Gov/Web 2.0 Predictions for 2010

This is the time of year for predictions of what is ahead.  Here’s a compilation of various predictions.  Pick those that appeal to you!

Federal News Radio: Web 2.0 is Changing Government.  In an interview in late 2009, editor Dorothy Ramienski came to the now-standard conclusion that “Web 2.0 and social networking tools are changing the way the federal government does business.”

Lloyd Howell, a tech consultant, told her: “2.0 isn’t simply about technology. It’s about making government a platform and making data available for public use, rather than having government act as a simple service provider.”  And Alan Silberberg, CEO of You2Gov, a “civic” website designed to connect people with politicians, raised issues about privacy, security, and trusted networks.  His site attempts to connect all elected officials – federal and state – into a single forum for citizens to interact with.  His goal”  “provide free and open access to every citizen of this country.”

Mark Drapeau’s 5 Predictions.  Drapeau is a widely-read on-line Gov 2.0 advocate.  He offers five predictions of trends he foresees for the next three years:

• Local governments will be the innovation labs.  The challenge will be for some one to try to keep track of these hundreds of experiments so the successful ones can be shared more widely.
• “Citizen 2.0” could replace “Gov 2.0.”  Creating citizen-centric sites or services will be the cutting edge, which may include a citizen role in co-production of services and innovations.  The challenge will be:  will on-line communities create stronger connections or increase the polarization of the political world?
• Mobile devices will become primary devices.  This is the case in most of the developing world already.  The challenge:  what happens when iPhones are more powerful than standard desktops?
• Low budget, amateur videos become a common way of communicating.  What if government starts to replicate the model of companies like DemandMedia, which produces thousands of low cost, short amateur videos a day that answer common questions like: “How do you paddle a kayak?”
• Government officials are always on-the-record. With the multiplication of devices and platforms to connect, what happens when government officials are always observed and reported on by inquisitive regular citizens and not just journalists?

Social Computing Journal’s  7 Predictions.  Ever-insightful Dion Hinchcliffe offers seven predictions for Gov 2.0 in 2010, which he thinks will be driven virally:

• Social computing won’t hit critical mass in 2010.  He sees the government not resolving struggles over risk, control, and trust, but clearly experimenting in multiple venues.  He sees that the use of social computing will grow within agencies first, before being expanded more broadly to the public (which is the trend in private industry as well).
• Self-service integration and app creation will make deeper inroads. 
• Open data will go back to the drawing board. 
• Cloud computing will go big. 
• Gov 2.0 apps will expand the boundaries of transparency and citizen involvement. 
• Government portals will continue incorporating social media. 
• Collaborative video, geo-centric uses, mobile, and crowdsourcing will increase but remain niche. 

What would you add, delete, or revise?

Managing a responsive supply chain in support of U.S. military operations

Profile of Vice Admiral Alan Thompson, Director, Defense Logistics Agency

Though formally established in 1961, the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) can trace its roots to World War II. Since its inception, DLA has played a significant, and ever increasing, role in support of U.S. defense operations around the world—meeting the needs of the warfighter. “It was formed,” explains Vice Admiral Alan Thompson, director, DLA, “to consolidate similar logistics functions from each of the military services—Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps—into a single Department of Defense logistics provider.” As this single logistics provider, DLA has sought to supply the warfighter faster and more efficiently, filled with nearly every consumable used by U.S. military forces around the globe. “We provide a wide array of support,” describes Thompson, “1,600 weapon systems, 84 percent of the spare parts that support U.S. armed forces, including nearly 100 percent of support for fuel, food, other energy, medical supplies, uniforms, construction equipment, and a wide variety of different commodities.” In addition, DLA also manages the reutilization and disposal of surplus military assets. It offers supply chain services that encompass storage and distribution, as well as humanitarian support at home or abroad.

Vice Admiral Thompson leads a global enterprise with operations in 48 states and 28 countries, and Fiscal Year 2009 sales/service of close to $38 billion, which would place it in the top 65 on the Fortune 500 list of companies. He doesit with a total staff of 25,000 working very closely with the U.S. Transportation Command. “There is almost nowhere,”underscores Thompson, “that you will find a military operation or installation where there’s not a DLA presence.…We process over 100,000 orders from military customers daily, award over 8,000 contracts daily in response to these orders, and provide nearly 5 million individual items to armed services in support of operations.” As a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations of 2005, DLA has moved beyond being a wholesale provider of material to being an end-to-end supply chain manager—managing eight different supply chains. “This allows us to be much more effective,” according to Thompson, “because we are now directly connected to the customer that’s consuming these products. We have much better business intelligence on what’s going on. We can then take that back through the supply chain and acquire the needed material in a timelier manner—ultimately producing a far more efficient logistics support capability than we have had in the past.”

As its footprint continues to expand and demands on its services increase, DLA has been seeking to transform how it operates. Vice Admiral Thompson identifies key priority areas that frame his strategic direction: warfighter support, stewardship excellence, and workforce development. “The whole reason DLA exists is to support our nation’s warfighters—that is job one. We are very involved in the support to ‘plus-up’ the forces and increased operations in Afghanistan, as well as the responsible withdrawal of forces from Iraq. This drives a great deal of activity for DLA. Over the last several months, we have worked to build the supporting base structure in Afghanistan for the increased forces,” describes Thompson.  DLA continues to plan for and execute its support for expanded operations in Afghanistan, including finding alternate supply routes and sources, while also working to reposition assets and forces in Iraq. “Over the last six months,” explains Thompson, “we’ve been working with the U.S. Transportation Command to open what we call the Northern Distribution Network, which is a rail network across the Central Asian states that enters Afghanistan from the north. Currently, about several thousand shipments have occurred, and over 80 percent of the material that has been shipped through the Northern Distribution Network is DLA material. This gives us a needed additional source of capacity for shipments into Afghanistan, and also provides alternatives if there’s disruption on the ground routes through Pakistan.”

The second priority area for Vice Admiral Thompson involves enhancing the DLA’s stewardship of resources. “We believe that the American taxpayer shouldn’t pay a penny more for the logistical support of the armed forces than is absolutely needed,” declares Thompson. Therefore, the DLA has undertaken a number of initiatives, such as reviewing and prioritizing its largest projects as well as identifying prudent cost reductions, to more effectively manage the cost of material and services it provides. “We are very focused on providing all that’s needed to support the warfighter in the field,” assures Thompson, “but we also believe it is essential to provide [that support] in the most efficient way we possibly can.”

 The DLA’s workforce is also vital to its overall success. “DLA has a strong history of valuing its people,” says Thompson. He admits that the DLA of tomorrow will require slightly different skills and educational backgrounds. His strategic direction ensures that DLA will continue to deliver on its current commitments, remain agile, and further evolve to meet its ever-expanding mission. “We will continue to build on our history of excellence,” Thompson emphasizes. “The overall level of support that’s being provided by DLA is at a historic high. I expect to see that continue to [increase] even more. I think the integration with each of the military services is going to be even greater.”

Listen to:  The Business of Government Hour Interview with VADM Thompson

Debt Commission in the FY 2011 Budget?

Late in December 2009, the Senate increased the federal debt limit to a record $12.4 trillion – boosting chances for the establishment of a bipartisan commission to look for ways to force Congress to make painful spending cuts and tax increases.  The Washington Post reports that even though such commissions have had a mixed record in the past, 35 senators from both parties support creating a commission to force a vote on budget cuts and tax hikes.

Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) introduced legislation to create a bipartisan fiscal task force to address the nation’s long-term budget crisis.  The bill establishes an 18-member task force comprised of ten Democrats and eight Republicans.   According to Senator Conrad’s press release, the panel would have bipartisan co-chairs.  It would consist entirely of currently serving members of Congress as well as the Treasury Secretary and one other administration official selected by the President.  The task force recommendations, which would be submitted to the Congress after the 2010 elections, would be considered by Congress under expedited procedures.

President Obama is expected to include a proposal for a debt commission in his fiscal year 2011 Budget which will be sent to Congress the first week in February.  CNN’s White House correspondent Ed Henry reports that President Obama is seriously considering an executive order to create a bipartisan commission to consider sweeping tax increases and spending cuts to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare in an effort to slash the soaring federal deficit.

Groups such as the Concord Coalition and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation continue to press for action to bring the deficit under control, while senior budget officials from Member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are drafting a report with strategies for countries to transition from current levels of fiscal imbalances to more sustainable levels.

Motivating Workers

“The key to motivation turns out to be largely within your control,” write Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer in the January 2010 issue of Harvard Business Review.  How? “. . . scrupulously avoid impeding progress.”

Amabile and Kramer surveyed more than 600 managers, and then asked hundreds of knowledge workers to keep daily diaries to find out what was the top motivator of performance.

They asked managers to rank the impact of five workplace factors commonly considered significant motivators:  recognition, incentives, interpersonal support, support for making progress, and clear goals.  “Recognition for good work” topped their list.

However, this factor was dead last, according to workers.  Amabile and Kramer found that workers ranked “progress” as their number one factor.  “On days when workers have the sense they’re making headway in their jobs. . . their emotions are most positive and their drive to succeed is at its peak.” And, “On days when they feel they are spinning their wheels or encountering roadblocks to meaningful accomplishment, their moods and motivation are lowest.”

What are the implications of this finding?  First, that managers have a lot more control over motivating employees than they may have thought:  “Create a culture of helpfulness. . . Roll up your sleeves and pitch in,” say the authors.  They conclude:  “. . .recognition can’t happen every day. You can, however, see that progress happens every day.”

Does this really work?  In my government career, my best bosses were those who made it their goal to deal with the bureaucracy so I could deal with the work.  I felt productive, even if they didn’t!  But they always told me that that was their job, to make it easier for me to do mine.  Has that been your experience?

Blog Index: Sept – Dec 2009

Following is an index of blog entries between the start, September 1, 2009, and the end of the year, December 31, 2009, organized around some major themes.

Web 2.0 and Social Media

Launching the BizGov Blog (09-01-09)

Blogs as Public Policy Forums (09-02-09)

Cloud Forecasting: A New Report  (11-12-09)

Social Media Trends for Government in 2010 (11-25-09)

Open and Transparent Government

What Do You Do With 110,000 Data Sets? (09-04-09)

New Transparency: Recovery.Gov (09-30-09)

Open Government: Implementation Guidance from OMB (12-09-09)

Implementing the Open Government Directive (12-15-09)

Collaborative Governance

Using Czars to Govern (09-11-09)

Creating Spirit Communities (09-30-09) (based on book by Rosabeth Kantor)

Citizen Participation

Blogs as Public Policy Forums (09-02-09)

Citizen Participation: An Update (09-15-09)

Using Crowdsourcing in Government (09-16-09)

Engaging Citizens in Oversight (09-22-09)

Citizen Engagement Newsletter by GSA (10-01-09)

On-Line Town Halls (10-26-09) Congressional Management Foundation Study

Citizen Participation: Other Countries Are Stepping Out (12-07-09)  UK and Australian Initiatives

Contract Reform

The Insourcer’s Apprentice: OMB’s Jeff Liebman (10-8-09)

Out- and In-Sourcing: True Confessions (11-11-09)

Bottom-Up Procurement Reform (10-13-09)

OMB: Trying a Change in Tone to Collaborating with Agencies (10-22-09)

Acquisition 2.0:  OMB’s Latest Acquisition Guidance (10-28-09)

Signs of Procurement Revolution (11-24-09)

Workforce and Employee Engagement

Federal  Jobs:  A New Era (09-03-09)

Recognizing Civil Servants (09-18-09)

Ask Employees How to Fix It, Part I (09-17-09)

ISO Good Ideas:  Ask Employees, Part II (09-23-09)

Governing by Suggestion Box (10-20-09)

Dealing with Poor Performers (10-16-09)

Government Performance

The New Obama Performance Team (09-25-09)

Jump-Starting Performance Management (09-28-09) (Senator Carper Hearing)

Priorities and Principles for Performance (10-06-09) (OMB’s Zients Debute)

New Senate Task Force on Performance (10-23-09)

OMB’s New Performance Principles (10-29-09) (Zients’ Senate Budget Testimony)

More on the Senate Performance Hearing (10-30-09)

Data-Driven Performance: Senate Budget Hearing (12-11-09)

Happy Birthday GPRA! (12-16-09) Breul

Performance Reporting: Rhetoric vs. Reality (12-18-09) by Jonathan Breul

Using Performance Measures (12-22-09)

Managing Performance: A Series (12-23-09)

Model 1:  Performance Administration (12-24-09)

Model 2:  Siloed Performance Systems (12-28-09)

Model 3:  Performance Management Framework (12-29-09)

Model 4:  Performance Governance (12-30-09)

Program Evaluation and Use of Analytics

New OMB Program Evaluation Guidance (10-07-09)

Davenport:  Make Better Decisions (10-27-09)

Risky Business:  What is Enterprise Risk Management? (10-15-09)

Financial Management

Fiscal Sanity: Lessons from Around the World (12-08-09) by Jonathan Breul

FY 2009 Financial and Performance Reports (12-10-09) by Jonathan Breul

Presidential Transition, the First Year

Link to the IBM Center’s Presidential Transition Blog, 2008-2009

Falling Behind on Appointments (09-24-09)

Searching for a New Comptroller General (12-14-09) by Jonathan Breul

Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform Implementation (Part 1)  (11-30-09)

Health Care Reform Implementation (Part 2) (12-03-09)

Doing Big Things in Government (12-01-09)

Sustaining Health Care Reform (12-02-09)

Recovery Act

Engaging Citizens in Oversight (09-22-09)

New Transparency: Recovery.Gov (09-30-09)

Recovery Act: Shifting Mindsets (11-06-09)

Lessons on Reform

Lessons of Reinvention (09-07-09)

Dispatch from Saudi Arabia (11-2-09) an International Conference on Public Administration

Reinventing Saudia Arabia (11-03-09)

Saudi Conference: Lessons for Us (11-05-09)

Recovery Act: Shifting Mindsets (11-06-09)

Conversations with Leaders and The Business of Government Magazine

The Business of Government Magazine: Fall 2009 (12-09-09) by Michael Keegan

Allen, Thad  (12-11-09)  by Michael Keegan

Childs, Robert (12-29-09) by Michael Keegan

Fauci, Anthony (12-10-09) by Michael Keegan

Model 4: Performance Governance

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

The fourth “idealistic” performance model described by Bouckaert and Halligan is the “performance governance” model, which offers a prominent role for citizens.  None of the countries covered by the book had such an approach in place at the time it was published in early 2009.  This model was more of a prediction by the authors.  However, subsequent to the publication of their book, three of their case study countries have launched such initiatives:  United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. 

This model differs from the “performance framework” model in that the framework model focuses on government while the “performance governance” model focuses on a broader policy ecosystem to include citizens, non-profits, and the private sector as well.

In this model, multiple interdependent actors contribute to the delivery of public services.

British business author, Stephan Osborne, describes “new public governance” as a “plural state where multiple inter-dependent actors contribute to the delivery of public services and a pluralist state where multiple processes inform the policy making system.”

Bouckaert and Halligan say there are several strands of performance governance:

• The broad and diverse movement to embrace “joined up government, horizontal management, whole of government, integrated governance and more generally collaboration and networks.” And . . .
• “The engagement with the citizen as governance becomes more externally focused and encompasses the movement to engage citizens in performance measurement and re-evaluation of performance in an democracy.” This includes deliberative democracy and stakeholder analysis.

Defining the value added of networks is one key challenge for performance governance.  American academic Robert Agranoff writes that it is possible to measure collaborative performance along four perspectives:  specialists, the participating organizations, the network itself, and the network outcomes.

One way to operationalize the notion of “value added” in networks is to look at it through the lens of a “production of welfare” framework that goes beyond economy, efficiency, and effectiveness to also include equity, participation, advocacy, and innovation.

The performance governance model extends beyond the performance framework model in that it consists of co-governance, co-management, and co-production with the third sector and the public/citizens (and possibly adds the elements of co-design, co-decisions, co-implementation, and co-evaluation as described in the framework model).

Interestingly, the performance governance model is reflected in an institutional mechanism gaining popularity in the U.S. called “national strategies.”  This approach began as a congressional requirement for national defense in the late 1990s and was used more widely in the homeland security arena under President Bush.  It was also used in several domestic arenas, such as the 2005 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza.  However, it is also being promoted again by Congress as part of the pending healthcare reform legislation, which requires the development of a national strategy for quality improvement in healthcare.

Conversations with Leaders: Dr. Robert Childs

In the corporate world, and throughout the federal government, information is a very valuable asset. Having timely access to this information, and using it to inform strategic decision making, have become critical in today’s competitive, networked, and interconnected world.  Information technology (IT) plays a  central role in making this happen.  We spoke with Dr. Robert D. Childs, senior director, Information Resources Management (IRM) College, about the mission of the IRM College, its successes, its cultivation of the next generation of IT leaders, and its expanding partnerships. 

On the Mission and Evolution of the IRM College — We’ve completed celebrating our 20th anniversary last September [2008]. It made us think about a lot of things that have gone on in the past and how it has very much paralleled [changes] in society. We started thinking about what we really do, and we came up with the line, “Shaping the Future.” We put that in our catalog, and then we talked more about what does “Shaping the Future” mean? What do we really do with our classes and our programs? We discovered that what we’re really doing is crossing boundaries—interagency boundaries, international boundaries, and boundaries with the private sector.  Building communities of like-minded people was the second thing that we do—and by [extension] we transform organizations. We’re organized to really be flexible, innovative, creative, and be a hothouse for ideas that address the concerns of leaders in the information age. From the very beginning, we set out to do four things. The first was: be a distinctive institution—be unique. We visited [and] benchmarked against other colleges, other universities, and other institutes such as the London School of Economics. I went to Singapore, different institutions in Europe, and tried to learn how we could take their practices and use them. What I found out is, we were very unique already. Point two is: focus on the customer, either individuals or organizations. The third point is to secure and sustain the allegiance of DoD (Department of Defense) and the federal community. If you don’t have allegiance, if you don’t have money coming in, you can’t sustain your programs. Since then, we’ve added the private sector and international partners. The last one: achieve national and international recognition. Some people say, “Well, why are you concerned about that?” Well, it’s the fastest way to get attention and to let other people know what you have and what you can contribute.  

On Technologies Shaping the Classroom and Workplace of the Future — I think the classroom of the future and the workplace of the future are almost one and the same thing. We have to tie it to the lifestyle that people want. You have to give them the collaboration tools so they can do their jobs. I had a faculty member on the beaches in Hawaii conducting his distributive learning classes. I mean, why does he have to be in a classroom or in an office to do that? He has his computer;  he has his students connected, so that’s all he needs. There are other technologies that we’ve run into. They tie into a number of things we’re trying to do at our labs.  Telepresence is one; it is such an improvement over video teleconference. You really can be there. We’re using telepresence to project our faculty expertise to conferences we’re going to put on and courses we’re going to offer around the world. 

On the Future of the IRM College — I want to [share] a quote. I was asked to diagram my vision for the future, and I described it as such: 

“It is a series of at least 10 interconnecting crossroads, all meeting at the hub of an English-style roundabout. The titles of the roads were Defense, Policy, Economics, Government, Private Sector, International, Interagency, Business Processes, Best Practices, and Emerging Technologies. Every road was chock full of speeding and honking traffic and [great] potential for collision or collaboration. I was the cheerleading cop at the middle of that traffic circle, swinging my arms, shaking my body, and blowing the whistle. I had total confidence I was about to orchestrate a world-class symphony, and I can’t blame the diagram on exuberance of youth because it happened just a few years ago.”  

My job is to create an environment so that IRM’s creative faculty and staff can bring these things together. How do I see the future? I think it’s going to be totally mobile, incredibly compact, ridiculously “nano-tiny,” and eye-wateringly powerful. And everything around you that you see will become “hyperized,” socialized, “networkized,” and virtualized. 

Read this conversation in its entirety: Dr. Bob Childs

Listen to the complete interview: The Business of Government Hour

Model 3: Performance Management Framework

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

The third idealized model described by Bouckaert and Halligan is a “comprehensive and integrated performance management framework.”  This model seems to be favored by both academics and consultants. The two countries in the authors’ case studies that seem to come closest to this approach are Australia and Canada.  (note: these links are to an OECD study on performance budgeting, not to the Bouckaert-Halligan case studies, which are not available on-line.  You have to get their book to read those!).

This model, when implemented successfully, engages stakeholders, contributes to the legitimacy of government as a key provider of services, and is used for predicting customer behaviors.   Those using this approach rely on externally-developed performance frameworks, such as Balanced Scorecards, ISO 9000 standards, the European Framework for Quality Management, or country-specific home-grown models such as the Canadian Management Accountability Framework (which is now in its fourth iteration).

According to the authors, this model is where “performance information is systematically and coherently generated, integrated and used,” and “Information produced by performance measurement systems becomes part of a process of management and ultimately of governance.”

They also observe an interplay among three dynamics: political legitimacy, technical design, and functional processes:   “Auditing a performance measurement system is one way to produce and maintain legitimacy between the executive and legislative branches.  Another way is to create ownership by administrative stakeholders by having them co-design their performance measurement systems. . . . citizen involvement in an operational performance measurement system is another way to corroborate the legitimacy of performance information.”   This in turn results in a shift from a closed to an open measurement system, and from a top-down to top-down and bottom-up system.

Bouckaert and Halligan note that: “. . performance measurement systems should . . contribute to the legitimacy of the public sector itself.”  And that, for reasons of political legitimacy, performance measures should become more subject to independent controls (audits),  be more bottom up (from front line), and more external (citizens, stakeholders) in their design and implementation.

One strategy, they say, “is to take citizen as customers actively on board at all stages of the policy cycle, and in the service delivery cycle, up to even giving them a say in the budget process.  This results in co-design, co-decision, co-production, and co-evaluation.”  Interestingly, this seems to be the direction of President Obama’s Open Government Initiative.

Model 2: Siloed Performance Systems

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

Some organizations or countries operate a series of parallel performance systems, disconnected from each other.  Oftentimes this happens when different leaders, at different levels of an organization, and at different points of time, launch measurement initiatives that are disconnected from each other. The two country case studies described by Bouckaert and Halligan that typify this model are Sweden and the Netherlands (note: these links are to an OECD study on performance budgeting, not to the Bouckaert-Halligan case studies, which are not available on-line.  You have to get their book to read those!).

These separate performance systems are often overseen by specialists and are used for more than just compliance with legal requirements.  For example, the chief financial officer may have one system, the quality officer may have another, and the strategic planning office may have yet another.  Each uses performance information for his or her own purposes, but not necessarily for the overall enterprise.

The siloed approach focuses on managing structure and functions, and there is an internally interactive measurement process within each management function.  Bouckaert and Halligan note that this approach:  “focuses on several structural and functional mechanisms mostly within the market-based private sector, resulting in organising management functions.”   Also, each operation decides which types of measures and controls work best for different kinds of jobs.

The authors observe that a developed measurement system can push individuals, teams, and organizations in a particular direction.  In this case, “measurement then becomes a motivational and intentional process for the purpose of change.”   They continue, noting:  “Measures are not intended purely and simply to observe, but to cause reaction, sometimes to reward or to punish.” . . this moves the system “from a naïve belief in a thermometer type of neutrality to an awareness of the need for functional measurement.”  Their analogy is that a disconnected traffic camera can still result in slower traffic simply because drivers think they are being watched.

Model 1: Performance Administration

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

Bouckaert and Halligan call their first idealized performance management model the “Performance Administration” approach.

This model is seen as modest, ad hoc and un-systematic.  It is oftentimes designed for formal, hierarchical organizations and is seen as mechanistic or compliance-oriented in implementation.  Nevertheless, it is the typical starting place for many organizations.

This formal, procedural approach can be seen by skeptics as “hyper-rational,” developing strategic plans, performance plans, operational plans, and reports.  This may be best exemplified by the requirements of the U.S. Government Performance and Results Act. 

In this model, an agency is seen as successful if it can demonstrate a functional, legitimate performance system.  This approach, according to the authors, focuses on “due process, which becomes the essence of the performance of this system.  As a consequence, there is a systematic and law-based selective perception that it is more input- and process-oriented than output- and effect-focused.” . . . “The formal and procedural mechanisms, or the due administrative processes, are the core itself of the system, and hence of its performance.”

Bouckaert and Halligan observe: “A systematic administrator-driven Performance Administration is at the level of a single organization.  Its purpose is to improve efficiency and productivity and it is only partly incorporated and used for improvement purposes.” . . . “The essence of the measurement type is static and based on a single loop process of learning.  This is compatible with a causal and mechanistic way of perceiving the production cycle. . . .”

In addition, they note: “A Performance Administration measurement system is a static and micro organisational-based type.  It is a causal, scientifically grounded, mechanistic and a linear input/output-based type of measurement system. . . .as a consequence the main focus is on productivity or technical efficiency.”

Bouckaert and Halligan’s longitudinal case studies demonstrate how, over time, such systems seem to evolve from just compliance, to the development of a supply of measures, to their use in making policy, program, and resource decisions.

While this may seem like a natural evolution, it can remain frozen or diverge into another path.  The next “idealized model” described by the authors is one where multiple performance systems exist side-by-side. . . “siloed performance systems.”