Skip to main content

Measuring Results

Go Search
Home
About
New Atlas
Atlas, A-Z
Atlas Maps
MPP/MPA Programs
Subjects
Core Topics
Illustrative Courses
Topic Encyclopedia
Concept Dictionary
Competencies
Career Tips
IGOs
Best Practices Project


 

Practice Advice in Evaluation and Performance Measurement

Measuring Results (OCED)

Description: Managers should be accountable for what they do, not how they do it. Effectively implementing this is, however, very difficult in practice.

Commentary: Some government activities lend themselves to results measurement much more readily than others. For example, an agency that produces a single or a few homogenous products or services can be rather easily measured, such as an agency that issues passports. However a majority of agencies produce heterogeneous and individualised services that are very difficult to measure.

We are also faced with the choice of defining results either in terms of outputs or outcomes. Outputs are the goods and services that government agencies produce. Outcomes are the impact on, or the consequences for, the community of the outputs that are produced.  From an accountability point of view, the question arises whether you hold managers responsible for outputs or outcomes. Outputs are easier to work with in this context; but outcomes are what matters in the final analysis. A combination of the two is the optimum choice, but experience in member countries shows that one will always dominate.

If the agency’s measurement system is biased in favour of those activities that are more easily measured, there’s every likelihood that management will focus its attention disproportionately on those activities since their accountability is based on that. This creates a huge onus on those designing the agency’s measurement system to ensure that it captures all aspects of their activities which can create the problem of information overload. Agencies produce so much information that it’s very difficult for outsiders to judge which are the more important pieces of information. The lesson here is for agencies to differentiate between the measurements they do for internal purposes and those they perform for external purposes. A weighed index of various internal measures may be the optimum solution for an external audience.

Source: OECD (2003). Budget Reform in OECD Member Countries: Common Trends at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/budget-reform-in-oecd-member-countries-common-trends_budget-v2-art20-en (accessed 21 October, 2012).

Page Created By: Matthew Seddon on 1 November 2012. Updated on 2 January 2013 by Ian Clark. The content presented on this page is drawn directly from the source(s) named above, and consists of direct quotations or close paraphrases of material drawn from it. This material does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the creator of this page or the researchers associated with this project. Further, the opinions expressed in the source and presented on this page do not necessarily reflect the official institutional positions of the organization responsible for the source’s publication.

 Concepts relevant to this Best Practice

 Other Best Practices relevant to this Best Practice

 Other Resources relevant to this Best Practice


Important Notices
© University of Toronto 2008
School of Public Policy and Governance