|
1. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND
REPORTING FRAMEWORK
|
That
Council receive this report for information.
Que le Conseil reçoit ce
rapport à titre d'information.
1.
Chief
Corporate Services Officer’s report dated 13 February 2006
(ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0003).
2. Document 1 – Prototype Quarterly
Performance Report to Council Issued previously to all members of Council and
held on file with the City Clerk.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels
et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
13 February 2006 / le 13 février 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager/Directeur des
services municipaux
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Bob Hertzog, Chief, Corporate Planning and
Performance Reporting Officer
Corporate Planning/Planification d’ensemble
(613) 580-2424 x23971, Bob.Hertzog@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services organisationnels et
du développment économique et le Conseil reçoivent ce rapport à titre
d'information.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
Accountability
is fundamental to good governance, and the provision of performance information
is central to accountability. Council
has identified improving accountability and transparency as one of its major
change agendas, or key priorities, as identified in the City Corporate Plan, so
that Ottawa is recognized as a leader in municipal accountability. This is one of the priority change agendas
for the City Manager and the City’s Executive Management team. Being accountable and transparent means that
the City of Ottawa is committed to producing performance information that
measures how the City is doing in all areas over which it has responsibility,
from financial reporting to human resource management to service delivery.
Performance
measurement and reporting is not a new concept for the City. The Region of Ottawa-Carleton had established
certain basic performance reporting mechanisms in the late 1990’s. A report proposing the use of high-level,
“Quality of Life” type indicators to assess the City’s sustainability was
received by the Transition Board in January 2001. The City has been participating in the Municipal Performance
Measurement Program (MPMP) since 2001.
Various branches and departments have been generating different types of
performance reporting to meet other statutory reporting requirements and for
their own internal management purposes.
What has been missing is a coherent framework to bring the various
pieces together and ensure that the information needs of various user groups –
the public, external stakeholders, Council, and City management and staff are
met.
A
performance measurement and reporting framework focuses the public, Council and
City management and staff on outcomes and on results. For Council this framework has several benefits:
· it
helps Council in its stewardship and oversight role, by providing Councillors
with assurance that City operations are being carried out effectively and
efficiently.
· it
assists Council in evaluating the City’s operational performance in key areas
in relation to targets or benchmarks .
· it provides useful information for setting
of priorities and decision-making.
· it
allows Council to track progress on the priority areas (agendas) highlighted in
the City Corporate Plan and departmental business plans.
· by
making factual information broadly available, it improves the quality of
discourse with citizens and external stakeholders about City programs and
services.
In
addition, performance reporting will support City management and staff by
providing timely operational information critical to the City’s continuous
improvement approach to program and service delivery. It will assist management in identifying opportunities for
departments and branches to incorporate best practices.
This
performance measurement and reporting framework is a logical step in the
development, implementation and refinement of the City’s management
processes. In the first few years after
amalgamation, City Management focussed on implementing processes, applications
and systems applied on a consistent basis throughout the City. With these fundamental processes,
applications and systems now generally well established, greater emphasis can
now be placed on assessing how we are doing and what type of improvements are
possible. Managers now more frequently
look outward to see how the performance of their areas compares to that of
their peers in other organizations and want help in doing this type of
benchmarking in a structured, meaningful manner where possible. Council has expressed considerable interest
in benchmarking various City programs and services and would like benchmarking
information provided on a regular basis.
For all these reasons, it is now time to proceed with the development
and implementation of the City’s performance measurement and reporting framework.
This
City of Ottawa performance measurement & reporting framework is informed by
a number of different initiatives:
· Ottawa 20/20, the City Corporate Plan
and the departmental business plans;
· CICA
Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) draft statement of recommended practice
for public performance reporting frameworks;
· Legislative
reporting requirements such as the Municipal Performance Measurement Program
(MPMP);
· The City’s previous and on-going
experience in this area; and
· Best
practices in municipal performance performing, including initiatives by leading
Canadian and U.S. municipalities in this field.
The
primary components of the City’s performance measurement and reporting
framework that we will develop and implement in 2006 are:
1) OMBI/MPMP
2) Action Status Reporting
3) Annual Report
4) Quarterly Performance Report to Council
This
report describes each of these components, outlines the approximate timelines
and provides some factors for consideration by Council in using performance
information. In addition, to get a
better sense in concrete terms of what
type of performance information can and will be made available to Council, a
prototype Council Performance Report is provided in Document #1. This is a work-in-progress and will evolve
over time in response to Council direction.
This Corporate-wide performance measurement and reporting framework will be rolled out in a staged manner. The implementation plan takes into account “how far, how fast” the City’s Executive Management Committee (EMC) has assessed that the City can proceed, based on internal consultations conducted in late 2005 and early 2006.
Financial Implications:
Given limited resources, the implementation plan assumes that in 2006 the City will focus on relative “quick hits”, where we can build on sources of data and reporting mechanisms that already exist to the greatest extent possible. In so doing, we will concentrate on framework components that will provide the most significant, immediate results. In parallel we will begin work on implementing a business intelligence and reporting application that builds on existing sources of data. This will become the backbone for future performance reporting initiatives. Initially the focus will be on extracting information from the SAP modules that we use and generating various required reports. The cost of the 2006 implementation of the business intelligence and reporting application will be accommodated within the existing SAP sustaining and Corporate Planning & Performance Reporting Office operating budget.
Public Consultation/Input:
Initial consultations on community impact indicators have taken place with Advisory Committee Member focus groups and community leader and general public focus groups. These community impact indicators are a work-in-progress and will evolve over time as we continue to work with Advisory Committees, community partner organizations and other stakeholders on them. Other types of indicators that are primarily output or input focussed are more straightforward in nature and therefore will be established internally, in a manner that will facilitate benchmarking, comparisons to target and analysis of trends over time, where possible.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
La
responsabilité est le fondement d'une bonne gouvernance et la diffusion
d'information sur le rendement est essentielle à la responsabilité. Le Conseil a identifié l'amélioration de la
responsabilité et de la transparence comme étant l’un de ses principaux
programmes de changement, ou priorités essentielles, tel que présenté dans le
Plan directeur municipal, afin qu'Ottawa soit reconnue comme chef de file dans
la responsabilité municipale. Pour le Directeur des services municipaux et
l'équipe de la haute direction de la Ville, il s'agit d'un des principaux
programmes de changement. Être responsable et transparent signifie que la Ville
d'Ottawa s'engage à diffuser des informations sur le rendement qui permettent
de mesurer le rendement de la Ville dans tous les domaines dont elle est
responsable, que ce soit au niveau de l’information financière, de la gestion
des ressources humaines ou de la prestation de services.
La mesure et l'évaluation du
rendement ne sont pas un nouveau concept pour la Ville. Vers la fin des années
1990, la Région d'Ottawa-Carleton a mis sur pied certains mécanismes de base
pour évaluer le rendement. En janvier 2001, le Conseil de transition a reçu un
rapport dans lequel on proposait d'utiliser des indicateurs de type
« Qualité de vie » de haut niveau pour évaluer la pérennité de la
Ville. La Ville participe au Programme de mesure de la performance des services
municipaux (PMPSM) depuis 2001. Plusieurs directions et services ont généré
différents types d'évaluation du rendement afin de satisfaire à d'autres
exigences d’évaluation prévues par la loi et aux fins de leur propre gestion
interne. Cependant, il manquait un cadre afin de réunir les différents éléments
et de s'assurer que les besoins en matière d'information des différents groupes
d'usagers – le grand public, les intervenants externes, le Conseil et la
direction et le personnel de la Ville – seraient satisfaits.
Un cadre de mesure et d'évaluation
du rendement permet au public, au Conseil et à la direction et au personnel de
la Ville de se concentrer sur les résultats. Pour le Conseil, ce cadre présente
plusieurs avantages :
-
Il
aide le Conseil dans son rôle d'intendance et de surveillance en offrant aux
conseillers et conseillères l'assurance que les opérations de la Ville se font
de façon efficace et efficiente.
-
Il
aide le Conseil à évaluer la performance opérationnelle de la Ville dans des
secteurs clés relativement aux objectifs fixés ou aux données repères.
-
Il
fournit des renseignements utiles pour établir les priorités et prendre des
décisions.
-
Il
permet au Conseil de faire le suivi du progrès dans les secteurs prioritaires
(programmes) mis en évidence dans le Plan directeur municipal et les Plans
d'activités des services.
-
En
permettant l'accès à des renseignements factuels, il améliore la qualité des
échanges avec les citoyens et les intervenants externes relativement aux
programmes et aux services de la Ville.
De plus, l’évaluation du rendement
permettra d'aider la direction et le personnel de la Ville à fournir en temps
opportun des informations opérationnelles essentielles à la démarche
d'amélioration continue relative à la prestation de programmes et de services
de la Ville. Il aidera la direction à identifier les possibilités afin que les
services et les directions puissent adopter des pratiques exemplaires.
Ce cadre de mesure et d'évaluation
du rendement est une étape logique dans l'élaboration, la mise en œuvre et
l'amélioration des processus de gestion de la Ville. Au cours des premières
années qui ont suivi la fusion, la Direction de la Ville a mis l'accent sur la
mise en œuvre de processus, d'applications et de systèmes appliqués de façon
constante dans toute la Ville. Avec ces processus, applications et systèmes
fondamentaux qui sont maintenant généralement bien implantés, l'accent peut
maintenant être mis sur l'évaluation de la situation et sur le type
d'améliorations qu'il est possible d'apporter. Les gestionnaires élargissent de
plus en plus leur champ de vision en regardant comment le rendement de leur
secteur se compare à celui de leurs pairs d'autres organismes. Ils désirent
obtenir de l'aide afin de faire ce type d'analyse comparative de façon
structurée et significative dans la mesure du possible. Le Conseil a exprimé un
intérêt considérable envers l'analyse comparative de divers programmes et
services de la Ville et aimerait recevoir des informations sur ces analyses
comparatives sur une base régulière. Pour toutes ces raisons, il est maintenant
temps de passer à l'élaboration et à la mise en œuvre du cadre de mesure et d'évaluation
du rendement de la Ville.
Le cadre de mesure et d'évaluation
du rendement de la Ville d'Ottawa reçoit des informations de plusieurs
initiatives :
-
Ottawa
20/20, le Plan directeur municipal et les Plans d'activités des services;
-
l'ébauche
des pratiques recommandées pour les cadres d'évaluation du rendement publics du
Conseil sur la comptabilité dans le secteur public (CCSP) de l’ICCA;
-
les
exigences de déclaration légales telles que le Programme de mesure de la
performance des services municipaux (PMPSM);
-
les
expériences passées et en cours de la Ville dans ces secteurs, et
-
les
pratiques exemplaires des performances des services municipaux, y compris les
initiatives dirigées par des municipalités canadiennes et américaines dans ce
secteur.
Les composants principaux du cadre
de mesure et d'évaluation du rendement de la Ville que nous élaborerons et
mettrons en œuvre en 2006 sont :
1) OMBI/PMPSM
2) Rapport
d'étape
3) Rapport
annuel
4) Rapport
trimestriel sur le rendement présenté au Conseil
Ce rapport décrit chacun de ces
composants, présente les délais approximatifs et fournit des facteurs à
considérer par le Conseil lors de l'utilisation des données sur le rendement.
De plus, pour se faire une idée précise et concrète du genre de données sur le
rendement qui seront mises à la disposition du Conseil, un exemple de Rapport
sur le rendement pour le Conseil est présenté dans le document n° 1. Il s'agit
d'un document en cours d'élaboration qui sera mis à jour au fil du temps selon
les directives du Conseil.
Ce cadre de mesure et d'évaluation
du rendement applicable à l'ensemble de l'administration municipale sera mis en
œuvre en plusieurs étapes. Le plan de mise en œuvre tient compte du
« degré et de la rapidité » auxquels la Ville peut procéder selon des
consultations internes menées vers la fin de l'année 2005 et au début de
l'année 2006 par le Comité de la haute direction de la Ville (CHD).
Répercussions financières :
Compte
tenu que les ressources sont limitées, le plan de mise en œuvre stipule qu'en
2006, la Ville mettra l'accent sur des initiatives qui donnent des résultats
relativement rapides. Elle devra exploiter le plus possible les sources de
données et les mécanismes de communication qui sont déjà en place. Ainsi, nous
nous concentrerons sur les composants du cadre qui donneront les résultats les
plus significatifs et le plus rapidement possible. En parallèle, nous commencerons
la mise en œuvre d'une application d’intelligence d'affaires et d'évaluation
qui met à profit les sources de données actuelles. Cela deviendra le modèle
pour d'éventuelles initiatives d'évaluation du rendement. Initialement,
l'accent sera mis sur l'extraction de l'information des modules SAP que nous
utilisons et sur la création de divers rapports. En 2006, les coûts de la mise
en œuvre de l'application d'intelligence d'affaires et de l'évaluation seront
imputés au budget d'exploitation SAP et à celui du Bureau de la planification
municipale et de l'évaluation du rendement.
Consultation publique / commentaires :
Des
consultations initiales sur les indicateurs des répercussions sur la population
ont eu lieu avec les groupes de discussion membres du Comité consultatif, les
dirigeants communautaires et les groupes de discussion publics généraux. Ces
indicateurs des répercussions sur la population sont en cours d'élaboration et
seront mis à jour au fil du temps puisque nous continuons de travailler avec
les comités consultatifs, les organismes partenaires communautaires et d'autres
intervenants. D'autres types d'indicateurs qui sont principalement orientés
vers les extrants ou les intrants sont de nature plus directe et seront, pour ces
raisons, établis à l'interne d'une façon qui facilitera l'analyse comparative,
les comparaisons aux éléments ciblés et l'analyse des tendances au fil du
temps, si possible.
BACKGROUND
Considerations
in Developing the City of Ottawa’s Performance Measurement & Reporting
Framework
The
City’s performance measurement and reporting framework has been designed to
take into account the performance information needs of several different types
of users:
· Council needs performance information
to fulfill its stewardship and oversight responsibilities. Information on results is of primary
importance. Performance information is also required by
Council in support of decision-making, especially with respect to strategic directions, budgeting, financial planning and
resource allocation. In addition, performance data can be used by
Council in evaluating the efficiency, effectiveness
and economy of City programs and operations.
· Citizens want information on
results. They want to know whether the
City is making progress on the
strategic directions that Council has established (in the City Corporate Plan).
At a high, aggregate level, they want information that allows them to
assess whether their tax dollars are
well spent.
· External stakeholders such as members
of Advisory Committees, community associations,
social and community partner organizations and the business community are frequently focussed on more specific issues
or aspects of City performance. Often
they request more detailed performance
information in those areas of particular interest to them.
· The City’s Executive Management
Committee needs performance information that provides
an overview of City operations on an organization-wide basis but also requires more in-depth data that allows them to
focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of critical
aspects of City operations.
· Departmental Management require data
to monitor the performance of the various programs
and activities for which they are responsible and for decision-making.
· Branch managers require information
of a more operational nature to help them run the programs and services they deliver and support decision-making.
The
performance measurement and reporting framework will address this wide range of
needs and cover all significant aspects of City operations.
There
are several different types of performance measures. Performance measurement data that focuses on outcomes or results
is ultimately what is most important but this aspect of performance is
generally only measurable over longer periods of time. The City of Ottawa will use community impact
indicators to assess progress on the outcomes for each of the agendas in the
City Corporate Plan . Often
organizations also report performance data relating to outputs of their
programs or services that contribute to a longer-term result. In addition, in some instances,
organizations will provide information on level of effort, or inputs, to
provide information on application of resources. We will use one of the defined outcomes for the City of Ottawa’s
City Corporate Plan Public Safety and Health agenda to illustrate how these
different types of performance measurement data interrelate. The stated outcome is to “reduce by 30% over
2002 levels the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by
motor-vehicle accidents.” For this
outcome:
· The community impact indicator would
be the number of serious injuries or deaths resulting
from traffic collisions during the year.
· One output measure would be the number of intersections previously identified as higher risk that have been modified.
· One input measure would be the number
of person-days spent on road or construction work
required to modify intersections.
The
Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) makes use of four broad
categories of performance indicators: i) community impact indicators, ii)
customer satisfaction indicators, iii) efficiency-related indicators, and iv)
service level indicators. As noted above, community impact measures are
outcome-focussed. Customer satisfaction
and efficiency-related indicators tend to be output focussed and service level
indicators measure level of inputs. The
components of the City’s framework will include a variety of different
indicators in each of these four categories.
Although performance can be assessed in both qualitative and
quantitative terms, the framework will focus on indicators that are generally
expressed in quantifiable terms. In assessing potential performance
indicators, we will look at whether
they are relevant and understandable,
timely, accurate, consistent and most importantly, objective.
Limitations
in Using Performance Data
Performance
indicators provide useful information that allows users to assess performance in
relation to a baseline or to established targets or benchmarks. However, there are a number of caveats that
users of this information must consider.
Indicators provide a starting point for analysis to determine the
underlying causes for a particular result.
Without analysis and explanation, indicators can be misleading.
Moreover, performance measure information presented on its own, without context
or explanation, is not very helpful.
Users need to understand influencing factors since what is most relevant
is often not the quantitative result itself but the explanation of
results. To be relevant, indicators
have to include comparisons to targets or benchmarks, or allow the user to
assess trends/performance over time. In
addition, when considering the City’s performance indicators in relation to
those of other cities or other organizations, it is essential to ensure that
this information is truly comparable (“apples to apples” comparisons). One way of achieving this is by establishing
common definitions, which is why in benchmarking initiatives such as OMBI much
time and effort is put into developing common data definitions.
Another
major concern is that users of information tend to critically focus on what
isn’t working well, without adequately considering why or what is being done to
address the shortcomings. The City’s
performance reporting philosophy is based on the principle that we will share
performance information in a transparent manner. Consistent with the City’s continuous improvement strategy, our
focus will be on using performance indicators to identify and understand both
areas where we are doing well and areas where our performance is not at target
or benchmark levels, and in the latter case we will establish what has to be
done to improve performance.
Learnings
Applied in the Development of Ottawa’s Framework
In
developing the City’s framework we have looked at what other cities in Canada
and the U.S and what other private and public sector organizations have
done. At the municipal level, each
city has its own goals and priorities.
There is no “one right way” to measure performance for muncipal
government. We have identified a number
of learnings, based on the experience of other municipalities, that we have
taken into account in the development of the framework for the City of
Ottawa. The most noteworthy of these
are:
1. Data must be provided from a balanced
perspective. While there is merit in
highlighting financial information, finance and budget should not be the sole
focus. To round out the performance
picture, other aspects of performance, such as achievement of established
service standards, availability of adequate human resources, and efficiency or
effectiveness of operations must also be considered. In the Canadian municipal context, Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg,
Calgary, and Edmonton have already established such balanced reporting
mechanisms or are making progress towards the implementation of such reporting
mechanisms to supplement their financial reporting.
2. It is preferable to concentrate on a
relatively small number of performance indicators and build the performance
framework gradually. Performance
measures that are not directly linked to a key aspect of accountability or
drive decision-making are a poor use of scarce resources. There are several examples of performance
reporting undertaken in U.S. cities for public accountability and transparency
purposes that have resulted in information overload (hundreds/thousands of
reported measures) and reporting fatigue for the respective organizations.
3. A range of reporting products is
required to satisfy demands from Council and the public with regard to
accountability and transparency. One
important such product is the annual report.
In their annual reports, some municipalities use a limited number of
high level outcome measures to focus attention on results, with supplementary
data showing how the City's activities contributing to the achievement of
intermediate targets. Additionally,
quarterly updates provide information on performance at more of an operational
level.
4. Different users require differing
levels of reporting detail. Executive
management will require a regular strategic update and an occasional in-depth
analysis when performance issues arise.
Departmental management will need periodic reporting of performance
information, while branch managers require next-to-real time performance
reporting. Regardless of the data
extraction tool used to produce these reports, a central repository for performance
data is important. At the very least
the number of systems warehousing data should be streamlined to the greatest
degree possible.
5. Wherever possible, performance measures should be compared to established benchmarks or service standards. Industry standards, provincial regulations and guidelines and specific directions from Council can be used to establish service standards or targets.
DISCUSSION
Description
of the Proposed Framework
The
proposed performance measurement and reporting framework for the City of Ottawa
that is outlined below is very much a work in progress. It includes the specific components on which
we will focus in 2006. These are:
2006
i) OMBI/MPMP
The
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) is a provincial statutory
reporting requirement for all Ontario municipalities. Ottawa has been providing MPMP data since 2001. Data for previous Ottawa MPMP submissions is
available on the City’s website. MPMP
only requires performance data for a relatively a limited number of Ottawa’s
programs and services. There are
approximately 50 MPMP indicators.
OMBI
is one of the leading public sector benchmarking initiatives in North
America. It is a cooperative of 15
large Ontario municipalities that began reporting on benchmarking results in
2002. OMBI’s purpose is to develop
specific performance measures, capture performance data, and analyze and
benchmark results across a wide range of municipal programs. The resulting comparisons facilitate
identification and exchange of best practices and improve efficiency and
quality of programs and services in Ontario municipalities.
OMBI
includes 500+ performance indicators in 34 program delivery and support
areas. Therefore OMBI is a potential
source of a wealth of comparative, annual performance data. The MPMP indicators are now included in the
overall OMBI framework as well. In
September 2005 a briefing note was issued to Council that describes the City of
Ottawa first year’s experience as a participant in OMBI. A small sample of the 2004 results was
provided as well.
OMBI
is one of the most ambitious parts of the City of Ottawa’s performance
measurement and reporting framework. It
is the first benchmarking exercise in which the City has participated that
encompasses a broad range of the City’s programs and services. We will roll OMBI out to all program areas
this year, building on what we learned in our initial experience last year. We are currently preparing to report on the
OMBI performance indicators for 2005.
The data submission and analysis for 2005 should be completed by mid
2006, with reporting to follow.
Although OMBI data has been used primarily for internal purposes until
now and there have been restrictions on external use, starting this year OMBI
has committed to public reporting.
Therefore we anticipate issuing a report to Council on the OMBI 2005
results by the end of 2006 and we will also publish the OMBI results, for
public information, on the City’s website.
ii) Action Status Reporting
The
City Corporate Plan (CCP) and the Departmental Business Plans (DBPs) approved
by Council in 2005 include a series of actions that City departments will
undertake. We will report back to
Council and the public twice a year on the status of these items, to provide
feedback on the progress the City is making on the outcomes for each of the CCP
agendas. The first such data gathering
exercise will take place shortly after Q2, with the first status report issued
to Council by September 2006.
iii) Annual Report
The
City’s annual report is one of the main means by which the City can provide
external stakeholders and citizens with an overview of the City’s performance
during the year. The City’s 2004 annual
report, the City’s first such report, provided highlights of City achievements.
We will significantly enhance the quality and quantity of performance
information in the 2005 annual report and in subsequent annual reports. This performance reporting information will
be linked to the 11 agendas in the City Corporate Plan. More specifically, we will provide some
information on outcome-oriented community impact indicators for each agenda and
other output-focussed performance information, where readily available and
relevant. We expect that the amount of
performance information we are able to include in the annual report will
increase over time, as we implement the reporting systems that allow us to
capture, extract and synthesize this data.
Work on the 2005 annual report has begun and the report should be issued
by May 2006.
iv)
Quarterly Performance Report to Council
Council
will receive a performance report each quarter. It will be a high level summary of key metrics of interest to
Council, including output-focussed efficiency and customer service data. The focus of this report is on key
external-facing programs and services.
It will address areas where Council has specifically requested certain
types of data (e.g. Transit) and also include indicators for some of the most
highly visible City services. Initially
it will include an overview of all Ottawa OMBI efficiency indicator results,
3-4 indicators for each selected program area, such as EMS, Police Services and
the Ottawa Public Library, and a couple of indicators relating to general and
administrative activities. This report
is currently under development. A
prototype report is included in Document 1 for information. This report will evolve over time to
reflect input received from Council, to ensure that it meets Council’s needs
and to reflect changes in the City environment. This report will be submitted at the same time as the quarterly
operating status and forecast report.
The first such Quarterly Performance Report to Council will be issued
with the Q2 financial data by approximately mid-August.
Other
Initiatives & Ad Hoc Requests
The
Corporate Planning & Performance Reporting Office (CPPRO) will also
coordinate the preparation of other reports to Council involving special
requests for performance data and generate any similar type of reports required
for external requests, where data is readily available and this work can be
done within existing resources. One
special initiative that CPPRO carried out in the Fall of 2005, at the request
of the Long Range Financial Planning Committtee, was the HR benchmarking
analysis. This consisted of comparisons of performance data for up to 17
front-line and internal service delivery positions that perform key functions
within the City of Ottawa with several other large Canadian municipalities.
This was the first such HR benchmarking exercise. Some of the cities contacted were reluctant to share data and a
lot of time and effort by CPPRO staff was required to develop data definitions
that could be applied on a common basis.
Through a concerted effort we ultimately obtained some comparative for 14 of the 17 benchmark positions. The
results of this exercise were included in the HR Plan, which was submitted to
Council in November 2005. We will
review whether this initiative met Council’s objectives, whether this type of
HR benchmarking initiative should be sustained, and if so, how frequently, with
the LRFP Committee in Q2 of 2006.
CPPRO
will also work with the City’s departments to establish performance indicators
for new programs or initiatives that are brought forward to Council. This will be done, where possible, as
initiatives are being developed, to ensure that management and Council has
appropriate objective information to establish whether goals or targets are
achieved. In doing this, CPPRO will
rely on requests for involvement from departments and will also identify areas
where performance indicators are required through consideration of the
organization’s forward agenda.
In
addition, CPPRO will work with the Executive Management Committee, departmental
management teams and Directors of branches to develop performance reports
geared specifically to their management needs.
We will start by taking a “balanced scorecard” approach to performance
reporting, which generally includes information on:
· Human Resources
· Client service
· Operational efficiency
· Financial issues
CPPRO
will assess whether and how this “balanced scorecard” approach can be used for
internal management purposes.
Management reporting at the EMC level, within the departments and in the
branches will be aligned in a manner that ensures consistency of reporting and
builds on existing sources of data to the greatest extent possible. CPPRO will conduct pilots with a limited
number of branches to determine departmental and branch information needs and
assess how these needs can be best met.
One specific aspect of this will be the development & application of
business intelligence tools for departmental and branch activities, using a
“dashboard” approach where feasible. We
will initially obtain some experience in developing management reporting for
departments and branches through these pilots, which will be conducted in 2006,
then move to City-wide roll out in 2007 and 2008.
2007
& Beyond
In
addition to the components of the performance measurement & reporting
framework that we will introduce in 2006, there are other components that will
be considered for development in 2007 and beyond. For example, we will look at enhanced reporting of community
impact indicators. In the 2005 annual
report we will include information on the first group of community impact
indicators. These will be the
"strongest" indicators, where there is a clear link to the outcome,
where the indicator is readily understandable and where the data already exists
or is very easy to obtain. As the work
on defining these indicators progresses and we are able to expand the number of
agreed-upon indicators, so that there are a number of indicators for each
agenda in the City Corporate Plan, we will consider how best to make this
information publicly available. We
will also look at publishing a wider range of performance data, related to the
outputs of City programs and services, on a quarterly basis. This data will be made available on the City
website and potentially through other means as well.
Links
to other initiatives
CPPRO’s commitment to present the proposed City-wide performance measurement and reporting framework for Council consideration and implement it was captured as an action item that is part of the Accountability agenda in the City Corporate Plan. The performance data generated through components of the framework will provide input for the various components of the planning process, including specifically future versions of the CCP and DBPs. Data will also be used in the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of City programs and services in support of the City’s continuous improvement strategy. One specific set of activities where performance data will be particularly useful will be in the Branch Process Review Program (BPRP), where this data will help Managers assess what is working well and identify areas where improvements are possible.
CONSULTATION
Initial consultations on community impact indicators have taken place with Advisory Committee Member focus groups and community leader and general public focus groups. As noted above, these community impact indicators are a work-in-progress and will evolve over time as we continue to work with Advisory Committees, community partner organizations and other stakeholders on them. Other types of indicators that are primarily output or input focussed are more straightforward in nature and therefore will be established internally, in a manner that will facilitate benchmarking, comparisons to target and analysis of trends over time, where possible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
For 2006 we will work with existing sources of data, using data that is already reasonably easily available wherever possible, to “populate” the reports that will be produced initially for the framework components. This can be done within existing CPPRO and departmental resources. In parallel we will begin work on configuring and “turning on” a business intelligence and reporting application. This application will become the backbone for performance reporting initiatives. Initially the focus will be on extracting information from SAP modules that we use, therefore the cost of this will be relatively modest. At present we are obtaining requests for proposals from suppliers for this and expect that the total cost will be between $250-$500K. This cost for the initial phase of work will be accommodated within existing SAP sustaining and CPPRO budgets. Based on the results of this initial phase of work we will establish whether a subsequent phase is desirable, and if so, what the scope of this phase will be. One particular issue to be considered will be whether and how data from other significant non-SAP applications can be included in performance reports in an integrated manner. If a subsequent business intelligence and reporting project phase is proposed, the funding required for this will be included in future year budget submissions.
Document 1 – Prototype Quarterly Performance Report to Council
Following
Council receiving this report on the proposed performance measurement &
reporting framework, CPPRO will:
1. Develop and implement the framework components
scheduled for roll out in 2006.
2. Proceed with the implementation of the business intelligence and reporting application in support of short term and future performance reporting requirements.