Brewed Fresh Daily

4 Responses to “Redesigning Ohio”

1. Brian Cummins Says:
   December 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am

   Thanks for posting this stuff Ed. I recently reviewed the Ohio’s Chamber piece and posted it, as well as a PDF/PowerPoint presentation that David Osborne did that was similar to a presentation he gave at the City Club, as guest of the Fund for Our Economic Future, to Scribid. I attend last year’s early morning breakfast but for some time had forgotten who the presenter was. I’m very intrigued with trying to budget government operations based on needs and wants of citizens and getting more citizen participation into the process, as opposed to the status quo models of either zero-based or program-based budgets.

   I was a administrative/operations director for Peace Corps and went through 5-years of what was known as the fed’s initiative for reinventing government. Each of the five years we were asked to submit three budgets – what we wanted and a 5% and 10% reduction exercise. By my third year I just wanted to be told to give-up 10% and be forced to implement cuts as the annual exercises were a morale killer.

   There is only so much efficiency you can wring out of a system without changing the underlying structure. We are at that point at the City of Cleveland and we need to jump to that point at the County. Unfortunately, the changes (i.e., some initial consolidation of departments) seem to meek and mild and not enough to impact the way government is being managed or our services delivered, and I see no significant attempts by government to involve constituents.

   These things are important but not enough time is spent considering them. This current legislative break is as good a time as any – before we plunge into the depths of the City’s budget process come January 2011.

   The links as mentioned are:

   David Osborne, The Public Strategies Group Pt. 1/8 (youtube – set of 8, 8 min. vieo clips):
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRDQMBzExb8

   Transforming Government Survival in the Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis
   http://www.cerc.com/images/customer-files//osborne2_09.pdf

2. Ed Morrison Says:
   December 21st, 2010 at 11:53 am

   This issue is going to hit hard in 2011. See the 60 Minutes piece from Sunday. We’re about done kicking the can down the road.
   


3. John Polk Says:
   December 21st, 2010 at 1:17 pm

   I was also bemused (but not surprised) by the timidity of the Chambers’ consensus document. Undoubtedly the real purpose of the document was to demonstrate to the new Administration the the Chambers were “doing something,” without actually taking a stand on any of the tough issues which must be addressed during this budget cycle.

   I wonder how many of the participating Chambers actually practice what they preach,starting their budgeting from zero, evaluating the effectiveness of each and every Chamber program, and focusing on outcomes. Not many, I’ll reckon…

   There is little likelihood that this report will be taken seriously, but at least the Chambers can say “we tried.”

4. Ed Morrison Says:
   December 21st, 2010 at 5:47 pm

   My take is a little different.

   All this sounds good, but how? How will you translate these ideas into action?

   Take one example: Outcome based budgeting.

   Outcome budgeting is not new.

   Outcome budgets have been a part of strategies in developing countries for a number of decades. (Here, they are often referred to as results oriented budgeting or results management.)

   Osborne introduced this concept to the U.S. in his book, Reinventing Government in 1992. Catawba County, NC headed down this path soon after Osborne’s book came out.

   In one of the biggest applications to date, the Government of India moved to outcome budgets in 2005.

   Outcome based budgeting creates transparency in the budget process, and thus far, the new governor’s approach to transparency is somewhat troubling.

   Because this approach promotes transparency, the role of government managers shifts.

   In a traditional budget process a relatively small number of managers are involved in developing the budget, and only a few have responsibility for making decisions regarding the recommended budget.

   Outcome based budgeting is quite different. It raises the expectation that people who get involved in the process in a meaningful way will have some role in making budget decisions. In other words, the process assumes a major change in the way in which people interact with their government.

   There are some other problems. Strategic doing is a new strategy process is driven by outcomes. As anybody who has been through a strategic doing process can tell you, the most difficult step in the process involves defining outcomes.

   Most people are content with broad, general outcomes, but these are often too vague to be measurable. (They are imprecise activities, airy visions, or, in some cases, just hallucinations.) We need measurable outcomes, and defining these outcomes turns out to be a difficult task.

   Next, of course, there is a difference between outputs and outcomes. Outputs are the direct products and services produced by government activities. Outcomes, on the other hand, represent the impacts and effects of these outputs on the broader economy. Keeping this distinction clear is often difficult. (There is an implicit logic model at work here.)

   In my experience, a lot of government managers feel comfortable with outputs, but are adrift when it comes to outcomes. If the process gets too caught up in outputs, though, you can end up losing strategic perspective, scrubbing the floor with a toothbrush.

   Finally, this approach to budgeting is data-driven and it takes time. On a local level, a traditional budget preparation period might take 3-4 months. The initial efforts to adopt results-oriented budgeting can easily take 2-3 times as long.

   In other words, the chambers are promoting a very ambitious shift in state budgeting, but I don’t see much evidence that they understand how difficult it will be to implement.

   This is a good step, but it will not work without a major change in the way in which state government interacts with its citizens.

   And just how that happens is left by the chambers to our imagination.

   Below is another publication by Osborne that explores outcome based budgeting in more detail.
   
Outcome Based Budgeting California Overview Osborne