Training for performance measurement success: An effective training program can help get performance measurement off the ground and sustain the system as it matures into a catalyst for government accountability and improvement.

• Author: Emerson, Barbara
• Position: Brief Article

Developing and maintaining a successful performance measurement effort is contingent upon three critical factors--top-level support, a clear-cut methodology, and a comprehensive and ongoing training system. In this sense, performance measurement is much like a three-legged stool: take away one of the legs and you will soon find yourself on the floor. Indeed, many initiatives fail to deliver promises of improved government accountability and performance because one or more of these factors are either missing or ineffective.

In some jurisdictions, the impetus and direction for performance measurement come from the governing body. In others, the chief executive or budget officials spearhead the effort. The origin of performance measurement, however, is not as important as the ongoing support of senior officials. Without a high-level leader to drive the effort, performance measurement is likely to fall prey to naysayers who either resist change or do not buy into the concept of managing for results.

Even with the support of elected officials and senior management, simply issuing an edict for staff to "go forth and measure" almost guarantees that the results will be less than optimal. Although simple in concept, performance measurement can be a challenging intellectual, and sometimes political, exercise. Departmental staff need direction to make the system work. Governments can greatly enhance the likelihood of success by establishing a straightforward framework for the development, collection, reporting, and use of performance measures.

Although top-level support and a good methodology are essential to effective performance measurement, this article focuses on the third leg--training. Once performance measurement has been implemented, training is the key to maintaining the quality and usefulness of the system. Fairfax County, Virginia, has spent the last five years developing a comprehensive performance measurement system to enhance accountability and to support continuous improvement efforts. Located in Northern Virginia, the county has nearly 1 million residents and 11,000 regular merit employees. Fairfax County's system is based on quantified objectives that are aligned or linked upward to strategic agency mission and goals, and downward to a complete "family of measures" (output, efficiency, service quality, and outcome). After deciding to reorient its performance measurement approach away from one that heavily emphasized outputs and toward one that focused on outcomes, the county made training a top priority.

First Steps

When Fairfax County began making plans to enhance its performance measurement system, staff from the Department of Management and Budget studied other jurisdictions to learn from their experiences. The county discovered that one of the more common pitfalls was the expectation that staff grasp and implement performance measurement concepts after a day or less of consultant-provided training. This "big bang" approach to training is clearly unreasonable, especially for large, complex governments. In reality, some departments or agencies are better prepared to accept and effectively implement performance measurement than others. As a result, there are likely to be significant differences between units of the same organization in terms of performance measurement aptitude and training needs.

In Fairfax County, training began with the performance measurement team, which is responsible for coordinating the county's overall performance measurement system. The team attended an introductory seminar by the Government Finance Officers Association--a good starting point for getting acquainted with the basic principles of performance measurement. Still, the team did nor feel comfortable enough to unleash its newfound knowledge on other county employees. Officials determined that for the purpose of the initial countywide training, they needed to hire an outside expert in order to lend credibility to their efforts.

After conducting an abbreviated bidding process ($30,000 or less), the performance measurement team awarded the contract to a private consultant. The consultant was to train staff from the Department of Management and Budget and the Office of Internal Audit, assist with the development of a countywide methodology, and then train other county staff. The team worked with the consultant to develop a simple methodology that could be incorporated into a brief manual to be distributed at the training. The county is now on the fifth edition of this manual. Although the various...