Business First September 2017 Business First September 2017 | Page 44
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
Outcome Based
Accountability
CAN IT
DELIVER
RESULTS
by Ulster University Visiting Professor Simon Bridge
f you had examined the draft Programme
for Government which was issued for
consultation last year (when we still had a
sitting government), you might have noticed
that it differed from its predecessors.
That is because it was formed through a
process called ‘Outcome Based
Accountability’ (OBA) and, instead of listing
the things the various departments would do
separately, it offered instead a framework of
14 outcomes they hoped to achieve together.
I
Why has this been done?
One answer could be because, while the
departments have largely done what they
said they would do, that has not led to us
getting the outcomes we thought we wanted
such as better educational achievement, more
jobs and a stronger economy.
OBA, however, starts by identifying desired
outcomes and looks at the actions needed to
achieve those things, which may well fall
across departmental boundaries, and then at
the measurement required to assess whether
the actions are indeed having the effect
desired.
But is OBA a helpful development?
42 www.businessfirstonline.co.uk
Clearly if Stormont is to be effective we do
need coordinated action at government level
– the long soughtfor ‘joinedup government’
but there are good reasons for thinking that
OBA is not new.
Not only are its ideas preached elsewhere
but approaches like this come round in
cycles, albeit often after their previous
incarnation has been forgotten. For instance a
focus on the overall aim, and the co
ordination of different parts of the system to
achieve it, have for long been at the heart of
military systems for making plans of action
(where it has been said one should spend
about half the total time available clarifying
just what is the goal to be achieved).
If OBA helps parts of government to
recognise that, then it is to be welcomed, but
that does not make it special.
Other parts of OBA would appear to be
more problematic, not least the early and
predominant attention given to progress
assessment by establishing indicators,
baselines and measurements.
This can lead to the sort of thinking
challenged in the ‘McNamara fallacy’ (as
expressed by Daniel Yankelovich in 1972)
which recognises that some important things
cannot easily be measured:
‘The first step is to measure whatever can
be easily measured. This is OK as far as it
goes.
The second step is to disregard that which
can't be easily measured or to give it an
arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial
and misleading.
The third step is to presume that what can't
be measured easily really isn't important.
This is blindness.
The fourth step is to say that what can't be
easily measured really doesn't exist. This is
suicide.’
Is OBA on its own is enough?
Crafting any useful device or product
generally requires a whole set of tools as well
as the skill to use them.
Have modern, seemingly allpurpose,
inventions (such as 3D printers) led us to
think we can dispense with that and just have
one easytouse tool to do everything for us?
OBA is not a cureall, magic bullet but it
seems that’s the way in which it is sometimes
viewed.
For instance one of the planning tools we
need is a view of the whole process – not just
of the final outcomes. Understanding the
nature of the sequence from inputs to outputs