
	Français	Contact Us	Help	Search	Canada Site
	What's New	About Us	Policies	Site Map	Home

Results-based Management

How to Self-Assess

Self-Assess Chart

Alternate Format(s)

Instructions Word (329 Kb)PDF (1.52 Mb)

Printable Version

The Managing for Results Self-Assessment Tool

Table of Contents

The Managing for Results Self-Assessment Tool

Few: 1%-25%

Some: 26%-50%

Frequently: 51%-75%

Routinely: 76%-99%

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Pivotal characteristic: Using results to manage
Use of results information in managing	· Activity and output information used by managers in a few programs to modify operations · Outcomes play no role in decision making · Limited understanding of how Public Service values and ethics link to achievement of results	· Activity and output information used in some programs to modify operations · Outcome information considered in a few management decisions on modifying operations, re-allocating resources, and revising strategies and policies · Public Service values understood and linked to the achievement of results	· Activity and output information used frequently to modify program operations. Some information on outcomes and the capacity to continue delivering them is analyzed and used in decisions of corporate and line management on modifying operations, re-allocating resources, and revising strategies and policies	· Information on outcomes and the capacity to continue delivering them (as well as the means used to achieve them^a) is frequently analyzed and used in decision making on modifying operations, re-allocating resources, and revising strategies and policies.	· Performance information^b on outcomes is routinely and consistently analyzed and used (as a matter of course) for decisions throughout the organization on modifying operations, re-allocating resources, and revising strategies and policies · The type of outcome and related performance information being gathered is reviewed for usefulness and adjusted.
Possible indicators The extent to which evidence and analysis of outcome results are used to support planning, design, delivery and resource allocation decisions. Notes "Means" used to deliver results include Public Service values and ethics, propriety, stewardship and treating people fairly. "Performance information," in addition to results, includes the means used to deliver results and information on the capacity (in terms of people and assets) to continue delivering the results.

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Element A: Commitment to results
*Support*	· Deputy or assistant deputy head (or equivalent) verbally commits to building capacity to manage for results · Organization unit head verbally commits to building capacity to manage for results	· With managers aware of and committed to managing for results, pilots or other test initiatives are undertaken	· Champions or leaders that promote MFR practices are identified and encouraged to visibly show the benefits of managing for results in their organizations	· Strong support for building and testing MFR abilities and management systems · Senior managers demand performance information for improving results abilities and management systems	· Support at all levels for periodic adjustment of the organizational infrastructure to sustain MFR practices
Possible indicators The extent to which supportive statements are made by key managers with respect to managing for results. The extent to which human resource time is spent on MFR initiatives. The level of financial support for MFR initiatives. The extent, seriousness and diversity of MFR initiatives.
*Leading people for results*	· Limited or no training on managing for results · Performance appraisal systems, including rewards and recognition, linked to the spending of resources (inputs) as well as activities and outputs	· MFR training needs identified; training packages developed and some training provided (basic training and technical skills) · Performance appraisal systems linked primarily to outputs and a few outcomes · There is a general awareness of the goals/objectives of the organization	· MFR training provided to key managers and functional experts · Performance appraisal systems linked to outcomes in some areas · All staff have a commonly shared vision of the results that the organization is trying to achieve	· MFR training available to all managers and staff · Performance appraisal systems linked to outcomes in all areas · All staff have a commonly shared vision of the results of the organization and understand their role in achieving these results	Stage 4 plus: · Training adjusted for lessons learned and best practices · The capacity to manage people to achieve sustained results is constantly monitored and adjusted
Possible indicators The availability of MFR training packages, developed for the organization. The level of investment in MFR training and development. The human resources (training days) effort made by the organization. The percentage of staff taking part in MFR training initiatives. The extent to which individual performance accords make reference to outcome results (% as compared to activities). The extent to which appraisals draw on and use outcome information.

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Element B: Results - based Strategic Planning
*Results based Strategic Planning*	· Organizational objectives defined and prioritized · Planning and performance focused on outputs	· Organizational objectives and priorities logically linked to some key outcomes, as demonstrated through a results chain or logic model.	· Strategic planning framework links all immediate, intermediate and end outcomes. · Strategic planning framework used as a tool in all planning (including human resources, assets, etc.). · Strategic plan identifies horizontal outcomes and recognizes the need for partnering.	· Strategic planning framework informs planning decisions. · Strategic planning framework for horizontal initiatives has been implemented and informs planning decisions.	Stage 4 plus: · Strategic planning framework is central to planning, and is routinely reviewed and updated on the basis of lessons learned and changing circumstances.
Possible indicators The extent to which planning documents describe outcomes for organizational objectives. The extent to which a results chain is formed, leading from activities and outputs (under the control of operational processes) to a sequence of logical outcomes that are subject to decreasing organizational influence. The extent to which planning documents across various levels and groups consistently refer to outcomes and results chains.
*Strategic risk management*	· General awareness of broad risks to the organization is not focused on outcomes	· Environmental scan identifies key risks in terms of outputs and outcomes	· Risk management is practised but not linked to department-wide outcomes	· Integrated risk management is linked to department-wide outcomes, and is integrated into the strategic planning process and resource allocation cycle	Stage 4 plus: · Outcome information informs the periodic update of the risk profile of the entire organization · Results of integrated risk management support learning and the continuous improvement of the organization
Possible indicators The extent to which there is documented evidence of an environmental scan for risks to the organization. The extent to which there is a uniform approach to managing risk. The extent to which risk management is incorporated into the existing management processes, and the frequency with which the results of risk management inform the periodic update of the organization's risk profile.

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Element C: Operational/business planning
Implementing the strategic plan	· Program performance expectations set in terms of outputs · Most performance expectations are clear but few are measurable	· Corporate and line expectations/ standards identified and linked to objectives and priorities · Performance expectations are in the form of outcomes, not just outputs, and are clear and measurable in some program areas · Risk areas are identified in the context of outputs and outcomes	· Some objectives and priorities are linked to specific key corporate and line expectations, and to those responsible for achieving them. · Planning focuses on the need to achieve expected outcomes in select areas · Many programs have clear and measurable performance expectations · Operational plan identifies horizontal outcomes and recognizes the need for partnering · Development of measures based on operational needs and strategic plan · Risk management strategies are applied to some aspects of operational planning (outputs and outcomes)	· All objectives and priorities are linked to corporate and line expectations, and to those responsible for achieving them · Performance expectation outcomes are clear and measurable in all areas · Operational plan for horizontal initiatives has been implemented and informs planning decisions · Risk management strategies applied to every aspect of operational plan (outputs and outcomes)	Stage 4 plus: · Performance expectations are regularly reviewed and updated in light of corporate lessons learned and changing circumstances
Possible indicators The extent to which planning documents set outcome expectations. The extent to which planning documents set specific targets in terms of outcomes. The type and consistency of performance expectations in planning documents. The extent to which planning documents incorporate statements pertaining to risk management into discussions of results. The extent to which departmental documents incorporate statements pertaining to risk management into discussions of results.

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Element D: Measuring results
*Ongoing measurement*	· Inputs, activities and outputs are measured	· Some key outcome information is gathered in programs	· Key outcome data collected more frequently and systematically · Comparative information (baselines, benchmarks) used to compare present performance with that of earlier periods and/or similar organizations · Measures revised in view of preliminary findings of pilot projects.	· Key outcome data regularly collected, validated and related to costs.	Stage 4 plus: · Measures reviewed at specified intervals to identify and correct gaps in performance information.
Possible indicators The extent to which measurement initiatives include outcomes information as part of their scope. The extent to which outcomes information is demonstrably measured in the context of specific expectations or plans. The extent to which ongoing systems measure outcome-results.
Evaluation	· Evaluation occurs when there is an external requirement	· Evaluation is used in some cases and is only sometimes integrated into measurement strategy	· Evaluation is integrated with the rest of measurement strategy and accepted as a management aid · Strategies for evaluating horizontal initiatives are increasingly considered at the design phase.	· Regular evaluation is an integral part of policy and program management	· Same as stage 4:
Possible indicators The extent to which evaluations are conducted as a visible part of program management, as compared to the conducting of evaluations to meet a previously agreed external requirement. The extent to which evaluation evidence is integrated into departmental planning, reporting and management functions, such as resource allocation decisions.

	Stage 1 Awareness	Stage 2 Exploration	Stage 3 Transition	Stage 4 Full implementation	Stage 5 Continuous learning
Element E: Reporting on results
Reporting on Results	· External reporting is not at all linked with internal management reporting practices*	· External and internal reporting practices share common priorities and outcome areas, but do not reconcile results and resources · External data are reported, analyzed and used on a few occasions for decision making and program management.	· External and internal management reporting practices share common priorities and key outcome-results. For the most part, they have a reconcilable linkage between outputs, activities and resources · External data are sometimes reported, analyzed, and used for decision making and program management.	· External and internal management reporting share all key priorities, outcomes and outputs, activities, and resource information · Data reported externally used regularly for managing.	· Same as stage 4.
Possible indicators The extent to which external and internal management reporting share common outcome-oriented priorities and key outcome-results. The extent to which external and internal reports consistently link outcome-results to output activities and resource use information. The extent to which data are reported externally, and used in decision making and program management. Note * This refers to reporting beyond unit, including senior management and public reporting.

Table of Contents