Performance Measurement and Organizational Structure
A service agency such as the State’s Department of Health and Human Services seeks and solicits funding, converts these through legislative processes into social services, and manages its delivery. The administration contemporaneously considers guidance from its cultural, demographic, economic, ethical, legal, political, and technical environment.
The management control system motivates the conveyance of the agency's limited resources towards strategic goals. Performance analysis of results at point-of-service is fed back as input for the administration’s next period plan, thereby closing the control system loop (2). This management information identifies and explains significant deviations from plan goals and budget.
Measurement of the extent of service delivered is straightforward. Examples such as qualified contacts, client moments (3), and the number of program clients are volume measures that can be easily collected. Quality measures may present collection difficulties. Here, derivation of proxy or surrogate measures may provide sufficient alternatives. Through computer simulation (4), the following chart conceptually illustrates the need for accuracy over precision in performance measurement. The green and red lines are precise but fail to measure the underlying quality.
Organizational Structure. Social service agencies are organizationally different even though they may offer a similar basket of services (5) (6) and funding (7). The structure of a human services department can be A, B, or C.
Management reviews the agency's current performance for input in the next period’s plan (1). Management reporting with structure "A" flows uninterrupted as workers interact with clients at points-of-service. Agreements between administrative groups consist primarily of an MOU or memorandum of understanding, a non-legally binding document. There are agencies structured as B, where associated agencies are independent governmental entities. These entities deliver human services on behalf of the department as stated in the contracts. Organizing statutes may have little overlap. Possible differences in service strategies not only hinder performance measurement but also insert delays in the feedback loop. The strategic dissimilarity between state and non-governmental entities occurs with structure, C. It is unlikely that articles and by-laws of these organizations strictly coincide with those of the state. This gap finds its way into the development and usage of performance measurements.
The following table includes organizational factors that affect the development, application, monitoring, and feedback of managerial performance.
The factors listed above comprise but a subset of possible factors affecting performance measurement. This article’s purpose is to underscore the importance of discussions and research in the administration of social service agencies. Any comments and ideas on the topic are greatly appreciated.
By Noel Jagolino, Management Consultant
Contributed article to Www.mgmtlaboratory.com 2021.
References:
The Annual Cycle Management Process. Sep 2017. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
Minnesota Department of Human Services: A Case Study in Management Control Systems. Nov 2019. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
Client Moments: A Better Social Service Workload Measure. Jun 2019. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
Systems dynamic model developed using Vensim, a software by Ventana Systems, Inc.
Evaluating Human Services Performance across Counties: A Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) Demonstration. Jul 2018. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
County Performance Comparisons: Chi-Square Testing for Similarity. Aug 2019. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
SLRA: A Multi-Purpose and Accessible Executive Analytics Tool. May 2018. Www.mgmtlaboratory.com/blog.
Mgmtlaboratory.com staff and affiliated management consultants have experience in private and public organizations and managerial tools. Government entities may inquire at contact@mgmtlaboratory.com about its free online consulting service on continuous improvement and other management tools.
Kommentarer