CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW, AND THEORETICAL AND
2.5 Public Service Innovation Outcomes (PSIO)
2.5.3 Efficiency
In accordance with the sense of economics, efficiency specifies how efficient the outcome of an organization or a program/project is compared to input resources. If the outcome is higher than the input resources, then it is measured as organizational or project or program efficiency. During a specific period of time if it is determined how much cost has been invested in the project, and the extent to which the targeted or planned goals were achieved, and if the attained results are better at minimum cost, then it can be said that the project is efficient.
According to the UNDP outcome level evaluation guideline 2011, the following was stated: “Efficiency is assessed by means of economic evaluation. Major methodologies include cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Guiding questions about efficiency are as follows - Could the performance of the evaluation target have been achieved in a different way at less cost? Could better performance have been achieved using the same resources? Was the evaluation target completed within the originally planned period? To what extent was the implementation system efficiently managed during project execution?” (Manual & Cooperation, 2009). Now the question is how efficiency can be measured? Efficiency is assessed by calculating the volume of outputs brought about by the project or organizational activities with the measurement of invested inputs, resources for example time, costs, expertise, funds, etc. (Danida, 2012).
The Danida project evaluation (2012) indicated the following: “Efficiency is a measure of the relationship between outputs, i.e. the products or services of an intervention, and inputs, i.e. the resources that it uses. An output is a measure of effort; it is the immediate observable result of intervention processes over which the managers of the intervention, i.e. the implementers, have some measure of control. An intervention can be thought of as efficient if it uses the least costly resources that are appropriate and available to achieve the desired outputs, i.e. deliverables, in terms of quantity and quality” (Danida, 2012).
For the assessment of efficiency, good quality of inputs is a vital factor. If the input is of poor quality, then the output will also be bad and the overall performance will not be up to the mark, which is like the “garbage in garbage out” process.
Efficiency evaluation requires “comparing alternative approaches”.
The Danida project evaluation also indicated some practical criteria for assessing efficiency, and those are as follows: “Appropriate resources acquired with due regard for economy, activities carried out as simply as possible, decisions made as close to where the products or services are delivered, overhead as low as possible, duplication or conflicts addressed and resolved, deliverables achieved on time and on budget” (Danida, 2012)
From the above criteria selection, the first criterion, “activities carried out as simply as possible,” explains the simplification of the work process; the second criterion, ‘decisions made as close to where the products or services are delivered”, explains the service seekers for whom the service or process will be delivered; the third criterion, “overhead as low as possible”, explains the low cost of the service or product or process; the fourth criterion, “duplication or conflicts addressed and resolved”, explains the specific problem and attempts to solve it; the last criterion,
“deliverables achieved on time and on budget”, explains service delivery to the service seekers on time and within the budget.
From the above discussion, three indicators have been acknowledged to measure the efficiency of public service innovation outcomes. They are reduced time, reduced costs, and reduced visits in short TCV. TCV research includes the projected and estimated savings of specific time periods. Projected and estimated TCV study is calculated on the basis of average savings, the served beneficiaries’ average number, and the number of people that will be served within the specified period of time.
(Galaxy, 2019)
In 2007 the A2I, the Access to Information program, was begun with the financial support of the UNDP and USAID at the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) of Bangladesh. It is the implementer from the PM office of the Bangladesh government’s “Digital Bangladesh” innovation agenda. Primarily A2I aims at bringing services and information to the citizen’s door. The main objectives of this program are to increase transparency, to improve governance processes and public
services, and to reduce inefficiencies in the delivery of services in terms of TCV: time (T), cost (C), and the number of visits (V). The current study has measured public service innovation outcomes in terms of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency defined by the UNDP, and efficiency is defined by time, cost, and visits (TCV).
(Galaxy, 2019).
A2I the “Access to Information” program, an exceptional efficiency evaluation system was introduced, which is known as TCV, time cost, and visit measurement. The aim of this assessment program is to evaluate the existing service system from the service recipient’s perspective. TCV assists in improving the efficiency of the government offices and exploring more user-friendly e-services and online services on the basis of empirical evidence.
A2I does its research on estimated and projected TCV reducing status for a specific time period and it is based on average reduction and the service recipients that have benefitted from the service after intervention within a certain time period.
This research program also explores beneficiaries’ expectations, satisfactions, key factors, future development from the major findings, and drawbacks and the intervention sustainability.
The following is from the paper, TCV: An Innovation Measurement Tool to Improve Public Service Delivery A2I: “TCV research is conducted primarily to understand the changes caused by shifting to online services. It focuses on TCV innovations in agriculture, health, education and other public service sectors, which help reduce frustration in obtaining particular services. this is a simple tool for generating evidence that is easy to understand, clear and transparent. To date, the A2I programme has conducted 102 TCV studies on simplified, digitalized and doorstep innovation services. Findings revealed that these 102 innovations reduced approximately 65 percent of the time required, 66 percent of the entire cost involved and 38 percent of the visits needed. the TCV research justifies the effectiveness of these innovations” (Galaxy, 2019).