1 / 31

Presentation by: Bruce Manion FCMA Manitoba Chapter February 28 th , 2012

Presentation by: Bruce Manion FCMA Manitoba Chapter February 28 th , 2012. Allocating Resources to Results: Facts or Myths. or. Justin Bieber and the Cost of Cigarettes. OUTLINE. What Are we Talking About? But First, Some Numbers Where We’ve Been and Where We Are Now

rahim-freeman
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation by: Bruce Manion FCMA Manitoba Chapter February 28 th , 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation by:Bruce Manion FCMAManitoba ChapterFebruary 28th, 2012 Allocating Resources to Results: Facts or Myths or Justin Bieber and the Cost of Cigarettes

  2. OUTLINE • What Are we Talking About? • But First, Some Numbers • Where We’ve Been and Where We Are Now • Key Drivers and Considerations • A Concrete Example • The Bieber and the Butts • Why is this so hard? • ‘Strategic’ Resource Reviews • Wrap-Up

  3. DISCLAIMER

  4. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? "What gets measured gets done, what gets measured and fed back gets done well, what gets rewarded gets repeated."- John E. Jones, Professor and Expert in employee feedback and surveys "It is an immutable law in business that words are words, explanations are explanations, promises are promises but only performance is reality."- Harold S. Geneen, CEO of ITT "In God we trust, all others bring data."- W. Edwards Deming, Quality Management Guru and Statistician

  5. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? ``We expected that by then (2001) most managers would be trying to manage for results and that many would have good systems in place. We found some progress in a few areas, but managing for results was clearly not yet the norm in the departments we audited.`` `` The main barrier is less a technical than a cultural problem: there is little pressure at any level to make more performance information available. Public servants detect this, and moreover, are not inclined to produce information that could embarrass their ministers. The accountability battery thus never gets charged up. `` - L. Denis Desautels, FCA, Auditor General of Canada (1991-2001)

  6. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

  7. BUT FIRST, SOME NUMBERS Federal Revenues and Expenditures Source: June 2011Federal Budget (in $ billions)

  8. BUT FIRST, SOME NUMBERS Federal Expenditures ($77.6 B) ($33.0 B) ($58.2 B) ($37.3 B) ($70.6 B)

  9. BUT FIRST, SOME NUMBERS Evolution of Federal Resources

  10. WHERE WE’VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE NOW • Not New in the Federal Govt • Mostly focused on inputs/outputs, activities and cost factors until mid-90’s • Major Reform initiatives targeting Planning and Performance Reporting in late-90’s to present date • MRRS and the Canada Performance Report • The Estimates – A Work in Progress

  11. KEY DRIVERS AND CONSIDERATIONS • No ‘bottom line’ • Managing ``at the margins`` • Different motivations and horizons • Lack of good information vs. data • Apples to oranges to grapefruits • Are we good, lucky or a bit of both? • The impact of the media and social media • Reduced deference / questioning of leaders

  12. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE $58.2 B in Transfers to Other Levels of Government • $38.7 B - Health & Other Social Programs • $16.9 B - Fiscal Arrangements • $2.0 B - Canada’s Cities & Communities • $0.7 B - Other • $26.9 B - Health Transfer (CHT) • $11.5 B - Social Transfer (CST) • $0.25 B – Wait Times Reduction • $1 B - CHT Transfer to Prov. of Manitoba

  13. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE

  14. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE Source = Canada’s Performance Report 2010-11

  15. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE Source = Canada’s Performance Report 2010-11

  16. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE Source = Canada’s Performance Report 2010-11

  17. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE Source = Canada’s Performance Report 2010-11

  18. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE Source = Manitoba Health - Annual Report 2010-11

  19. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE The Following Section provides information on key performance measures for 2010-11. This is the 6th year in which all Government of Manitoba depts. have included a Performance Measurement Section, in a standardized format, in their Annual Reports. Source = Manitoba Health - Annual Report 2010-11

  20. ``THE BIEBER AND THE BUTTS`` One of the most significant demographic health concerns is the increase in smoking rates among young women under the age of 25. How can we get younger women to stop or, better yet, to not take up smoking? It pays to advertise! Get them while they’re still young! Get an ‘opinion leader’ for the younger female demographic to come out against smoking saying it’s not ‘COOL’

  21. ``THE BIEBER AND THE BUTTS`` Plan A: + $10 Million = Plan B: Double the price of cigarettes!!!

  22. ``THE BIEBER AND THE BUTTS`` Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health The American Plan A in the 1980’s

  23. ``WHY IS THIS SO HARD?`` • Annual Resource Cycle is a marginal exercise • Attribution difficulties • Highly complex ecosystem of programs and results • Evaluation cycle not aligned with decision cycle • Too much data, not enough insights • Lack of focus in reward systems

  24. Began in 2007-08 Part of the new Expenditure Management System in 2007 Aim is to better manage and control government spending Based on a cyclical review over 4 years of all program and operational spending (100%) Could be used to identify reallocation opportunities from low priority to higher priority activities STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS BACKGROUND FOR FEDERAL STRATEGIC REVIEWS

  25. STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS FEDERAL STRATEGIC REVIEWS – What are they? • A 100% ‘in good faith’ reviewof an organization’sdirect spending • 3 key parameters: • Increase efficiencies/effectiveness • Focus on core roles • Meet evolving priorities of Canadians • To be completed by all federal organizations who receive annual appropriations • Includes all operating, program and statutory program delivery costs

  26. STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS FEDERAL STRATEGIC REVIEWS – What are they? • Must identify at least the bottom 5% of resources associated with lowest priority / performing programs or activities • Done on the same timeline each year to align with the Resource Approval and Budgeting cycles • Results of each round are presented in the annual Federal Budget • Results of an organization’s SR are also incorporated into their RPP and DPR for future years

  27. STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS Federal Strategic Reviews – What have they achieved?

  28. STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS Federal Resource Reviews – Past and Present • Glassco Commission (1963) • Lambert Commission (1979) • Nielsen Task Force (1985) • Program Reviews 1 and 2 (1994 & 1996) • Corporate and Administrative Shared Services (2004) • Expenditure Review Committee (2005) • Strategic Reviews (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010…) • Admin Services Review (Budget 2010) • Strategic and Operating Review (Budget 2011)

  29. STRATEGIC RESOURCE REVIEWS Food for Thought

  30. WRAP-UP • A very complex issue • Results are hard to pin down in the Public Sector – it doesn’t mean that we should not try! • Unlikely to ever achieve a perfect ‘Resources-to-Results’ allocation regime • Lots of different models and approaches • A Work in Progress - Stay tuned….

  31. QUESTIONS?

More Related