International Center for Best Practice

In a post last February, I wrote that I was tired of "best practices" and recommended that the concept be replaced with evidence-based practices, defined as programs, strategies or procedures for which there is demonstrable evidence that their use produces desirable performance outputs and outcomes. I wrote that best practices, the way the term is used in court administration, instead should be called “interesting practices,” “intriguing practices,” “promising practices” and, maybe, “practices-you-might- want-to-see-in-person-if-the-weather-is-right.” I worried that the irony was a bit too sharp. I should not have worried.

In his July Bob Behn’s Public Management Report (Vol. 3, No. 11), Bob Behn, a lecturer at Harvard University’s School of Government, takes the irony to another level. If, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” then “best practice” is the refuge of unimaginative ones, writes Behn. Why are public managers so obsessed with something that someone else has labeled “best practice”? Because, writes Behn, if they discover a “best practice,” then they can stop thinking. By adopting a “best practice,” public managers conveniently avoid the hard work of figuring out whether the identified practice actually will work in their organizations. It is the “best” they confidently assure themselves and others. Who will challenge the unnamed management gurus, asks Behn, who have certified the practice as “best”?

A manager need not be too discriminating or too careful worrying whether the practices will provide some “operational nutrition” or merely “institutional heartburn.” He or she can simply choose from a long menu of best practices what is personally appetizing.

Here’s Behn at his ironic best.

You, of course, have heard of it: The International Center for Best Practice. It has charters from the United Nations and the World Bank, and is stocked with Nobel laureates in management. Once a year, they convene in Zurich, Singapore, or Capetown to choose a few, select practices to be officially authenticated as a “Best Practice.” If the head of a public agency can find one of these practices and implement it throughout his or her organization, no one can dispute that he or she is not an au courant public executive.

Anyone interested in charter membership in the International Center for Best Practices in Court Administration (ICBPCA)?


For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© CourtMetrics 2006. 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