Q & A: Getting Started with Performance Measurement -- The Right Attitude

Q: My court wants to start using the CourTools and the Six-Step Design Process (see October 15, 2005 Made2Measure post) for building a court performance measurement system (CPMS). Beyond getting the right people on the bus (November 23, 2005 Made2Measure post), what do we need to get started?

A: You need the right attitude. The real value of performance measurement is not the performance measures themselves but rather the fundamental questions they force you to ask about your court’s programs and services. How is your court performing today? Where is it heading in the future? What are your major challenges? What are you going to do about them? It’s all about the kind of serious self-inquiry, self-analysis, and learning that is at the heart of good management. Performance measurement is not an end, but a means to an end. Kevin Baum, a long-time consultant and practitioner of performance measurement, wrote in a recent issue of Perform that performance measurement and management “is a dynamic, iterative, sometimes painful process of organizational learning and growth.”

The decision to start the development and implementation of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) is more about changing hearts and minds, and sustaining new directions, than it is about identifying performance measures and buying (or developing) performance measurement software. It is a decision to start a journey, not to start a project, or to explore a plug-and-play solution to a particular problem.

Because they are unambiguous and actionable, performance measures are invaluable to court leaders and managers. They serve both as clear incentives and practical tools for change - I mean not just incremental improvements in programs and services but fundamental changes in the way your court does business.

Start your performance measurement initiative with the attitude that you’re in it for the long-term, that learning and growing as an organization, and changing the court's culture and behavior – the way your court does business -- is at least as important as selecting the right performance measures.

Cpyright CourtMetrics 2005. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more

A Logic Model of Performance Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Increasingly, the courts' stakeholders -- justice system partners, the general public, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and even the courts’ own court employees -- demand clear evidence that the resources courts expend actually produce benefits for people. Looking for this evidence starts early in the development of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) (see Step 2, Identifying and Defining the Performance Measures Needed and Desired to Help Achieve Goals, October 15, 2005 posting, “Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System”). For every strategic initiative, program or specific strategy, court managers should develop a simple logic model that describes how the initiative, program or strategy theoretically works to achieve the desired results from program inputs through end outcomes. Critical thinking and discussion of the logic of how a proposed program or strategy may bring about results that benefit citizens and the community can reap g
Read more