Performance Based Measurement and Community Building: Outcomes, Outputs, Activities and
Inputs
Investors of all sorts--private foundations, local citizens, state and local governments--want more than assurance
that their resources were legally spent and appropriate activities were carried out. They want to know the outputs
of the supported activities and the outcomes the outputs lead to in the short and the long term.
Successful communities focus on outcomes. Planning starts from where a community wants to go. Once that is clear
(often in a vision or mission statement which states specific outcomes), alternative ways of getting there can
be considered (outputs). The actions (activities) necessary to achieve the various outputs can be considered. Finally,
the inputs of time, skills, technical assistance, equipment, space and dollars can be calculated. If the actions
to get to an output that lead to an outcome are too costly, then another output that leads to the same outcome
can be considered. This is a typical strategic planning activity, which builds on the Total Quality Management
literature, which focuses on results.
Implementation of outcomes-based monitoring has been resisted, misunderstood and problematic. A major reason behind
the struggle of implementation is because while the entity can control inputs (invest x $), actions (planning and
construction of a water system) and to some degree outputs (y meters of sewer line), it cannot control the outcomes.
The outcomes to which the sewer line was supposed to contribute include increased public health, a more diverse
and stable economy, and a healthier ecosystem. The outcomes justify the mission of the organization and the reason
for the investment of public dollars.
Starting from a Vision: The Importance of Outcomes
Traditionally success has been measured by input-output analyses. Successful communities
also look at actions and outcomes. Inputs that come from within the organization as well as other partners are
used to institute actions by people and organizations in both programs and projects that produce outputs in state
and federal agencies as well as in other organizations. Outputs, which can be controlled almost completely by the
organization, are designed to contribute to outcomes--the reasons for the programs in the first place. Outcomes
are generally described in global and abstract terms, yet for performance-based measurement to both improve accountability
and improve effectiveness of outcomes, such as vital communities or healthy ecosystems, outcomes must be made concrete
and linked to inputs, processes and outputs.
Outcomes drive the outputs, activities and inputs. The inputs--which resources are allocated in what amounts at
what times; the activities--who does what, when, where, in what ways; the outputs--in terms of products that are
controlled by the organization and stem directly and measurably from the inputs and activities.
A community or group can have goals related to any of these. Too often those goals are to increase inputs or carry
out actions. The more goals can be related to outcomes, the more flexibility and creativity an organization or
community has-and greater probability of sustainable outcomes.
A key attribute of this approach is that it allows for serious consideration of alternatives. A focus on outcomes
enhances appreciation of diversity, as more perspectives increases the alternatives considered. Still, many of
us balk at the ambiguity of considering alternatives. We are comfortable with the answer. But any answer or solution
simply opens a new set of issues. Focusing on outcomes is a critical part of dealing with the world we live in--a
complex world of constant change.
|
