Yardstick – The measure of
performance
Using benchmarking to measure, compare
and improve performance
Why benchmark?
 Desire to perform better
 Reducing budgets
 Justify services and expenditure
 Prioritise or rationalize
• Assess how we actually perform now
• Not just compared with how you did last year – but
look outside your box!
 Requires good quality and reliable information to
assess and improve your performance
Information is Power!
What is Yardstick?
Yardstick is an Industry owned and driven project
• Management measures - collects the quantitative and
management information about your parks network and
services provided.
• Visitor Measures – an on-the-spot survey of users to
record visitor expectations and satisfaction to identify gaps
in levels of service.
A unique methodology - key to its ongoing success:
 Delivered through industry driven partnerships
 On site audit of management measures to verify responses
 Open reporting of all results so that members can compare
with self selected peer groups and have a full set of data to
work with
Measure
• Need to know what we manage and its cost before we can
start to do performance assessment and improvement
• Asset management requires us to develop our asset
knowledge and effectively describe the services we
intended to provide to our community
• Yardstick grew out of the realisation that the industry,
needed to promote and assist parks managers to improve
their knowledge base, systems, management and
planning.
• Yardstick collects a range of information about
– the services we provide,
– the systems we have in place,
– the needs and satisfaction of our customers,
 so that we can measure how we individually and as an industry
are performing.
• Without this base information it is difficult if not
impossible to effectively manage your assets and
undertake any form of effective performance assessment
and improvement.
Compare
Do we exist on an Island?
Much of our performance assessment and measures are simply based on
what we have done historically, without any reference to the wider
industry.
Examples include:
• A common planning target for parks provision is 4ha/1,000 residents,
however the actual median total provision of parkland in Canada is
8.4ha/1,000 residents (Parkcheck Canada 2012)
• Your satisfaction survey historically produces a result of 80%, so your
performance measure is to achieve a satisfaction score of no less than
80%. However, the industry average is actually 88%. (Parkcheck Visitor
Measures)
Provision Comparison
Hectares of actively maintained park per 1,000 residents
12.0
10.3
10.0
8.0
7.3
6.5
6.0
6.0
4.8
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.0
2.6
2.0
0.0
City of
Calgary
City of Strathcona City of
City of St
Edmonton County Lethbridge Albert
City of
Windsor
Canada
Australia
New
Zealand
Satisfaction Comparison
ALL Authorities Average 2012
92%
Ashfield Council
94%
Cassowary Coast Regional Council
93%
Central Coast Council
97%
City of Canning
89%
City of Darwin
83%
City of Gosnells
79%
Hobart City Council
92%
99%
The Hills Shire Council
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
• While comparison with the total industry is of value, we
really want to compare with similar organisations or
neighbours.
• To enable this, we report results openly, so that you can
select the other organisations that you wish to compare
with.
Playground provision
Number of playgrounds per 1,000 children
10.0
8.6
Number of playgrounds
9.0
7.7
8.0
7.3
7.0
6.0
5.0
6.1
4.9
4.0
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.0
City of Calgary
City of
Edmonton
City of
Windsor
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
City of St
Albert
Median
Cost per hectare comparison
Direct annual operation cost per hectare
$10,000
$8,759
$9,000
$8,000
$6,968
$7,000
$6,000
$
$4,765
$5,000
$4,000
$3,851
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
City of Lethbridge
Peer Group
Canada Median
City of Calgary
Cost per resident comparison
Total annual direct operation cost per 1,000 residents
120,000
97,763
100,000
86,961
80,000
$
67,433
60,000
47,473
45,168
City of
Edmonton
City of
Windsor
63,684
65,558
City of St
Albert
Canada
Median
40,000
20,000
0
City of
Calgary
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
Perform
What is the objective of measuring our provision, cost of
services, management practices and comparing with others?
Answer
Enable us to perform more effectively and deliver
better quality and more cost effective services to our
community.
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
Staff resources
Management staff expenditure
Percentage cost of total direct operating cost
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
City of
Calgary
City of
Edmonton
Management staff expenditure - cost per
hectare
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
City of
Calgary
City of
City of Strathcona City of
City of St
Edmonton Windsor
County Lethbridge Albert
City of
Windsor
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
City of St
Albert
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Additional funding
Tree maintenance expenditure budget per 1,000 residents
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
City of
Calgary
City of
Edmonton
City of
Windsor
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
City of St
Albert
Street tree maintenance expenditure budget
per tree
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
City of
Windsor
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
City of St
Albert
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Identify appropriate asset provision levels for assets and services. This
can support either rationalisation or increased asset levels
Chart 3 - Number of playgrounds per 1,000 children
Number of playgrounds
10.0
8.6
9.0
7.7
8.0
7.3
7.0
6.0
5.0
6.1
4.9
4.0
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.0
City of
Calgary
City of
Edmonton
City of
Windsor
Strathcona
County
City of
Lethbridge
City of St
Albert
Median
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Identify areas for cost efficiencies, or support for additional funding.
Either total cost per hectare or individual assets and services
Parks and road verge/buffer grass maintenance cost per hectare
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
City of Edmonton Strathcona County City of Lethbridge
City of St Albert
Median Canada
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Assess different service delivery options, e.g. between council
operated and contracted service delivery
Service delivery analysis
100
90
80
70
60
Contracted to a
private company
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
Directly by in-house
staff with no
business separation
%
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Drive asset management improvement programmes and prioritising
through identifying what is best industry practice
Infrastructure management plan
in place
No
33%
Yes - less
than 5 yrs
old
34%
Under
developm
ent
33%
Asset condition information complete and up to
date
Condition
information
not collected or
up to date.
17%
Some assets
and updated
within last 3
years
33%
All assets and
updated within
last 3 years
33%
Most assets
and updated
within last 3
years
17%
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
Develop and report on levels of service through the visitor measures survey
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
Gardens
IMP
SAT
Gap
4.51
4.17
-0.34
Playground
s
3.94
3.72
-0.21
Seats
Toilets
Signs
4.18
3.75
-0.43
4.02
3.39
-0.63
3.56
3.61
0.05
Cleanlines
s
4.63
4.17
-0.47
Grass
Paths
Shade
Security
4.43
4.19
-0.23
4.23
4.06
-0.17
4.29
3.86
-0.43
4.51
4.18
-0.34
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
Focus improvements and resources on specific areas receiving lower
customer satisfaction scores and/or the areas of highest importance
5.00
4.00
3.00
Mean
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Gardens
Playgrounds
Seats
Toilets
Signs
Cleanliness
Grass
Paths
Shade
Security
All Councils IMP
4.31
4.22
4.20
4.19
3.55
4.62
4.18
3.77
4.37
4.65
GDC IMP
4.07
4.07
4.10
3.90
3.50
4.50
4.10
3.18
4.10
4.53
All Councils SAT
3.98
3.62
3.36
2.81
3.27
3.98
4.01
3.83
3.56
4.35
GDC SAT
3.87
3.17
2.68
2.30
3.11
3.23
3.73
3.82
3.97
3.73
All Councils Gap
-0.34
-0.60
-0.84
-1.37
-0.28
-0.65
-0.17
0.06
-0.81
-0.30
GDC Gap
-0.20
-0.90
-1.42
-1.60
-0.39
-1.27
-0.37
0.64
-0.13
-0.80
How members have used Yardstick information to improve performance
• Reduce resources to areas over servicing or of lower customer
importance.
5.00
4.00
Mean
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Stavanger - Norway
Oslo - Norway
Aarhus - Denmark
Helsinki - Finland
Overall Mean Score
IMP
3.27
3.14
3.38
3.10
3.23
SAT
3.32
3.61
3.67
3.61
3.61
Gap
0.05
0.47
0.29
0.51
0.38
Children's Playgrounds – Destination parks
Conclusion
Our current practice often involves driving
whilst looking in our own rear view mirror
Yardstick, enables management decisions to
be made with reference to industry good practice
The information provided can drive forward
looking strategies that enable continuous but
structured improvement programmes
Real and achievable performance targets can
be identified and measured
INFORMATION
Quality – Comprehensive - Up to date – Verifiable
Enables effective decision making to drive continuous
improvement