Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
progress to be made or the actual improvements they are likely to see. One device
aimed at winning greater support is to couple objectives with proposed levels of
spending - the implication being that, say, to spend more than in the past, or more
than one's political opponents is a measure of how much better conditions are likely
to be. However reference to increased spending is normally politically hazardous, and
in any case confuses inputs with outputs and outcomes. A counter-argument might be
that public money was being wasted and that it is possible to secure the same outcomes
with less expenditure by improving cost-effectiveness instead.
Targets can be used to strengthen both kinds of argument. Instead of quoting levels
of spending (i.e. inputs), targets can be specified to indicate what this is expected
to deliver, measured either in terms of outputs (what the money is to be spent on)
or outcomes (what changes in conditions are planned to result). If coupled with
a spending budget these can also be used to demonstrate the level of effectiveness
achieved. (Output-related measures quantify efficiency; outcome-related measures
quantify effectiveness.)
Targets can also act as benchmarks for monitoring or comparing management
performance. They can therefore help focus the activities of an executive agency on
political priorities and encourage innovation in devising ways of solving problems and
delivering the desired outcomes. By linking performance assessment to grant funding
or contract payments the 'incentive' element of using targets is enhanced (Marsden
and Bonsall 2006).
Since 1985 the Government has set targets for reductions in road accidents, and
the effectiveness of road safety programmes, nationally and locally, are judged in terms
of actual accident reductions. In principle this is a field for which the application
of targets is well suited since outcomes are clearly measurable and not affected by
extraneous factors likely to change greatly over time. However the use of targets is far
from straightforward and this example of road safety can be used to illustrate some of
the difficulties they pose. These apply equally in other fields to which the use of targets
has been extended or proposed.
The first difficulty is the selection of which aspect of an issue is to be the subject of
a target. Road safety for example embraces a range of different types of accidents, from
those which do not involve injury through to those which result in fatalities. Accidents
can be also categorised according to the type of road user involved (pedestrian, cyclist,
motorist etc.), the type of person injured (child, elderly person etc.) or the type of road
on which the accident occurs (urban, rural, motorway, all-purpose road etc.). Statistics
are maintained for each of these categories. The trend in accidents in each of these
categories will differ and in some cases may be moving in opposite directions. For the
purpose of setting targets, simply taking all injury accidents for example, by mixing up
these different trends, may therefore obscure more than it reveals.
For management purposes many different aspects will be monitored, but politically
(i.e. for consumption by the general public) more than just one or two would be
confusing. Which one(s) should therefore be selected? There is clearly the temptation
for politicians - and managers - to focus on the ones which offer the greatest potential
for improvement, but which in practice are relatively easy to achieve. Aspects which
are more important, or which are a more exacting test of management performance,
may be ones which offer relatively limited scope for improvement and therefore run
the risk of being sidelined.
There is then difficulty in the precise way a target should be specified. In the case
of road safety for example should one be concerned about the number of accidents or
Search WWH ::




Custom Search