core guide 2: using the performance improvement framework agency model ... · core guide 2: using...

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK

April 2013

Core Guide 2: Using the Performance Improvement Framework Agency Model to complete a Self-review

State Services Commission, the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Published April 2013

ISBN: 978-0-478-40951-2

Web address: www.ssc.govt.nz/pif

Crown copyright 2013

Copyright/terms of use

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 New Zealand licence. [In essence, you are free to copy and distribute the work (including in other media and formats) for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the Crown, do not adapt the work and abide by the other licence terms.]

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/nz/. Attribution to the Crown should be in written form and not by reproduction of any such emblem, logo or Coat of Arms.

Acknowledgement

This guide has been published after extensive consultation, with valuable contributions from Lead Reviewers, as well as chief executives and senior leaders from across the State Services. Special thanks to the Education Review Office; its expertise has been critical in the development of this guide.

CORE GUIDE 2: USING THE PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK AGENCY MODEL TO COMPLETE A SELF-REVIEW APRIL 2013 1

Context

The Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) is being delivered in the context of three developments driving change. The first is that everywhere across the world people are under some fiscal constraint of one sort or another, some constraints are more severe than others. This means there isn’t a lot of money around to fund services, so people have to look really hard at how they get the best value from the money they’ve got. The second big development is people and citizens’ expectations are rising. People want to interact with government in a different way. People’s expectations of the sorts of services they can get from government are changing. It’s partially a generational thing; there is a huge change in the way individuals want to access services. But, more critically, people expect more from their tax money and these two things, in particular, are driving the need for the State Services to do things differently.

The third big development is the aspiration at the heart of the Better Public Services report: to take New Zealand from having a good public service, which it has today, to a great public service in the medium term. The New Zealand public service is already number one in the world for the absence of corruption. Senior leaders want to lift performance in a number of other areas to make sure we have the best public service in the world. PIF is a key tool to enable public servants to do just that.

PIF is more than just a diagnostic tool. It is a review of an agency’s fitness-for-purpose, as it prepares for the future challenges. A Self-review, when done well, looks at the current state of an agency and how well it’s placed to deal with the issues confronting it in the medium term. This guidance series aims to help senior leaders look at their agency’s current state and the areas where it needs to do the most work to make it fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future.


Performance Improvement Framework guidance series

The Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) guidance series replaces the 2009 release. It reflects developments in the suite of PIF products and services. As with any good performance improvement tool, PIF will continue to improve to meet the needs of Ministers, the public, chief executives, senior leaders and agencies in the wider State Services.

Performance Improvement Framework

High-level : PIF Agency Model Lead Questions : PIF Agency Model Six Dimensions of System Performance

Core guides

Core Guide 1: Core Guide 2: Core Guide 3:

Understanding the Performance Improvement Framework Agency Model

Using the Performance Improvement Framework Agency Model to complete a Self-review

Getting to Great; Lead Reviewer insights from the Performance Improvement Framework

Other resources

Fact Sheet 1: Fact Sheet 2: Fact Sheet 3: Fact Sheet 4: Fact Sheet 5:

Introducing the Performance Improvement Framework

Introducing the Performance Improvement Framework Review, Follow-up Review and Self-review

How does the Performance Improvement Framework fit with other business improvement tools?

What is the Four-year Excellence Horizon?

What are the Performance Improvement Framework system-level ratings, findings and the Six Dimensions of System Performance?


Table of contents

Context .................................................................................................................................1

Performance Improvement Framework guidance series ......................................................2

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4

Frequently asked questions .................................................................................................5

PIF is not a one off ................................................................................................................8

Principles that underpin PIF Reviews ...................................................................................9

Recommended process for a PIF Self-review ......................................................................11

Phase One: Initiation ....................................................................................................12

Phase Two: Planning .....................................................................................................14

Phase Three: Delivery ...................................................................................................20

Phase Four: Benefits Realisation ....................................................................................26

Support for agencies undertaking Self-reviews ..................................................................26

Appendix A: Glossary .........................................................................................................27

Appendix B: Template: Terms of reference .........................................................................29

Appendix C: Exemplar from the Education Review Office – Making the PIF Agency Model your own .................................................................................................................33

Appendix D: Template – Self-review report ........................................................................37

Appendix E: One method for reviewing Government Priorities .........................................56

Appendix F: One method for reviewing Core Business ........................................................57


Introduction

This guide is the second of three core guides. Using a frequently asked questions format, it provides an insight into what the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) is, the aggregate findings and the benefits being delivered by the PIF programme. The guide then moves to provide a more detailed understanding of the PIF Self-review principles and processes and tips on how to complete a successful PIF Self-review.


Frequently asked questions

What is the Performance Improvement Framework?

The Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) is a term used to refer to a review, as well as an organisational improvement model. It is a review of an agency’s fitness-for-purpose today and for the future. Using the PIF Agency Model, a PIF Review looks at the current state of an agency and how well placed it is to deal with the issues that confront it in the medium-term future. It then proposes areas where the agency needs to do the most work to make itself fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future. It is not an investigation or an audit.

PIF has a number of dimensions. Agencies conduct Self-reviews where they rate themselves against the Agency Model. For many this is a precursor to a PIF Review. An agency that is formally reviewed will also undertake a Follow-up Review, usually 12-18 months later, which reviews the progress it has made since the PIF Review.

Why was the Performance Improvement Framework introduced?

When Iain Rennie became the State Services Commissioner he was concerned that the public service was not perceived as taking ownership of its own performance improvement. He noted there were plenty of reports from external agencies and lobby groups that were often critical of the public service. He felt many of them did not recognise the real strengths of the public service and equally he wanted to move the culture of the public service towards continuous improvement and innovation.

What are the origins of the Performance Improvement Framework?

The origins of PIF are in the Commissioner’s aspirations for the public service. New Zealand has taken the best of the United Kingdom’s capability review programme, the best of the organisational improvement models from the New Zealand private sector, as well as methodologies from other jurisdictions, and adapted them to align with the New Zealand public management system to create PIF. We feel we have come up with a world best in terms of assessment of public service performance and capability.

What are we doing well?

We do a number of things really well. We are responsive to Ministers. We are good at delivering against Government Priorities. We work well with a number of external stakeholders and we are good around the probity of our financial management systems. These are all good characteristics of the New Zealand public service.


Where do we need to do better?

So far the Reviews have a very common theme. They show the need for us as a system, ie, the wider State Services, to get better at working together. We also need to take longer-term views to our work; this means anticipating the issues we will need to deliver on for New Zealanders in the future. It is clear some agencies can do better at managing and developing their people.

What are the benefits of PIF Reviews to central agencies?

For central agency officials PIF gives a system-wide diagnosis and evidence about what is good and where the system can improve.

What are the benefits for Ministers?

Ministers get assurance that the agencies they are responsible for are constantly looking for ways to improve how they do business and deliver value for taxpayers. As the PIF Reviews are undertaken by external expert parties, Ministers get independent assurance.

What about the public?

The public is able to see that the State Services is ‘on the move’ and is serious about the services it delivers and how these are delivered. The public can see the State Services is continuously seeking to improve and is transparent about its journey.

What is the future direction?

PIF will continuously be reviewed. Every time we do a PIF Review we learn and we aim to build that knowledge into our own continuous improvement process. With the advent, for example, of the Better Public Services programme, we are seeking to shift the bar in respect of standards of performance. We believe Better Public Services and PIF examine the same drivers. PIF focuses on the jobs we do and improving the workplaces for public servants so they can do their jobs better. Better Public Services is also about improving what we do on behalf of, and for, New Zealanders.

What does continuous improvement involve?

Ten PIF Elements will be upgraded in the first half of 2013. As part of this guidance release three PIF Elements have already been upgraded. These are Asset Management, Financial Management, and Efficiency. Successful agencies need their finance functions to look beyond the traditional core functions and to use their financial acumen and insight to drive new value and higher levels of business transformation and performance. As part of the upgrade PIF will place more weight on the use of financial management information and advice for operational and strategic purposes and on the proactive role the finance function needs to play in decisions around creating value for money and leading strategic financial management disciplines in agencies.


Will Crown entities be reviewed?

We have started rolling out PIF to the Crown entity sector, eg, both the New Zealand Transport Agency and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise have been reviewed. Over the next two or three years, as we complete reviews for the core Public Service, we will focus on the wider Crown entity sector.

For more information

More information is available at www.ssc.govt.nz/pif. A new guidance series was released in April 2013 (see page 2). It reflects developments in the suite of PIF products and services. To contact the State Services Commission (SSC) PIF team, email [email protected].


PIF is not a one off

PIF is a continuous improvement process designed by New Zealand State servants for agencies in the New Zealand public management system. It has a number of dimensions: including Self-review, PIF Review, Follow-up Review and Re-review.

Agencies conduct Self-reviews where they rate themselves against the PIF Agency Model. For many – specifically all public service departments – this will be a precursor to a PIF Review. PIF Reviews (or First PIF Review in the diagram above) are conducted by independent reviewers. All agencies that are formally reviewed will also undertake Follow-up Reviews, usually 12-18 months later. The Follow-up Review assesses the agency’s progress against the PIF Review. The Re-review is carried out approximately every three years.


Principles that underpin PIF Reviews

All PIF Reviews, including PIF Self-reviews, are underpinned by the following principles:

Collaborative and participatory approaches work best

Collaborative and constructive relationships are crucial to establishing the trust necessary for an effective performance improvement review. Collaborative, participatory approaches encourage the participation of stakeholders. Consequently, stakeholders take greater ownership of the conclusions and solutions and thus the review is more likely to be useful and used.

Contextual

PIF Reviews always take into account an agency’s unique context, situation and circumstance.

Continuous improvement

PIF is a work-in-progress. It embodies the principle that learning across the State Services is best when it is continuous, emerging and recursive.

Efficient and effective

PIF Reviews are not audits, scientific evaluations or investigations of compliance. PIF Reviews are integrated, deep and fast. All PIF Reviews are independent. The PIF Agency Model reflects already stated expectations of good performance. The methodology is necessarily flexible to accommodate the needs of individual agencies.

Judgements informed by evidence

Judgements are informed by evidence made available during the course of a review.

Promotes excellence

PIF Reviews embody the principle that enquiry and reflection into what is working well and why it is working well can underpin performance improvement.

Performance improvement is critical to citizen trust and confidence

One of the key principles of PIF is that while an ethical and impartial State Services is fundamental to maintaining citizen trust and confidence in New Zealand’s public institutions, so is the need for those institutions to deliver, to perform and be seen to be taking performance improvement seriously. PIF has been designed by New Zealand State servants for the New Zealand public service.


Transparency matters

Transparency supports fairness of process and capacity building in the wider State Services via continual sharing of information. All PIF Reviews are published. Agencies are encouraged to publish PIF Self-reviews.


Recommended process for a PIF Self-review

The following process for PIF Self-review is recommended. It is based on the time-honoured elements of project management.

Phase Three: Delivery(4-6 weeks)

Phase Four: Benefits Realisation

Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years

PIF Follow-up Review: 12-18

months

Self-review Team engages with Senior

Leadership Team

Senior Leadership Team accepts diagnostic, agrees Four-year

Excellence Horizon and designs response

PIF Diagnostic

Publication

Close Out

Phase One: Initiation

(1-2 weeks)

Phase one ensures the senior leadership team has visibility and agrees to the definition of the PIF Self-review. Phase two – the planning phase – is critical because it ensures there is a plan to manage the successful delivery of a PIF Self-review. Phase three – the delivery phase – includes the discussions and analysis that need to happen, so the senior leadership team can understand the current state of the agency, how well placed that agency is to deal with the issues that confront it in the medium-term future, and where they – as senior leaders – need to do the most work to make the agency fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future. Phase four involves the actual delivery of demonstrable performance improvement.



The initiation phase sets a PIF Self-review up for success. Some agencies complete this phase in several days – others in a week – others take longer. It should take no longer than two weeks.



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months


Leadership Team



PIF Diagnostic

Publication

Close Out


(1-2 weeks)

What works?

• Obtaining commitment from the senior leadership team.

• Ensuring the Self-review has a clearly defined and agreed output, which contributes directly to the agency’s performance improvement strategy.

• Using clearly defined and visibly managed processes for project management.

• Ensuring the Self-review team is appropriately trained and suitably experienced.

Terms of Reference

It is vital to gain the commitment of the agency to a Self-review, in particular the senior leadership team. This ensures the scope and outputs are clearly defined and agreed, along with critical success factors. A ‘Terms of Reference’ is the best way to document this agreement. (See Appendix B for a template. An electronic copy is available on the website, or alternatively, email the SSC PIF team at: [email protected].)

It is important to cover all aspects of the PIF Agency Model because of the attention it draws to the agency as a whole. The combination of results and capability means the review considers current performance and the sustainability of that performance.

TIP: It is critical that there is clear understanding and agreement on what will be covered by the PIF Self-review. For example, the mix of Government Priorities and the Core Business should be agreed by the senior leadership team. Some chief executives have consulted with Ministers, sector colleagues and central agencies on what should be covered.


The Self-review team

It is vital to ensure there are adequate staff with the required skills, experience and training to undertake the Self-review. From our experience teams work best when there are clearly defined and visibly managed processes. For indicative roles see Appendix B.

Most Self-review teams work best when the lines of reporting and decision-making are kept as short as possible. Delegation and individual responsibility for decision-making must be transparent and understood by everyone involved.

TIP: Ideally Self-review teams should be small. They should meet early and agree how they will divide up the review work. The review team needs to have dedicated time to review documents and information, as well as time to discuss progress and findings. A dedicated joint workspace with a white board will also assist the team to make connections across the different areas of the review.

TIP: Several agencies have supplemented their Self-review teams with advisors from agencies that have already undertaken reviews. This has been successful when the advisors have been encouraged to provide independent challenge.

The work plan

The work plan is part of the Terms of Reference. It sets out the approach and key milestones. For more information, see Appendix B. An electronic copy is available on the website, or alternatively, email the SSC PIF team at: [email protected].

Team training

It is recommended that the review team undertake training prior to commencing their review. The SSC PIF team runs quarterly workshops for this. Members of the SSC PIF team might also be available to help the Self-review team understand the PIF Agency Model. For an up to date copy of the training schedule go to: www.ssc.govt.nz/pif.

Communication

The chief executive should inform all staff about the PIF Self-review and describe PIF, its benefits and why it is important for the agency to undertake a Self-review. Once the Terms of Reference, Self-review team and work plan have been established, the chief executive should communicate key information to staff and seek their cooperation.


Phase Two: Planning

The planning phase ensures the project is broken down into components or increments that help the team deal with scale, complexity and uncertainty. As with the phase one, some agencies complete this phase in several days– others in a week – others take longer. It should take no longer than two weeks.



PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months


Leadership Team



PIF Diagnostic

Publication

Close Out


(1-2 weeks)

Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

What works?

• Ensuring that the Self-review manager, ie, the leader of the Self-review team, has clear lines of reporting and decision-making. It also helps to ensure the decision-making rights are transparent and understood by everyone in the senior leadership team and Self-review team.

• A good understanding of the PIF Agency Model is vital.

• Ensuring the Self-review team agrees the approach to interviews and documentation, including the level of evidence required, together with the weighting to be given subsequent judgements.

• Re-confirming the scope of review; especially as it relates to Government Priorities and Core Business.


Understanding the PIF Agency Model

The PIF Agency Model has two major components: Results and Organisational Management. The Results component has two Critical Areas: Delivery of Government Priorities and Delivery of Core Business. Organisational Management has four Critical Areas with each supported by a number of Elements. There are 17 Elements; each is designed to provide a greater focus. The following diagram summarises the PIF Agency Model at a high level.

Delivery of Government PrioritiesHow well is the agency responding to government priorities?

Delivery of Core BusinessHow effectively is the agency delivering each core business area?

How efficiently is the agency delivering each core business area?

How well does the agency’s regulatory work achieve its required impact?

Organisational ManagementHow well is the agency positioned to deliver now and in the future?

Leadership, Direction and Delivery

• Purpose, Vision and Strategy

• Leadership and Governance

• Values, Behaviour and Culture

• Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

• Review

External Relationships

• Engagement with the Minister(s)

• Sector Contribution

• Collaboration and Partnership with Stakeholders

• Experiences of the Public

People Development

• Leadership and Workforce Development

• Management of People Performance

• Engagement with Staff

Financial and Resource Management

• Asset Management

• Information Management

• Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness

• Financial Management

• Risk Management


The PIF Agency Model is further defined using 28 Lead Questions and 88 lines of enquiry; see the diagram below.

Lead Questions

5. How well has the agency articulated its purpose, vision and strategy to its staff and stakeholders?

6. How well does the agency consider and plan for possible changes in its purpose or role in the foreseeable future?

7. How well does the senior team provide collective leadership and direction to the agency?

8. How well does the Board lead the Crown entity? (For Crown entities only)

9. How well does the agency develop and promote the organisational values, behaviours and culture it needs to support its strategic direction?

10. How well does the agency ensure that its organisational planning, systems, structures and practices support delivery of government priorities and core business?

11. How well does the agency ensure that it has clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the agency and sector?

12. How well does the agency monitor, measure, and review its policies, programmes and services to make sure that it is delivering its intended results?

13. How well does the agency provide advice and services to its Minister(s)?

14. How well does the agency provide leadership to, and/or support the leadership of other agencies in the sector?

15. How well does the agency generate common ownership and genuine collaboration on strategy and service delivery with stakeholders and the public?

16. How well does the agency meet the public’s expectations of service delivery quality and trust?

17. How well does the agency develop its workforce (including its leadership)?18. How well does the agency anticipate and respond to future capability

requirements?

19. How well does the agency encourage high performance and continuous improvement among its workforce?

20. How well does the agency deal with poor or inadequate performance?

21. How well does the agency manage its employee relations?22. How well does the agency develop and maintain a diverse, highly committed and

engaged workforce?

23. How well does the agency manage agency and Crown assets, and the agency balance sheet, to support delivery and drive performance improvement over time?

24. How well does the agency utilise information and communications technologies to improve service delivery?

25. How robust are the processes in place to identify and make efficiency improvements?

26. How well does the agency evaluate service delivery options?

27. How well does the agency plan, direct and control financial resources to drive efficient and effective output delivery?

28. How well does the agency manage its risks and risks to the Crown?

Lead Questions

1. How well is the agency responding to government priorities?

2. How effectively is the agency delivering each core business area?

3. How efficiently is the agency delivering each core business area?

4. How well does the agency’s regulatory work achieve its required impact?

Organisational Management

Results

Element

Purpose, Vision and Strategy

Leadership and Governance

Values, Behaviour and Culture

Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

Review

Engagement with the Minister(s)

Sector Contribution

Collaboration and Partnerships with Stakeholders

Experiences of the Public

Leadership and Workforce Development

Management of People Performance

Engagement with Staff

Asset Management

Information Management

Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness

Financial Management

Risk Management

Critical Area



People Development


Critical Area

Government Priorities

Core Business


Agencies that complete successful Self-reviews spend time understanding the PIF Agency Model and adapting it for their own business purposes. Core Guide One is specifically designed to assist agencies to understand the Model.

TIP: Make the PIF Agency Model your own. See the exemplar in Appendix C.

Approach to documentation and interviews

The major methods for gathering information are desk-top reviews, document analysis and one-on-one interviews. Some agencies have used focus group sessions with staff.

TIP: It is important to start document collection well in advance of the delivery phase.

TIP: Some agencies may find they do not have all the information they need to answer one or more questions. This finding is significant, why are there information gaps? The questions in the PIF Agency Model are designed to cover all areas considered critical to good management and performance improvement and consideration should be given to remedying any information gaps.

Interviews can be time consuming. Thus the review team needs to be clear who they need to talk to and about what. Interviews need to be organised well in advance to ensure availability of interviewees. Where interview information is required by more than one review team member, the interview questions may need to be collated.

TIP: Have one person collate the information.

A word of advice about insider reviews

PIF Reviews are intended to be collaborative endeavours. Like so many roles in the State Services there will be the challenge of balancing the interdependence of the Self-review team and the colleagues they interact with throughout the review. The Self-review team needs to retain credibility and integrity. There is potential for role ambiguity and conflict if the team is not authorised by an agreed Terms of Reference or time has not been taken to train the team. The SSC PIF team runs quarterly workshops that cover how to design effective insider reviews.

Government Priorities and Core Business areas

The first Critical Area in the Agency Model looks at how well an agency is delivering the Government’s Priorities; by this we mean impacts and results, unless there is very good reason to include short-term activity.


The second Critical Area looks at how well an agency is delivering on its Core Business areas. There are two parts to this Critical Area: part one looks at the effectiveness and efficiency of the Core Business; part two looks at regulatory impact. For this part of the review there are two Lead Questions: one looking specifically at efficiency and the other at effectiveness.

Useful information sources are the letters of expectations from Ministers to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s reply, legislation, the agency’s Statements of Intent and other accountability documents.

TIP: The following principles may assist in the definition:

An evidence base

Supports the selection and review of results areas

All Government Priorities and Core Business areas should be evident in existing documents. (In particular Statements of Intent, Annual Reports, Information Supporting the Estimates, Ministerial Priority letters and Better Public Services Results.)

A comprehensive and manageable set of Government Priorities

Ensures practical, sensible reviews and reports

The Government Priorities should:

• consider all Ministerial priorities and Better Public Services Results

• be appropriate to the size of the agency

• be prioritised to significant priorities (based on size and impact)

• be active priorities (ie, priorities that have been completed should not be reviewed).

The set of Core Business areas should:

• cover the key activities of the agency

• match the size and complexity of the agency (suggested limits are no more than seven for a large agency and no more than four for a small agency)

• be prioritised to the most significant either based on budget or staff, ie, small Core Business areas may not be reviewed.


Different and distinct results areas

Ensures practical, sensible reviews and reports

Each Core Business area should relate, as much as possible, to one function of the agency, ie, not be an amalgam of distinctive and different activities.

Each Core Business area should be distinct, as much as possible, from other Core Business areas (ie, have only minimal overlap).

Each Government Priority should be distinct and different from others.

A Government Priority and a Core Business should not be identical but may overlap.

Links to structure

Makes the review process easier

Core Business areas are more practical to review if they:

• map to the organisation’s structure

• match, if possible, the way the agency is funded.

Written in a clear, consistent style

Makes logical and consistent reports

Each Government Priority and Core Business should be written in clear, simple language, with as much detail as required to explain it.

Appendix E provides a method for reviewing Government Priorities, designed by Inland Revenue as part of its Self-review. Appendix F provides a method for reviewing a Core Business, designed by the Treasury as part of its Self-review.


Phase Three: Delivery

The purpose of this phase is to deliver the Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the review itself. This phase includes all the discussions and analysis that need to happen, so a senior leadership team understands the current state of an agency, how well placed that agency is to deal with the issues that confront it in the medium term, and where the most work needs to be done to make an agency fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future. Some agencies complete this phase in a week – others take longer. It should take no longer than six weeks.


Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months


(1-2 weeks)



Leadership Team



PIF Diagnostic

Close Out

Publication

Part 1: PIF Diagnostic

Uses the PIF Agency Model to review the current state of the agency and how well placed it is to deal with the issues that confront it in the medium-term future.

Part 2: Four-year Excellence Horizon

Based on the Part 1 draft report, the senior leadership team asks two critical questions:

• What is the contribution New Zealand needs from this agency and, therefore, what is the future performance challenge?

• If the agency is to be successful at meeting the future performance challenge, what would success look like in four years?

Part 3: Agency Response

Having answered Part 2, the senior leadership team would then propose areas where the agency needs to do the most work to make itself fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future.

What works?

• A tailored approach.

• Self-reviews are not audits.

• Understand the ratings.


A tailored approach

An agency designs and delivers the approach and method to suit its needs. A PIF Self-review should be a short process based on existing but up to date documentation. Sometimes it involves interviews with only a few key staff and stakeholders. There is no right or wrong length of time this should take. Some agencies have completed this phase quickly (72 hours) while others have taken longer (six weeks).

Self-reviews are not audits

The reviews are not audits, investigations or judicial enquiries; rather they are discussions about the future.

Understand the ratings

In the planning phase the PIF Self-review team takes time to understand the PIF Agency Model. In phase three, both the Self-review team and the senior leadership team will need to take time to understand the core concepts at the heart of the ratings. Those concepts are also at the heart of the report by the Better Public Services Advisory Group: important ideas about stewardship, forward-and-outward focus, collective impact, sustained results, benchmarking and continuous improvement.

Rating scale

Rating Judgement What it means

Strong (Excellent)

Best practice/excellent• Highlevelofcapabilityandsustainedandconsistentlyhighlevelsofperformance• Systemsinplacetomonitorandbuildcapabilitytomeetfuturedemands• Organisationallearningandexternalbenchmarkingusedtocontinuouslyevaluateandimproveperformance

Well placed

Capable• Deliveringtoexpectationswithexamplesofhighlevelsofperformance• Evidenceofattentiongiventoassessingfuturedemandsandcapabilityneeds• Comprehensiveandconsistentlygoodorganisationalpracticesandsystemsinplacetosupporteffective

management

Needing development

Developing• Adequatecurrentperformance–concernsaboutfutureperformance• Beginningtofocusonprocesses,repeatability,evaluationandimprovementandmanagementbeyondand

acrossunits• Areasofunderperformanceorlackofcapabilityarerecognisedbytheagency• Strategiesoractionplanstoliftperformanceorcapability,orremedydeficienciesareinplaceandbeing

implemented

Weak

Unaware or limited capacity• Significantarea(s)ofcriticalweaknessorconcernintermsofdeliveryand/orcapability• Managementfocusesontasksandactionsratherthanresultsandimpacts• Agencyhaslimitedornoawarenessofcriticalweaknessesorconcerns• Strategiesorplanstorespondtoareasofweaknessareeithernotinplaceornotlikelytohavesufficient

impact

Unable to rate/not rated

There is either:• noevidenceuponwhichajudgementcanbemade;or• theevidenceavailabledoesnotallowacrediblejudgementtobemade


PIF Diagnostic



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months


Leadership Team



Publication

Close Out


(1-2 weeks) PIF Diagnostic

If you have done phases one and two well, this diagnostic should be straight forward.

TIP: Typically, it takes a week to review documents. The diagram below shows the timetable most agencies use: prepare the documentation for analysis; re-describe the documentation; propose what the documentation means in respect of the PIF Elements, critical questions and lines of enquiry; and infer a rating.

Day One:

• Document preparation

Day Two-Three:

• Write up a description of the documentation and/or data

Day Four-Five:

• Propose hypotheses vis-à-vis the documentation and PIF element, PIF critical questions and PIF lines of enquiry

• Infer a rating

TIP: Descriptions should be brief, even if the documents are large. In most write-ups, descriptions are carefully selected and organised into summaries. Usually, the hypotheses and inferential analyses are made specific to the PIF Agency Model and the ratings themselves.

TIP: It is critical to be concise. If you present too much detail, others may not be able to follow the central line of argument. Extensive analysis should be attached as appendices, reserving only the most critical analysis summaries for the body of the report. See Appendix D for a template.


Self-review team engages with Senior Leadership Team

PIF Diagnostic



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months



Publication

Close Out


(1-2 weeks)


Leadership Team

The end deliverable from the PIF Diagnostic is the draft PIF Self-review. The draft should be edited and peer reviewed before being submitted to the senior leadership team. It may include provisional recommendations for ratings on each Element.

TIP: Peer review ensures internal consistency between judgements and evidence base, as well as the judgements and the ratings. External consistency refers to other system-level ratings and findings. The SSC PIF team can assist if required.

Four-year Excellence Horizon and Response


Leadership Team

PIF Diagnostic



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months

Publication

Close Out


(1-2 weeks) Senior Leadership Team accepts diagnostic, agrees Four-year


What works?

• Understanding and using the Four-year Excellence Horizon.

• Aiming for a great response.

Before the senior leadership team accepts the report and its ratings, the two critical questions (see page 20) must be answered:




Once the answers to these two questions are agreed the senior leadership team is usually in a position to accept the report and agree a set of ratings, and most importantly, start working on the next three to four areas – in particular, where the agency needs to do the most work to make itself fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future.

Four-year Excellence Horizon

For the foreseeable future, countries, businesses, non-government organisations (NGOs), communities, households and families – New Zealand as a whole – will face challenges, which collectively are certainly bigger and more complex than what we have dealt with before. It is no different for the State Services. Each and every senior leadership team is facing challenges quite different to those faced by previous chief executives and senior leaders. The Four-year Excellence Horizon helps agencies to understand those changes. It is a strategic narrative agreed by the senior leadership team so it understands and stays ahead of emerging opportunities and to respond quickly to unexpected issues.

TIP: It is also an aggregation of the dialogue people engaged throughout the Self-review. It is not an environmental scan. It is not a SWOT analysis. It is particular to the agency’s near-future or medium-term context. It is a distillation of the critical shift that an agency needs to make to be successful in four years’ time. It looks at four areas: environment, business strategy, operating model and change capability. See the table below. This framework offers a chief executive and senior leaders a degree of clarity about the most important issues they need to work on to lift their performance, plus a sense of what it might actually look like if they were to achieve it.

Operating Environment

What internal and external factors are going to impact on this agency and their ability to deliver results now?

How might these factors impact on the agency over the next four years?

Operating Model

What is the current operating model?

Does the current operating model position this agency to achieve the results that you now know are required?

What might the operating model look like once the agency has achieved its desired future state in four years’ time?

Business Strategy

What is the current business strategy?

Does the current business strategy position this agency to achieve the results that you now know are required?

What is the desired future state four years from now?

What sort of shifts would this require, and how big are they?

Change Capability

What might the change strategy look like?

What culture, capability and capacity is required to assist this agency with the shifts it needs to make?

What measures will they need to help ‘steward’ this change?


What makes a good response?

A good agency response empowers a chief executive, Board and senior leaders to act because they know where to drive the most impactful improvements in their agency.

Great agency responses – like the responses by the New Zealand Transport Agency, Ministry of Justice, and Department of Corrections – are commensurate to the challenge. By commensurate the PIF means:

• Appropriate (befitting and consistent with the challenge Four-year Excellence Horizon)

• Understood (widely owned by the senior leaders in the agency with key stakeholders engaged in the key findings and solutions)

• Measurable at an impact level (demonstrably different for citizens and clients)

• Do-able (affordable, realistic, sifted for early wins, with a sequence that makes sense).

Publication and Close Out




Leadership Team

PIF Diagnostic



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


months


(1-2 weeks)

Publication

Close Out

PIF reports should be published on the agency’s website. The senior leadership team sets the date of publication.

The Close Out phase ensures all documentation is filed; individuals are debriefed; lessons are documented and built into business-as-usual; and the Follow-up Review is scheduled.



The purpose of this phase is ensure the benefits, promised actions, have been implemented or need to be adjusted. The Follow-up Review does not include ratings; it is a scheduled discussion and report (which should be published alongside the initial Self-review) on the progress the agency has made. It is basically a progress report against the agency response. It should also be published.

Publication

Close Out




Leadership Team

PIF Diagnostic



Phase Two: Planning

(1-2 weeks)

PIF Re-review:

3-4 years


(1-2 weeks)


months

Support for agencies undertaking Self-reviews

A range of support is available to assist agencies to improve performance, including:

• this guidance

• the Performance Improvement Framework Guidance series

• quarterly ‘how-to’ workshops for departmental managers

• a range of resource material available on the PIF website

• assistance from the central agency teams.

The SSC PIF team can help agencies solve substantive methodology problems. It can also challenge the clarity and quality of the conclusions. The team also shares good practice and identifies links with other departments, and provides advice on all-of-government issues and interests. The team also delivers tailored workshops for those executive teams and boards interested in starting their performance improvement journeys.

To contact the SSC PIF team, email: [email protected].


Appendix A: Glossary

Agency Model – A framework that delivers a view of an agency’s capability, performance and ability to deliver government priorities, its core business and a range of organisational management elements.

Cluster Model – A framework that delivers a view of a sector’s (and cluster’s or sub-system’s) capability, performance and ability to deliver government priorities.

Four-year Excellence Horizon – This is a recent innovation. It is a distillation of the critical shift in performance that an agency needs to make to be successful in four years’ time. Its purpose is to give the management and staff of an agency a degree of clarity about the most important issues they need to work on to lift their performance, plus a sense of what it might actually look like if they were to achieve it.

Lead Reviewer – Independent parties who undertake PIF Reviews and PIF Follow-up Reviews for the central agencies. Lead Reviewers are a critical part of the Performance Improvement Framework (or PIF) programme. They are not armchair critics or academic commentators. They are people of mana and credibility who have lead major change in both the public and private sectors and now hold significant governance roles.

PIF – Performance Improvement Framework; commonly used to refer to an actual review, the models themselves as well as the suite of PIF products and services.

PIF Follow-up Review – This is a recent innovation. It occurs 12-18 months after a PIF Review. It ensures an agency has an opportunity to take stock, ensure it is realising the benefit of the most recent review and is well placed to deal with the future.

PIF Review – A review conducted by independent Lead Reviewers of an agency’s capability, performance and ability to deliver on government priorities, its core business and a range of organisational management elements. Using the Agency Model, the review assesses what an agency does well and what issues it needs to work on to be more effective in the future. The agency develops a response to address any matters raised and to indicate what it will do to face the future challenges.

PIF Self-review – Some agencies – especially Crown entities – use the Agency Model as a Self-review tool to measure and improve their own performance. A Self-review is mandatory if an agency wants a PIF Review conducted.

ratings – Ratings (commonly referred to as ‘traffic lights’) are judgements made by the Lead Reviewers against each of the elements in the Agency Model, based on the information gathered in a review. The greener the traffic light, the better positioned the agency is to deal with the future. The more red the traffic light, the more work needs to be done.


Six Dimensions of System Performance – A framework for delivering a view on a system’s capability, performance and ability to deliver Government Priorities.

system findings – These are an aggregate narrative of the ratings from the PIF Reviews conducted to date.


Appendix B: Template: Terms of reference

Terms of Reference

Performance Improvement Framework

Self-review

<Agency name>

Status: <> Author: <>

Date: <> Version: <>

Introduction

The <Agency name> will undertake a Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) Self-review. The review will be in three parts:

Part 1

Using the PIF Agency Model the review will consider the current state of the agency and how well placed it is to deal with the issues that confront it in the medium-term future.

Part 2

Based on the Part 1 draft report the <senior leadership team> will then ask and answer two critical questions:



Part 3

Having answered the Part 2 questions the <senior leadership team> will then propose areas where the agency needs to do the most work to make itself fit-for-purpose and fit-for-the-future. That proposal is the agency’s next stage of performance improvement.


Process

The review is designed to identify and access relevant material in relation to this matter, and interview the relevant people, if necessary. All PIF Reviews are integrated, deep, fast reviews based on available information. This PIF Self-review will take no longer than <x> days.

Approach

A PIF Self-review is not an audit, scientific evaluation, investigation of compliance or an accreditation process. Like the PIF Review, the method of enquiry is a mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The approach is appreciative (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1997). A PIF Self-review:

• starts from a principle that by and large the agency works well and the primary role of the review is to discover, describe and explain why the agency works well

• is interested in the agency’s potential, thus the review will cover both past and future performance in the context of the challenges in the near future

• involves conversations that are strategic and provocative; a PIF Self-review is a way for an agency to find a way to become more than it is at the moment, and in doing so learn how to take public ownership for its own performance improvement journey

• must be collaborative; there is an inseparable relationship between the process, approach, content and outcome of the review.

Reporting

It is envisaged that an interim report covering the matters reviewed in Part 1 will be available to the <senior leadership team> on <date>.

The <senior leadership team> determines the communication and distribution of any reports relating to the review, including the final report, which is made up of Parts 1, 2 and 3.


Deliverables and Timeframes

A PIF Self-review commences when the terms of reference are signed and the <senior leadership team>, formally announces the review to the agency.

Table One: Indicative deliverables and timeframes

Phase Purpose Description Duration or Completion Date

Initi

ation

Setting the Self-review up for success.

The Terms of Reference and Project Plan are signed by all parties. Self-review team identified and trained.

Completed no later than <Day, Date>

Plan

ning

Ensure the project itself is broken down into component or increments that help deal with scale, complexity and uncertainty.

Necessary logistics support and documents are provided to the team.

Training sessions on the PIF Agency Model.

Agreement on the Government Priorities and Core Business Areas to be reviewed.


Del

iver

y

Analysis A period of desk analysis and interviews undertaken by the Self-review team.

<Start Date – End Date>

Part 1 draft findings. Team synthesis and present draft report for <senior leadership team> consideration.


<senior leadership team> discussion.

Part 2 and Part 3 findings.

Accept or not the draft report. If not, consider peer review or independent moderation. Answer Part 2 and Part 3 questions.


Agency Response or Agency Performance Improvement Plan.

Agree priority areas for improvement.

Publish.


Bene

fits

Real

isati

on

Review Agency Performance Improvement Plan.

Review progress. Completed no later than <Day, Date>


Project team roles and responsibilities

Table Two: Indicative roles and responsibilities for a PIF Self-review team

Role Responsibility

Sponsor The Self-review Sponsor is either the chief executive or a second tier manager. This role provides oversight, promotes the review across the agency and works to remove barriers if they arise.

PIF Self-review Project Manager

The Self-review Project Manager plans the review, schedules the activities, organises, trains and leads the Self-review team. They also monitor progress. Often they also edit the penultimate draft.

PIF Self-review team Self-review team members undertake document analysis, conduct interviews and write up draft findings for the areas they are allocated. The review team as a group finalises the draft report, providing challenge and consistency across the overall review. Some agencies use large teams. Others use one or two advisors.

Peer reviewer Peer review is critical. Peer review ensures the report is robust and fair across the different areas covered. Most agencies invite advisors who have not been part of the Self-review team to provide peer review. Some agencies have used their risk and assurance committees. Others have invited sector colleagues to provide peer review.

<Senior leadership team>

The agency <senior leadership team> accepts – or not – the Self-review. If it accepts the review they then develop a response. If they do not accept the review they might consider further peer review or independent moderation.

Agreement to the Terms of Reference

I am satisfied that the approach outlined in the Terms of Reference will achieve the stated objectives of this review.

______________________________________

<Agency CE Name> Chief Executive, Agency

Date


Appendix C: Exemplar from the Education Review Office – Making the PIF Agency Model your own

Results

Critical Area Lead Questions What do we have (information sources)?

Priority for PIF Review (more or less time?) Our future directions/considerations

Delivery of Government Priorities

How well has ERO responded to current Government priorities?

1 Increasing opportunity for children to participate in high quality early childhood education.

2 Every child achieves literacy and numeracy levels that enable their success.

3 Every young person has the skills and qualifications to contribute to their and New Zealand’s future.

4 Relevant and efficient tertiary education provision that meets student and labour market needs.

5 Māori achieving education success as Māori.

6 Value for money from Government expenditure in education.

Delivery of Core Business for each of:

• Output class 1 (reviews of schools and ECEs)

• Output class 2 (national evaluations)

For each output class:

• How effectively is ERO delivering its core business?

• How efficiently is ERO delivering its core business?

• How well does ERO’s work achieve its required impact? (Is this the same as effectiveness?)



Critical Area Element Lead Questions What do we have (information sources)?




How well has ERO articulated its purpose, vision and strategy to its staff and stakeholders?

How well does ERO consider and plan for possible changes in its purpose or role in the foreseeable future?


How well do the forums provide and promote collective leadership and direction to ERO?


How well does ERO develop and promote the organisational culture, behaviours and values it needs to support its strategic direction?


How well does ERO ensure that its organisational planning, systems, structures and practices support delivery of government priorities and core business?

How well does ERO ensure that it has clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the agency and sector?

Review How well does ERO monitor, measure, and review its policies, programmes and services to make sure that it is delivering its intended results?






How well does ERO provide advice and services to their Minister(s)?

Sector Contribution

How well does ERO generate common ownership and genuine collaboration on strategy with: political leadership, across the public sector and the community and voluntary sectors where appropriate?

Collaboration and Partnerships with

Stakeholders

How well does ERO generate common ownership and genuine collaboration on strategy and service delivery with stakeholders and public?


How well does ERO meet the public’s expectations of service quality and trust?

People Development


How well does ERO develop its workforce (including its leadership)?

How well does ERO anticipate and respond to future capability requirements?


How well does ERO encourage high performance and continuous improvement among its workforce?

How well does ERO deal with poor or inadequate performance?


How well does ERO manage its employee relations?

How well does ERO develop and maintain a diverse, highly committed and engaged workforce?





Asset Management

How well does ERO manage agency and Crown assets, and the agency balance sheet, to support delivery and drive performance improvement over time?


How well does ERO use information & communications technologies to improve service delivery?


How robust are the processes in place to identify and make efficiency improvements?

How well does ERO evaluate service delivery options?


How well does ERO plan, direct and control financial resources to drive efficient and effective output delivery?

Risk management

How well does ERO manage agency risks and risks to the Crown?


Appendix D: Template – Self-review report

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK

Self-review of the

Name of Agency

(Agency Acronym)

1st Draft

<MONTH> <YEAR>


Document History

Previous Versions

<eg, There have been no previous versions of this document.>

Current Version

Document Authors RDMS Number

<eg, DoAA 2010 PIF Self-review – 1st Draft>

Name

This version to be submitted to: Date

<Name, Role, Name of Agency> <Day><Month><Year>


Self-review teams’ Acknowledgement

Example:

As the PIF Self-review team for this Performance Improvement Framework review for the Department of Administrative Affairs (DoAA) we would like to acknowledge the thoughtful and generous input made by staff, the Senior Executive Team and the Audit and Risk Committee. In addition, we had considerable input from a cross section of the DoAA’s external partners and stakeholders, who were equally committed to building stronger collaboration in the future. We also had the benefit of input from officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the State Services Commission and the Treasury, which proved to be insightful.

<Note how conflicts of interest were acknowledged and managed>


Draft Agency Response

<Text>


TABLE OF CONTENTS


DRAFT FOUR-YEAR EXCELLENCE HORIZON

In undertaking this review the Self-review team considered: “What is the contribution that New Zealand needs from <this agency> and, therefore, what is the performance challenge? And if the agency is to be successful at meeting the future performance challenge, what would success look like in four years? And do we have the change capability to get there?”

Environment

<Text>

Performance Challenge – Outcomes

<Text>

Performance Challenge – Agency

<Text>

i Purpose and Targets

<Text>

ii Business Strategy

<Text>

iii Operating Model

<Text>

iv Implementation (including Change Capability)

<Text>

What will success look like?

<Text>


SUMMARY OF RATINGSResults

Government Priorities Rating

Government priority 1





Government priority n

Core BusinessRating

(Effectiveness)

Rating

(Efficiency)

Core business 1

Core business 2

Core business n

Crown entity monitoring (delete if not applicable)

Rating

Regulatory Impact

Rating System

Strong Well placed Needing development Weak Unable to rate/not rated



Leadership, Direction and Delivery Rating





Review

External Relationships Rating


Sector Contribution



People Development Rating




Financial and Resource Management Rating

Asset Management




Risk Management

Rating System

Strong Well placed Needing development Weak Unable to rate/not rated


AGENCY CONTEXT

<Text>


RESULTS SECTION

Part One: Delivery of Government Priorities

This section reviews the agency’s ability to deliver on its strategic priorities agreed with the Government. While the questions are ex-post and guide the Self-review team to retrospective and current performance the final judgements and ratings are necessarily informed by scope and scale of the performance challenge.

Government priority 1: <Description>

Performance Rating: <eg, Strong> <colour rating>

<Narrative and evidence base>


Performance Rating: <Descriptor> <colour rating>









Part Two: Delivery of Core Business

This section reviews the agency’s effectiveness and efficiency in delivering its core business. While the questions are ex-post and guide the Self-review team to retrospective and current performance the final judgements and ratings are necessarily informed by scope and scale of the performance challenge.

Core business 1: <Description>

Effectiveness Performance Rating: <Descriptor> <colour rating>

Efficiency Performance Rating: <Descriptor> <colour rating>


Core business 2: <Description>




Note: Add sections for Crown entity monitoring and regulatory impacts as appropriate.

Crown entity monitoring




Regulatory impact




ORGANISATIONAL MANAGEMENT SECTION

This section reviews the agency’s organisational management. The questions focus on ex-ante and often guide the Self-review team to future and current performance. Final judgements and ratings informed by the scope and scale of the performance challenge.

Part One: Leadership, Direction and Delivery


How well has the agency defined and articulated its purpose, vision and strategy to its staff and stakeholders?

How well does the agency consider and plan for possible changes in its purpose or role in the foreseeable future?




How well does the senior team provide collective leadership and direction to the agency?




How well does the agency develop and promote the organisational values, behaviours and culture it needs to support its strategic direction?




How well does the agency ensure that its organisational planning, systems, structures and practices support delivery of government priorities and core business?

How well does the agency ensure that it has clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the agency and sector?




Review

How well does the agency monitor, measure, and review its policies, programmes and services to make sure that it is delivering its intended results?




Part Two: External Relationships


How well does the agency provide advice and services to its Minister(s)



Sector Contribution

How well does the agency provide leadership to, and / or support the leadership of other agencies in the sector?




How well does the agency generate common ownership and genuine collaboration on strategy and service delivery with stakeholders and the public?




How well does the agency meet the public’s expectations of service quality and trust?




Part Three: People Development


How well does the agency develop its workforce (including its leadership)? How well does the agency anticipate and respond to future capability requirements?




How well does the agency encourage high performance and continuous improvement among its workforce? How well does the agency deal with poor or inadequate performance?




How well does the agency manage its employee relations? How well does the agency develop and maintain a diverse, highly committed and engaged workforce?




Part Four: Financial and Resource Management

Asset Management

How does the agency manage agency and Crown assets, and the agency balance sheet, to support delivery and drive performance improvement over time?




How well does the agency utilise information and communications technologies to improve service delivery?




How robust are the processes in place to identify and make efficiency improvements?

How well does the agency evaluate service delivery options?




How well does the agency plan, direct and control financial resources to drive efficient and effective output delivery?



Risk Management

How well does the agency manage its risks and risks to the Crown?




APPENDIX A

Overview of the Model

Delivery of Government PrioritiesHow well is the agency responding to government priorities?

Delivery of Core BusinessHow effectively is the agency delivering each core business area?

How efficiently is the agency delivering each core business area?

How well does the agency’s regulatory work achieve its required impact?

Organisational ManagementHow well is the agency positioned to deliver now and in the future?


• Purpose, Vision and Strategy

• Leadership and Governance

• Values, Behaviour and Culture

• Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

• Review


• Engagement with the Minister(s)

• Sector Contribution

• Collaboration and Partnership with Stakeholders

• Experiences of the Public

People Development

• Leadership and Workforce Development

• Management of People Performance

• Engagement with Staff


• Asset Management

• Information Management

• Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness

• Financial Management

• Risk Management


Lead Questions

Lead Questions

5. How well has the agency articulated its purpose, vision and strategy to its staff and stakeholders?

6. How well does the agency consider and plan for possible changes in its purpose or role in the foreseeable future?

7. How well does the senior team provide collective leadership and direction to the agency?

8. How well does the Board lead the Crown entity? (For Crown entities only)

9. How well does the agency develop and promote the organisational values, behaviours and culture it needs to support its strategic direction?

10. How well does the agency ensure that its organisational planning, systems, structures and practices support delivery of government priorities and core business?

11. How well does the agency ensure that it has clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the agency and sector?

12. How well does the agency monitor, measure, and review its policies, programmes and services to make sure that it is delivering its intended results?

13. How well does the agency provide advice and services to its Minister(s)?

14. How well does the agency provide leadership to, and/or support the leadership of other agencies in the sector?

15. How well does the agency generate common ownership and genuine collaboration on strategy and service delivery with stakeholders and the public?

16. How well does the agency meet the public’s expectations of service delivery quality and trust?

17. How well does the agency develop its workforce (including its leadership)?18. How well does the agency anticipate and respond to future capability

requirements?

19. How well does the agency encourage high performance and continuous improvement among its workforce?

20. How well does the agency deal with poor or inadequate performance?

21. How well does the agency manage its employee relations?22. How well does the agency develop and maintain a diverse, highly committed and

engaged workforce?

23. How well does the agency manage agency and Crown assets, and the agency balance sheet, to support delivery and drive performance improvement over time?

24. How well does the agency utilise information and communications technologies to improve service delivery?

25. How robust are the processes in place to identify and make efficiency improvements?

26. How well does the agency evaluate service delivery options?

27. How well does the agency plan, direct and control financial resources to drive efficient and effective output delivery?

28. How well does the agency manage its risks and risks to the Crown?

Lead Questions

1. How well is the agency responding to government priorities?

2. How effectively is the agency delivering each core business area?

3. How efficiently is the agency delivering each core business area?

4. How well does the agency’s regulatory work achieve its required impact?


Results

Element





Review


Sector Contribution






Asset Management




Risk Management

Critical Area



People Development


Critical Area

Government Priorities

Core Business


APPENDIX B

List of Interviews

This review was informed by input provided by a number of <name of agency> staff and by representatives from the following businesses, organisations and agencies.

Agency/Organisation


Appendix E: One method for reviewing government priorities

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link Link

Goal/Result

Impact

Impact

Measure

Measure

Activity

Activity

Has the agency provided credible information demonstrating that the achievement of this impact will support the achievement of the Government’s goal or result? Short, medium and long term?

Has the agency provided credible information demonstrating that the achievement of this measure will support the achievement of the impact? Short, medium and long term?

Has the agency provided credible information demonstrating that carrying out these activities will support the achievement of that particular measure?

1 2 3

Is there clear evidence that the agency has derived its impact from an agreed Government result?

Are there other impacts that the agency could or should pursue with others to support the achievement of other Government results?

Is there clear evidence that the agency has derived its measures from its impacts?

Are there other measures that the agency could or should pursue to support the achievement of other impacts?

Is there clear evidence that the agency has derived its activities from its measures?

Are there other activities that the agency could or should deliver to support the achievement of other measures?

4 5 6


Appendix F: One method for reviewing core business

CORE BUSINESS

Link Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Core Business

Technical

Efficiency

Price, Quantity

and Standards

Allocative

Efficiency

Problem and

Output Matched

Cost

Effectiveness

Output Improves

the Core Outcomes

How much does it cost?

How many are produced?

To what standard?

Does the spend actually increase or improve the output?

Are the trade-offs clear?

Can we get better results without spending this money?

Can we link the investment and output to priority groups, needs and opportunities?

Can we deliver this output different to improve its impact?

Are the results good, bad or simply indifferent?

Did the end outcomes improve?

Did the gains equal spending?

Did gains precede or lag changes?

Any diminishing returns?

1 2 3

core guide 2: using the performance improvement framework agency model ... · core guide 2: using...

Documents