Chapter 1: Define & Measure Mission Critical Outcomes (Using State Or Situation Outcome

Updates

Building Blocks

BB 4 and 5 (Maximising outcomes from our interventions) – Roger

Roger thanked those in the WG who had provided comments and noted that some had suggested the format meant that the detail of “how to” was being lost. Roger will review the comments again and is expecting that BB4&5 will be sent out for WG approval within two weeks.

BB 8 (redesigning operational systems to enhance outcomes) – Roger

Comments on content and structure have been received and a final draft will be available for WG approval at the next workshop meeting (8 May).

BB 9 (Interagency collaboration for outcomes) – Greg

Final and approved version will be on the website by the end of the week.

Sunset Documents

TLA Models – Bryan

Comments on content and structure are due by end of day Monday 5 May. Will be seeking WG approval of the document at the next workshop meeting (8 May).

Symposium -G Greg

Waiting for a response from the MfO steering group to Pathfinder’s invitation to hold a joint symposium. Greg to circulate the letter to the WG.

: Rose Ryan (CYF), Leon Bakker (Corrections)

1. 1. Discussion of First Draft of Chapter 1 “Defining and Measuring Outcomes”Sponsors’ Group report back (Martin)

Report back from SG5 meeting, 7 November. Main points to note were:

MOH has proposed some text and amendments to BB3. Roger will work with Sheila to work through comments provided by MOH and to finalise the text. Text will be sent to SG reps Gillian Durham (MOH) and Brenda Pilott (CYF) for agreement. The group is to report back to the SG Chair by 6 December.

Discussion at the SG included comments on the “level” at which Pathfinder’s documents and guidance is being produced. There was a view that Pathfinder should concentrate on the more difficult issues rather than more general guidance. Discussion of comments on the chapter structure, content, any issues or omissions and, in particular, if the group have references or examples that could be included

in particular areas. [Comments have been received from some participants prior to Christmas break, thank you]

Confirm/decide what the priorities for the group and is this accurately reflected in the indicative production schedule.

22. . Linking MFO to Budget Processing

This was a topic suggested by Customs and Martin Connolly provided some context for how and why the topic was raised.

Customs were developing their first SOIThe purpose of this session is to brainstorm this topic in order to draw up a skeleton as a basis for the development of this paper.

We will use the standard headings used in the other BBs

Purpose

Management Applications

Success Factors

Which management systems?

What are the issues?

Managing issues going forward at the same time as a significant change in their operating environment was occurring. This change resulted in changes to the department’s budget and resources. As a result, Customs identified a potential risk for other departments facing similar circumstances that departmental strategic planning processes and the budget process could run side by side rather than in an integrated way. This may mean that external factors dominate in decisions about resource allocation rather than factors identified through internal processes.

In the discussion we identified the following as important messages for Pathfinder’s documents:

There is a need for a clearly identified and agreed outcomes framework from which strategy development and outcome development flows. This is not always possible, particularly when departments are evolving their outcomes focus.
The benefits of a validated outcomes model include: greater assurance that resources are focussed on delivering results that will have the most impact on the community; improved engagement with ministers, select committees, related departments and other stakeholders; better information to support management decisions; and improved interactions with central agencies.
The model can be used to realign outputs and output classes to better support outcomes. This may require significant work and the benefits should outweigh the costs.
Periodic reviews of strategic plans and their underpinning assumptions, particularly when external events cause significant change.

We agreed that these messages should be included (if not already there) in existing Building Blocks rather than as a separate document. The review of the Building Blocks will pick up on this.

The issue of top-down processes for linking budget processes and decision making could more correctly be seen as a systems issue. This may be at topic that the Managing for Outcomes steering group could consider. In our joint planning for the symposium the issue will be raised.

Pathfinder Participants’ survey – report back (Roger)



2.Management systems supporting MFO

Frank raised this topic but washas been away for the last few Pathfinder meetings. Roger will check with Frank if his concerns have been addressed in BB8 when the final draft is circulated.

It would appear that this topic may have now been covered by BB 8. We will have a brief discussion to determine if any elements remain outstanding and if so how these should be managed.

Roger provided an overview of the survey results. Main findings of note were:

Most agencies have found participation to be useful and believe that the project is going well. There is some difference in the extent to which has been useful for individual agencies.

Clear call for documents that use plain language and that contain more practical examples and examples from other agencies, including those at a developmental stage. Greater consideration of different approaches and models.

Participants want to see greater use of Pathfinder for learning and sharing rather than focusing on the guidance documents.

Pathfinder sometimes focuses too heavily on seeking the perfect solution, which is not always attainable by all.

General discussion followed. In response to calls for more examples and for different models it was acknowledged that agencies will need to present more of these to the group. It was also agreed that the project should complete the Building Blocks before considering other possible work but that it was desirable to continue to explore with the MfO project where Pathfinder could add greatest value. Roger agreed to discuss options with representatives of the MfO project and report back to the WG.

3. General Business

Learning to date from SOI process (Valmai)

Valmai

noted that one of the common threads emerging from the survey, the symposium and the SG was the need for more practical examples. She suggested that the WG/WS meetings should once again focus on sharing and learning from each other. Examples of possible discussions include:

What’s being done differently now in individual SOI processes from when agencies first started?

What level/sort of stakeholder engagement have agencies been able to attain?

What has been the contribution of policy to outcomes and what approach have agencies taken to this question?

Agreed that the next workshop will centre on a discussion of how to handle the policy function within an outcomes framework.

2. Ideas for agenda going forward

what will be of value to participants?

Best practice – what work have individual agencies done to determine what’s best practice for their area internationally?

Offers of presentations by Department of Conservation, potentially OAG

Presentations on improvements to internal projects (based on updates provided to date by individual agencies)

3. 4. November Question and Answer SessionWorkshop (Bryan)

Bryan had a general request for agenda items and workshop topics. The focus should be on sharing and learning. It was agreed that questions from Pathfinder agencies and workshops similar to those suggested at item 3 should take priority over presentations from other agencies. Valmai offered to arrange and host the November workshop.

group discussion of written questions submitted prior to meeting

5. FAQs

Roundtable on suggested FAQs to add to the list. Rose Ryan had provided some suggestions and discussion centred on these. Greg will collate responses to these and previous FAQs.

6. Housekeeping

Updates were provided on the following:

Pathfinder summary document. (Bryan) Waiting for resolution of MOH’s comments on BB3.

Building Block 3 Impact Measurement. (Roger) MOH have provided comments and suggested text. Will work with MOH and other WG members to have an agreed text by 6 December.

Building Block 6 Strategic Planning (Greg) Have received additional comments from DOL. Final draft will now be circulated to SG out of session. Few comments received from WG but WG are invited to contact Greg if they’d like to see final draft again.

Building Block 7 Benchmarking for Outcomes (Bryan). Have received a number of comments. Aiming to have draft for comment to WG by end of week

Secretariat records its thanks to the Working Group for their support and contribution throughout the year.

Pathfinder Working Group -- Meeting Schedule

Meeting Date

Venue

Purpose

1 May 1-3 pm / CYF
Bowen State Building
Go to level 4 / WG Meeting
Linking MFO to budgeting
Management systems supporting MFO
8 May 1-3 pm / Workshop
MFO in complex policy environments
5 June 1-3 pm / WG Meeting
12 June 1-3 pm / Workshop (if required)

4. Wrap up

Treasury:522692v1