Browsing through a recent collection of performance management resources, I came across an article summarizing some practical “lessons learned” in the development of a governmental performance measurement/management system.

Interestingly, the lessons were based on the design and implementation of a Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System for the Government of India, undertaken by Prajapati Trivedi, a professor of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business.

Trivedi’s article summarizes lessons about what governments need to do and what they should not do, based on his perception of flaws in many performance measurement systems. Here are his five major lessons, all of which should ring true to U.S.-based managers:

• Governments must define goals and targets before the fact—at the beginning of the performance period—instead of after the fact. It’s only fair for managers and others who carry out programs to know the goals and objectives on which they will be evaluated. And systems should have annual as well as long-term (5- 10-year) targets, as it’s difficult to establish accountability only for long-term goals.
• Governments must have an integrated performance measurement system. Measures must be based on the goals and objectives of the whole organization, and the measurement of each program or project must relate to the measurement of the whole organization. Trivedi argues that focusing on a few selected departments results only in “pockets of excellence” while “inefficiency has travelled to another part that is currently not under scrutiny.”
• Performance measurement should not be confused with performance management. For performance measurement systems to affect behavior, there must be clear accountability for results, mapped to individuals who are responsible for their success or failure: “Programs and projects do not self-implement.”
• A performance management system must prioritize the criteria, targets, and indicators of success in terms of their contribution to the core mission of the organization and establish in advance how deviation from targets will be regarded—so that performance can be judged based on importance.
• Governments must create and codify good performance measurement systems; good people are not a substitute for a good system. Writes Trivedi, “Most management experts agree that 80% of the performance of an organization can be attributed to the quality of its systems and only 20% to people working in the organization. Of these 20%, leadership accounts for 80%.”

The full article, “Implementing Performance Measurement Initiatives In Government,” appears on the website of the IBM Center for The Business of Government. The points were first presented in a webinar, Implementing Performance Measurement Initiatives: A Local and Global Perspective, organized by the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in partnership with ASPA's Section on Public Performance and Management, May 5, 2016.