Upload
vanliem
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Local Government Division
Department of Premier and Cabinet
CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT
FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
2
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 3
ABOUT THIS PROJECT .......................................................................................... 3
1.1 A consultative approach .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project background .............................................................................................................. 5
2. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK ............................................ 9
A THREE-PART FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 9
1. Framework overview .................................................................................................... 10
2. Performance assessment reports ........................................................................... 10
2.1 Roles .................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Report format ................................................................................................................. 18
2.5 Context .............................................................................................................................. 19
3. Development of resources ........................................................................................ 22
3.1 Case studies ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Information, tools and templates, education and training ....................... 23
3.3 Self-assessment tools .................................................................................................. 23
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS ............................................24
HAVE YOUR SAY ................................................................................................... 24
Next steps ...................................................................................................................................... 26
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
3
1. INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THIS PROJECT
The Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) is an
initiative of the Premier’s Local Government Council
(PLGC) and is designed to help councils deliver the best
possible outcomes to Tasmanian communities.
Continuous improvement is an incremental approach that improves efficiency
without great risk or cost. It involves performance assessment, improvement
planning and implementation, and evaluation of results. In the long term this
process leads to enhanced quality of service delivery, simplified processes, and
an organisational culture focused on performance improvements.
Continuous improvement requires an accurate picture of current performance,
and information and resources that will support improved performance.
Therefore, this project will deliver a meaningful performance assessment
reporting program and a suite of information and resources that councils can
take advantage of to help improve performance and build capacity.
Rather than promoting a measurement culture by simply reporting numbers, the
aim of this project is to support a performance culture that encourages councils
to consistently strive for continuous improvement.
It is important at this point to acknowledge the value of the Auditor-General’s
report to Parliament on the performance of local government, and highlight that
the reporting component of the new CIF will seek to complement rather than
duplicate the Auditor-General’s report. The CIF will assess the performance of
councils in roles that the Auditor-General does not cover.
1.1 A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH
The first step is to consult with councils to identify the tools they need to help
them as they strive for continuous improvement. This discussion paper is the
basis for an initial broad consultation with the local government sector.
Following this broad consultation, there will be subsequent targeted consultation
with representatives from the local government sector that will focus on the
performance reporting system.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
4
An advisory committee has been established to provide advice during the
project development. The members of the advisory group are:
Phillip Hoysted, Local Government Division (Chair)
Jeff Tongs, Tasmanian Audit Office
Katrena Stephenson, Local Government Association of Tasmania
Des Jennings, Northern Midlands Council
Andrew Wardlaw, Burnie City Council
Frank Barta, Clarence City Council.
The Terms of Reference for the advisory group are attached at Appendix A.
The PLGC is overseeing the development of this project. This oversight will
ensure a collaborative approach and a result that is owned by both spheres of
government.
Here we outline a draft continuous improvement program for local government
in Tasmania and invite you to have your say.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
5
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
A CIF is a natural progression arising from the development and implementation
of local government performance reporting in Tasmania.
The KPI report
KPI reports were produced on an annual basis from 2000 to 2010 and aimed to:
• enhance performance measurement by councils;
• enable benchmarking and identification of best practice;
• establish performance trends over time; and
• improve accountability to the community.
The KPI report contained data on local government performance across 49
indicators in the areas of governance, management and finance, regulation,
infrastructure and utilities, and community services and development.
The project added value to the sector by providing councils with the
opportunity to monitor their progress over time and across a range of criteria.
Five-year comparisons were provided. However, a review of the project in 2010
found that the value of the project could be further enhanced by collating and
analysing the data.
The review also found that 49 indicators were too many and that, as useful
measures of performance, the indicators were of uneven value. Some indicators
were deemed of little relevance and, due to the changing role of local
government, were no longer needed. For example, changed water and
sewerage arrangements meant that the performance indicators related to this
area were no longer required.
A major criticism of the KPI project was that there were significant delays and
the performance indicator report came out too late to be of much use. The production of the report for publication was time-consuming and the
complexity of the process contributed to the delay in making the performance
indicators public. Furthermore, the report contained a large amount of data without any analysis to add value or meaning to the data.
The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators report
The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) project was initiated by the
PLGC in 2010 and aimed to build on the value of the KPI project. In particular,
the SOI project aimed to establish a small number of indicators that accurately
reflected the sustainability of councils. It also aimed to provide analysis on the
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
6
data, and release the data in a more timely fashion than the KPI reports were
released.
The objectives of the project were to:
1. improve performance management at the local council level;
2. develop a culture of continuous improvement across the local
government sector; and
3. provide the public with easy-to-understand and meaningful information
about the performance of the local government sector.
To support these objectives, the PLGC oversaw the development of indicators
designed to measure councils’ performance in terms of financial management,
asset management, planning and development, and community satisfaction.
The indicators have formed the basis of annual performance reports which
provide performance data and analysis.
In 2014, the Local Government Division reviewed the SOI project and
produced an evaluation report which made the following findings:
1. There is strong support for a performance assessment system for local
government in Tasmania.
2. The SOI report in its current form is a useful tool for some but there
are opportunities to improve performance reporting in Tasmania.
a. The indicators measured through the SOI report are valuable,
but there would be benefits in reconsidering what the indicators
currently measure and identify indicators that are meaningful to a
wider audience.
b. There is scope to improve the way that performance
information is presented – a concise summary of selected
indicators would be useful as an overview of performance to the
community, and detailed analysis would be useful to councils as a
planning and decision making tool.
3. The SOI report does not drive continuous improvement. Performance
reporting needs to be supported by other tools and mechanisms to
promote continuous improvement.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
7
In response to the findings listed above, the evaluation report made the
following recommendations to improve performance measurement of
Tasmanian councils:
1. The SOI report be subsumed into a new CIF. Options for the
framework include:
a. An explanation of the CIF and how it could be employed by
councils.
b. An annual performance assessment report or reports as required
to meet the different needs of different audiences.
c. Self-assessment tools to support ongoing assessment of
operations and performance.
d. Best practice promotion and case studies.
e. Information and education aimed at improving performance in
line with needs identified through the performance assessment
report.
2. An advisory group be established with representation from local
government to guide the development of the new CIF.
Continuous improvement in local government
Eighty-two per cent of general managers who responded to a survey that was
designed to evaluate the SOI project reported that there is a culture of
continuous improvement in their council. This is an excellent start but the ideal
result would be all reporting a continuous improvement culture. This project will
provide additional resources to councils who already strive for continuous
improvement, and support councils who are at the start of the continuous
improvement pathway.
An Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) report on
continuous improvement (2010) developed a model to describe the various
components of continuous improvement approaches employed by councils
across Australia:
collecting and analysing organisational data
adapting frameworks
engaging stakeholders
building workforce motivation and capacity
designing and implementing improvements
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
8
monitoring and reporting.
How councils engage in continuous improvement is entirely up to individual
councils. The objective of this project is not to tell councils how to approach
continuous improvement, rather it is to provide additional resources to assist
them with their continuous improvement efforts.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
9
2. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
A THREE-PART FRAMEWORK
To start the discussion, we’ve developed a draft framework
for continuous improvement. Its aim is to support councils
by providing performance information along with tools that
are designed to address identified performance gaps to
assist councils in their efforts to improve performance.
A brief summary of the three parts of the framework is presented here with
greater detail provided in the next section.
1. A framework overview – to articulate the purpose of the framework,
provide a summary, and offer guidance on how it might be used by
councils.
2. A performance reporting system – to help councils understand their
current performance, where they are performing well and where there
is scope to enhance performance.
3. Tools and resources developed in line with performance reports to
support councils to improve their performance including:
a. Case studies – to share proven practices and processes.
b. Information, tools and templates, education and training – to
address identified areas requiring improvement.
c. Self-assessment tools – to promote ongoing self-assessment and
continuous improvement.
The proposed three-part CIF will assist councils with identifying performance
gaps and implementing improvements. The performance assessment report will
help councils to understand how their organisation is performing in relative
terms while self-assessment tools and information, templates, education and
training can be incorporated into councils’ improvement plans.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
10
1. FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW
Part 1 of the proposed three-part framework is an overview. The overview of
the project would:
articulate the purpose and objectives of the CIF;
provide an overview of each of the parts of the framework and how
they link together; and
offer guidance on how the framework is intended to be implemented.
2. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Continuous improvement starts with understanding an organisation’s current
performance. Councils gather performance information related to their strategic
objectives as part of their annual planning and reporting. Performance
assessment reports will be additional tools for councils to take into account
when considering their own performance.
The goal will be to provide councils with insight into their performance across a
range of key council roles both over time and relative to other similar councils.
The reports will aim to provide additional information to councils to help them
understand where they could improve their performance, in terms of both
efficiency and effectiveness.
The details of the performance report are yet to be developed and the
feedback received through this consultation will heavily influence the final
performance reporting system. Through this consultation we want to gather
your feedback on:
the roles that should be reported on through the statewide
performance reporting system;
the quantitative data that should be reported;
benchmarks or targets that should be associated with the data;
key performance indicators that should be given the most attention
when it comes to analysis;
the use and value of reporting mechanisms such as tick-box reporting, or
descriptive reporting;
how many measures should be reported each year;
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
11
whether there should be one comprehensive report each year, or a
number of short and focused reports each year; and
how the reports could most usefully be presented.
The major challenges in creating a meaningful performance assessment report
are identifying appropriate indicators and developing a format that meets the
needs of various stakeholders.
2.1 ROLES
The first matter to consider in developing a new performance reporting system
is what roles should be assessed.
Councils are diverse organisations whose specific mandate is to respond to the needs of unique communities across Australia. As a result, councils undertake a
huge range of activities, in varying combinations and to varying degrees.
However, within the undefined set of roles and responsibilities that local government undertakes, there are a number that are carried out by all councils.
Some of these responsibilities are legislated, some are unique to the local
government landscape, and others are simply part of running an effective
organisation. It is critical that a statewide performance reporting system
measures activities that are common to all councils.
In establishing what roles should be measured, there are two matters that are
important to consider:
1. The roles should ideally be common to all councils. 2. It is crucial that councils have a direct influence on what is being
measured.
Looking back at past performance measurement systems for inspiration:
the KPI report measured governance, management and finance,
regulation, infrastructure and utilities and community services and
development;
the SOI report originally sought to measure finance, assets, governance,
community engagement, corporate management, regulatory compliance
and place; and
ultimately, because of the difficulty finding appropriate indicators, the SOI
report ended up measuring financial and asset management, planning
and development, and community satisfaction.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
12
Other jurisdictions in Australia generally measure the performance of local
government across five key theme areas (or a subset thereof), namely:
1) governance;
2) financial management and sustainability;
3) asset management;
4) service delivery; and
5) legislative compliance.
The Role of Local Government project established eight roles of local
government that are common to all councils. Those roles are:
1. sense of place
2. community engagement
3. strategic leadership
4. land-use planning
5. economic development
6. service delivery and asset management
7. legislation and by-laws
8. representation and cooperation.
These eight roles may provide a useful structure for measuring council
performance through a statewide performance reporting system.
The CIF advisory group is of the view that given the amount of consultation that
went into the identification of these eight roles, and the fact that they are
accepted by PLGC as the roles of local government, that these are the areas
that should be measured through the new performance reporting system.
1. Should the eight roles identified through the Role of Local
Government project be the roles that are measured through the CIF?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
13
2.2 OBJECTIVES
For each role that is finally reported on through the performance reporting
system there needs to be an associated objective. The objective describes the
role in terms of a high-level aspirational statement. The objective helps to define
what the role is in practical terms and how the role will be measured.
It’s difficult to propose objectives when, as yet, we don’t have a defined set of
roles. But developing objectives is a critical part of performance reporting and
step that could not be overlooked. There are plenty of examples from
elsewhere to draw on.
The objectives associated with the areas measured in the SOI project were as
follows:
Role Objective
Financial management To achieve and/or improve financial
sustainability through meeting the
requirements of sound fiscal
management.
Asset management To manage assets in a way that
maximises asset service delivery,
manages related risks and accounts for
whole-of-life costs.
Planning and development To develop, implement and improve planning and development practices
that improve access to facilities and
services, utilisation of resources,
appropriate infrastructure provision and sustainable environmental
practices.
Community satisfaction To ensure communities are satisfied
with councils’ provision of services in the areas of:
a) Planning and development
b) Community involvement c) Infrastructure
d) Environmental
management / waste e) Recreation / culture
f) Community health and safety
g) Overall satisfaction
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
14
Similarly, the role descriptions associated with the eight roles identified through the Role of
Local Government Project provide useful examples of objectives:
Role Capability statement
Sense of place Councils facilitate and work with their communities to develop a sense of
place through branding, promoting and enhancing local identity, and
promoting social cohesion and health and wellbeing.
Community
engagement
Councils engage with their communities, sharing information about
community, council and government business, and where appropriate,
provide opportunities for constituents to influence and/or participate in
council decision making.
Strategic
leadership
Councils provide strategic leadership through understanding current and
future operating environments, identifying opportunities and risks and
making decisions which align with long-term strategic plans and corporate
plans.
Land-use
planning
Councils are strategic land-use planners who work with communities to
create an environment that guides the use of land to balance economic,
environmental and community/social values, and to support the health and
wellbeing of their communities.
Economic
development
Councils facilitate the economic development of communities by working
with the business community to attract and retain investment and support
sustainable economic growth.
Service delivery
and asset
management
Councils are responsible financial managers who deliver cost effective,
equitable and efficient services and assets which reflect local needs and
expectations and are guided by council’s long-term corporate planning
objectives.
Legislation and
by-laws
Councils enforce relevant state and national legislation and create by-laws
and policies as required to support the efficient and effective functioning of
council to support the community.
Representation
and cooperation
Councils engage with each other and other spheres of government to
represent and advocate the needs of their communities, and where
appropriate, cooperate and work in partnership to generate the greatest
benefit for communities.
2. If you suggested roles in response to question 1, can you suggest
associated objectives?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
15
2.3 INDICATORS
Performance indicators should link directly with objectives providing a measure of performance against the objectives. Performance indicators need to measure
efficiency (resource management) and effectiveness (accessibility and
appropriateness). They might include both qualitative and quantitative
information.
Indicators should:
measure outcomes not activity;
be verifiable and free from bias and be based on credible information;
and
focus on the most important components of the objective.
Past performance reporting systems in Tasmania have focused on quantitative
data. The benefits to using quantitative data are that any subjectivity is removed,
results are more readily comparable, and quantitative data is often perceived as
being more credible than qualitative data. A disadvantage of committing to using
only quantitative data is that there are not always ideal quantitative measures for
everything.
It is proposed that the new performance reporting system will make use of a
mix of measurement mechanisms including quantitative data, tick boxes and
qualitative data.
To a large degree, the measurement mechanisms used depend on what is being
measured. Often for financial and asset management performance quantitative
indicators are a meaningful way to assess performance. For other matters, such
as compliance and governance, tick boxes may be more useful. In terms of
assessing the activities councils undertake to promote a sense of community,
text descriptions may be the only way to capture the diversity of what councils
do in their unique communities.
The perpetual challenge in developing performance reporting systems is
identifying indicators that measure outcomes rather than activity. As well as
using tick boxes and qualitative data as suggested above, another option may be
to identify groups of activity measures that might suggest a performance
outcome, similar to a balanced scorecard approach.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
16
Building on existing frameworks
As part of the SOI project, the PLGC established a set of local government
performance indicators in 2011. Annual reports have been released including
performance data and analysis related to each of the indicators. The indicators
are:
1. Operating surplus (The difference between day-to-day income and
expenses for the period)
2. Operating surplus ratio (The percentage by which the major controllable income source plus operating grants varies from day to day
expenses)
3. Net financial liabilities (What is owed to others less money held, invested or owed to the entity)
4. Net financial liabilities ratio (The significance of net amount owed compared with the period’s income)
5. Asset sustainability ratio (The ratio of asset replacement expenditure
relative to depreciation for a period. It measures whether assets are
being replaced at the rate they are wearing out)
6. Asset consumption ratio (The average proportion of ‘as new’ condition left in assets)
7. Asset renewal funding ratio (The ratio of net present value of asset renewal funding accommodated over a ten year period in a long-term
financial plan relative to the net present value of the projected capital
renewal expenditures identified in an asset management plan for the
same period)
8. Percentage of development application completed within statutory timeframe
9. Average days to process planning and development applications
10. Percentage of decisions by the Resource Management and Planning
Appeals Tribunal in favour of the council.
11. [Every two years] Satisfaction with:
councils’ performance in planning and development
councils’ performance in community involvement
roads, pedestrian areas and local road networks
waste management
recreational and cultural facilities and programs
hygiene standards and animal control
overall performance of council.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
17
When we start measuring performance in roles beyond those measured
through the SOI project, there are some obvious gaps in the set of above
indicators. Below are some indicators (some of which are used by some other
jurisdictions) that may be useful in the Tasmanian context. It is by no means an
exhaustive list, simply a sub-set of the range of possible indicators to illustrate
alternative indicators:
Council decisions made at meetings closed to the public
Own source revenue per head of municipal population
Recurrent grants per head of municipal population
Staff retention
Average rates and charges per capita
Infrastructure backlog ratio
Cost of full time equivalent staff
Completion of annual plan
Budget achievement
In choosing new performance indicators, it is critical that there is a focus on
indicators that are meaningful and will assist councils with their decision making,
as opposed to choosing data that is interesting without being useful. It is also
important to note that performance reports will include targeted analysis rather
than analysis on every indicator or piece of data.
3. What indicators do you think should be assessed through the new
performance reporting system?
4. What do you think about the use of qualitative measures such as tick
boxes, descriptive text and/or a balanced scorecard approach as a way
to capture selected indicators of council performance?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
18
2.4 REPORT FORMAT
In the past, the KPI report and the SOI report were both released as single
consolidated reports each year. The advantage to producing a single report is
that all the data is in one place and it is easier to draw conclusions from the
complete set of data. Often performance indicators need to be read together to
give a full and fair picture of the performance of an organisation. However, there
have been disadvantages to releasing a large single report each year:
they take a long time to produce and a timely release is difficult to
achieve; and
the result is a long and rather hard to digest report.
An alternative approach would be to release several shorter reports on a rolling
basis throughout the year. Each report might focus on different sub-sets of
performance areas. The reports would need to be co-located so that should
readers wish to compare results between reports that could easily be done. An
option may be to release them as drafts throughout the year, and consolidate a
final report by the end of the reporting year.
The performance report (or reports) needs to be presented in such a way that
councils can easily find and understand the information they need. It may be
valuable to provide a two-page high-level summary of results and findings with
each report. Such a summary would make the information contained within the
document more accessible to those who do not need or want detail. It would
be critical that the summary painted a fair picture of the information contained
without the report.
5. Would you agree that several shorter reports, each with a different
focus, throughout the year would be more effective than a single
report?
6. Do you think providing a high-level summary of the contents of each
report would be useful and appropriate?
6.a If not, how do you think performance data can best be presented to
meet the needs of councils?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
19
2.5 CONTEXT
Providing context is obviously really important when it comes to interpreting indicators. It is proposed that context is provided in the new performance
reporting system through:
benchmarks and targets (where appropriate);
grouping councils into classifications;
providing time series data; and
offering councils the opportunity to provide input related to their
performance.
Benchmarks and targets
Performance targets and benchmarks give performance data meaning. They provide a comparison point that shows whether the performance of an
organisation is satisfactory or otherwise.
7. If you suggested performance indicators at question 3, can you
nominate appropriate benchmarks or targets to be associated with
those indicators?
Council classifications
Comparing like with like is essential to an effective measurement system. Some
indicators can reasonably be compared across all councils. But mostly the
differences between councils such as geographic size, population, and location
mean that some results cannot be fairly compared between two councils.
The KPI report grouped councils into one of three classifications:
1. major cities
2. other urban and large rural
3. other small or rural councils.
The SOI report classified councils into one of five classifications:
1. urban medium
2. urban small
3. rural agricultural very large
4. rural agricultural large
5. rural agricultural small and medium.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
20
The SOI report also aggregated results to provide a picture of the performance
of the sector as a whole.
8. How should results be collated, presented and compared in the new
performance reporting system?
Individual council level
By national council classifications
By region
League table
State aggregate
Other groupings (please be specific)
9. Do you think that there are some indicators that are relevant only to
some council classifications, or do you think that all indicators should be
applied to all councils?
Time series data
The focus of this initiative is continuous improvement. Therefore, the provision
of trends over time is of utmost importance. The performance reporting system
will provide data over time.
Council responses
Sound judgment and context is always needed to assess the results produced by
indicators. It is proposed that councils are offered the opportunity to provide
information related to performance against their own strategic plans as part of
the statewide performance assessment report.
10. How can councils be given the best opportunity to provide context
around the results presented in the performance assessment report?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
21
2.6 SOME IMPORTANT POINTS TO MAKE REGARDING THE
PERFORMANCE REPORTING SYSTEM
Data source and reporting burden
Data for the project will be sourced primarily from the annual consolidated data
collection (CDC) that is undertaken by the Department of Premier and
Cabinet’s Local Government Division. The State Government and the Local
Government Association of Tasmania acknowledge the significant amount of
effort that councils expend on completing the annual data return and are
committed to maintaining the single data collection.
Depending on the final indicators there may be a need to require additional
information through the CDC. It is unlikely that addition requirements will make
a significant difference to the collection as it stands.
Use of data – by whom and how?
This project has a clear objective to support councils as they pursue continuous
improvement. The report is therefore aimed at councils. Part 3 of the proposed
framework outlines a plan to develop resources to encourage councils to
pursue continuous improvement. The resources will be developed in line with
the findings of the report.
Duplication of reporting
Measures will be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of reporting. Note
that the Tasmanian Audit Office is on the reference group to ensure that their
annual local government Parliamentary reports and the annual performance
reports prepared through this project are aligned and complementary.
11. Do you have any other general comments related to the proposed
performance reporting system?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
22
3. DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES
Part 3 of the proposed CIF involves the development of tools and resources to
support improved performance. The new resources will be developed in line
with findings from the performance reporting process. Resources that may be
produced include:
case studies to share proven practices and processes;
information, tools and templates, education and training to address
identified areas requiring improvement; and
self-assessment tools to promote ongoing self-assessment and
continuous improvement.
3.1 CASE STUDIES
Case studies may be a useful way of sharing effective tools and processes across
the local government sector. Indeed, the ACELG report on continuous
improvement (2010) found that case studies were considered to be one of the
most useful tools for continuous improvement by 68 per cent of respondents.
The evaluation report for the SOI project also identified that case studies may
be a useful tool to enhance the continuous improvement culture. A number of
respondents to the evaluation survey highlighted that in their view, the SOI
project should be expanded to include an array of continuous improvement
tools including reference material in the form of case studies.
The performance assessment report provides an opportunity to identify high-
performance councils and explore the processes that support high performance.
It is proposed that following the release of the performance assessment report,
project managers will work with councils to identify practices that could be
easily transferred, prepare guidance notes and promote the practices across the
sector. This process would support take up of good practices and reward high-
performing councils with recognition within the local government sector.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
23
3.2 INFORMATION, TOOLS AND TEMPLATES, EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
The performance assessment reports present an opportunity to identify areas
where there is the greatest need for improvement across the local government
sector. On the basis of performance gaps identified through the performance
assessment report, information, tools and templates, education or training as
appropriate can be developed to support councils to enhance performance in
low-performing areas.
Tools and templates were rated as the most valuable support in striving for
continuous improvement in the ACELG continuous improvement. There is
already a range of information, tools and templates, education and training
offered within Tasmania. It may be a matter of promoting existing resources, or
there may be a need to develop new resources to meet the needs identified
through the performance assessment report.
3.3 SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Self-assessment tools complement formal performance assessments by giving
councils an opportunity to explore performance in areas that are not formally
assessed. Self-assessments need only be for the information of the council –
there is no need to make self-assessment results public unless individual councils
choose to do so.
Councils participated in a self-assessment process as part of the Role of Local
Government project. Feedback on the process was overwhelmingly positive.
The survey asked councils to reflect extensively on their performance across the
eight roles of local government. Councils could use this tool on a regular basis
to identify areas where there is scope to improve performance.
12. Are there any additional resources that would assist councils with
continuous improvement?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
24
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS
HAVE YOUR SAY
Have your say and help us to develop a framework that will
make a positive difference for your council. You can use the
following questions to guide your response or you can tell
us what you think is important.
1. Should the eight roles identified through the Role of Local Government
project be the roles that are measured through the CIF?
2. If you suggested alternative roles in response to question 1, can you
suggest associated objectives?
3. What indicators do you think should be assessed through the new
performance reporting system?
4. What do you think about the use of qualitative measures such as tick
boxes, descriptive text and/or a balanced scorecard approach as a way to
capture selected indicators of council performance?
5. Would you agree that several shorter reports, each with a different focus,
throughout the year would be more effective than a single report?
6. Do you think providing a high-level summary of the contents of each
report would be useful and appropriate?
6.a If not, how do you think performance data can best be presented to meet
the needs of councils?
7. If you suggested performance indicators at question 3, can you nominate
appropriate benchmarks or targets to be associated with those indicators?
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
25
8. How should results be collated, presented and compared in the new
performance reporting system?
Individual council level
By national council classifications
By region
League table
State aggregate
Other groupings (please be specific)
9. Do you think that there are some indicators that are relevant only to
some council classifications, or do you think that all indicators should
be applied to all councils?
10. How can councils be given the best opportunity to provide context
around the results presented in the performance assessment report?
11. Do you have any other general comments related to the proposed
performance reporting system?
12. Are there any additional resources that would assist councils with
continuous improvement?
To make a submission please write to:
Local Government Association of Tasmania
GPO Box 1521
HOBART TAS 7001
Or email [email protected]
If you have any questions, please contact the Local Government Association of
Tasmania on 6233 5964 or the Local Government Division on 6232 7022
Thank you for your time and interest in this project.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
26
NEXT STEPS
The table below summarises the process from this point including activities and
indicative dates:
Activity Date
Targeted consultation on performance indicators October 2015
Collate consultation feedback November 2015
Advisory group meeting November 2015
Finalise framework November 2015
Final advisory group meeting November 2015
Provide framework to PLGC for endorsement December 2015
Implement framework Ongoing
ACRONYMS
ACELG Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government
CDC consolidated data collection
CIF Continuous Improvement Framework
KPI Key Performance Indicators
LGAT Local Government Association of Tasmania
LGD Local Government Division
PLGC Premier’s Local Government Council
SOI Sustainability Objectives and Indicators
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
27
Appendix A: Terms of Reference – Project
Advisory Committee
Project summary The Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) for Tasmanian Councils project
will deliver a comprehensive framework that will provide continuous improvement support including performance reporting and resources that will
help build local government capacity in identified areas.
Project background The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) Project was initiated by the
Premier’s Local Government Council (PLGC) in 2010. The project was developed in response to an identified need for consistent performance
management for the local government sector. The objectives of the project
were to improve performance management at the local council level, develop a
culture of continuous improvement across the local government sector, and
provide the public with easy to understand and meaningful information about
the performance of the local government sector.
To support these objectives, the PLGC oversaw the development of indicators designed to measure the performance of councils in terms of financial
management, asset management, planning and development, and community satisfaction. The indicators have formed the basis of annual performance reports
which provide performance data and analysis. Annual SOI reports are endorsed
by the PLGC prior to being provided to all councils and finally published on the Local Government Division’s website.
An evaluation of the SOI project in 2014 identified a number of opportunities
to improve performance management of local government in Tasmania. The
evaluation found that there were opportunities to enhance the data that was
reported, improve the format of the report, and a need for a greater focus on
promoting continuous improvement.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
DISCUSSION PAPER
Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647
28
Role of the project advisory committee
The project advisory group will assist the project managers to develop a comprehensive continuous improvement framework by providing advice on:
the project concept;
the consultation process;
performance management reporting including format of the report and
data reported;
indicators and benchmarks used in the performance report;
developing an implementation plan for the framework; and
other matters as requested by the project managers.
Membership Phillip Hoysted, Local Government Division (Chair)
Katrena Stephenson, Local Government Association of Tasmania
Jeff Tongs, Tasmanian Audit Office
Andrew Wardlaw, Burnie City Council
Des Jennings, Northern Midlands Council Frank Barta, Clarence City Council
Other representatives as required
Meetings It is expected that there will be four meetings of the project advisory
committee:
1. July 2015 – discuss the project concept and consultation process 2. August 2015 – develop a discussion paper
3. October – 2015 discuss consultation feedback
4. November 2015 – finalise the framework and discuss project
implementation
Further meetings will be organised if and as required. Advice may also be
requested out-of-session via email.
Term of committee The project advisory committee will exist for the term of the Continuous
Improvement Framework project. It is anticipated that the project will conclude in December 2015.
GPO Box 123
HOBART TAS 7001
Phone: 03 6232 7022
Fax: 03 6233 5685
Email: [email protected]
Visit: www.dpac.tas.gov.au