Januari 21, 2013
Introduction
Implementation
and service delivery are critical to effectiveness, that ‘managing for
outcomes’ would necessary demand agencies pay maximum attention to them. (A
lesson learned from New Zealand).
Drs. Alexander
B. Koroh, MPM
Abstract
Meeting
citizens’ needs is pretty important for all agencies. Through this the well
being of individuals and communities could become a reality. Hence
implementation and service delivery should be conducted properly in order to
fulfill public interest. The limitation of public resources and the rapid
changing of the environment where public agencies exist need to be managed
effectively. Thus, it is vital for agencies to pay maximum attention to
Managing for Outcomes (MfO) in encouraging and supporting the effectiveness of
implementation and service delivery. The engagement of stakeholders in playing
their positive roles will assist agencies in meeting clients’ needs.
Keywords:
citizen, well being, service, Managing for Outcomes, stakeholders.
Introduction
Implementation
and service delivery should be conducted precisely in order to meet the needs
of citizens/costumers/clients. Unfortunately in practice the effectiveness of
implementation and service delivery are still far from achieving the desired
outcomes. This occurs because change happens and organizations in the political
system carry out their affairs so often based on different motivations and
interests (Jenkins, 1978:303). Agencies
as the part of the political system are overshadowed also by political
preferences. Put in a different perspective, Chase’s analysis points out “That
in implementing human service policies, the context is complex and uncertain,
even in such matters as space and equipment resources” (Parsons, 1995:481).
While it is apparent that agencies lack attention for management for outcomes
(MfO).
However
many efforts have been applied to overcome implementation and service delivery
problems. Approaches toward them, changing the paradigm and the model of public
sector such as reinventing government in America and new public management in
New Zealand are efforts to make implementation and service delivery more able
to meet client needs. According to Ryan, MfO is the next stage after new public
management. A stage where “We have gone beyond and obsession with the means of
governing….and are turning attention once again to the ends: i.e. the impacts
and effects of public policy.” (Ryan, 2004:39). Thus, it could be argued MfO is
a crucial demand that can bring the effectiveness of implementation and service
delivery to become a reality. This essay will focus on the attention of
agencies to MfO, the demand to pay maximum attention to MfO and what is needed
to be done.
Attention to MfO
The
real test for implementation and service delivery is the satisfaction of
clients in respect of public goods and services that have been provided by
public sector (Parsons, 1995:525). Therefore, all benevolent governments
attempt to meet the satisfaction of their citizens. In connection with this
there are: Weberian bureaucracy, new public management (NPM), and MfO that
conduct certain function and tasks in order to fulfill clients’ satisfaction.
The traditional bureaucracy possesses to many structures so it could be argued
the distortion of implementation and delivery is widespread. The NPM as a
reform of the old bureaucracy has done much better in meeting clients’ needs. For instance, The
United Kingdom, USA, Australia, and New Zealand are the countries that have
encountered benefits from managerialism. In NPM the public sector becomes flat
but rich of functions. However, NPM still needs to pay proper attention to
process in governance theory and practice particularly of the policy-action
connection to intended outcomes (Barret, 2004:260).
Evidence
show obviously that managerialism is not sufficient in fulfilling the
satisfaction of clients. At this stage, MfO is crucial because through it the
state sector is able to bring that satisfaction into a reality. This can occur
because government agencies collaborate with stakeholders and community in
achieving desired outcomes. However, it could be argued that only countries that
have encountered new public management can enter into MfO. Ryan explains that
new public management is the first wave for the emergence of the second wave
i.e. MfO (Ryan, 2006:39). Sadly, some developing countries for example
Indonesia and Philippines that still practice “a Weberian bureaucratic model”,
are struggling to implement MfO; this is considered impossible.
MfO
shifts several basic aspects in governance practice in order to bring the
satisfaction of clients: for instance client relationship from minister-official;
networks not bureaucracies; engagement not working by one stakeholder;
facilitation not command (Ryan, 2006: 39). He defines MfO as “developing and
managing policy and the policy process in a manner that seems most likely to be
effective in achieving government desired goals” (2006:4). The shifts show that
MfO covers a broader arena compared to new public management. For example,
networks cover government and non government participants. Thus their
cooperation creates synergy in overcoming issues much better compared to face
it partiality (Gray, 2002:24).
Countries
that have experienced managerialism are applying MfO. For instance, New Zealand
government realizes that MfO is vital. In December 2001, Cabinet introduced new
planning expectations that set the arena for the Managing for Outcomes initiative (CAB Min (01) 38/6A). These
expectations need all Public Service departments to adopt a more strategic and
outcomes-focused approach to management and reporting. Furthermore, in 2003 the
government issued guidance for MfO for its departments. According to this
guidance “MfO covers the management cycle of setting direction, planning,
implementing and delivering, and reviewing the results, which then feeds back
into the cycle to inform future planning, enabling a cycle of ongoing
improvement.” (Steering committee, 2003:2).
Government
agencies possess a fundamental duty to meet the public needs. Therefore, the
paradigm that directs the agencies in conducting their services should be
appropriate to answer the needs. Improper paradigm or model will bring the
agencies to different directions that cannot fulfill clients’ needs properly.
Services that fulfill the needs will support government to achieve its desired
objectives. Therefore, agencies have a responsibility to ensure that their
services run well and meet the needs of client whatever their backgrounds.
These are crucial because there is no choice for agencies’ client to go to
another place if they do not satisfy with certain agencies’ services (Report of
the Controller and Auditor-General, 1999: 23).
Most
agencies do not pay maximum attention as a result of being overshadowed by new
public management. This happens because the chief executive of ministries and
agencies make agreements with ministers to deliver certain outputs such as
services or goods, for a specified price, with broad discretion as to inputs.
In a certain authority chief executives determine agencies’ staffing, salaries,
and rules of operation (James, 1997:10). The focus of agencies is outputs with
a clear vertical relationship to the chief executives. James argues that some
fragmentations have caused the unclear interest of the government as a whole
because every agency focuses on a narrow task based on their contracts.
Furthermore, the emergence of stand-alone agencies and management by contract
have created a competition for contracts between government and non-government
agencies to deliver services, but only to meet their outputs (James, 1997:11).
It could be said that agencies do not respond properly to their external
environment because they are focusing too much on the outputs. Hence agencies decisions
do not reflect the overall situation encountered by clients, entities being
handled, or the community as a whole.
To
some extent, agencies still see clients not as a real object of their
strategies. Agencies define clients based on their purposes thus they do not
find the real clients’ needs. For example, ‘working age people’ in the current
Ministry of Social Development show that it is too broad as clients. There are
some essential clients in that term that need to be defined precisely and
clearly. Defining clients precisely will help ensure that public services and
goods are delivered to the right targeted-clients (Ryan, 2006:43). Furthermore,
Ryan asserts that “Understanding clients as real people, their actual needs and
actions, where, when, how, why and what they do with agency outputs….is
critical to the success of any focus on outcomes.” (2006:44).
The demand to
pay maximum attention and what needs to be done
The
performance of agencies in the managerialism paradigm has achieved better
results compared to traditional bureaucracy. However, in order to meet clients’
needs precisely agencies should pay maximum attention to MfO. This means that
government agencies need to concentrate on wider outcomes, and then focus on
their work. By this, in turn, agencies will be able to implement and deliver
services that satisfy clients and at the same time it can fulfill government
desired objectives. Hence there are some matters that agencies need to do in
applying MfO. They can apply it through the phases of the management cycle. The
phases are planning for outcomes, implementing for outcomes, resourcing for
outcomes, and monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and accounting for outcomes
(Ryan, 2003: 11-83).
Planning
for outcomes means agencies in the first stage of planning place outcomes as
the core. This is vital because the uncertain internal and external environment
and their increasing complexity should be considered seriously. According to
Ryan, outcome refers to certain conditions of affairs that agencies want to
conduct a certain role together with other stakeholders in creating a bright
future (Ryan, 2003:11). At this stage, agencies need to arrange and align goals
and objective in order there is no overlapping while creating efficiency.
Meanwhile, agencies need to understand and define clients properly so that the
outcomes really represent the need of clients.
In
developing those phases, agencies need to comprehend and realize deeply
concerning collaboration, identify the barriers of collaboration, and work with
stakeholders. Collaboration is a voluntary action to work together without
legal binding among parties in enhancing public value (Gray, 2003:8). Research
shows collaboration is able to improve outcomes for individuals or their
families (Ministry of Social Development, 2003:2). Through inter-agency
collaboration in service delivery it is expected to have the capacity to
improve outcomes and services for all actual or potential service users: it can
reduce duplication and overlap of services and increase efficiency; it can
build collaboration between parties to respond to a certain problem and; it can
use various approaches to overcome certain individuals/families problems
properly (Gray, 2003:18).
The
central government plays a significant role in conducting collaboration. Many
government agencies are doing creative and healthy work to increase
collaboration among agencies and with other stakeholders. Unfortunately, some
barriers still hamper the capability of agencies to collaborate with others.
Those barriers are organizational culture where to some extent, secrecy
mentality and action still operate in agencies’ daily activities. The funding
process is different among agencies which can cause confusion and uncertainty.
Government structure and system limit the activities of agencies; they cannot
work beyond the structure of the system. Policy development and implementation
still lack appropriate response and sensitivity to the local needs. It needs to
be more flexible (Ministry of Social Development, 2003:33).
Those
obstacles can be overcome through central government officials such as
ministers, chief executives and senior managers. They need to promote openness
and cooperate among agencies as well as other stakeholders. For instance a
minister is able to direct from the top through supporting the definition of
joint outcomes, determine the chief executives’ accountability for the
achievement, and holding the chief executives accountable for the quality of
collaboration. Furthermore, chief executives and senior managers can direct
from the top by giving a real example of collaboration among them rather than
compete among each other. This also means that the central government needs to
decentralize appropriate authority to local managers in conducting their
affairs. In this context, leadership from the top is vital in developing and
maintaining a robust and integrated service delivery. Furthermore, ministers,
chief executives, and senior managers need to encourage information sharing,
support collaborative works, encourage relationship building, and enhance staff
capacity for collaboration, and establish collaboration into performance
assessment criteria (Ministry of Social Development, 2003:35-37).
Working
with stakeholders is a crucial element that also determines the achievements of
desired outcomes. The core of collaboration is agencies working with
stakeholders to identify and establish integrated outcomes. They need to carry
it out successfully based on their specific capability and role. For instance,
Iwi and Maori have the principles of Waitangi that support their working
together with government. Furthermore, the Local Government Act 2002 provides
certain outcomes that local agencies and local community want to achieve. At
this stage, government agencies need to realize that individuals in communities
have different values, preferences, and needs. Specifically, government
agencies, individually or on a whole of government basis, need to work in
partnership with mana whenua to:
·
“Identify
the aspiration and needs of Maori, and indentify where these needs are not
being met
·
build
the capacity of government agencies and Maori organizations to deliver
responsive services
·
ensure
that resources are available to support Maori communities
·
create
appropriate decision making, governance, monitoring and evaluation processes
·
make
services accountable to Maori as well as government
·
address
issues for Maori that affect collaboration, such as contested boundaries,
different priorities, and different stages of Treaty settlement” (Ministry of
Social Development, 2004:53).
The
important point is the relationship among agencies and stakeholders needs to
expand based on honesty and for a long time period. At the same time,
government agencies should make clear how the achievement of community outcomes
matches their organizational accountabilities.
It
could be said that collaboration and working together are and application of
horizontal management. Horizontal management is “the coordination and
management of a set of activities between two or more organizational units,
where the units in question do not have hierarchical control over each other
and where the aim is to generate outcomes that cannot be achieved by units
working in isolation” (Bakvis and Juliet, 2004:7). In this context, agencies,
stakeholders, and communities can be more creative and innovative in setting
their goals and objectives. By which agencies are working in a network while
absorbing and sharing benefits in fulfilling the desired outcomes. Every party
plays a proper, hence the balance is created. Clients also can see, feel, and
participate positively in achieving the outcomes. In this management the burden
of agencies, stakeholders and community could be shared appropriately so there
is no extra burden in a certain party in achieving outcomes. However, perhaps
the role of agencies as primus inter
pares among stakeholders and community is still needed in achieving goals
and objectives. But this does not mean that agencies will be dominant in
planning, setting, and implementing strategies and programmes.
Conclusion
Implementation
and service delivery provided by agencies can fulfill the satisfaction of
clients if they are conducted properly. Managing for Outcomes as a part of
public sector reform after managerialism provide better results in fulfilling
clients’ needs. Unfortunately, there are some barriers that prevent agencies to
apply MfO in their daily activities. Those obstacles are secrecy within the
organizational culture, complicated funding processes, government structure and
system structure and system that limit the activities of agencies. Policy
development and implementation still lack an appropriate response and
sensitivity to the local need (Ministry of Social Development, 2003:33).
The
barriers need to overcome in order for agencies to apply MfO that will meet the
need of clients. Collaboration, role of central government and working with
stakeholders will overcome those barriers. Through collaboration, agencies,
stakeholders, and communities will play appropriate roles that lead to the
application of MfO that will achieve desired outcomes. Central government plays
a significant role in changing the organizational culture, and encouraging
agencies to collaborate among agencies and other stakeholders in achieving
government and with stakeholders will give a new perspective and sense to
agencies in fulfilling clients’ needs. Through these agencies applying MfO
properly and significantly will give impact to a better implementation and
service delivery.
References:
Barret,
S. 2004. Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival? Personal Reflection on 20
Years Implementation Studies, in Public
Administration 82.
Gray
A. 2002. Integrated Service Delivery and Regional Coordination: A Literature
Review, Prepared as part of the Review of the Centre Regional Co-ordination
Workstream.
James
C. 1997. Under New Sail: MMP and Public Servants, Institute of Policy Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Jenkis.1978.
In Parsons. W.1995. Delivery Analysis: The analysis of implementation, in Public Policy, Aldershot, Edwar
Elgar.
Ministry
of Social Development. 2003. Mosaic Key Findings and Good Practice Guide for
Regional Coordination and Integrated Service Delivery, Wellington.
Parsons.W.
1995. Delivery Analisysis: The analysis of implementation, in Public Policy,
Aldershot, Edwar Elgar.
Ryan
B. 2003. Learning MfO: Managing for Outcomes – The Queensland Case, Report
prepared for the Institute of Public Administration Australia.
Ryan
B. 2006. Managing for Outcomes: Understanding Clients, in Policy Qurterly.
Wellington, New Zealand
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar