Mike Byrne left a comment on my earlier posting about measuring success in how we as a nation are using the homeland security funds that are being provided. I thought his comment below was significant enough that it should not be buried in the blog--so I highlight it here.
In a report, titled "What it takes to change government" released today and cited by Joe Davidson in the Federal Diary section of the Washington Post there are some very intriguing observations. One in particular touches on this topic of measuring success. In comparing successful leaders and programs with those that were not it states, "Few leaders in the unsuccessful group measured performance, and when they did, the measures focused on cost and production, but neglected quality and customer satisfaction, according to the report. Those who succeeded measured performance in their agencies as a way to communicate goals, delegate authority and establish accountability." With that in mind I think it highlights the flaw in the current approach around measuring the effectiveness of the grant programs. By focusing on costs as the key measurement method we miss the truly important criteria of success - quality, customer satisfaction and resilience. Focusing on cost is also a trifle absurd, we are talking about a grant program that even at 4 billion per year is barely 1% of the total State and Local expenditures for Public Safety in the nation. At 1% it certainly helps but it is hardly enough for us to expect a significant return on investment in money terms but we can expect huge returns in achieving the goals of national preparedness, response integration and resilience.
Top
In a report, titled "What it takes to change government" released today and cited by Joe Davidson in the Federal Diary section of the Washington Post there are some very intriguing observations. One in particular touches on this topic of measuring success. In comparing successful leaders and programs with those that were not it states, "Few leaders in the unsuccessful group measured performance, and when they did, the measures focused on cost and production, but neglected quality and customer satisfaction, according to the report. Those who succeeded measured performance in their agencies as a way to communicate goals, delegate authority and establish accountability." With that in mind I think it highlights the flaw in the current approach around measuring the effectiveness of the grant programs. By focusing on costs as the key measurement method we miss the truly important criteria of success - quality, customer satisfaction and resilience. Focusing on cost is also a trifle absurd, we are talking about a grant program that even at 4 billion per year is barely 1% of the total State and Local expenditures for Public Safety in the nation. At 1% it certainly helps but it is hardly enough for us to expect a significant return on investment in money terms but we can expect huge returns in achieving the goals of national preparedness, response integration and resilience.
