EXECUTIVE
Date: 6 December 2010
________________________________________________________________________
DEVELOPING THE COUNCIL’S PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Report of the Deputy Chief Executive
Executive Member: Councillor Jeff Reid, Leader of the Council
________________________________________________________________________
Purpose of Report
To propose changes to the Council’s performance management framework so that its
evidence base is of sufficient breadth and balance, and supports the drive to be “Stronger
Together”. The report also describes the anticipated impact of the Coalition Government’s
decision to replace the National Indicator Set (NIS).
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
1)
Members agree that the components identified in Appendix A are adopted as
core elements of the Council’s performance framework.
2)
Members note the proposed timeline for implementation (see section 2.3).
3)
Members note the anticipated impact of the Coalition Government’s decision
to replace the National Indicator Set.
Key Issues
1.
This report reflects the proposals for change arising from the discussions within the
Council over the last four months to ensure that the new performance framework
has a balance of quantitative and qualitative information.
2.
The Council’s performance management framework must:




Link with the Corporate Planning cycle and the financial strategy.
Have the right balance in terms of quantitative and qualitative
information through managers identifying business-critical and
corporate measures above and beyond the National Indicator Set
(NIS).
Include a stronger emphasis on gathering intelligence about customer
needs and behaviour.
Define the appropriate audience for different levels of information.
1
Executive Report:


3.
Ensure that it encourages the cultural change needed as identified in
the Stronger Together programme.
Ensure there are systems in place to allow support and challenge to the
officers who own the indicators.
On 13th October it was announced that the Coalition Government is replacing the
NIS and Local Area Agreement (LAA) with a single, comprehensive list of all the
data that the Communities and Local Government department expects local
government to report. This is expected to present the Council with increased
flexibility and opportunities to develop a more locally-focused intelligence base, but
is unlikely to deliver as many savings on staff time as would at first appear and will
reduce the amount of readily-available benchmarking data.
______________________________________________________________________
Report Author
Alan Hartwell – Head of Performance
(01670) 534847
[email protected]
2
Executive Report:
DEVELOPING THE COUNCIL’S PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
This report reflects the proposals for change arising from the first four months of the
review of the Council’s performance management framework. The objective has
been to ensure it has a balance of quantitative and qualitative information following
the decision to replace the NIS,and that it supports the cultural change the Council
wishes to see.
1.2
On 13th October it was announced that the Coalition Government is replacing the
NIS and Local Area Agreement (LAA). This means that all local agreements are
now under local control and it will be up to each area to decide what targets they
keep and how they are monitored.
1.3
The NIS will be replaced by April 2011 with a single, comprehensive list of all the
data that the Communities and Local Government department expects local
government to report to central government.
1.4
An initial response to the implications of the NIS being replaced is:






There will be increased scope for Northumberland to develop alternative
forms of intelligence that support how it manages its performance (see
Appendix A).
There will be less benchmarking data readily available.
Heads of Service will need to work in consultation with SMT and
Members in deciding which of the NIS indicators they continue to retain
as local indicators to support the monitoring of corporate priorities.
We will need to research which of the discontinued NIS indicators would
be regarded as ‘good practice’ in any inspections, as their absence from
our data set would reduce our ability to evidence impact.
Some of the discontinued NIS indicators will not result in there being less
work for the Council as they are a by product of other data collections that
will need to continue.
Having fewer NIS indicators should release some capacity to automate
the production of our performance information, and thereby enhance
Officers’ and Members’ ability to drill down into the data.
1.5
The critical issue about revising the Council’s performance management framework
involves the changes to the Council’s corporate planning and service planning
framework, which is also being reported to this committee. The revised service
planning framework will give Heads of Service scope to re-define the relevant
measures for their services having gone through the service reviews, and to deliver
a performance culture that is more consistently-embedded across the council, and
drawn down into staff’s appraisals and work programmes.
1.6
Cultural change cannot be seen separately from how the Council performs. For its
performance management framework to be effective, it needs to demonstrate that
the key features of the Council’s Stronger Together programme are being delivered,
i.e.: Working Together; Thinking Together; and Growing Together.
3
Executive Report:
1.7
To support this cultural shift, changes have been made to the Council’s corporate
performance reporting system, PerformancePlus, so that Heads of Service are
more accountable and have more flexibility in the identification of levels of
performance.
2.
KEY ISSUES FOR THE FRAMEWORK
2.1
It is essential that the performance management framework:
1. Links with the Corporate Planning cycle and the financial strategy.
2. Has the right balance in terms of quantitative and qualitative information through
managers identifying business-critical and corporate measures above and beyond
the National Indicator Set (NIS).
3. Includes a stronger emphasis on gathering intelligence about customer needs and
behaviour.
4. Defines the appropriate audience for different levels of information.
5. Ensures that it encourages the cultural change needed as identified in the Stronger
Together programme.
6. Ensures there are systems in place to allow support and challenge.
7. Promotes the adoption of key organisational behaviours so that the Council works
in a more dynamic way.
8. Encourages a cultural shift away from national regulation and towards local
priorities for local people.
9. Is flexible enough to be influenced and to some extent determined by, the priorities
of other agencies, for example, public health.
10. Ensures a clear line of sight exists between issues arising from the performance
management framework and their incorporation into individual’s appraisals and
work programmes.
2.2
Having clarified the strategic issues, the next step has been to set out what the
component parts of the new framework need to be. To that end the following
components have been identified as core elements of the new performance
framework.
2.2.1 Quantitative indicators – achieving a balance of traditional NIS PIs, finance,
HR, risk and volume of staff activity.
2.2.2 Soft indicators and self assessment – annual self assessment is favoured in
the emerging new national performance framework.
2.2.3 Citizen surveys – capturing public perception is cost effective and adds
value.
2.2.4 Staff surveys – the views of our staff are a rich source of intelligence.
2.2.5 External assessment – elements of the current inspection framework are
likely to remain, especially for services that support vulnerable people (e.g.
Children’s and Adults services) and where under performance can result in
high levels of risks to individual service users.
4
Executive Report:
2.2.6 Personal performance – linking the issues arising from the performance
management information with appraisals and individual work programmes,
e.g. 360 degree appraisal; management competencies.
2.2.7 Service standards – the Council needs to develop specific standards for
each service.
2.2.8 Customer standards – the Council needs to develop generic standards
applicable across the authority.
2.2.9 Communication/ consultation – the Council wishes to close the perception
gap between what the public think of the ‘Council’ and what they think of its
‘services’.
The Coalition Government’s wish for more web-based
transparency can be a vehicle for achieving this.
2.2.10 These core elements are presented in the form of a mind map in Appendix A.
2.3
In order to implement the new framework by April 2011, the following time line has
been agreed:
Analyse demand for performance
management support from the Council’s
central team
Draft proposal for new framework to SMT &
Executive
Heads of Service to review indicators &
targets
Establish quarterly performance slot involving
senior managers
Introduce senior managers to the principles of
the new framework
Final revised Performance Framework to SMT
Data collection systems confirmed
Member training
October
November
November – January
Quarterly from mid November
November – January
Jan
March
March
2.4
The Mind Map methodology is used to present the framework to staff and Members
so they can use it as a routine tool in managing their services and offering
appropriate scrutiny (see Appendix A). For example, it could be used in appraisals
with senior managers to ensure we consider the full breadth of factors that influence
how services perform, and likewise it could be used by scrutiny committees in
raising questions about specific areas.
2.5
Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopaedia, describes a mind map as a diagram used to
represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a
central key word or idea (which in this case is “Stronger Together: the Council’s
Corporate Strategy”. Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and
classify ideas.
5
Executive Report:
3.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.
Report from Head of Performance to SMT, 6th July, 2010
Mind Map, developed by Performance, Organisational Development, and
Information Technology Service, July - October 2010.
Department for Communities and Local Government web site, October 2010
IMPLICATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE REPORT
Policy
The report notes the changes to the NIS indicators and
their anticipated impact. It recommends a stronger focus
on local performance issues, especially qualitative ones,
than has been the case previously.
Finance and value The report recommends a stronger focus on joining up
for money
finance and value for money with more traditional
performance indicators and that monitoring of their
performance should be embedded within the council’s
quarterly performance indicator monitoring.
Human Resources It is critical that HR issues are embedded within the
(HR)
council’s performance management framework as
evidenced in the mind map in Appendix A.
Property
None
Equalities
There will be an increased focus on this issue within our
performance monitoring, equality impact assessments in
particular
Risk Assessment
Monitoring of risk assessment performance will continue to
be embedded within the council’s quarterly performance
indicator monitoring, but coupled more with the budgetary
risk management issues.
Crime & Disorder
There are indicators in the performance framework that
focus on this issue.
Customer
There will be an increased focus on this issue within our
Considerations
performance monitoring.
Sustainability
Sustainability is promoted through the Council’s corporate
planning framework, for example, a low carbon economy,
and the performance framework will evidence the extent to
which that is achieved
Consultation
Linked to customer considerations, this is a core part of
our intelligence gathering.
Wards
All
6
Executive Report:
Appendix A – Performance framework Mind Map
Stronger
Together
The Council’s
Corporate Strategy
Embedded in our approach to preparing and delivering our Service Plans
7
Executive Report: