enhanced-commonwealth-performance-framework-discussion-paper

Attachment C: Performance management in
other jurisdictions and its relevance to a
Commonwealth performance framework
Introduction
Managing and assessing performance is something all governments agree is important but
typically struggle to do well. A number of countries, including Australia, have introduced and
abandoned performance management systems.
Finance undertook a desktop review to assess the international state of play with respect to
performance management. The intention was to identify and describe those OECD countries
that currently have innovative or good-practice performance management systems in place, and
to assess whether those systems have lessons or design features that could be applied to the
Australian context. The review also included other government jurisdictions in Australia to see
what systems they have in place.
The performance information arrangements of the United Kingdom, the United States, Scotland,
South Korea, the Netherlands and Chile were reviewed. The review also examined the
performance frameworks of the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and New South Wales.
Comparisons are difficult. Systems vary greatly across countries and are heavily influenced by
the type of government operating in each country and also by cultural factors. It is not possible
to simply transplant systems across national borders. Also, many performance management
systems are internal to government and information is often not publically available. It is
difficult to determine whether a particular system is operating effectively or not. Nevertheless,
comparisons are useful to help inform debate.
No two countries reviewed have the same performance system, although a number shared
common elements. The only practice common to all countries’ systems was they were
continually being modified, particularly when governments changed.
The best elements of each jurisdiction’s system that could be incorporated into the
Commonwealth context are summarised below. Analysis of the overriding themes and key
lessons from the research follows.
Summary of innovative elements from each system
United Kingdom
• Departments develop agreements (supported by their Minister) with HM Treasury
about targets, objectives and performance levels, which are publically reported.
• A limited number of government-determined cross-portfolio agreements, focused on the
delivery and impact of priority outcomes.
• A culture of setting ambitious targets fosters a culture of departments striving to
improve rather than being chastised for falling short of stated levels.
United States
• A Programme Assessment Rating Tool (PART) questionnaire to assess all government
programmes and provide an effectiveness rating.
• A website with information about each programme, including a brief description of the
programme’s purpose, its PART score, performance highlights and remedial steps for
future improvement.
Enhanced Commonwealth Performance Framework—Discussion Paper | 38