What is a results/performance-based delivery system? An invited presentation to the European Parliament *

Abstract

The European Parliament has been considering changes to the cohesion (or regional) policy of the European Union (EU) that forms a key instrument for the EU to promote social, economic and territorial cohesion. It would like the new policy to be more results oriented and invited experts to advise it in this regard. This article consists of an invited address given to the European Parliament Committee on Regional Development. This presentation briefly touched upon the following considerations: 1. What does it mean to have a results-oriented system? 2. Why is this important, and what does it involve? 3. How can the EU Cohesion Policy move in this direction, distinguishing between the illusion and the reality of a results-oriented strategy and implementation? The key message of the presentation is that a results-oriented approach means orienting all aspects of planning and management on outcomes rather than on process. This represents a new way of thinking and managing that needs to be reflected in all aspects of management. Indicators can represent one form of support for a results-oriented system, but they have significant limitations as well as strengths, and by themselves do not constitute a results orientation.

Keywords

accountability cohesion policy indicators results orientation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bemelmans-Videc

M-L

Lonsdale

Perrin

(eds) (2007) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit. London: Transaction Publishing.

EurActiv.com (2011) EU Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. URL: http://www.euractiv.com/en/regional-policy/eu-cohesion-policy-2014-2020-linksdossier-501653

European Evaluation Society (2007) EES Statement: The Importance of a Methodologically Diverse Approach to Impact Evaluation – Specifically with Respect to Development Aid and Development Interventions. URL: http://www.europeanevaluation.org/library.htm

Mintzberg

(1996) Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review 74(3): 75–83.

Patton

(2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: Guilford Press.

Pawson

Tilley

(1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.

Perrin

(1998) ‘Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation 19(3): 367–79.

Perrin

(1999) Performance measurement: does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston. American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 101–10.

Perrin

(2002a) Implementing the Vision: Addressing Challenges to Results-Focused Management and Budgeting. Paris: OECD. URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/10/2497163.pdf

10.

Perrin

(2002b) How to – and how not to – evaluate innovation. Evaluation 8(1): 367–79.

11.

Perrin

(2006) Moving from Outputs to Outcomes: Practical Advice from Governments around the World. Based upon the Roundtable: ‘Moving from Outputs to Outcomes: Implications for Public Sector Management.’ Washington: World Bank and IBM Center for the Business of Government. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/oed/outcomesroundtable/outputs_to_outcomes.pdf

12.

Rogers

(2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 14(1): 29–48.

13.

Saunders

(2010) Capturing effects of interventions, policies and programmes in the European context: a social practice perspective. Evaluation 17(10): 1–14.

14.

Schwartz

Mara

Forss

(eds) (2011) Evaluating the Complex: Attribution, Contribution, and Beyond. London: Transaction Publishing.

15.

Wauters

(2011) Towards an Enhanced Monitoring and Evaluation System: How M&E Can Become a Tool for Supporting Programme Management. Presentation for COP RBM Premium Group, 6 April. URL: http://www.coprbm.eu/?q=node/375

16.

Williams

Hummelbrunner

(2011) Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner’s Toolkit. Stanford: Stanford University Press.