LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Theoretical Review
3.1.2 Results Based Management
Institute for Good Governance Promotion in Thailand (2013) concluded the concept of NPM in three principles:
1) Principle of Efficiency: the implementation of government jobs has to use resources efficiently to produce a worthwhile investment and bring benefits to the public. Furthermore, the need to reduce the process of working time to facilitate people, reduce costs and also the need to cancel the obsolete and unnecessary jobs.
2) Principle of Effectiveness: the implementation of government jobs has to have a strategic vision to respond to the needs of all parties and stakeholders.
Response to the mission and achieving the objectives of the organization with clear goals and the level of performance in response to the expectations of people, create systematic and standardized procedures or processes, a focus on risk management and performance excellence, including monitoring and improving performance for continuous improvement.
3) Principle of Responsiveness: The implementation of government jobs must be able to serve people with quality. Operations can be completed within the time stipulated, confidence building, trust and meeting the expectations or requirements of people, as clients and the diverse and varied stakeholders.
In sum, from the proposed ideas and characteristics of NPM by scholars as mentioned, public sector management was reformed and transformed in many countries. The summary of concepts and ideas of NPM which was used in agency reform in public organizations in Thailand are 1) the special task of the delivery service organization and disaggregation of units in the public sector to be at arm’s length from the ministry, 2) management by professionals with contracts and having autonomy and flexiblity in an organization’s management, 3) focus on results, performance and a clear statement of goals, efficiency, objectives. Thus, if we consider the actual and the concepts of public organization in Thailand, it seems to fit with NPM doctrines.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) definites “Results-Based Management (RBM) as a management strategy focusing on performance and the achievement of output, outcomes and impacts” (Chantarawongpaisan, 2011, p. 11).
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) determined the principle of Results Based Management (RBM) as based on five principles:
1) Partnership-For RBM to succeed, all major stakeholders should be involved in defining expected results and providing feedback on progress.
2) Accountability-All partners share in the responsibility for achieving the defined results.
3) Transparency-Results and the indicators that will be used to measure progress are clearly defined, as is the process for monitoring, reporting and making necessary changes.
4) Simplicity-The approach focuses on a limited number of results within a specific timeframe. Indicators to measure progress should also be easy to understand and simple to apply.
5) Learning by doing-Monitor progress regularly, measure results, learn from experience, and make changes as necessary to improve performance.
The RBM approach is focused on results (outputs and outcomes). A result is defined as a change in state or behavior that can be observed, described and measured in some way, and for which the cause can be identified. This anticipated change is articulated in a result statement. At every level, the result statements: 1) are simply worded, 2) contain only one idea, 3) are developed in a participatory, inclusive fashion with those who will be involved and/or affected, 4) include a directional verb (i.e. increased, improved, strengthened, reduced), 5) describe who, what, where, 6) can be measured and 7) are realistic, achievable and relevant.
This new approach has been embraced by many countries following the rise of the NPM doctrine, which suggesst that improving the performance of public services demands a focus on results, while providing public managers greater authority over their fiscal and human resources management. In addition, this reform requires political leaders to set out performance objectives and results, determine the level of resources to be used and devolve implementation tasks to low-level administrative managers.
A result-based management approach is clearly related to the NPM reform movement that began initially in the west, Australia, the UK, the US and New Zealand. However, in recent years a number of developing countries have also adopted this approach as a “management tool” to restructure and improve the performance of their public-sector organizations.
Results-based management begins with a performance measurement system designed and implemented at the program level, containing mission statements, service delivery goals, quantifiable objectives, and performance measures (Rivenbark
& Menter, 2006, p. 255).
In managing for results, Moynithan (2005, as cited in Sulle, 2011, p. 500) describes that it as 1) a combination of strategic planning (systems that set organizational goals, 2) performance measurement (systems that track and provide information on cost and accomplishments of government tasks) and 3) some form of strategic/performance management (systems that shape working relationships and structure direction in a way consistent with organizational goals).
Sulle (2011) summarized that a result-based management approach could be regarded as a management process that consists of interrelated subsystems as presented in figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Processes of a Result-based Management Approach Source: Adapt from Sulle, 2011, p. 500.
Moreover, central to the NPM reform prescription is the promise of greater efficiency in the public organizations as a result of providing managers with greater freedom to allocate resources, while holding them accountable for results. As a management tool, a results-based approach may be applicable to both sides to advocate both centralization and decentralization of public sector management. Public sector managers need the freedom to allocate resources to achieve their organizational
A planning system (setting goals for
agencies)
A monitoring system (measuring agency performance results)
An evaluation and feedback system (sanctions /rewards)
goals but in the context of the public sector this means that the agency is exempted from centrally determined rules and regulations regarding input management.
Theoretically, agencies are free to make their own decisions on human resources and financial management issues (Sulle, 2011, p. 500).
Thailand has been pursuing the implementation of results based management techniques in the public sector for over a decade. Leading this task is the Office of the Public-Sector Development Commission (OPDC) which has been supporting various agencies and departments in undertaking a wide variety of results based management reforms, including key performance indicators, balanced scorecards, and individual performance bonuses, among others (World Bank, 2011, p. 3).
The Royal Thai Government is making a considerable effort to improve public sector performance, as reflected in the Royal Decree on Good Governance 2003, the Thai Public Sector Development Strategic Plan 2008-2012, and the new Civil Service Act.of 2008. In this effort the Thai Government is following a Results Based Management (RBM) approach to public sector reform. The themes of the Thai Public Sector Development Strategic Plan (2008-2012) focus on developing a civil service that is flexible, adaptive and responsive to the needs of citizens. In particular, service quality improvement and developing high performing organizations are two of the plan’s main themes (World Bank, 2011, p. 3).
Within this general framework, there are number of RBM initiatives underway throughout the public sector. These include, OPDC’s work on annual performance agreements across various levels of government based on the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach and Public Management Quality Award (PMQA). It also includes the Bureau of the Budget’s (BOB) implementation of Strategic Performance Based Budgeting (SPBB), including its Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART). In addition, the implementation of the provisions of the new Civil Service Act, relating to the merit principle through performance management (including appraisal) of individual civil servants and the development of an HR scorecard for individual ministries and agencies (MDAs), increasingly reflects an adoption of the results based approach.Individual ministries, agencies and sub-national governments also have their specific internal RBM performance indicators and criteria in achieving sectorial targets (World Bank, 2011, p. 4).
In The Royal Decree on Criteria and Procedures for Good Governance, B.E.2546 (OPCD, 2013b) section 9 mentions result-based management in performing its duties of a government agency, a results-based management, shall:
1) Make a performance plan prior to carrying out any mission, 2) Specify in the performance plan details for each step,
3) Follow-up and review the performance plan under the criteria and procedures as specified by the government agency which shall comply with standard criteria and procedures on such matter as specified by OPDC (2013b),
4) In the case where carrying out the mission or performance plan impacts individuals, redress these effects or change the performance plan.
In summary, the results-based management (RBM) is a management strategy of NPM focusing on performance and the achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts. The relevance of this tool to the creation of public organizations in Thailand is concerned with the public values and the performance contract in the delivery of public services for each organization.