adminMilton Nyamadzawo
Correspondent
The implementation of result-based management in administration is the epicentre of Government performance.
Public managers’ performances need to be enhanced in order to ensure consistent governance output to achieve set goals.
Application of results-based management in human resources administration facilitates a holistic process which introduces organisational aims; team and individual objectives development; effective measurement and assessment of employee performance; the matching of rewards to good performance; and the provision of feedback.
Results-based human resources management requires — (a) systematically deciding and communicating what needs to be done (aims, objectives, priorities and targets); (b) a plan for ensuring that it happens (improvement, action or service plans); (c) some means of assessing if this has been achieved (performance measures); and (d) information reaching the right people at the right time (performance reporting) so that decisions are made and accountability levels raised for consequence management.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines a results-based management framework as “a management strategy focusing on performance and achievement of outputs, outcomes, and impacts”, adopted to improve result delivery through “strategic planning; systematic implementation; effective resource usage; performance monitoring, measurement and reporting, and evaluation” (Thomas, 2008).
The World Bank has adopted this definition and augments it by saying that public sector reforms for RBM should focus on: Performance issues and achieving results with emphasis on participation and teamwork; and budget processes and financial systems focused on ‘value-for-money’ in the budget processes and financial systems. Although most practitioners agree on what results-based management represents, its implementation differs due to a lack of standardisation. Results-based management, thus, represents a fundamental shift in the philosophy of public management.
Results-based management is an integrated approach to bind performance measurement to the planning and budget processes that has been widely adopted by many governments worldwide for the following benefits:
• Alignment of overall goals and the delivery of policies to recipients and stakeholders;
• Improvement of public service delivery and value for money;
• Reduction in programme and project completion time and costs;
• Timely and regular feedback to stakeholders on activities.
Key elements of integrated results-based management planning are:
• Identifying clear expected results to be achieved within the budget;
• Selecting indicators to measure progress toward results;
• Setting explicit targets for each indicator;
• Analysing assumptions and risks.
Integrated development planning
Integrated development planning is defined as a structured and systematic approach to development planning with a complete vertical-horizontal integration and a clear focus on both programme outcomes and impact (Rasappan, 2010).Integrated development planning entails both strategic planning of national priorities and cascading these priorities to contributing levels in a systematic manner.
Performance measurement
Performance can be measured through developing performance monitoring systems; reviewing, analysing and reporting on results; and results-based management using evaluations for additional analysis of performance as well as using performance information for internal management, accountability, learning, and decision-making processes (adapted from: Results Based Management in the Development Cooperation Agencies: Review of Experience, OECD DAC, 2002).
The successful embedding of integrated results-based management in Government will only yield positive results if common challenges in instituting processes and systems to mainstream it into governance are addressed.
Some of the common challenges include, but are not limited to;
• Difficulty in changing attitudes among public-sector personnel;
• Inadequate capacity in departments and agencies to effectively manage better results;
• Difficulty of aligning organisational culture and work patterns for results;
• Difficulty in adopting better planning and budgetary systems that are supportive of results-based development plans and programme / project portfolios;
• Complexity of communication of the potential benefits of the policy on RBM; and
• Improving systems based on lessons learnt.
Integrating performance information into budgeting, managing and reporting has become a common component of good public and not-for-profit management.
In many jurisdictions, efforts to do so have been under way for many years, yet progress is usually seen as slow at best.
It is also clear that while much has been learnt many challenges remain; few organisations would argue that they have been successful.
Implementing results-based management-type initiatives is difficult, because to do so impacts throughout an organisation.
Many of the key challenges are organisational rather than technical; implementing results-based management is not primarily a measurement problem. This is the ‘culture change’ issue. It is difficult to get individuals in organisations (and governments) to change their management behaviour. Performance information typically has not historically played a large role in how they manage themselves.
If these organisations have been able to carry on without this information, so why change?
As early as 1983, Wholey devoted a whole chapter to creating incentives to support a performance focus in government. Senior management may be seen as only paying lip service to this latest trend; others will do likewise. If budget decisions clearly ignore performance information, the message is clear.
Integrating performance information into management and budgeting is not easy. It is doable but the challenges are formidable. An important first step is to recognise the various challenges and consider how to deal with them.
The task is not straightforward, because it affects the whole organisation.
Hirschman (2002) suggests that the image should not be of a thermometer testing the level of performance of an organisation, but rather a sauna which affects the whole organisation.
A sound performance indicator needs to meet the following CREAM criteria (Kusek & Khatouri 2006):
• Clear: It must be unambiguous and precise.
• Relevant: It needs to be suitable for the issue at hand.
• Economic: It should be obtainable at reasonable cost.
• Adequate: It needs to provide an adequate basis for performance.
• Monitorable: It must be open to outside validation
The embedding and monitoring of integrated results-based management will reinforce the Government’s commitment to achieve the goals of the National Development Strategy 1 by improving operational and allocative efficiency in order to increase the quantity and quality of public services. Committees for results-based management must be set up in all provinces in line with the devolution agenda.
Many developing countries are in the process of decentralisation, which provides an excellent chance for governments to endorse and implement RBM as part of this process (Col et al., 2006). Decentralisation strives to empower local agencies with authority and accountability to, inter alia, be more responsive to local needs (Amjad, 2008). As can be expected, the introduction of RBM in the public sector of developing countries consists of a certain process to ensure its effectiveness. The support of the highest levels within government assists in the introduction of RBM since it becomes mandatory for organisations and institutions to implement RBM.
According to Madhekeni (2012) this seldom happens. Usually donors, or the government are called upon to persuade rather than force ministries or departments to implement RBM.
This is challenging because RBM requires greater accountability on the part of organisations for definite results, and also tough human resources decisions to ensure the required levels of productivity (Meier 2003; Vahamaki et al., 2011). The problem of distorting behaviour.
Organisations that concentrate only on outputs could end up with goal displacement, which could lead to organisational cheating (Curristine et al. 2008; Curristine 2005a).
In this case public agencies purposely control their output levels to reveal their work in the best possible light (Bohte & Meier, 2000).
Bohte and Meier (2000) state that goal displacement and cheating often occur when organisations are faced with unrealistic task demands and when they have inadequate resources for performing the task.
Another obstacle in implementing RBM, especially in developing countries, is the lack of appropriate training and support (Muir, 2010).
Full article on www.herald.co.zw
This has negative implications for practitioner knowledge of RBM, which could adversely affect information systems (Muir, 2010). Moreover, the lack of trainers and quality coaches in developing countries explains the over reliance on external consultants. Furthermore, resource constraints in Zimbabwe, for example, are hindering training initiatives for the majority of Zimbabwean employees to become acquainted with the concepts of RBM (Madhekani, 2012). Lack of resources dedicated to RBM.
There is often a lack of sufficient funds for employing RBM programmes.
This is the case in Zimbabwe where financial constraints imply that the training of RBM training in Government departments has been largely limited to top officials and heads of such departments (Madhekani, 2012).
Public sector management in developed and developing countries has changed considerably from their focus on governments in developing countries for greater accountability and transparency in using public resources.
Results-based human resources management is a performance management approach to achieve organisational effectiveness.
It is imperative to provide enough training to all employees in the organisation. Limiting training to top management will lead to loss of commitment on shop floor workers.
Also, training increases awareness of the concept, making it easier for the package to be appreciated and accepted by all employees. It is, therefore, the task of public managers to ensure that training has been done to all levels.
A central training unit comprising Members of the National Assembly or prominent political leaders, representatives of civic society, academics, business leaders and all the critical stakeholders can be formed.
It will seek broader agreement among key stakeholders and general consensus on the direction of desired change, stimulate political support for reforms and will be in charge of overseeing the implementation of reforms.
Civil servants should be consulted, and involved in the process of implementation, rather than imposing the change upon them.
The new system needs to be explained to officials at the earliest convenience to make them understand, and be convinced that the old system is no longer enough.
They have to be agreeable to it. Hence, the need to give them a chance to decide on how it will be implemented.
Orientation programmes are an essential first step in any attempts to introduce results -based human resources management (KOICA et al, 2009).
Digitalisation can greatly facilitate the results-based management work flow and substantially reduce the paperwork associated with this process.
In fact, evaluations of digitalised results-based human resources management systems show that they are viewed positively by managers and employees, decrease workload, ensure widespread access to performance management tools and provide a standardised, structured approach to collecting and storing performance data.
Digitalisation can capture employee input and documentation of accomplishments online.
It can facilitate managing work flow to include prompting managers and employees about critical performance management events, routing documents between managers and employees, and providing access to forms and documents as the appraisal process is completed.
Results-based management relies predominantly on quantification. It is a shift from focusing on activities and inputs into the focus on outputs and outcomes in personnel administration (Eyben, 2013).
It focuses on strategic planning, systematic implementation, performance measurement, monitoring and reporting as well as efficient utilisation of performance information to inform and improve policy decision-making in an organisation (Ortiz et al, 2004).
Online Reporter