Chapter 2: What Results Management Is and Why It's Important
Results
management, properly implemented, improves efficiency and effectiveness.
Results management goes beyond focusing solely on formal systems and measurement
to emphasize shared values and leadership as key success factors. This
implies a multifaceted approach to deal effectively with complexity and
an ability to adapt to change while maintaining core values and public
confidence. Results management should have embedded within it a commitment
to organizational learning and improvement in support of results-based
decision making related to achieving the organization's strategic goals.
For most organizations, results management represents a new and different
way of doing business. In order to more clearly understand what this implies,
it may first be useful to also clarify what results management is not.
Results management is not the same as MBO. MBO, originally
described by Peter Drucker over half a century ago, is based on aligning
goals and subordinate objectives throughout an organization. In theory,
the organization-wide alignment of goals and objectives maximizes effectiveness
and leads to achieving objectives. Indeed, there are many positive lessons
to be learned from MBO, including the need for a systematic, strategic
planning process and a managerial focus on objectives rather than on activities.
However, MBO works only if objectives are clearly understood, few in number,
and specific. It works best with centralized organizations and assumes
full organizational control over outcomes and fixed relationships between
inputs and outputs. In contrast, results management works best in decentralized
organizations operating in fluid and changing environments.
Results management is not the same as program evaluation.
Traditional evaluations are generally completed only after a project or
program is completed. In most evaluations, findings are not fed back into
the organization as part of an iterative, responsive, decision-making
process. Project managers seldom receive real-time feedback; instead,
feedback comes only with the findings of the formal evaluation by which
time it is no longer possible to make corrections. Real-time (or nearly
real-time) feedback loops are integral to results management and play
a key role in supporting results-oriented decision making. The two approaches
complement each other and are important components of a comprehensive
results management approach.
Results management is not just a design tool. The logframe
was originally developed for use by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) in the early 1970s. Since then, the logframe has become
a key planning and management tool for many development agencies—Britain’s
DFID, Canada’s CIDA, Australia’s AusAID, and Germany’s
GTZ to name just a few.
Typical uses of the logframe have been to support participatory project
planning, to serve as an analytic tool to document project results, and
to provide a sound monitoring and evaluation framework. The logframe has
clearly proven its value as a management and planning tool and is now
firmly established as an essential tool in development work. Indeed, the
logframe is the primary tool through which development agencies conceptualize
project objectives and determine appropriate strategies and tactics to
attain those objectives. However, as originally formulated, the logframe’s
primary application has been as an analytical tool for project design.
In the context of results management, modifications to the original logframe
are required, particularly as stakeholder understanding of the causal
relationships between expected results and underlying assumptions and
risks are elaborated. This dynamic element is generally absent in the
traditional logframe approach.
 Top
Results management is simultaneously (i) a management approach and (ii)
a set of tools for strategic planning, monitoring and evaluating performance,
reporting, and organizational improvement and learning. Results management
improves organizational performance by applying traditional tools such
as strategic planning, results frameworks, monitoring, and program evaluation
in the modern context of decentralization, networking, flexibility, participatory
processes, and accountability.
Top
At the core of “results thinking” is the concept of the results
chain, a schematic illustration of the intended causal relationships among
various elements over time (see Box 1). The results chain clearly shows
the plausible, causal relationships among its elements, while also clarifying
the various cyclical processes and feedback loops planners need to be
aware of. The basic rationale is to plan from right to left by initially
focusing on impacts and intended outcomes and then identifying the outputs,
activities, and inputs required to achieve them. Tracking performance
then goes from left to right, feeding information back to inputs and activities
to make necessary adjustments and improvements thus leading to better
results.
Top
The core of results management is its focus on desired outcomes. Outcomes
are the intended, intermediate effects of an intervention’s outputs.
At the sectoral or country level, they are shaped by many factors, with
any particular project or program making only a marginal contribution.
While it is important to have a vision of desired impact, actually managing
for impact is unrealistic and in fact impossible. Realistically, managers
of specific projects or programs aim to manage progress towards outcomes. Given
that achieving outcomes depends in part on factors beyond the direct control
of a project or program, a different approach to attribution than that
traditionally used for inputs or outputs is needed. Such an outcome orientation
represents a fundamentally different way of thinking about stakeholder
and client relationships that requires managing for results across all
layers of the organization, with a consistent focus on partnership and
collaboration.
Top
The role of leadership is essential not only to set the direction for
and constantly contribute to clarifying the core functions and objectives
of the organization but also to model the behavior and attitude to support
the results orientation.
Top
Buy-in and support can only be achieved by actively involving staff and
stakeholders. People are inclined to resist any approach that is perceived
as being imposed from above. However, when staff are actively involved
in developing and implementing a results approach, they become owners
of the process. Thus, participation plays a key role in ensuring relevance
and responsiveness; defining realistic expected results; accurately assessing
risks and assumptions; monitoring progress towards expected results; reporting
on performance; and assessing lessons learned and providing input into
management decisions.
Top
Unless results management is perceived as useful and applicable, it is
likely to be viewed negatively as involving additional requirements and
placing extra burdens on staff. Successful implementation requires creating
and nurturing an organizational culture in which outcomes are valued because
they are understood by all stakeholders to be important. This implies
a shift from traditional, procedure-oriented bureaucratic thinking to
flexible, results-focused thinking that is responsive to client demands.
This requires that managers and staff see the value of adopting an outcome
orientation and using performance information to achieve relevant outcomes.
Improved knowledge is a prerequisite for making better decisions. Systematic
feedback loops help to identify those factors that predict good performance
(i.e., achieving results). Improving the flow of information about results
supports making more appropriate and timely strategic decisions about
implementation and quality improvements.
Top
All public sector and development organizations have stakeholders that
are “partners” and “clients.” The nature of partners
and clients differs from organization to organization. In a government
agency, clients might be the recipients of services; in a development
agency, clients might be governments of developing countries. Similarly,
the term “partner” in government might refer to other public
sector agencies, while in a development agency it might refer to other
donors or international organizations.
Organizations are accountable to their stakeholders, and stakeholders
should be involved in making the transition to results management. Thus,
in both public and private sector organizations, successful results management
requires building and sustaining transparent and accountable strategic
partnerships.
Chapter 3: Putting Results Management
into Practice
|
Publications 
RSS Feeds
Results
management, properly implemented, improves efficiency and effectiveness.
Results management goes beyond focusing solely on formal systems and measurement
to emphasize shared values and leadership as key success factors. This
implies a multifaceted approach to deal effectively with complexity and
an ability to adapt to change while maintaining core values and public
confidence. Results management should have embedded within it a commitment
to organizational learning and improvement in support of results-based
decision making related to achieving the organization's strategic goals.