6. Key performance indicators

  Comment on this chapter

6.1 By the end of the programme, Capacitybuilders wants to see infrastructure services that:

• cover the whole sector;
• meet agreed quality standards;
• work with key local/regional stakeholders, including local authorities, to sustain support for infrastructure through LAAs;
• deliver services that meet identified needs, monitor outcomes and are cost effective.

6.2 In striving to achieve these objectives, Capacitybuilders believes that it is very important to set a number of key performance indicators for its work. Some illustrations of what such key performance indicators could be are listed below. This is a particular area in which Capacitybuilders would welcome your views.

Q2 Do you agree with the key performance indicators that have been set out by Capacitybuilders? Are they too modest, too ambitious or about right? Comment

• 75% of all third sector infrastructure organisations have reached appropriate agreed quality standards and are monitoring their outcomes.
• Voluntary sector capacity building needs assessments have taken place in 80% of all local authorities and consequent action taken.
• 50% of all local authorities have signed up to local area infrastructure agreements as part of their general LAA activities.
• 40% of third sector infrastructure bodies are centrally involved in promoting public service delivery in key government priority areas.
• The development of effective support services across six key sub-sector areas have been identified as priorities nationally, regionally and locally.
• 50% of generic third sector infrastructure organisations have developed specific programmes to support organisations working with socially excluded groups.
• Private sector support for infrastructure services (including those provided by charitable foundations) has increased by 25%.
• Infrastructure provision has been rationalised, or new, more effective joint working arrangements have been made, in 50% of local areas.

Comments

[John Baxter]

None of the examples are up to much in my opinion as the majority seem satisfied with very low levels of achievement ie 40%.
Given a choice I would prefer just one outcome :- "100% of infrastructure organisations are funded to an agreed level (based on an agreed national formula)."
Then, not only could you begin to look at what it is you want them to do, you could actually demand it.

[Mark Reading]

You can't fund infrastructure organisations to a level of 100%, given that the quality of infrastructure varies so much - hence ChangeUp. Given all of the budgetary constraints that our stakeholders face, the reality is that all our future work will be sought through procurement/tender processes. We need to identify what 'fit for purpose' is (in the way of a service delivery agent), and ideally position ourselves to be ready to bid for work we consider 'ours'.

[John Baxter]

Mark - possibly my bad english but....... I didn't suggest that all infrastructure organisations were 100% funded. Suggested that "all" infrastructure organisations were funded to "an agreed level" ie there should be an agreed level of funding for a CVS serving a population/area below which it would be unreasonable to expect CVS services to be provided.

[Karen Cropper]

1 These all seem to be about process and not about performance. If the infrastructure is supposed to be supporting front-line VCOs, where are the KPIs that relate to the levels, type of and quality of support?

2 If you are setting targets for performance shouldn’t there be target dates? And for continual improvement shouldn’t there be some kind of increase as years go by?– eg for first KPI example 50% by March 2008, 60% by March 2009, 70% by March 2010…

3 Are these targets overall nationally or on some regional or sub-regional basis? I think that needs to be defined because if it is an overall national target, unless the target is 100% it is easy to just continue with a postcode lottery.

4 Re 4th indicator – what does “centrally involved in promoting public service delivery” mean? Promoting to me means publicising the positive benefits of it.

5 What on earth does “The development of effective support services across six key sub-sector areas have been identified as priorities nationally, regionally and locally,” mean? And how is that measurable? That sounds to me as achieved if someone locally, regionally and nationally says “we believe it is a priority to develop effective support services” without actually doing anything. Or would it be achieved if six key sub-sector areas have been identified? What is a “key sub-sector area”?

[Rachael Lawrence]

Dear Karen Cropper,
Many thanks for your insightful comments and questions. Our response is as follows:
1. One of the things we are currently trying to resolve is the right focus for evaluation. These KPIs were drafted in relation to the Destination 2014 without the benefit of a full evaluation framework (see para 7.5). You are right that we need to focus on the quality of support (as perceived by front-line organisations for example) - as well as processes and coverage. We are also trying to establish the right measures for impact on front-line organisations’ performance – if that can be done feasibly.
2. Yes there need to be targets that increase over time – though at present we are unsure what sort of levels/milestones would be right. We are hoping that the consultation will guide the exact levels of targets, as well as settling on the right targets. For example, is 75% of all infrastructure bodies reaching agreed standards too high or too low?? (and at the moment there are no agreed standards!)
3. You make a good point that any targets should be specified by locality/region as well as by date. However, by collecting the information about %s achieved, it would at least be possible to see which ‘post-codes’ are not doing well.
4. The point is meant to establish that a proportion (40%? Again should that be higher or lower?) of VCS infrastructure agencies are directing a significant part of their efforts towards enabling and supporting front-line organisations to deliver public services.
5. The ‘key sub-sector areas’ are soon to be identified region-by-region – perhaps services for the elderly, the disabled, new migrant communities, youth – whatever each region establishes as its priorities. Locally, consortia are also encouraged in their plans to set out proposed actions for priority sub-sectors. Once priorities and planned interventions have been agreed, it will be possible to assess how effective support services have been.
Many thanks again – these are just the sort of comments required, and you have identified where the text is less than crystal clear. It shows how a draft document can be improved through this type of consultation.

[Charles Rapson]

I spent 30 years in industry and commerce before coming into the VCS and ChangeUp so my comments are based on the most recent moves within that sector on measurement & performance indicators.

In my opinion, there are two aspects to this issue:
1) What you are really trying to achieve.
2) Where you are starting from.

1) In my experience, industry only really measures the bottom line - its key outcome which is profit. How does that relate to the VCS & ChangeUp?

Basically, Capacitybuilders needs to identify what its real 'bottom line' is. I'd suggest its the support provided to front-line organisations and how they are supported to deliver quality services where they are needed.

If you look at the really successful companies like Apple (Mac & iPod), Google, Virgin, etc - they do all of the things that ChangeUp sees as capacity building essentials.
They have strong leadership
They are well managed
They motivate & train staff
They innovate
They have good IT & strong infrastructure support
They manage their finances well
They minimise cost and avoid duplication.
They understand their market; they understand the needs and demands; they talk to customers and conduct research.
They are constantly improving products & services based on that understanding.
They have robust processes and constantly engaged in process improvement.
etc, etc

They do all of these things without a government initiative, legislation or prompting in any way. They do it because its whats needed to increase sales revenue, increase market penetration, increase customer satisfaction, increase customer loyalty, reduce costs and maximise profits. They are the tools to affect the bottom line.

If you measure the real bottom line, the rest will follow.

If you measure the process, then you are only measuring the process not knowing if its delivering the outcome you want.

Perhaps the measure should be
How many front line organisations are you actively supporting (numbers per month/quarter)
How satisfied are they with the service (sample survey and repeat business).

2) Whether the figure is 75% or 20 per month or 4 foot 6 inches, depends on where you start from.

A small organisation that supported 10 groups at the start and 100 groups after 6 months is making better progress than one supporting 1000 groups at the start and 1200 after 6 months

An organisation that supports 50% of groups 100% of the time is likely to be providing a better quality service than one supporting 100% of groups 50% of the time.

So measuring the number of groups supported and the quality of support in a relative way is, I would suggest, the most effective way. It's also the simplest.

I'm not expecting this to be a popular view on performance measurement but most of the big industry gurus would agree - measure the outcomes, not the process and make sure that the ruler isn't more complex or costly than the thing you are trying to measure.

[stephen woollett]

5. Key Performance Indicators
5.1 We suggest that CB adopts a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) relating to geographical coverage of infrastructure provision along these lines:
"In all areas of England front-line VCOs and social enterprises have affordable access to a base level of quality infrastructure support"
It should also be recognised that infrastructure providers themselves need access to appropriate support and representation.

5.2 This reflects the reality that in parts of the South West VCOs have limited access to even "basic" infrastructure services such as funding advice. There is not yet consistent quality infrastructure provision available to all VCOs and communities in the South West. Much provision is thinly spread, under-resourced and increasingly under threat because of lack of continued public and lottery investment.

5.3 We think the KPI referring to "40% of third sector infrastructure bodies are centrally involved in promoting public service delivery in key government priority areas" is not appropriate. Capacity Builders should be focussing on the support needs of VCOs not the public service priorities of government. A more appropriate KPI might be as follows:
"40 % of infrastructure organisations have the skills and capacity to provide support to VCOs wishing to engage in public service delivery."

5.4 It may also be appropriate to consider a KPI which better demonstrates the connection between investment in infrastructure and improvements in people's quality of life and/or "stronger" communities. This is hugely challenging but finding ways of measuring the impact of infrastructure (and thus investment in infrastructure) on the social, economic and environmental conditions which VCOs existing to address would be extremely valuable to the sector, investors and government.

5.5 We propose a further KPI which links to CBs intentions to unlock investment in infrastructure from government agencies and departments. This would be as follows:
“All government agencies, departments and public authorities with significant engagement with the third sector have a third sector Infrastructure Engagement Plan and have identified resources for the implementation of such a plan.”

5.6 We suggest that the target for local authorities signing up to local area infrastructure agreements could be more stretching than the current 50%. We propose that "75% by 2014" is more appropriate and achievable.