This chapter discusses the role that the centre of government (CoG) plays in monitoring, an essential part to understanding progress in government action and decision-making. First, the CoG plays a role in undertaking monitoring functions directly and guiding good monitoring practices across the public administration. The chapter discusses the monitoring processes undertaken by the CoG and the legal and institutional frameworks which enable this. It then focuses on CoG stewardship of good monitoring practices across government, using practical cases relating to national goals, satisfaction with government services and risk. Finally, it discusses embedding good monitoring practices as part of a performance-based culture providing standards and guidance, promoting the use of digital tools and presenting performance information to decision-makers.
Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity
5. Monitoring and enhancing performance
Abstract
Key messages
Effective monitoring enables governments to understand the current state, progress and potential risks in decision-making support. Centres of government (CoGs) often undertake direct monitoring activities while also guiding good practices across the public administration.
Clear roles and mandates around monitoring are important, given that this area can add tensions between the centre and line ministries. Additionally, data collection and sharing agreements, processes and mechanisms need to be considered.
In many OECD countries, CoGs foster the use of performance information by encouraging the development of structured work routines, standardisation of tools and guidance.
Introducing new ways of presenting the information to high-level decision-makers, enhancing capacities and fostering trust can help to consolidate a performance-based culture.
Given the complexity of policy issues, CoGs also need to consider what and how to monitor in uncertain contexts. This also requires CoGs to foster learning and adaptation and consider how information is provided to people closest to the issues rather than just senior officials.
Additional considerations include ensuring the right skills in the CoG, using political messaging to foster a performance and learning culture, and ensuring monitoring activities are designed as part of the overall policymaking and governance system.
1. Introduction
The increasing complexity of policymaking and sustained pressure to deliver policy results and impacts has resulted in CoGs taking a greater role in monitoring performance: 19 out of 26 CoGs responded that monitoring whole-of-government performance was their top or significant priority function (see Figure 5.1). Monitoring performance refers to the ongoing and systemic collection and analysis of data on indicators to provide policymakers and stakeholders with information on the progress of commitments. This differs from policy evaluations, which are structured and evidence-based assessments of the design, implementation and/or results of a planned, ongoing or completed public intervention (OECD, 2022[1]).
Governments can monitor policy implementation and key performance indicators attached to policies or priorities, cross-cutting policy challenges, the quality of their service delivery, citizen trust and public satisfaction as well as public sector performance and reform implementation. Monitoring performance can help meet accountability requirements, for example, by communicating to stakeholders the impact of the use of public funds.
Figure 5.1. Priority of monitoring whole-of-government performance for the CoG
Note: n=26. Respondents to the OECD survey were asked: “How much of a priority are the following functions in the CoG? [Monitoring whole-of-government performance]”.
Source: OECD (2023[2]), “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
This chapter will explore the CoG’s role as a guide of monitoring and enhancing performance through the following structure:
Institutional setups and frameworks for monitoring performance.
The centre’s stewardship of monitoring and enhancing performance.
Guiding good monitoring practices and a performance-based culture.
2. Institutional setups and frameworks for monitoring performance
CoG structures for monitoring performance
CoGs use different institutional setups and structures to monitor government performance. Central finance or planning ministries, the prime minister’s office or ministries of public sector reform (depending on the scope and topic of what is being monitored) can be responsible for central monitoring.
Recently, some CoGs have established specific delivery units within their system. Delivery units usually sit in the prime minister’s office and comprise small teams that report directly to the most senior decision-makers, such as the cabinet, the prime minister or the president. They usually focus on enabling the achievement of top government priorities by further aggregating sector-specific information.
These dedicated units can be found in both OECD and non-OECD countries, as is the case with the Results and Delivery Unit in Canada (Box 5.1), France’s new delivery unit, the Government Delivery Unit under the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in Peru and the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit.
Box 5.1. The Results and Delivery Unit in Canada
As of 2015, the Government of Canada introduced publicly available ministerial mandate letters, which outline the objectives that each minister will work to accomplish as well as the pressing challenges they will address in their respective role. The Results and Delivery Unit (RDU) at the Privy Council Office was created, in large part, to oversee and support the implementation of the government’s key commitments, as well as advocate for and facilitate greater use of disaggregated data.
The RDU’s work primarily centres on four key elements:
Leveraging data to help convey meaningful narratives and support evidence-based decision-making.
Systematically measuring progress via performance indicators toward desired outcomes that help demonstrate results for Canadians.
Clearly defining programme and policy objectives.
Supporting work in policy prioritisation and optimising implementation and resource allocation for results.
The methodology followed by the RDU aims to answer three underlying questions:
What are you trying to achieve?
How will goals be achieved?
Are desired results being achieved and how will adjustments be made if not?
The RDU provides oversight and co‑ordination to keep focus on top government priorities, monitor progress and recalibrate efforts as warranted.
Source: Government of Canada (2018[3]), The Mandate Letter Tracker and the Results and Delivery Approach, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/results-delivery-unit.html (accessed on 16 June 2023).
Institutional or legal frameworks
CoGs can monitor performance and support good practices around monitoring activities, data and evidence and the use of monitoring information for decision-making. In some countries, this is embedded in legal documents or frameworks. This promotes clarity of roles and a coherent mandate, particularly given a COG’s monitoring role can create demands on ministries.
Embedding monitoring in legal or institutional frameworks can enhance continuity following changes in the government, ensure clarity of roles and boost the uptake of monitoring practices by civil servants by integrating monitoring activities in the policy cycle. Strong frameworks can also ensure that a common understanding of the data which establishes progress is accepted by key stakeholders (Shostak et al., 2023[4]).The frameworks countries use to underpin monitoring can take various forms. Some countries emphasise monitoring of their government-wide strategies, while other countries focus on monitoring well-being goals or may use only guidelines or secondary legislation as a basis for that. At times, legal frameworks are supported by secondary documents, for example guidelines, to support standardisation and promotion of good practices (see section on fostering a performance culture for more information).
Given that the underpinning rationale for monitoring public policies differs among countries, so does the approach towards institutionalisation. The legal framework for performance information in the United States (Box 5.2) offers a good example of a whole-of-government approach towards the use of performance information established by introducing a strong legal and institutional framework within the federal government and the agencies that are resilient in response to changes in leadership.
Box 5.2. Frameworks to promote the use of performance information in the United States
The 2010 Government Performance Results and Modernization Act (GPRAMA) introduced a set of rules, procedures and routines for setting federal and agency objectives, monitoring implementation and achievements and performance reporting. The GPRAMA identifies the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the custodian of this process and provides it with steering, co‑ordination and quality control functions across all phases of the policy cycle. In doing so, the GPRAMA establishes a legal and institutional framework for performance information:
The OMB co‑ordinates with agencies to develop the Federal Government Performance Plan, which sets performance goals and defines the level of performance to be achieved at the federal level. In this regard, the OMB also verifies compliance with the quality standards (related to both federal and agency performance plans) and ensures that all mandatory information is concurrently made publicly available and updated periodically.
The OMB works with the lead government official and officials from the agencies, organisations and programme activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each federal government priority goal to review the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance. It assesses whether agencies, organisations, programme activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies and other activities are contributing as planned to each federal government priority goal. Moreover, it categorises the federal government’s priority goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of performance. For the federal government, priority goals at the greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of performance identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement. The OMB reports on unmet goals to the head of each agency, parliamentary committees and the Government Accountability Office. In return, the head of each agency that has not met performance expectations has to prepare a Performance Improvement Plan addressing the OMB’s recommendations.
The GPRAMA also contributes to transparency by providing clear rules related to the publication of agencies and the federal government’s performance. In this regard, the head of each agency makes information about each agency’s priority goal available to the OMB for publication on the website. Based on the quality criteria and content requirements provided by the GPRAMA, the OMB issues guidance to agencies on providing concise and timely performance information for publication. The OMB ensures that such information is provided in a way that presents a coherent picture of all federal programmes, the performance of the federal government as a whole, as well as individual agencies. The OMB ensures the effective operation of the single performance website and its quarterly update.
Finally, in relation to each federal performance goal, the GPRAMA organises quarterly data-driven meetings for the director of the OMB, with the support of the Performance Improvement Council, to discuss the achieved progress, overall trend data and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance.
Moreover, the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act strengthens the legal framework for using evidence in policymaking. The act allows the OMB to play a key role in improving data use in the federal agencies’ decision-making. The act requires agency data to be accessible and agencies to develop statistical evidence for supporting policymaking.
Sources: United States Congress (2010[5]), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023); United States Congress (2018[6]), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
3. The centre’s stewardship of monitoring and enhancing performance
Stewarding good decision-making on government performance lies at the heart of the CoGs’ role. Governments use the CoGs central positioning to ensure the highest political advocacy for monitoring key priorities or cross-cutting policies. They undertake different monitoring activities, including:
Monitoring progress towards reaching national goals or policy implementation.
Monitoring the satisfaction or experience of government services.
Monitoring risks, internal government processes and reforms.
Monitoring progress towards reaching national goals or policy implementation
CoGs often play a role in monitoring overarching national goals or plans, or specific priority policies or sectoral initiatives: for example, France’s central delivery unit monitors key societal and climate issues and the Australian Prime Minister’s Office monitors top national strategies). CoGs have the advantage of being able to use their central positioning and political will to use performance information to support the highest level of decision-making. By establishing a robust monitoring system, CoGs influence decisions such as removing obstacles to implementation or modifying programme parameters or resource allocations (OECD, 2021[7]). For example, in Poland, the Government Project Monitoring Office (an internal body of the PMO), monitors important projects including selected public policies. It serves the Council for monitoring the portfolio of strategic projects (a subsidiary governmental body). Box 5.3 also outlines an example of how the Latvian CoG has established a monitoring system for the national development plan and specific priorities, and uses this to inform decision-making.
Box 5.3. Monitoring national development policies from the centre in Latvia
Latvia aimed to create a flexible and measurable monitoring framework to connect policy planning with the country’s longer-term vision. The objective of the system is to monitor and maintain sector-specific priorities and budget alignment with national development priorities.
State policy planning framework manages, adjusts and monitors the different levels of policy planning documents, changes in political actors (governments) and their priorities. It includes managing long-term development plans, the government’s medium- to short-term action plans and sector plans.
At defined periods, line ministries report to the CoG on the progress of the plans and explain the implementation of tasks that have not been sufficiently achieved. The existing system is flexible, as it provides continuity for national long-term development; meanwhile, if political actors change, it allows revision of adopted long-term development planning documents and offers new solutions.
Additionally, the Government Project Monitoring Office, an internal body in the Prime Minister’s Office, also serves an important monitoring function. This office monitors selected public policies and serves as an important source of information for the Latvian Central Council on its portfolio of specific strategic projects.
Source: Information provided by representatives from the State Chancellery of Latvia.
In undertaking its monitoring activities, one-way CoGs attempt to standardise and systemise information gathering is through data routines, which are processes through which data are collected and disseminated according to a set rhythm. Routines are widely seen as a crucial success factor in promoting the use and value of performance information and in operations between the CoG and line ministries. They also add stability and predictability in an environment that is often defined by rapid change and a pressing need to deliver. Concretely, they give decision-makers a good overview of the state of play, facilitating the identification of areas that need intervention. For example, in Spain and the United Kingdom (Box 5.4), there is a fixed routine for collecting information on the status of policy priorities at the central level.
Box 5.4. Data routines for monitoring priorities in Spain and the United Kingdom
Monthly and six-monthly state of affairs presented to the prime minister in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom introduced data reporting routines at the heart of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit, which provides the rhythm for the unit’s work. There are two reporting routines to the prime minister: monthly delivery notes and six-monthly delivery reports.
The monthly delivery notes summarise the progress for each of the prime minister’s priorities. They highlight the main issues encountered in a short and data-driven fashion and describe what is planned. Where necessary, some notes can be even more frequent.
Six-monthly delivery reports are designed to be a comprehensive assessment of the state of play for all of the prime minister’s priority areas in a given department. They are written by the head of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit, addressed to the prime minister and copied to the secretary of state and lead officials. The drafts are usually first discussed with the lead officials. Each priority’s delivery report is just one page and is intended to:
Report progress against trajectories for the priority.
Outline what success looked like for the priority over the next six months.
Determine the best path forward and identify key actions that need to be taken.
Reveal areas of disagreement between the delivery unit and the lead department.
Management of public policy indicators, monthly report, Spain
After the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CoG wanted to assess the impact of the government’s social and economic measures to protect the Spanish economy and their citizens (Social Shield).
Therefore, starting in October 2021, the Department of Public Policies, within the CoG, designed a monthly data report containing indicators to measure the improvements or setbacks in three different areas: social welfare, the economic situation and environmental sustainability. Each of the three areas are composed by various indicators and four units in the Department of Public Policies follow up on these indicators.
The indicators were selected according to the main areas of government action. Additionally, they should be related to the daily life of citizens or companies and be easy to communicate. In the current version of the report, we are using 35 indicators, with a total extension of 80 pages.
This report is a dynamic and flexible tool to which new data can be added (i.e. after implementing a new policy, adopting new measures or if a new problem arises or disappears). Furthermore, it is connected to Microsoft’s interactive data visualisation software product Power BI, which provides a wide range of options for presenting and filtering information.
Source: Institute for Governance (2015[8]), Adapting the PMDU Model: The Creation of a Delivery Unit by Haringey Council, London; Information provided by representatives from the Spanish Ministry of Presidency, Relationship with the Courts and Democratic Memory of Spain.
Data-driven review meetings can also be used by CoGs to involve stakeholders in monitoring. These are a strategic tool to monitor and improve the performance of policies and institutions and are characterised by their structured format that focuses on frequency and regularity. Whereas data are, of course, the main topic of discussion, the context and broader information that cannot be easily quantified are also important. Data-driven review meetings highlight the need to make sense of the data and for continuous learning. Box 5.5 outlines an example from the United States.
Box 5.5. Data-driven review meetings in the United States
The 2010 GPRAMA introduced the need for quarterly review meetings on each long-term federal government priority. These review meetings discuss data on the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, the likelihood of meeting goals and the planned level of performance against quarterly targets and milestones.
The federal government priority goals are categorised according to their risk of not achieving their planned level of performance. For those federal government priority goals that have the greatest risk of not meeting their planned level of performance, review meetings allow for the identification of prospects and strategies for performance improvement, including any required changes to agencies, organisations, programmes activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies or other activities. Accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards achieving the priority goal are also discussed.
These meetings are organised by the director of the Office of Management and Budget with the support of the Performance Improvement Council. Meetings include officials from the agencies, organisations and programme activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each federal government priority goal.
Since then, agencies have started to organise regularly scheduled, structured and rigorously prepared data-driven meetings to review performance indicators with department or programme personnel. According to the US Government Accountability Office, to engage in data-driven reviews, it is necessary that programmes have identified their strategic priorities, that there is authentic leadership support to engage in the process and that programmes have the capacity to gather and synthesise data related to those priorities. On the latter, though, several agencies are able to produce data-rich analyses that identify trends and potential performance issues. Performance improvement officers reported that having accurate, timely and useful data available remains a major challenge.
Sources: United States Congress (2010[5]), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023); United States Congress (2018[6]), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
Several countries, such as Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Wales (United Kingdom), have adopted well-being indicators. Given the cross-cutting nature of well-being approaches, these countries leverage the central positioning of the CoG for monitoring. Box 5.6 outlines Iceland’s and New Zealand’s monitoring from the centre of their overall well-being indicators as part of their national goals.
Box 5.6. Monitoring well-being from the centre
Advancing well-being in Iceland: A path to sustainable development and equity
In 2019, Iceland launched the national framework of indicators to measure well-being and sustainability, which supported the idea of a well-being economy as a key theme for guiding strategic decision-making at the ministerial level. The CoG developed 6 well-being priorities in collaboration with key partners and defined 39 indicators to monitor their implementation. Additionally, the CoG (including the Ministry of Finance) play a role in:
Ensuring that the 50-year fiscal strategy has an updated section on well-being.
Guaranteeing that ministries reflect their well-being-related policies in the strategy.
Ensuring that policy objectives of all 35 portfolios are aligned with the national objectives
Moreover, the office of national statistics gathers and publishes data on the progress of the indicators. In general, the environment around well-being issues is built on a strong dataset. The priorities vary, are complex and require a horizontal approach across levels of government, including the private and non-profit sectors. Hence, there is a need for a long-term view, despite some of the issues the indicators are measuring requiring immediate attention.
Embracing a well-being policy approach in Iceland prioritises societal well-being, addresses cost of living challenges, fosters sustainable development and enhances collaboration for a thriving and equitable future.
The New Zealand Living Standards Framework as a performance routine that contributes to well-being
The Treasury has iteratively developed its Living Standards Framework over three versions, in 2011, 2018 and 2021. The framework reflects the Treasury’s understanding of how a high-performing economy should be understood. A high-performing economy is one that combines resources productively by dynamically shifting resources and adopting the latest innovations, distributes the benefits of economic production equitably across people and over time, sustains the means of economic production for the use of future generations, and builds resilience to stresses and shocks. Treasury uses this framework to analyse strengths and weaknesses in the New Zealand economy, to inform its strategic advice to Government. It also uses this framework to ensure its policy advice considers any tensions or potential synergies between these economic objectives.
Associated with the LSF, the CoG also developed the LSF dashboard, which is a measurement tool that provides a range of indicators for well-being outcomes that the Treasury believes are most important to inform New Zealand well-being reporting and treasury policy advice on cross-government well-being priorities. The Treasury updates data in the LSF dashboard every six months (around April and October) to support ongoing well-being reporting.
Sources: Government of Iceland (2019[9]), Indicators for Measuring Well-being, https://www.government.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=fc981010-da09-11e9-944d-005056bc4d74 (accessed on 6 September 2023); OECD (n.d.[10]), OECD Centre on Well-being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE), https://www.oecd.org/wise/ (accessed on 6 September 2023); New Zealand Government (2022[11]), Our Living Standards Framework, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework (accessed on 6 September 2023).
Some CoGs use non-traditional forms of monitoring and data sources for monitoring the progress and impact of policies, as is the case in Canada (Box 5.7).
Box 5.7. Using non-traditional data sources and monitoring approaches in Canada
The Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in the central Privy Council Office was established to address identifiable gaps between policy intent and effective policy implementation. The IIU applies methods such as outcome-based funding through Impact Canada Challenges, which aim to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes for Canadians through challenges in priority areas, including public health, housing and infrastructure, clean technology and climate action, agriculture and food and space-based technologies.
Impact Canada Challenges deploy programme funding through an open innovation approach (stage-gated competitions) designed to crowd in solutions from a broad range of actors, including businesses, academics, individuals, not-for-profit and Indigenous organisations. By mobilising talent from non‑traditional actors in a sector, including underrepresented groups, the IIU aims to expand the government’s problem-solving skills. Challenges are outcome-based tools that provide financial and non-financial support to innovators if they can measurably improve on a given outcome. Impact Canada monitors challenges and this contributes to evidence-based decisions to advance key policy priorities. For Impact Canada Challenges, prioritising resources and a strategy for impact measurement that is both rigorous in methodology and able to adapt to measure outcomes is important.
A key factor that has contributed to the success of these approaches is strong collaborative partnerships with organisations contributing analytical and statistical expertise, including the national statistics agency Statistics Canada and academic institutions like the University of British Columbia. The IIU’s approach to monitoring and measurement has generated robust evidence that suggests that Impact Canada Challenges successfully increased awareness of problem areas, mobilise new talent, can increase capacity and investments for their participants. These results conclude that employing Impact Canada Challenges in the right policy areas leads to better outcomes.
Source: Information provided by representatives from the government of Canada.
Monitoring the satisfaction or experience of government services
Another aspect that CoGs can monitor is the delivery of services by different ministries, agencies and departments. Some countries have established units or teams in the CoG with the objective of monitoring and steering the delivery of public services for citizens and other users (Baredes, 2022[12]). The CoG’s position can send a message that public service delivery is of utmost importance and can promote consistent delivery standards across the administration. At times, monitoring government services focuses on efficiency or other performance measures. In CoGs, these more frequently focus on the satisfaction or experiences of citizens with government services. Box 5.8 presents the case of Norway, where the CoG monitors and has recently evolved its approach to monitoring citizen satisfaction, as well as an example of how Australia collects citizen experience data from the centre.
Box 5.8. Monitoring citizen satisfaction or experience of government services
Evolving satisfaction surveys in Norway
In Norway, the CoG emphasises the importance of collecting data on citizen satisfaction with government services; indeed, there are multiple surveys on service satisfaction. Since 2010, the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management (DFØ) has conducted the Citizen Survey, which aims to collect data on citizens’ experience and satisfaction with services. Respondents who had used a particular service (e.g. hospitals) were prompted to answer a specific “user survey” that enquired about their experience of the service. This included aspects such as quality, accessibility, benefits, information and communication, consumer orientation, competency, trust and overall satisfaction. Given the low response rate for most services, in 2017, the DFØ decided to focus on a subset of them. By 2019, only the modules on hospitals, tax administration, police and student loans remained.
Since the start of the Citizen Survey, individual service providers have established their own user surveys that measure customer satisfaction of their own services. These surveys have a higher response rate than the user survey, which provides more solid analyses than the DFØ could provide. For this reason, the DFØ decided to discontinue these detailed modules; instead, the Citizen Survey provides general data on satisfaction linked to each service and compares these ratings between those who have experienced a service and those who have not. The DFØ produces thematic reports which build on the information collected to showcase the impact of specific reforms and service delivery on the level of satisfaction of citizens.
The Survey of Trust in Australian public service (APS)
In Australia, the Australian Public Service Commission, a key central agency, recently developed a whole-of-government survey to measure service delivery experience. These surveys deliver important insights into how Australians engage with individual services. Agencies use these insights to improve service delivery. The survey addresses this gap by providing a whole-of-APS understanding of experiences across services. It is a regular, national survey measuring public satisfaction with, trust in and experiences of Australian public services. The findings of the survey complement existing surveys of APS agencies, using a citizen experience focus rather than a service focus, to support the APS in continually improving its services.
Sources: Baredes, B. (2022[12]), “Serving citizens: Measuring the performance of services for a better user experience”, https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en (accessed on 15 June 2023); DFØ (2022[13]), Citizen Survey 2021, https://dfo.no/undersokelser/innbyggerundersokelsen-2021 (accessed on 16 June 2023); Australian Government (2021[14]), Citizen Experience Survey Methodological Report, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/resources/reports/citizen-experience-survey-methodological-report (accessed on 31 October 2023).
Monitoring risks, internal government processes and reforms
CoGs also play a key role in monitoring broader issues, such as risk and internal performance or reforms. In some jurisdictions (for example, in Australia and Ireland), CoGs monitor the implementation of internal reforms. The OECD survey (2023[2]) noted that 50% of CoGs monitor the administration reform progress. For more details on CoGs and public administration reforms, please refer to Chapter 6.
Additionally, the data gathered through monitoring routines can also contribute towards effective risk management. The review of critical risks from the CoG is becoming more widespread, including after the recent COVID-19 crisis. According to data from the survey, 58% of countries have faced an expansion in their tasks on this topic. Monitoring potential risks is a crucial element to ensure that administrations are making decisions that are proportional to the potential impacts.
One example of this includes the United Kingdom’s National Situation Centre, located in the central Cabinet Office. This situation centre was born out of the COVID-19 crisis, highlighting the importance of high-quality data in assessing risk and making better decisions (see Chapter 4). In Poland as well, the Government Project Monitoring Office in the PMO conducts, standardizes, and popularizes project management methods in government administration.
Overall, monitoring of information is key for decision-making leading to better government outcomes. CoGs traditionally support cabinet decision-making processes and the use of monitoring information is a key input for supporting the cabinet. This topic is further discussed in Chapter 4.
4. Guiding good monitoring practices and a performance-based culture
Embedding the use of monitoring and performance information in the administration requires the right overall culture. By promoting a monitoring culture that values data-informed decision-making, CoGs can support a public administration where monitoring activities are a valuable input into day-to-day activities and decision-making. CoGs can foster a good monitoring culture by providing standards and guidance, overseeing the quality of monitoring processes, and promoting digital tools and new ways of presenting information to decision-makers. Further, central public service commissions can help shape a learning culture, which is important when monitoring complex policies that require adaptation.
Countries have identified the support and engagement from political leaders as one of the critical success factors for the sustainability of monitoring activities. Given that the primary customers for performance information at the CoG are high-level decision-makers, it is important that they see value in the collection and use of data. Additionally, it is key that civil servants across the administration also perceive the benefits of adopting monitoring activities to enhance public sector performance.
Providing standards or guidance
CoGs provide frameworks, standards and guidance on overarching monitoring approaches, specifically for collecting and/or sharing data for monitoring purposes. Setting standards for data sharing with private sector entities, academic institutions and international organisations can expand the range of data sources available for monitoring efforts. The CoG can develop and promote these standards and guidelines for the entire public administration (OECD, 2022[15]), for example through the central Data Commissioner in Australia. Australia has also established an initiative to “embed evaluation into everyday practice”, providing tools, guidance and training to support better decision-making (Australian Government, 2023[16]).
Guidelines can further help adoption and consistent practices that conform to standards. In many OECD countries, written guidelines, manuals or toolkits are used. For instance, in the United States, several guides and notes support the organisation of data-driven review meetings (Harry and Davies, 2011[17]). In the United Kingdom, the Green Book, issued by HM Treasury, provides guidance on how to appraise policies, programmes and projects from a cost-benefit perspective (UK Government, 2022[18]). It also provides guidance on the design and use of monitoring frameworks before, during and after implementation and how to assess the extent to which expected benefits materialised.
Promoting the use of digital tools
In recent years, governments have introduced the use of digital tools for monitoring purposes. Digitalisation allows data to be more easily collected, shared and analysed. It can also support monitoring by allowing for real-time data and instant analysis, publicity or dissemination of information and good opportunities for data visualisation to better present the data. Most recently, the CoGs in France, Spain, the United Kingdom in general and Scotland in particular have introduced digital platforms for monitoring performance (Box 5.9).
Box 5.9. Utilising digital tools for monitoring and enhancing performance
Next Generation platforms for performance information in the United Kingdom
In 2019, the CoG in the United Kingdom started moving towards real-time performance tracking. Triggered by the preparation of Brexit and sped up by the COVID-19 pandemic, the new dashboard, called Government Performance App, was extended to the top 200 and top 35 government priorities.
The Government Performance App is managed by the Cabinet Office and the HM Treasury and fed by the different departments leading the government priority projects. Consistent with standard operational procedures, every four weeks at least, lead departments are requested to co‑ordinate with “contributing” departments and agencies and regularly provide the CoG with information on progress against milestones and deliverables and on major concerns. The Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit has full access to information. Focusing on a limited number of key policies can get a structured situational overview of progress on the overall government portfolio and inform decision-making.
French barometers of public action results and public services
The French Minister of Transformation and Public Service launched the Baromètre des résultats de l’action publique or barometer of public action results. Responsible for co-ordinating the monitoring of all priority government reforms, the CoG (DIPT) was fully mobilised to design and deploy this barometer. The objective was to enable French citizens to measure and be aware of the progress of these public policies in their daily lives.
The barometer displays the status and the concrete results of 25 priority reforms carried out by the government. These cover eight essential dimensions of everyday life for citizens. With quantified data, the barometer presented the state of implementation in 2020 and the government’s target for 2022 for each policy. The barometer is updated regularly and enriched with new policies so that French citizens can measure the progress of government action. France is also carrying out a regular barometer (survey) of citizens, called the Baromètre Delouvrier, on their satisfaction with key life events.
Public Performance reporting in Scotland, United Kingdom
In Scotland, the Performance, Delivery and Resilience Directorate (PDRD) under the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office provides the central function of co‑ordination and support for performance, delivery and resilience activity across government and ensures that the organisation monitors and responds well to a range of concurrent risks. Within its mandate, the PDRD monitors achievements against the government priorities “11 National Outcomes” and makes these data public through an online portal.
The portal is frequently updated and provides detailed information against the targets set for each national indicator. It is possible to download data underlying the National Performance Framework Indicators.
Accountability unit within the president’s office in Spain
As has been the case in Spain in recent years, the formation of coalition governments requires greater monitoring and accountability efforts to guarantee the fulfilment of the government’s promises through its programme. As such, at the beginning of the previous government, a unit (Accountability Unit) was created in the CoG to monitor the government’s programme. A report on the progress and achievement of the government’s commitments is made public every six months. An information technology (IT) tool was created for this, with a series of SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based) indicators, which has been a key success factor as it has been fully adapted to monitoring the government action plan. The IT tool must be appropriate to the monitoring programme and, in addition, emphasis must be placed on the publicity and transparency of the information, making it possible for the tool to easily upload the information to the official website of the cabinet.
Sources: UK Government (2023[19]), Project Delivery: Guidance - The Role of the Senior Responsible Owner, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1158010/2023-04-11-V2-AFIGT-The-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner-2.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023); Government of France (2022[20]), Baromètre Delouvrier of Public Services, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/publications/22eme-edition-du-barometre-delouvrier-lopinion-des-francais-legard-de-leurs-services (accessed on 30 June 2023); Scottish Government (2023[21]), National Performance Framework, https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/ (accessed on 6 September 2023); Information provided by the representatives of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Government of Spain.
One point of interest from the examples is how governments can leverage publishing performance data to build trust. Results from the 2021 survey on drivers of trust in public institutions indicate a need to better disseminate results to citizens (OECD, 2022[22]). In addition to the use of digital tools and platforms for the collection and presentation of data, the latest developments in artificial intelligence can help governments in data analysis, a key topic discussed during the expert groups.
Presenting performance information to decision-makers and key stakeholders
The way monitoring information is best presented depends on the different target audiences. High-level decision-makers tend to have little time at their disposal and require access to evidence they can easily digest. It is, therefore, crucial to bring the right information in front of the right people at the right time. CoGs should share simple, results-focused and visual information if helpful.
Examples of how performance information can be presented to decision-makers in an easily digestible way are the common operating picture and action sheets introduced in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to their usefulness, these have now been adopted for general use within the cabinet and the Council of Ministers (Box 5.10).
An important consideration is to ensure that monitoring information is also provided to people closest to the problems and issues, such as citizens and stakeholders. This is important as they are often crucial actors in effecting change in complex policy areas and thus need to also be a part of the process.
Box 5.10. Action sheets and common operating pictures in Australia
Triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required more thorough and frequent situation assessment, the CoG in Australia developed two standard performance information tools that, based on metrics, support high-level decision-makers in dealing with the complexity of the public policies under their responsibility.
The “action sheets” are meant to remind decision-makers what has already been done in a specific policy area. Sometimes they are just a list highlighting the main events or actions taken so far but, in doing so, offer a base for future work. An additional benefit is that their preparation forces interdepartmental meetings to take stock of what ministries are doing and what is really happening.
The “common operating picture” supports strategic decision-making. It integrates performance metrics across various departments and presents them in a traffic-light format to tell decision-makers clearly whether actions taken are producing the expected results or need adjustment.
While line ministries create the products, the CoG plays a major role in ensuring sufficient quality, consolidating robust routines and boosting their use. The CoG also created one general overview by pooling the various pictures into one weekly briefing for the prime minister.
The introduction of these new tools by the CoG represented a turning point in monitoring. Traditionally, performance metrics were released on an annual basis through vast reports. Instead, this new approach makes for a much more frequent release of information.
Source: Interview with officials of the government of Australia, Priorities and Delivery Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
5. Common challenges and enablers
Through the synthesis of information collected through country practices, desk research, interviews and the experiences shared by participants of the OECD informal Expert Group on Strategic Decision Making at the Centre of Government, the following key considerations can be identified.
Common challenges
Centralised monitoring requires openness and input from line ministries. A common challenge in obtaining performance information is that civil servants are hesitant to give information. This can be due to them being fearful of monitoring.
CoGs can experience challenges when accessing performance information, as other organisations can withhold or compete for information. Clear roles and mandates and transparency of data ownership and use are important considerations.
Fostering an effective monitoring system is not easy if the CoG does not have the right mandates and expertise. The OECD survey (2023[2]) shows that 65% of countries identify monitoring and evaluation skills as missing in the CoG. Many CoGs noted that data literacy is a key gap when it comes to monitoring.
CoGs can face a trade-off between the quality of the information and the need to present information to decision-makers in real time.
Key enablers
Utilising the right kind of political support and messaging can send a strong signal about the value of monitoring for enhancing outcomes. In this regard, it is important for the CoG to consider how to foster a safe-to-fail and learning culture to encourage meaningful and fully committed participation from public officials.
Ensuring that performance information is tailored for the audience is important to ensure that it is used to inform good decision-making. Leveraging digital tools can be useful in this regard.
Context and interpretation are just as important as the data, particularly for complex issues. In this context, CoGs can use mechanisms such as data reviews and participatory approaches to make sense of the data and collectively identify actions with the relevant stakeholders.
Harnessing performance information to increase transparency and accountability towards citizens is seen to harness support and interest from stakeholders outside the administration. CoGs may want to consider what data they share and how they engage stakeholders in decisions.
CoGs should consider holistic approaches to embedding a culture of data-informed decision-making and strengthening monitoring practices and capacities across the ministries. This should include a range of approaches and a strong focus on learning and adaptation.
CoGs need to consider how to bring stakeholders and citizens into the monitoring process.
Monitoring activities are part of the broader policy lifecycle and governing mechanisms; thus, any monitoring approaches should be designed with this in mind.
References
[16] Australian Government (2023), “Embedding evaluation into everyday practice”, Australian Public Service Academy.
[14] Australian Government (2021), Citizen Experience Survey Methodological Report, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/resources/reports/citizen-experience-survey-methodological-report (accessed on 31 October 2023).
[12] Baredes, B. (2022), “Serving citizens: Measuring the performance of services for a better user experience”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 52, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en (accessed on 15 June 2023).
[13] DFØ (2022), Citizen Survey 2021, Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management, https://dfo.no/undersokelser/innbyggerundersokelsen-2021 (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[3] Government of Canada (2018), The Mandate Letter Tracker and the Results and Delivery Approach, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/results-delivery-unit.html (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[20] Government of France (2022), Baromètre Delouvrier of Public Services, Ministère de la Transformation de la Fonction Publiques, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/publications/22eme-edition-du-barometre-delouvrier-lopinion-des-francais-legard-de-leurs-services (accessed on 30 June 2023).
[9] Government of Iceland (2019), Indicators for Measuring Well-being, https://www.government.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=fc981010-da09-11e9-944d-005056bc4d74 (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[17] Harry, H. and E. Davies (2011), A Guide to Data-Driven Performance Reviews, IBM Center for the Business of Government, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32486/1001559-A-Guide-to-Data-Driven-Performance-Reviews.PDF (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[8] Institute for Governance (2015), Adapting the PMDU Model: The Creation of a Delivery Unit by Haringey Council, London, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/inside-out%20adapting%20the%20pmdu%20model.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[11] New Zealand Government (2022), Our Living Standards Framework, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[2] OECD (2023), “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[22] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.
[15] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Public Policy Evaluation, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0478 (accessed on 2 September 2023).
[1] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Public Policy Evaluation, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/api/print?ids=686&lang=en (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[7] OECD (2021), Monitoring and Evaluating the Strategic Plan of Nuevo León 2015-2030: Using Evidence to Achieve Sustainable Development, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8ba79961-en.
[10] OECD (n.d.), OECD Centre on Well-being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE), OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/wise/ (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[21] Scottish Government (2023), National Performance Framework, https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/ (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[4] Shostak, R. et al. (2023), The Center of Government, Revisited: A Decade of Global Reforms, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D. C., https://doi.org/10.18235/0004994.
[19] UK Government (2023), Project Delivery: Guidance - The Role of the Senior Responsible Owner, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1158010/2023-04-11-V2-AFIGT-The-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner-2.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[18] UK Government (2022), The Green Book, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent/the-green-book-2020 (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[6] United States Congress (2018), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[5] United States Congress (2010), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).