Kansas City Regional Performance Measurement Pilot Project

1
Kansas City RegionalPerformance
MeasurementPilot Project

• A Partnership of
• Eleven Cities
• MARC
• The Abrahams Group

2
AGENDA

• Participants
• Objectives
• Timeline
• Management Framework
• Standards
• Lessons Learned
• Conclusions

3
PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Identify two public works services
• Train participants in the concept and use of
  performance measurement
• Develop performance measures and collect
  comparative data
• Assess the practicality of collecting comparable
  data and using that data
• Assess the overall merits of a multiple
  jurisdiction approach to develop and use
  performance information

4
PARTICIPATING CITIES

• Grandview
• Kansas City
• Lawrence
• Leawood
• Lees Summit
• Lenexa

• Liberty
• Olathe
• Overland Park
• Shawnee
• Unified Government

5
OTHER REGIONAL PROJECTS

• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Greater NW Chicago Suburbs
• Greater Hartford Area

6
PROJECT TIMELINE
7
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

• Influencing factors
• The concept of performance based management
• Performance measurement
• Managing for Results
• Where do measurement and benchmarking fit within
  a performance management concept

8
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT INFLUENCING FACTORS

• GFOA
• ICMA
• GASB
• APWA

9
GFOA

• NACSLB
• Budget and Management Standing Committee
• New Recommended Practices, points of emphasis and
  revised training programs
• Performance Management Using performance
  information for management decision making
• Costing government services

10
GFOA New Recommended Practices

• Costing
• The cost of providing government services should
  be determined on full costing of direct, indirect
  and overhead costs
• Performance Management
• Using performance measures in management decision
  making
• Linking planning, performance measures, costing
  and budgeting

11
ICMA

• Comparative Performance Measurement project
• Always emphasized performance measurement
• Best practices
• Using performance information for decision making

12
GASBs SEA Research Project

• Service Reporting data based on service
  delivery (programs and activities), not on
  organizations (departments, divisions), and the
  extent to which goals and objectives have been
  achieved
• Efforts Resources, reporting on the amount of
  money that the service costs, either from a
  budget or actual basis
• Accomplishments Results, reported on the basis
  of what was accomplished (outputs or the number
  of units provided) or outcomes (impact on the
  customer)
• Relating Efforts to Accomplishments Efficiency,
  typically reported as the cost per output or
  outcome

13
GASBs Suggested Criteria

• Reported performance information should be
  managements representation of performance.
• The Report of Performance Information should
  provide a basis for the understanding of the
  accomplishment of goals and objectives of the
  entity with potentially significant
  decision-making or accountability implications.
  (6 criteria)
• Performance Information to Report should assist
  in communicating the degree to which programs,
  services, and strategies have contributed to
  achieving stated goals and objectives. (8
  criteria)
• Communication of Performance Information - A
  reasonably informed interested citizen or other
  user should be likely to learn about the
  availability of reports on performance, and
  should be able to access, understand, and use
  reported performance information. (3 criteria)

14
GASBs Suggested Criteria

• Reported performance information should be linked
  to resources (input measures) provided and to
  costs of services as that information is
  presented in the budget document and the annual
  financial report respectively. Performance
  information that relate cost to outputs
  (efficiency measures) should be developed and
  reported.
• Performance reported should be relevant to the
  goals and objectives (outcome and output
  measures)
• Citizen perceptions of the quality and results of
  services should be reported (service quality
  measures)
• Key measures of outcomes that provide a basis for
  assessing results achieved should be included in
  the report for major and critical programs and
  services.

15
APWA

• Performance measurement
• Performance management
• Public works performance management
• Creating Accountability and Increasing
  Performance (Bill Cook)
• New Times Demand New Tools Applying Performance
  Management to Public Works Services (APWA
  Satellite Video Conference)
• Top Ten Performance Measures for Fleet Managers
• Performance Measures for Public Works WORKOUT
  How Do You Measure UP?"
• http//www.apwa.net/bookstore/

16
The Planets are Aligning

• ICMA and APWA
• Performance measurement
• Performance management
• GFOA
• Budget and Strategic Planning
• With X , I can get Y Results!!!
• GASB
• Accounting and Reporting
• With X , I got Y Results!!!

17
Can Performance Measures Work?

• Yes, when
• Performance measures are associated with a system
  of Managing for Results
• The decision makers that will use them are
  prepared to do so

18
Managing for Results
STRATEGIC PLANNING
PROGRAM/ ACTIVITY PLANNING
REPORT RESULTS
EVALUATE RESULTS
MEASURE FOR RESULTS
Accountability Cultural and Structural Change
ALIGN SYSTEMS
MANAGE WORK PROCESSES
BUDGET FOR RESULTS
19
STANDARDS

• Standards facilitate comparative analyses
• Baseline (past performance)
• Negotiated
• Customer/stakeholder requirements
• Benchmarks
• Industry
• KC Metro Average of community benchmarks

20
LESSONS LEARNED

• Collecting Consistent Data Across Jurisdictions
  Is Difficult
• Its harder than it looks
• Miles swept
• Odometer, map, GPS, mph/hrs
• Financial and work management systems are not set
  up to collect data
• Too many compromises have to be made to try to
  get consistent data

21
LESSONS LEARNED

• Inconsistent Data Leads to Incomparable Measures
  Across Jurisdictions
• Incomparable data means that a regional standard
  cannot be developed
• It is difficult to use the data for a best
  practices analysis
• Local governments lose confidence in the process
• Local governments are reluctant to share the
  results or make them public

22
LESSONS LEARNED

• Performance measurement requires a top to bottom
  staff commitment over an extended period of time.
  
• Managers, supervisors, and line staff need to
  understand both why how
• Training is essential
• Should see the data used
• Commitment must be institutionalized
• Change in staff over extended period

23
LESSONS LEARNED

• Performance measures are more effective when used
  internally over time and when linked to broader
  programs and goal achievement.
• It is most important that local governments use
  measurements over time
• But still need an outside standard
• Performance measures should address programs
  instead of activities
• Performance measures should address program goals

24
LESSONS LEARNED

• Benchmarking is a learning experience
• It should not matter if the comparison makes you
  look good or bad initially
• What is important is you have done the
  comparative analysis, have learned from the
  analysis and have applied a better or best
  practice to reduce cost or increase
  effectiveness, or both

25
LESSONS LEARNED

• The key is asking the right questions
• How do your inputs, outputs, efficiency, service
  quality and outcomes compare?
• Are your outputs constant over time? Increasing?
  Decreasing?
• Are your unit costs or productivity increasing,
  decreasing or remaining constant overtime?
• How about the comparisons of service quality and
  outcomes over time?
• What did you learn from the comparison? How did
  you compare to the standard? Is this comparison
  useful?

26
LESSONS LEARNED

• The key is asking the right questions (continued)
• Did one or more of the cities provide street
  sweeping or hot asphalt repair more efficiently
  and/or more effectively? If so, why? What can
  you learn from this comparison? Can you adopt a
  new, better or best practice that will help you?
• To what extent have you achieved your goals and
  objectives? Why or why not?

27
LESSONS LEARNED

• The best comparative may be yourself over time
• For these two activities, baseline (past
  performance) proved to be the most acceptable
  standard
• Same service definition and explanatory factors
• Same data collection procedures
• Same cost basis

28
CONCLUSIONS

• Valuable information about developing and using
  performance information
• Close examination of operations of two activities
  internally and comparatively
• Valuable information to establish a baseline of
  results
• Recommended approach to continue at the program
  or department level

29
PARTICIPANT COMMENTS

• Lessons Learned
• Future Role of Performance Measurement

30
For More Information Contact

• Dean Katerdahl
• Mid-America Regional Council
• E Mail Deank_at_marc.org/
• www.marc.org performance/home.htm
• Mark D. Abrahams
• President, The Abrahams Group
• E Mail Bettergov_at_aol.com
• www.theabrahamsgroup.com
• Sheila Shockey
• President, Shockey Consulting Services, LLC
• E Mail shockey_at_planetkc.com