While many reports do recognize the advantage of an outcomes focus in government, often public bodies concentrate on individual outputs. Many agencies are still working on short-term or annual planning and budgeting cycles, and in some cases confusing their outputs with outcomes. Successfully re-orientating public bodies to an outcome-oriented focus requires leadership from the top.

Such a shift is not a simple task—once outcomes have been set, it is frequently noted that important factors are not under the control of any single body. It raises questions about how the resources for those interventions are shared globally to ensure that changes in outcomes are met. This puts forward a strong case for not only cross-government collaboration but also potential partnerships and collaborations with the wider community and the private sector. Another challenge comes with monitoring progress. If no one organization has the full picture, analysis on effectiveness must come from a higher authority. Thus, governance and scrutiny arrangements must be moved away from a single entity to a custodian of the overall plan for outcomes. This is a significant change from the traditional, functional, organization-based and mainly short-term budgeting focus used by many organizations. However, continued pressure on available resources has forced us to look at delivery differently.

Required

1. Why can measuring outcomes be more complex than measuring outputs? Explain using examples from a service you are familiar with.
2. Describe the balanced scorecard used to measure performance. What are the advantages and disadvantages of its use in a public service organization? Refer to examples from your experience or learning to illustrate your points.