The Managing for Results Self-Assessment Tool

Overview of the Tool

As presented in the table below, the Managing for Results Self-Assessment Tool consists of six elements that include one pivotal characteristic and five supporting elements (found on the left of each row), plus five transitional stages in managing for results (one stage per column). To give a better sense of the overall logic of the Tool, each of these elements and stages is described separately.

The pivotal characteristic and supporting elements

Using results to manage is the pivotal characteristic, the essence of the Tool. It has a threefold focus: the extent to which the organization is using information on inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes; its desire and ability to demonstrate evidence-based learning by carefully analyzing results information; and its use of such information to plan, modify operations and allocate resources. This characteristic best shows an organization's progress in moving toward managing for results.

The other five elements support the development of the pivotal characteristic:

1. Commitment to results: This element focuses on the organizational leadership and support for managing for results, the implementing capacity of an organization, the reinforcement of the values of managing for results, and its presence in management accountability.
2. Results-based strategic planning: This element encompasses the notion that results should be linked to high-level organizational objectives and expressed through to operational processes. Managing for results should also be linked to risk management.
3. Operational/business planning: The focus of this element is on performance expectations and how these align with the corporate outcomes of an organization. The expectations include outputs and outcomes, wherever possible.
4. Measuring results: This element examines whether data collection includes outcomes in addition to the measurement of inputs, activities and outputs. It further describes how measurement is linked to planning and reporting, and it integrates cost with results measurement. The evaluation role is also a key part of the development of a measurement strategy.[1]
5. Reporting on results: Rather than focusing on the reports provided to Parliament,this element highlights the integration of external reporting with the actual MFR practices and results within an organization.

As shown in the diagram below, the pivotal characteristic and five supporting elements are integrated components of a continuous cycle of learning and improvement. Each element builds on and contributes to the next. The focus is on using performance information to make improvements.

The five transition stages

MFR implementation follows a sequence of stages common to all organizational transitions.[2] These are conceptual stages that describe the predominant behaviours of the organization at a particular point. The pivotal characteristic and five elements overlie the five stages of the Tool. The stages are as follows:

1. Awareness: The organization is aware of, but not committed to, managing for results. In this stage people in the organization recognize that what they have been doing is inadequate and that there must be a better way of proceeding. Managers may express a broad commitment to managing for results, saying that they wish to be in line with broader public policy, but their statements lack conviction. This stage can involve a sense of fear, guilt and unhappiness with past performance. It can also lead to attempts to place blame as various organizational stakeholders become frustrated with parts of the organization that do not implement MFR-related practices. With increased exposure to the idea of managing for results, groups become more open to the possibility of change, leading to the next stage.
2. Exploration: The organization begins to commit to managing for results and explores different approaches. During this stage, people begin to pick up on new ideas from a variety of sources. The exploration may take the form of learning groups, benchmarking studies and pilot projects. One problem at this stage is that people may prefer one technique or system over others, without having given them a full trial. Another problem may be that too many different ideas are tried at once, resulting in practices that are never fully explored. During the exploration stage, enough people across the organization develop a sense of the benefits of MFR and want to explore it in a broader context. This willingness leads to the next stage.
3. Transition: The organization has committed itself to managing for results and attempting to make the transition from previous systems. In this stage, people begin to make a commitment to the new practices required. They drop old practices in favour of new ones because the old practices can no longer solve the organization's day-to-day problems. This stage can be characterized by hard decisions on what to keep and what to discard in terms of MFR strategies. For example, the conversion to a set of results-oriented measures is likely to mean that some old measures need to be dropped. As more people see the benefits provided, managing for results becomes more widespread throughout the organization.
4. Full implementation: The organization fully implements managing for results in all areas. In this stage, groups across the organization begin to see and look forward to the real benefits of the new management approach. Resources are allocated and plans are designed to support new practices, not to maintain old and outdated ones.
5. Continuous learning: The organization now uses the managing for results plan. It periodically adjusts and updates existing tools, methods and processes that support the use of MFR information in the organization, including training tools, new approaches to planning, experimentation with advanced measurement tools, and development of reporting mechanisms that further align internal and external reporting.

A critical point to bear in mind is that no organization fits neatly into any one stage. Rather, the self-assessment may show that an organization is at different stages with respect to various elements. It is also expected that activity and output information from the earlier stages of the Tool will continue to be produced in the more advanced stages. The key difference is that the increasing use of outcome information at the more advanced stages will supplement activity and output information used in decision making.