CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK - … · CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION PAPER Local...

Local Government Division

Department of Premier and Cabinet

CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT

FRAMEWORK

DISCUSSION PAPER

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK

DISCUSSION PAPER

Local Government Division Department of Premier and Cabinet 15/55647

2

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 3

ABOUT THIS PROJECT .......................................................................................... 3

1.1 A consultative approach .................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Project background .............................................................................................................. 5

2. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK ............................................ 9

A THREE-PART FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 9

1. Framework overview .................................................................................................... 10

2. Performance assessment reports ........................................................................... 10

2.1 Roles .................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Report format ................................................................................................................. 18

2.5 Context .............................................................................................................................. 19

3. Development of resources ........................................................................................ 22

3.1 Case studies ..................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Information, tools and templates, education and training ....................... 23

3.3 Self-assessment tools .................................................................................................. 23

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS ............................................24

HAVE YOUR SAY ................................................................................................... 24

Next steps ...................................................................................................................................... 26


DISCUSSION PAPER


3

1. INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS PROJECT

The Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) is an

initiative of the Premier’s Local Government Council

(PLGC) and is designed to help councils deliver the best

possible outcomes to Tasmanian communities.

Continuous improvement is an incremental approach that improves efficiency

without great risk or cost. It involves performance assessment, improvement

planning and implementation, and evaluation of results. In the long term this

process leads to enhanced quality of service delivery, simplified processes, and

an organisational culture focused on performance improvements.

Continuous improvement requires an accurate picture of current performance,

and information and resources that will support improved performance.

Therefore, this project will deliver a meaningful performance assessment

reporting program and a suite of information and resources that councils can

take advantage of to help improve performance and build capacity.

Rather than promoting a measurement culture by simply reporting numbers, the

aim of this project is to support a performance culture that encourages councils

to consistently strive for continuous improvement.

It is important at this point to acknowledge the value of the Auditor-General’s

report to Parliament on the performance of local government, and highlight that

the reporting component of the new CIF will seek to complement rather than

duplicate the Auditor-General’s report. The CIF will assess the performance of

councils in roles that the Auditor-General does not cover.

1.1 A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH

The first step is to consult with councils to identify the tools they need to help

them as they strive for continuous improvement. This discussion paper is the

basis for an initial broad consultation with the local government sector.

Following this broad consultation, there will be subsequent targeted consultation

with representatives from the local government sector that will focus on the

performance reporting system.


DISCUSSION PAPER


4

An advisory committee has been established to provide advice during the

project development. The members of the advisory group are:

Phillip Hoysted, Local Government Division (Chair)

Jeff Tongs, Tasmanian Audit Office

Katrena Stephenson, Local Government Association of Tasmania

Des Jennings, Northern Midlands Council

Andrew Wardlaw, Burnie City Council

Frank Barta, Clarence City Council.

The Terms of Reference for the advisory group are attached at Appendix A.

The PLGC is overseeing the development of this project. This oversight will

ensure a collaborative approach and a result that is owned by both spheres of

government.

Here we outline a draft continuous improvement program for local government

in Tasmania and invite you to have your say.


DISCUSSION PAPER


5

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

A CIF is a natural progression arising from the development and implementation

of local government performance reporting in Tasmania.

The KPI report

KPI reports were produced on an annual basis from 2000 to 2010 and aimed to:

• enhance performance measurement by councils;

• enable benchmarking and identification of best practice;

• establish performance trends over time; and

• improve accountability to the community.

The KPI report contained data on local government performance across 49

indicators in the areas of governance, management and finance, regulation,

infrastructure and utilities, and community services and development.

The project added value to the sector by providing councils with the

opportunity to monitor their progress over time and across a range of criteria.

Five-year comparisons were provided. However, a review of the project in 2010

found that the value of the project could be further enhanced by collating and

analysing the data.

The review also found that 49 indicators were too many and that, as useful

measures of performance, the indicators were of uneven value. Some indicators

were deemed of little relevance and, due to the changing role of local

government, were no longer needed. For example, changed water and

sewerage arrangements meant that the performance indicators related to this

area were no longer required.

A major criticism of the KPI project was that there were significant delays and

the performance indicator report came out too late to be of much use. The production of the report for publication was time-consuming and the

complexity of the process contributed to the delay in making the performance

indicators public. Furthermore, the report contained a large amount of data without any analysis to add value or meaning to the data.

The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators report

The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) project was initiated by the

PLGC in 2010 and aimed to build on the value of the KPI project. In particular,

the SOI project aimed to establish a small number of indicators that accurately

reflected the sustainability of councils. It also aimed to provide analysis on the


DISCUSSION PAPER


6

data, and release the data in a more timely fashion than the KPI reports were

released.

The objectives of the project were to:

1. improve performance management at the local council level;

2. develop a culture of continuous improvement across the local

government sector; and

3. provide the public with easy-to-understand and meaningful information

about the performance of the local government sector.

To support these objectives, the PLGC oversaw the development of indicators

designed to measure councils’ performance in terms of financial management,

asset management, planning and development, and community satisfaction.

The indicators have formed the basis of annual performance reports which

provide performance data and analysis.

In 2014, the Local Government Division reviewed the SOI project and

produced an evaluation report which made the following findings:

1. There is strong support for a performance assessment system for local

government in Tasmania.

2. The SOI report in its current form is a useful tool for some but there

are opportunities to improve performance reporting in Tasmania.

a. The indicators measured through the SOI report are valuable,

but there would be benefits in reconsidering what the indicators

currently measure and identify indicators that are meaningful to a

wider audience.

b. There is scope to improve the way that performance

information is presented – a concise summary of selected

indicators would be useful as an overview of performance to the

community, and detailed analysis would be useful to councils as a

planning and decision making tool.

3. The SOI report does not drive continuous improvement. Performance

reporting needs to be supported by other tools and mechanisms to

promote continuous improvement.


DISCUSSION PAPER


7

In response to the findings listed above, the evaluation report made the

following recommendations to improve performance measurement of

Tasmanian councils:

1. The SOI report be subsumed into a new CIF. Options for the

framework include:

a. An explanation of the CIF and how it could be employed by

councils.

b. An annual performance assessment report or reports as required

to meet the different needs of different audiences.

c. Self-assessment tools to support ongoing assessment of

operations and performance.

d. Best practice promotion and case studies.

e. Information and education aimed at improving performance in

line with needs identified through the performance assessment

report.

2. An advisory group be established with representation from local

government to guide the development of the new CIF.

Continuous improvement in local government

Eighty-two per cent of general managers who responded to a survey that was

designed to evaluate the SOI project reported that there is a culture of

continuous improvement in their council. This is an excellent start but the ideal

result would be all reporting a continuous improvement culture. This project will

provide additional resources to councils who already strive for continuous

improvement, and support councils who are at the start of the continuous

improvement pathway.

An Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) report on

continuous improvement (2010) developed a model to describe the various

components of continuous improvement approaches employed by councils

across Australia:

collecting and analysing organisational data

adapting frameworks

engaging stakeholders

building workforce motivation and capacity

designing and implementing improvements


DISCUSSION PAPER


8

monitoring and reporting.

How councils engage in continuous improvement is entirely up to individual

councils. The objective of this project is not to tell councils how to approach

continuous improvement, rather it is to provide additional resources to assist

them with their continuous improvement efforts.


DISCUSSION PAPER


9

2. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

A THREE-PART FRAMEWORK

To start the discussion, we’ve developed a draft framework

for continuous improvement. Its aim is to support councils

by providing performance information along with tools that

are designed to address identified performance gaps to

assist councils in their efforts to improve performance.

A brief summary of the three parts of the framework is presented here with

greater detail provided in the next section.

1. A framework overview – to articulate the purpose of the framework,

provide a summary, and offer guidance on how it might be used by

councils.

2. A performance reporting system – to help councils understand their

current performance, where they are performing well and where there

is scope to enhance performance.

3. Tools and resources developed in line with performance reports to

support councils to improve their performance including:

a. Case studies – to share proven practices and processes.

b. Information, tools and templates, education and training – to

address identified areas requiring improvement.

c. Self-assessment tools – to promote ongoing self-assessment and

continuous improvement.

The proposed three-part CIF will assist councils with identifying performance

gaps and implementing improvements. The performance assessment report will

help councils to understand how their organisation is performing in relative

terms while self-assessment tools and information, templates, education and

training can be incorporated into councils’ improvement plans.


DISCUSSION PAPER


10

1. FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW

Part 1 of the proposed three-part framework is an overview. The overview of

the project would:

articulate the purpose and objectives of the CIF;

provide an overview of each of the parts of the framework and how

they link together; and

offer guidance on how the framework is intended to be implemented.

2. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Continuous improvement starts with understanding an organisation’s current

performance. Councils gather performance information related to their strategic

objectives as part of their annual planning and reporting. Performance

assessment reports will be additional tools for councils to take into account

when considering their own performance.

The goal will be to provide councils with insight into their performance across a

range of key council roles both over time and relative to other similar councils.

The reports will aim to provide additional information to councils to help them

understand where they could improve their performance, in terms of both

efficiency and effectiveness.

The details of the performance report are yet to be developed and the

feedback received through this consultation will heavily influence the final

performance reporting system. Through this consultation we want to gather

your feedback on:

the roles that should be reported on through the statewide

performance reporting system;

the quantitative data that should be reported;

benchmarks or targets that should be associated with the data;

key performance indicators that should be given the most attention

when it comes to analysis;

the use and value of reporting mechanisms such as tick-box reporting, or

descriptive reporting;

how many measures should be reported each year;


DISCUSSION PAPER


11

whether there should be one comprehensive report each year, or a

number of short and focused reports each year; and

how the reports could most usefully be presented.

The major challenges in creating a meaningful performance assessment report

are identifying appropriate indicators and developing a format that meets the

needs of various stakeholders.

2.1 ROLES

The first matter to consider in developing a new performance reporting system

is what roles should be assessed.

Councils are diverse organisations whose specific mandate is to respond to the needs of unique communities across Australia. As a result, councils undertake a

huge range of activities, in varying combinations and to varying degrees.

However, within the undefined set of roles and responsibilities that local government undertakes, there are a number that are carried out by all councils.

Some of these responsibilities are legislated, some are unique to the local

government landscape, and others are simply part of running an effective

organisation. It is critical that a statewide performance reporting system

measures activities that are common to all councils.

In establishing what roles should be measured, there are two matters that are

important to consider:

1. The roles should ideally be common to all councils. 2. It is crucial that councils have a direct influence on what is being

measured.

Looking back at past performance measurement systems for inspiration:

the KPI report measured governance, management and finance,

regulation, infrastructure and utilities and community services and

development;

the SOI report originally sought to measure finance, assets, governance,

community engagement, corporate management, regulatory compliance

and place; and

ultimately, because of the difficulty finding appropriate indicators, the SOI

report ended up measuring financial and asset management, planning

and development, and community satisfaction.


DISCUSSION PAPER


12

Other jurisdictions in Australia generally measure the performance of local

government across five key theme areas (or a subset thereof), namely:

1) governance;

2) financial management and sustainability;

3) asset management;

4) service delivery; and

5) legislative compliance.

The Role of Local Government project established eight roles of local

government that are common to all councils. Those roles are:

1. sense of place

2. community engagement

3. strategic leadership

4. land-use planning

5. economic development

6. service delivery and asset management

7. legislation and by-laws

8. representation and cooperation.

These eight roles may provide a useful structure for measuring council

performance through a statewide performance reporting system.

The CIF advisory group is of the view that given the amount of consultation that

went into the identification of these eight roles, and the fact that they are

accepted by PLGC as the roles of local government, that these are the areas

that should be measured through the new performance reporting system.

1. Should the eight roles identified through the Role of Local

Government project be the roles that are measured through the CIF?


DISCUSSION PAPER


13

2.2 OBJECTIVES

For each role that is finally reported on through the performance reporting

system there needs to be an associated objective. The objective describes the

role in terms of a high-level aspirational statement. The objective helps to define

what the role is in practical terms and how the role will be measured.

It’s difficult to propose objectives when, as yet, we don’t have a defined set of

roles. But developing objectives is a critical part of performance reporting and

step that could not be overlooked. There are plenty of examples from

elsewhere to draw on.

The objectives associated with the areas measured in the SOI project were as

follows:

Role Objective

Financial management To achieve and/or improve financial

sustainability through meeting the

requirements of sound fiscal

management.

Asset management To manage assets in a way that

maximises asset service delivery,

manages related risks and accounts for

whole-of-life costs.

Planning and development To develop, implement and improve planning and development practices

that improve access to facilities and

services, utilisation of resources,

appropriate infrastructure provision and sustainable environmental

practices.

Community satisfaction To ensure communities are satisfied

with councils’ provision of services in the areas of:

a) Planning and development

b) Community involvement c) Infrastructure

d) Environmental

management / waste e) Recreation / culture

f) Community health and safety

g) Overall satisfaction


DISCUSSION PAPER


14

Similarly, the role descriptions associated with the eight roles identified through the Role of

Local Government Project provide useful examples of objectives:

Role Capability statement

Sense of place Councils facilitate and work with their communities to develop a sense of

place through branding, promoting and enhancing local identity, and

promoting social cohesion and health and wellbeing.

Community

engagement

Councils engage with their communities, sharing information about

community, council and government business, and where appropriate,

provide opportunities for constituents to influence and/or participate in

council decision making.

Strategic

leadership

Councils provide strategic leadership through understanding current and

future operating environments, identifying opportunities and risks and

making decisions which align with long-term strategic plans and corporate

plans.

Land-use

planning

Councils are strategic land-use planners who work with communities to

create an environment that guides the use of land to balance economic,

environmental and community/social values, and to support the health and

wellbeing of their communities.

Economic

development

Councils facilitate the economic development of communities by working

with the business community to attract and retain investment and support

sustainable economic growth.

Service delivery

and asset

management

Councils are responsible financial managers who deliver cost effective,

equitable and efficient services and assets which reflect local needs and

expectations and are guided by council’s long-term corporate planning

objectives.

Legislation and

by-laws

Councils enforce relevant state and national legislation and create by-laws

and policies as required to support the efficient and effective functioning of

council to support the community.

Representation

and cooperation

Councils engage with each other and other spheres of government to

represent and advocate the needs of their communities, and where

appropriate, cooperate and work in partnership to generate the greatest

benefit for communities.

2. If you suggested roles in response to question 1, can you suggest

associated objectives?


DISCUSSION PAPER


15

2.3 INDICATORS

Performance indicators should link directly with objectives providing a measure of performance against the objectives. Performance indicators need to measure

efficiency (resource management) and effectiveness (accessibility and

appropriateness). They might include both qualitative and quantitative

information.

Indicators should:

measure outcomes not activity;

be verifiable and free from bias and be based on credible information;

and

focus on the most important components of the objective.

Past performance reporting systems in Tasmania have focused on quantitative

data. The benefits to using quantitative data are that any subjectivity is removed,

results are more readily comparable, and quantitative data is often perceived as

being more credible than qualitative data. A disadvantage of committing to using

only quantitative data is that there are not always ideal quantitative measures for

everything.

It is proposed that the new performance reporting system will make use of a

mix of measurement mechanisms including quantitative data, tick boxes and

qualitative data.

To a large degree, the measurement mechanisms used depend on what is being

measured. Often for financial and asset management performance quantitative

indicators are a meaningful way to assess performance. For other matters, such

as compliance and governance, tick boxes may be more useful. In terms of

assessing the activities councils undertake to promote a sense of community,

text descriptions may be the only way to capture the diversity of what councils

do in their unique communities.

The perpetual challenge in developing performance reporting systems is

identifying indicators that measure outcomes rather than activity. As well as

using tick boxes and qualitative data as suggested above, another option may be

to identify groups of activity measures that might suggest a performance

outcome, similar to a balanced scorecard approach.


DISCUSSION PAPER


16

Building on existing frameworks

As part of the SOI project, the PLGC established a set of local government

performance indicators in 2011. Annual reports have been released including

performance data and analysis related to each of the indicators. The indicators

are:

1. Operating surplus (The difference between day-to-day income and

expenses for the period)

2. Operating surplus ratio (The percentage by which the major controllable income source plus operating grants varies from day to day

expenses)

3. Net financial liabilities (What is owed to others less money held, invested or owed to the entity)

4. Net financial liabilities ratio (The significance of net amount owed compared with the period’s income)

5. Asset sustainability ratio (The ratio of asset replacement expenditure

relative to depreciation for a period. It measures whether assets are

being replaced at the rate they are wearing out)

6. Asset consumption ratio (The average proportion of ‘as new’ condition left in assets)

7. Asset renewal funding ratio (The ratio of net present value of asset renewal funding accommodated over a ten year period in a long-term

financial plan relative to the net present value of the projected capital

renewal expenditures identified in an asset management plan for the

same period)

8. Percentage of development application completed within statutory timeframe

9. Average days to process planning and development applications

10. Percentage of decisions by the Resource Management and Planning

Appeals Tribunal in favour of the council.

11. [Every two years] Satisfaction with:

councils’ performance in planning and development

councils’ performance in community involvement

roads, pedestrian areas and local road networks

waste management

recreational and cultural facilities and programs

hygiene standards and animal control

overall performance of council.


DISCUSSION PAPER


17

When we start measuring performance in roles beyond those measured

through the SOI project, there are some obvious gaps in the set of above

indicators. Below are some indicators (some of which are used by some other

jurisdictions) that may be useful in the Tasmanian context. It is by no means an

exhaustive list, simply a sub-set of the range of possible indicators to illustrate

alternative indicators:

Council decisions made at meetings closed to the public

Own source revenue per head of municipal population

Recurrent grants per head of municipal population

Staff retention

Average rates and charges per capita

Infrastructure backlog ratio

Cost of full time equivalent staff

Completion of annual plan

Budget achievement

In choosing new performance indicators, it is critical that there is a focus on

indicators that are meaningful and will assist councils with their decision making,

as opposed to choosing data that is interesting without being useful. It is also

important to note that performance reports will include targeted analysis rather

than analysis on every indicator or piece of data.

3. What indicators do you think should be assessed through the new

performance reporting system?

4. What do you think about the use of qualitative measures such as tick

boxes, descriptive text and/or a balanced scorecard approach as a way

to capture selected indicators of council performance?


DISCUSSION PAPER


18

2.4 REPORT FORMAT

In the past, the KPI report and the SOI report were both released as single

consolidated reports each year. The advantage to producing a single report is

that all the data is in one place and it is easier to draw conclusions from the

complete set of data. Often performance indicators need to be read together to

give a full and fair picture of the performance of an organisation. However, there

have been disadvantages to releasing a large single report each year:

they take a long time to produce and a timely release is difficult to

achieve; and

the result is a long and rather hard to digest report.

An alternative approach would be to release several shorter reports on a rolling

basis throughout the year. Each report might focus on different sub-sets of

performance areas. The reports would need to be co-located so that should

readers wish to compare results between reports that could easily be done. An

option may be to release them as drafts throughout the year, and consolidate a

final report by the end of the reporting year.

The performance report (or reports) needs to be presented in such a way that

councils can easily find and understand the information they need. It may be

valuable to provide a two-page high-level summary of results and findings with

each report. Such a summary would make the information contained within the

document more accessible to those who do not need or want detail. It would

be critical that the summary painted a fair picture of the information contained

without the report.

5. Would you agree that several shorter reports, each with a different

focus, throughout the year would be more effective than a single

report?

6. Do you think providing a high-level summary of the contents of each

report would be useful and appropriate?

6.a If not, how do you think performance data can best be presented to

meet the needs of councils?


DISCUSSION PAPER


19

2.5 CONTEXT

Providing context is obviously really important when it comes to interpreting indicators. It is proposed that context is provided in the new performance

reporting system through:

benchmarks and targets (where appropriate);

grouping councils into classifications;

providing time series data; and

offering councils the opportunity to provide input related to their

performance.

Benchmarks and targets

Performance targets and benchmarks give performance data meaning. They provide a comparison point that shows whether the performance of an

organisation is satisfactory or otherwise.

7. If you suggested performance indicators at question 3, can you

nominate appropriate benchmarks or targets to be associated with

those indicators?

Council classifications

Comparing like with like is essential to an effective measurement system. Some

indicators can reasonably be compared across all councils. But mostly the

differences between councils such as geographic size, population, and location

mean that some results cannot be fairly compared between two councils.

The KPI report grouped councils into one of three classifications:

1. major cities

2. other urban and large rural

3. other small or rural councils.

The SOI report classified councils into one of five classifications:

1. urban medium

2. urban small

3. rural agricultural very large

4. rural agricultural large

5. rural agricultural small and medium.


DISCUSSION PAPER


20

The SOI report also aggregated results to provide a picture of the performance

of the sector as a whole.

8. How should results be collated, presented and compared in the new


Individual council level

By national council classifications

By region

League table

State aggregate

Other groupings (please be specific)

9. Do you think that there are some indicators that are relevant only to

some council classifications, or do you think that all indicators should be

applied to all councils?

Time series data

The focus of this initiative is continuous improvement. Therefore, the provision

of trends over time is of utmost importance. The performance reporting system

will provide data over time.

Council responses

Sound judgment and context is always needed to assess the results produced by

indicators. It is proposed that councils are offered the opportunity to provide

information related to performance against their own strategic plans as part of

the statewide performance assessment report.

10. How can councils be given the best opportunity to provide context

around the results presented in the performance assessment report?


DISCUSSION PAPER


21

2.6 SOME IMPORTANT POINTS TO MAKE REGARDING THE

PERFORMANCE REPORTING SYSTEM

Data source and reporting burden

Data for the project will be sourced primarily from the annual consolidated data

collection (CDC) that is undertaken by the Department of Premier and

Cabinet’s Local Government Division. The State Government and the Local

Government Association of Tasmania acknowledge the significant amount of

effort that councils expend on completing the annual data return and are

committed to maintaining the single data collection.

Depending on the final indicators there may be a need to require additional

information through the CDC. It is unlikely that addition requirements will make

a significant difference to the collection as it stands.

Use of data – by whom and how?

This project has a clear objective to support councils as they pursue continuous

improvement. The report is therefore aimed at councils. Part 3 of the proposed

framework outlines a plan to develop resources to encourage councils to

pursue continuous improvement. The resources will be developed in line with

the findings of the report.

Duplication of reporting

Measures will be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of reporting. Note

that the Tasmanian Audit Office is on the reference group to ensure that their

annual local government Parliamentary reports and the annual performance

reports prepared through this project are aligned and complementary.

11. Do you have any other general comments related to the proposed



DISCUSSION PAPER


22

3. DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES

Part 3 of the proposed CIF involves the development of tools and resources to

support improved performance. The new resources will be developed in line

with findings from the performance reporting process. Resources that may be

produced include:

case studies to share proven practices and processes;

information, tools and templates, education and training to address

identified areas requiring improvement; and

self-assessment tools to promote ongoing self-assessment and

continuous improvement.

3.1 CASE STUDIES

Case studies may be a useful way of sharing effective tools and processes across

the local government sector. Indeed, the ACELG report on continuous

improvement (2010) found that case studies were considered to be one of the

most useful tools for continuous improvement by 68 per cent of respondents.

The evaluation report for the SOI project also identified that case studies may

be a useful tool to enhance the continuous improvement culture. A number of

respondents to the evaluation survey highlighted that in their view, the SOI

project should be expanded to include an array of continuous improvement

tools including reference material in the form of case studies.

The performance assessment report provides an opportunity to identify high-

performance councils and explore the processes that support high performance.

It is proposed that following the release of the performance assessment report,

project managers will work with councils to identify practices that could be

easily transferred, prepare guidance notes and promote the practices across the

sector. This process would support take up of good practices and reward high-

performing councils with recognition within the local government sector.


DISCUSSION PAPER


23

3.2 INFORMATION, TOOLS AND TEMPLATES, EDUCATION AND

TRAINING

The performance assessment reports present an opportunity to identify areas

where there is the greatest need for improvement across the local government

sector. On the basis of performance gaps identified through the performance

assessment report, information, tools and templates, education or training as

appropriate can be developed to support councils to enhance performance in

low-performing areas.

Tools and templates were rated as the most valuable support in striving for

continuous improvement in the ACELG continuous improvement. There is

already a range of information, tools and templates, education and training

offered within Tasmania. It may be a matter of promoting existing resources, or

there may be a need to develop new resources to meet the needs identified

through the performance assessment report.

3.3 SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Self-assessment tools complement formal performance assessments by giving

councils an opportunity to explore performance in areas that are not formally

assessed. Self-assessments need only be for the information of the council –

there is no need to make self-assessment results public unless individual councils

choose to do so.

Councils participated in a self-assessment process as part of the Role of Local

Government project. Feedback on the process was overwhelmingly positive.

The survey asked councils to reflect extensively on their performance across the

eight roles of local government. Councils could use this tool on a regular basis

to identify areas where there is scope to improve performance.

12. Are there any additional resources that would assist councils with

continuous improvement?


DISCUSSION PAPER


24

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS

HAVE YOUR SAY

Have your say and help us to develop a framework that will

make a positive difference for your council. You can use the

following questions to guide your response or you can tell

us what you think is important.

1. Should the eight roles identified through the Role of Local Government

project be the roles that are measured through the CIF?

2. If you suggested alternative roles in response to question 1, can you

suggest associated objectives?

3. What indicators do you think should be assessed through the new


4. What do you think about the use of qualitative measures such as tick

boxes, descriptive text and/or a balanced scorecard approach as a way to

capture selected indicators of council performance?

5. Would you agree that several shorter reports, each with a different focus,

throughout the year would be more effective than a single report?

6. Do you think providing a high-level summary of the contents of each

report would be useful and appropriate?

6.a If not, how do you think performance data can best be presented to meet

the needs of councils?

7. If you suggested performance indicators at question 3, can you nominate

appropriate benchmarks or targets to be associated with those indicators?


DISCUSSION PAPER


25

8. How should results be collated, presented and compared in the new


Individual council level

By national council classifications

By region

League table

State aggregate

Other groupings (please be specific)

9. Do you think that there are some indicators that are relevant only to

some council classifications, or do you think that all indicators should

be applied to all councils?

10. How can councils be given the best opportunity to provide context

around the results presented in the performance assessment report?

11. Do you have any other general comments related to the proposed


12. Are there any additional resources that would assist councils with

continuous improvement?

To make a submission please write to:

Local Government Association of Tasmania

GPO Box 1521

HOBART TAS 7001

Or email [email protected]

If you have any questions, please contact the Local Government Association of

Tasmania on 6233 5964 or the Local Government Division on 6232 7022

Thank you for your time and interest in this project.


DISCUSSION PAPER


26

NEXT STEPS

The table below summarises the process from this point including activities and

indicative dates:

Activity Date

Targeted consultation on performance indicators October 2015

Collate consultation feedback November 2015

Advisory group meeting November 2015

Finalise framework November 2015

Final advisory group meeting November 2015

Provide framework to PLGC for endorsement December 2015

Implement framework Ongoing

ACRONYMS

ACELG Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government

CDC consolidated data collection

CIF Continuous Improvement Framework

KPI Key Performance Indicators

LGAT Local Government Association of Tasmania

LGD Local Government Division

PLGC Premier’s Local Government Council

SOI Sustainability Objectives and Indicators


DISCUSSION PAPER


27

Appendix A: Terms of Reference – Project

Advisory Committee

Project summary The Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) for Tasmanian Councils project

will deliver a comprehensive framework that will provide continuous improvement support including performance reporting and resources that will

help build local government capacity in identified areas.

Project background The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) Project was initiated by the

Premier’s Local Government Council (PLGC) in 2010. The project was developed in response to an identified need for consistent performance

management for the local government sector. The objectives of the project

were to improve performance management at the local council level, develop a

culture of continuous improvement across the local government sector, and

provide the public with easy to understand and meaningful information about

the performance of the local government sector.

To support these objectives, the PLGC oversaw the development of indicators designed to measure the performance of councils in terms of financial

management, asset management, planning and development, and community satisfaction. The indicators have formed the basis of annual performance reports

which provide performance data and analysis. Annual SOI reports are endorsed

by the PLGC prior to being provided to all councils and finally published on the Local Government Division’s website.

An evaluation of the SOI project in 2014 identified a number of opportunities

to improve performance management of local government in Tasmania. The

evaluation found that there were opportunities to enhance the data that was

reported, improve the format of the report, and a need for a greater focus on

promoting continuous improvement.


DISCUSSION PAPER


28

Role of the project advisory committee

The project advisory group will assist the project managers to develop a comprehensive continuous improvement framework by providing advice on:

the project concept;

the consultation process;

performance management reporting including format of the report and

data reported;

indicators and benchmarks used in the performance report;

developing an implementation plan for the framework; and

other matters as requested by the project managers.

Membership Phillip Hoysted, Local Government Division (Chair)

Katrena Stephenson, Local Government Association of Tasmania

Jeff Tongs, Tasmanian Audit Office

Andrew Wardlaw, Burnie City Council

Des Jennings, Northern Midlands Council Frank Barta, Clarence City Council

Other representatives as required

Meetings It is expected that there will be four meetings of the project advisory

committee:

1. July 2015 – discuss the project concept and consultation process 2. August 2015 – develop a discussion paper

3. October – 2015 discuss consultation feedback

4. November 2015 – finalise the framework and discuss project

implementation

Further meetings will be organised if and as required. Advice may also be

requested out-of-session via email.

Term of committee The project advisory committee will exist for the term of the Continuous

Improvement Framework project. It is anticipated that the project will conclude in December 2015.

GPO Box 123

HOBART TAS 7001

Phone: 03 6232 7022

Fax: 03 6233 5685

Email: [email protected]

Visit: www.dpac.tas.gov.au

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK - … · CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION PAPER Local...

Documents

Transcript of CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK - … · CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION PAPER Local...