 |
 IV. LIMITATIONS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
In theory, performance measurement has many benefits and advantages as well as limitations. Some try to use these limitations as reasons not to pursue performance measurement, and in doing so, forego its benefits. The following includes the typical arguments used; the response to those reasons follows each one.
- You can’t measure what I do. RESPONSE: Areas previously thought to be “unmeasurable” such as education, welfare, and even international relations have been shown to be measurable if someone is motivated and creative enough to pursue an innovative approach. Since so many governments have initiated performance measurement in recent years (and others have done so for quite some time), more information than ever exists for staff to reference.
- It’s not fair because I don’t have total control over the outcome or the impact. RESPONSE: It is the rare program that anyone has total control over the outcome, but if you can’t demonstrate any impact on the result, then why are we funding your program?
- It will invite unfair comparisons. RESPONSE: Comparison is going to happen whether you like it or not. By taking the initiative in selecting comparable organizations, you can help your program by proactively comparing performance, determining how well you are doing, and seeking ideas on how you can improve your performance.
- It will be used against me. RESPONSE: Demonstrating openness and accountability, even when the news is not so good, inspires trust. If you are open about where you need to improve, most people will give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you demonstrate that you are sincerely seeking to improve. Cynical manipulation of measures, i.e., selecting overly easy targets or ignoring key data, will likewise cause the public to question your motives and credibility and will lead to mistrust. In fact, being honest about your performance and how you can improve can actually help you win support for additional resources.
- It’s just a passing fad. RESPONSE: Anyone who thinks performance measurement is just a passing fad need only pick up any public administration-related document to learn that it is being used at the federal, state, and local levels of government, with no indication that the requirements for its use, i.e., accountability, continuous improvement, better information for decision makers, etc. will abate. In fact, if anything, pressure to demonstrate accountability and improvement is only expected to increase.
 We don’t have the data/we can’t get the data. RESPONSE: In this age of information technology, it is hard to believe that performance data are not available. If a program is important enough to fund, staff should be able to find some way to collect data on its effectiveness. It can be as simple as a desktop spreadsheet using information collected from a hard-copy log or
it can be trained observer ratings, with numerous variations in-between. What is important is that critical indicators of success are identified and measured.- We don’t have the staff resources to collect the data. RESPONSE: The reality is that administrative-type positions will not be added for performance measurement; however, staff should realize that dedicating 5 percent of their time to come up with thoughtful measures, collecting the data on those measures, and then using the data to manage for results, will generally save a larger portion of their time that they would have spent correcting service problems down the road.
| |
