Problems in pay for performance systems April 9, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Measurement, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Using the approach , 2commentsSorry, I stopped blogging there for a day or two due to a computer problem, and I will also not be blogging over the Easter Break, but will be back daily blogging after that. Today I’m looking at problems in a pay for performance system. From the point of view of outcomes theory, pay for performance systems are just another example of an outcomes system. Outcomes systems are any system which attempts to identify, measure, attribute and hold people, organizations or programs to account. A U.S. GAO report [2] on one such system is interesting reading (for those with a taste for obscure government reports). It reviews the National Security Personnel System which has just been put on hold by the Obama administration and they may axe it [1]. The problems identified in the GAO report include: (more…)
Why just about every indicator system in the world needs to be fixed! April 5, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Easy Outcomes, Evaluation planning, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes models, Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Standards, Using the approach , 1 comment so farI’ve just posted a new article in the Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base on why it is essential to map indicators onto an underlying visual outcomes model. I blogged a little while ago about why we should be wary of too-tidy indicator sets and in the article I explain why. The vast majority of indicator systems in the world suffer from the problem set out in the article – they are just a straight list of indicators set out in tabular format. They give the user no idea as to whether a number of important steps and outcomes are not being measured. Those using such systems remain blissfully unaware of this. In my view, all these straight indicator sets need to be fixed. It’s not particularly difficult, it just requires some work. How to draw the underlying outcomes models is set out in the outcomes model standards and how to then use such models for indicator mapping and many other things is described in detail in the applied version of outcomes theory – Easy Outcomes. (more…)
Simplifying outcomes terminology – angels dancing on the head of a pin! April 1, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Outcomes theory, Reporting systems, Using the approach , add a commentIn the middle ages, churchmen occupied themselves by having long discussions sitting around the fire drinking fine wine and discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It was tough, but someone had to do it! That was until someone called William of Occam came along. He is famous for spoiling the party with something called ‘Occam’s Razor’ – one way of describing the way he operated was that the did not want people to ‘multiply entities beyond necessity’ (see Wikipedia entry). What he was talking about was trying to keep things as simple as possible. This is the approach which is taken within outcomes theory. (more…)
Extraordinary circumstances and Dick Cheney’s ‘stuff happens’ March 29, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Evaluation debates, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , add a commentIn my last blog posting I commented on Jon Stewart’s critique of ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that the Bush administration should not be held accountable for the U.S. economic melt-down because a number of things happened during their term which affected the economy. The Vice President summarized this by saying that ‘stuff happens’ and this ‘stuff’ unexpectedly blew their budget. The ‘stuff’ included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. In technical outcomes theory terms, the Vice-President was mounting an ‘extraordinary factors’ argument to reduce his administration’s accountability for the economic melt-down. (more…)
To attribute or not to attribute – Jon Stewart vs Dick Cheney March 27, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Evaluation debates, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , 3commentsIn a recent episode of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show he deconstructs a high-profile interview with Dick Cheney, the previous Vice President of the United States, undertaken by another interviewer. While this is a comedy show, being an overly analytical sort of person, I can’t watch it without analyzing what is going on it in from the point of view of outcomes theory! At a technical level, the key issue Stewart is focusing on in creating his laughs is what in outcomes theory is called – demonstrable attribution. Demonstrable attribution is being able to demonstrate that an improvement which occurs following an intervention has been caused by a particular intervention (see here for more outcomes theory information on this). In summary, Stewart claims that Dick Cheney is applying a double standard around demonstrable attribution. (more…)
Time for an Attribution Commission? March 17, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Economic analysis, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news , 1 comment so farA blog posting by Dean Baker (he is one of the few economists who accurately predicted the housing collapse) looks at the ‘comparative responsibility’ of Bush and Obama for the 2009 U.S. deficit in the face of some Republican claims that somehow it is Obama’s fault. He argues that most of it is the legacy of Bush. Whenever an administration changes you get endless debate as to who is responsible for what. In fact much of political discourse is about attribution and accountability, where attribution is about attempting to demonstrate that an agent caused something to happen and accountability is whether they should be punished or rewarded for what has happened. (See the article here for more on attribution and accountability within outcomes theory). (more…)
Bonuses role in the financial melt-down March 16, 2009
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes models, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & politics, Outcomes theory & the news, Reporting systems , add a commentPresident Obama has amplified the attack on bonuses being paid to staff in companies which have been bailed out by the U.S. government (CNN, 16 March 2009). What does outcomes theory have to say about the role of the bonus system in the current financial meltdown? I blogged in 2007 about the problem of bonuses in the financial system and how it was possible the full extent of the melt-down would take time to be revealled. Thinking in terms of an outcomes model, what has happened is that financial institutions should have been aiming (as they do in healthy times) at the overall outcome of Sustainable long-run profitability. (more…)
More on politicians – accountability (praise and blame) and having ‘blown it’ December 10, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Evaluation debates, Indicators, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory, Outcomes theory & the news, Reporting systems , add a comment
Further to my last posting on whether or not the jump in President Bush’s approval rating was attributable to him (i.e. provable that he caused most of it, rather than it just being the fact that he happened to find himself being President on September 11th), I came across a letter to Newsweek which relates to another aspect of the features of steps and outcomes in outcomes models as related to politicians. (The letter is the second letter listed here). This time it is the issue of accountability. (more…)
Attibution and President Bush’s approval rating December 7, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Attribution, Impact evaluation, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes theory & the news, Reporting systems , add a comment
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about indicators and attribution these days. I think that a lot of problems (particularly misinterpretations of how well or badly parties are doing within outcomes systems of all types arise because of confusion between attributable and not-necessarily attributable indicators. The underying Five Building Blocks Diagram which is used in outcomes theory makes a distiction between attributable and not-necessarily attributable indicators.The Washington Post today had an interactive showing President Bush’s Approval Rating over time. At various points, the graph had labels showing what was happening at the time, presumably to help the reader work out why his rating went up and down at the points it did. The biggest jump was around September 11 where his approval took a massive leap from something like 56% to 92% (reading off the graph). Below is a section from the interactive. (more…)
Sharing the pain – crazy indicators, targets and funder reporting systems December 4, 2008
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Accountability, Doing evaluation more efficiently, DoView, Easy Outcomes, Indicators, Measurement, Outcomes systems architecture, Reporting systems, Using the approach , add a comment
This blog post is a follow-up to an earlier posting on my blog. In a comment on that posting, M&Egirl outlined problems she was having with a funder demanding targets that are meaningless and asked for more comment on this obsession with targets on the part of funders.
The program she is working on is a Gender Related Violence program, which for the sake of this discussion I’ll presume involves women who have been subject to gender related violence receiving some sort of intervention to help them be safe and move beyond the trauma they have suffered. Because the issue of indicators and targets is such an important issue I thought that I’d do a further posting on it. If you have a moment, have a quick read of the original posting and M&Egirl’s comment before reading this blog posting. (more…)