SAVE Commission's findings - La Follette School of Public Affairs ...

NEW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
State government already has a budget
system. Now it needs a management system that
uses one management language so agencies are
all speaking out of the same manual. It also
needs a system that places a high value on measurable
results.
At the top of the system will be the common
mission, not only for state agencies, but
all of state government. Under the strategy, the
state will develop the large share of its programs
based on the assumption that citizens have responsibilities
as well as rights and that with
those citizenship responsibilities comes the expectation
that there will be some things you do
for yourself. Government cannot do everything
for you.
Under the mission, budgets will be developed
based on the results that the Governor
and Legislature want. Where possible, benchmarks
will be set, against which agency performance
will be measured. The best examples of
performance in and out of state service will be
shared so state workers know what they are
competing against. Then management will get
out of the way and measure the results at appropriate
times.
In the end, the results will be reported
not only to the Legislature and the Governor,
but also to taxpayers in a new report card. The
report card will have the information needed
to know not only results that have been
achieved but also the per unit costs of the results.
Over time, the system will tell the Governor
and Legislature whether they are getting
their money’s worth and whether other alternatives,
including the use of private vendors or
other public employees, are in order, assuming
a level playing field with public employees.
Footnote: The Commission appreciates
the time taken by thousands of state employees
whose opinions helped form these recommendations,
especially in the areas of civil service,
procurement and management systems
reform. Wisconsin is fortunate to have public
employees who are generally performing excellent
work in an antiquated system under
sometimes difficult conditions.
From a budget system that:
Is line item focused
Appropriates in minute detail
Has incentives to spend
Decides infrastructure piecemeal
Funds by agency requests
Tolerates units’ under-performance
Reports spending to citizens
From a civil service system that:
Devalues and disrespects workers
Centralizes authority
Has 2,400 job classes
Pays for time worked
Dictates pay by job class
Hides true costs of paperwork
Ignores workers’ knowledge
From a management system that:
Runs by rules
Protects bureaucratic turf
Manages the budget inputs
Has little unit-cost data
Fixes only what is broken
Has incompatible systems
Has layers of impeding oversight
From a procurement system that:
Focuses on process
Has checkers checking the checkers
Focuses on price alone
Disregards the time of paperwork
Is adversarial by nature
Uses micro management
Procurement specialists control
To a budget system that:
Is strategic and output focused
Funds for specific results
Has incentives to save
Plans and integrates infrastructure
Funds by core result areas
Moves work to performing units
Reports results to citizens
To a human resource service
system that:
Respects workers’ potential
Delegates appropriate authority
Has broad bands of job classes
Pays for skills and results
Ties compensation to total market
rate
Rejects non-value-added red tape
Values knowledge as capital asset
To a self-managing system that:
Operates with strategic guidance
Cooperates across agencies
Manages for strategic results
Knows costs and benchmarks
Continuously improves
Has all conform to comprehensive
standards
Has trust in a verified system
To a procurement system that:
Focuses on customer
Holds everyone accountable
Calculates total value
Believes time is money
Uses partnerships to deliver value
Gives freedom; requires results
Lets workers manage the budget
CITIZEN • COMMUNITY • GOVERNMENT — WISCONSIN: THE 21 ST CENTURY 55