by variation and positive change with interlocking dynamic feed forward and feedback loops. Its ethos espouses the imperative need for constantly re- examining statuses and relationships in the market place if, and only if, effective and responsive public service delivery, which will enhance meeting the MDGs, is to be attained.
Because development is all about improvement in human quality of life and better (if not best) communal relationships as much as change, the citizen-client is placed on a vector and such a position that he/she is constantly demanding for and expecting scaled-up, adequately responsive and verifiable improvements in the performance of the supply side of public goods and services which are under the purview of the public sector (albeit in concert with the private sector based on the principle of public-private partnership). Such clamour and demand is adroit firmly anchored on the strong belief that public sector institutions and/or organisations can (and should) improve on their current delivery approaches and efforts and if need be, as may well be the case, borrow many of their management strategies and processes from the private sector. This is particularly so because of the need for the various public sectors to minimise waste and maximise output based on the principles and processes of Performance Management (PM) with ultimate object to supporting, mainstreaming and institutionalizing ever better and sustainable customer service. It is indeed palpable that the common belief out there in the streets of nation-states is that the traditional bureaucratic systems for service delivery failed to deliver the type and quality of services that people wanted and costs tended to spiral.
In such a case there is hardly any plausible option as it basically boils down to the inescapable fact that the need for efficiency and effectiveness as well as public accountability and the mounting pressure for improved public trust is for real and in real time if achievement of targets set in the MDGs and support for poverty reduction programmes and initiatives are to be attained. Thus there is more than enough reason for the justification and institutionalization of consistent supra-ordinate policy decisions and instruments, stern and unwavering executive positions in nation-states for ensuring that ordinate institutions i.e. systems and sub-systems positively respond and strictly adhere to the call for use of Performance Management and Measurement Information Systems with the view to achieving the set of agreed performance goals, judicious and “effective demand” for allocation of resources and their timely employment.
Content
However and in as much as the demand is justified, let me immediately admit that positioning public sector performance management and measurement systems and allied processes in particularly the public and at community level is more often than not, fraught with problems as exemplified in the various cases of unanticipated consequences of human action. Thus, initiation, implementation and institutionalization necessarily draw on several important considerations as the processes are not based on a single approach. In fact, to the contrary as in some cases, it becomes a managerial tool that needs to draw on fundamental organisational goals and be set in a conceptual framework. This takes time and requires expertise and skills. Equally and quite apart from internal incorporation of performance management, effective internal and external communications are the keys to a successful PM and Measurement System. This has further implications as the processes are NOT only internal and far removed from the oft-used vertical i.e. top-down imposed systems that we are witnesses to but the result of internal and external consultations with both service providers and consumers. Tacitly, PM is integral in an organisation especially as regards its clarity of vision and purpose, strategic and enabling corporate management arrangements in finance, people and procurement all of which indicate that PM has to be an indivisible part of an organisation’s strategic planning and that it should ideally reflect its overall organisational mission, vision and goals.
The processes are not monolithic and straight-jacketed as performance measurement is one concept that different countries and public sectors choose to implement in different ways and under different conditions (both exogenous and indigenous). Technically, there are three conceptually distinct levels that must be considered in the design of an M&E System if decentralised service delivery is both a policy and legal requirement in the fabric of public sector institutions and service delivery mechanisms. Basically, there are three distinct but inter-related and duplexive levels as (1) Local Government (2) Central Government and (3) Civil Society.
The local government level ordinarily concerns itself with monitoring performance of the delivery of public goods and services as well as for assessing overall accountability and compliance to legislation and regulations. Central government is mainly concerned with monitoring as well as financial oversight and control of local governments considering the importance of fiscal transfers as one source of local government income. In addition and quite importantly, central government is to be concerned with setting of and upholding standards and quality assurance-cum-control as well as in assessing local government compliance with statutory requirements. Within civil society, the concern is enhancing the accountability of both central and local governments to society in general and the beneficiaries of the services in particular. To implement these, there are different approaches to the process of performance management but for purposes of this piece, the main steps and processes are (1) defining an organisation’s aspirations, (2) devising performance measures and targets, (3) building ownership and accountability, (4) conducting a performance review and reinforcing achievements, (5) gathering and analysing performance data and (6) reporting and using performance information.
Performance Indicators
At the forefront of an organisation’s performance measurement system, performance indicators are measurable factors of achieving an organisation’s strategic goals. Performance indicators should provide for information on used inputs, services provided, outcomes and service costs which help to determine the level of attainment of the goals. Indicators can be divided into input, output, outcome, efficiency and service quality indicators showing the degree to which customers are satisfied or not with the provided service. Input indicators measure such things as budget resources spent and staff time used for a certain service while output indicators focus on service results such as amount of water treated or number of patients treated and discharged. Outcome indicators reflect qualitative consequences associated with a service, while efficiency indicators measure inputs used per unit of output such as costs per appraisal or number of inspections per inspector. There are several rules to be followed in devising correct indicators commencing with correct identification of what should be measured and how it should be measured. What’ means the type of indicators selected, and `how’ refers to the measuring instruments used. Administrative, technical instruments and surveys can be used meeting basic criteria and having several characteristics. Indicators should also ensure a narrow and strategic focus enabling the measurement of performance against the most important corporate goals and objectives.
Performance indicators should be focused on the goal, useful for the stakeholders who will use them, robust i.e. capable of withstanding changes in organisational structure and personnel, integrated into the organisation, cost-effective, able to avoid perverse incentives, well-defined, timely, reliable, comparable, verifiable and owned by members of the team.
Performance Measurement
System Challenges
The successful implementation of a performance measurement system in the public sector, especially in LDCs, is a challenging undertaking especially that it is a relatively novel concept. There are three basic or major types of performance measurement challenges: structural, technical and implementational. Structural challenges involve ensuring a coherent fit between wider policy objectives and the organisation’s own goals, translating long-term strategic goals into short-term performance objectives; achieving a balance between outputs and outcomes and linking actions to outputs and outcomes. Technical challenges have to do with the correct set-up of internal elements of the performance measurement system i.e. correct specification of indicators, selection of appropriate targets, development of data collection and analysis systems, building appropriate links between planning, monitoring and budgeting. Implementational challenges are related to the measurement process and its predispositions such as good incentives for accurate monitoring and reporting, good incentives for the use of performance information and cost management.
Conclusion
All said and done, and with the adoption of the MDGs (and particularly with the focus on quantifiable poverty reduction and service delivery targets), establishment of a performance management framework is both a sufficient and necessary condition to be embraced at macro, meso and micro levels as the basis for using and progressively expanding PM and feed-back for effective and efficient quality service provision.
Author: by Saihou T.M.F. Sanyang Bakau Kachikally
http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/performance-management-tool-and-processes-for-enhancing-robust-public-sectors
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 18:56:10
|
I will try to help you in a few words Toubab.
Firstly, the article dont belong in the Daily Observer. If the author is writing an academic paper, it will best serve its purpose in the academic circles, say University of Gambia or in a technical magazine.
Secondly, if the author truly wants to share his "findings" ( if he had conducted any "research" at all) with the GENERAL public then he should break down this technical jungle in a language one understands.
Thirdly, the Daily Observer it seems are in dire need of stories for their paper. What in the world is this doing there? How critical are the editors? Why would this paper be of any public interest.
Fourthly, with due respect to the author, what I see here does not make me think in any way of Flying Colors!
Finally, Toubab, you need not take the pain to read this article. Now that you did and did not get a thing from it only shows that you are only perfectly normal.
Cheers! |
Tesito
|
Edited by - Senegambia on 23 Apr 2013 19:00:31 |
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 19:43:21
|
That's indeed GREAT ,I am NORMAL, Thanks Senegambia,from your reply I take it that you were also totally confused as to what the author was writing about,because you couldn't even sum up the contents to make sense of it to a Normal person,I also take it that you are,normal that is, and not an academic  totally immersed in the world of academia,nothing wrong with academics I just cannot understand them,a bit like women I suppose
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 23 Apr 2013 19:48:47 |
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 21:59:44
|
| ".... a bit like women I suppose", Lol! |
Tesito
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 23:24:03
|
Thought U would like that
quote:
Originally posted by Senegambia
".... a bit like women I suppose", Lol!
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
