Better outcomes, by design |
|
The language of ‘outcomes’ and ‘effectiveness’ is commonplace, yet meaningfully distinguishing outcomes from time, effort, activity, and output targets (often mislabeled ‘outcomes’) remains surprisingly rare.
Despite best intentions and good processes, higher-order policy, organizational, and strategic objectives may be unrealized, even when targets are met. The problem - frequently undiagnosed until failure is locked in or attracts media attention or formal inquiries - is often more acute in public service and legal and regulatory endeavors. That is because it is more difficult than private sector profit goals to line up inputs, activities, and outputs with harder to measure social and economic policy objectives. Striking the balance is harder still because failure resides on both sides of peak performance capability, with a double outcomes paradox: the easier to measure 'outcomes' performance metrics on one side of the peak, and the more aspirational 'outcomes' goal on the other side, the less likely either will reflect real outcomes or achieve intended objectives. (A third paradox sometimes hides the double paradox: the greater the use of outcomes and effectiveness terminology disconnected from the science makes it less likely to reflect real outcomes, enable meaningful effectiveness, or achieve key goals). "Better outcomes, by design" methodologies use proven effectiveness and outcomes science for practical, evidence-informed strategies enabling demonstrably better outcomes. These techniques can also help confirm that core objectives remain achievable and on-track, and diagnose hidden barriers. |
Dr Ronald F Pol, Outcomes scientist
PhD, LLB (Hons), BCom (Econ) |