Principles of Successful Delivery

Cambridge Education’s March 2014 paper identified 11 ‘lessons learnt and key principles’ from the growing body of literature on the Delivery Approach and its application in different country contexts. It should be noted up front that this is an inherently government led approach, which does not explicitly consider some of the political challenges, constraints and interests of elite groups that may have vested interests in the status quo or resisting technocratic reforms.

For the purposes of this retrospective review of BRN Education in Tanzania we have grouped these 11 lessons and principles under four broad headings namely:

- Prioritisation and Resourcing

- Data, Information and Routines

- Analysis and Understanding of Delivery Issues

- Communications and Culture Change

The relationship between these four headings and the 11 lessons learnt and key principles is set out in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Principles of Effective Delivery Prioritisation and Resourcing

 Focus on a limited number of key priorities which are clearly understood across the delivery system

 Ensure that there is a strong link between priorities and resources so that adequate budgets are available to support each priority.

 Develop a clear understanding of citizen centred outcomes so that key priorities are viewed from the perspective of what is achieved at the level of individual citizens rather than what government spends to deliver services.

Data, Information and Routines

 Use regular data as the basis for establishing effective performance management routines

 Develop good quality data and metrics to measure what matters. Collect reliable data for a small number of priorities and then ensure that data is analysed and used regularly to inform decision-making

Analysis and Understanding of Delivery issues

 Stakeholders are actively engaged in analysing delivery issues and owning outcomes through ‘Delivery Labs’, publishing data and feedback mechanisms.

 Clear understanding of delivery systems to identify the drivers of successful outcomes and the motivations and perceptions of actors throughout the system

 Understand and involve front-line workers in analysis and developing solutions

 Develop an effective support and challenge function at national and local levels.

Communication and Culture Change

 Develop an effective communications strategy to assist in rapidly engendering change and reform to ‘turn around’ a perceived decline or deficit in standards of service delivery

 Strike the right balance between planning and delivery, recognising which areas can achieve rapid results and others where it may take a longer time.

Prioritisation & Resourcing

The first key success area, ‘Prioritisation and Resourcing’, requires government to develop a clear idea of what they want to achieve. Too often governments will state that almost everything connected with education service delivery is a priority, making it difficult to focus resources in making a tangible difference. Where multiple constraints exist and resources (financial, human and physical) are finite, trying to address a multitude of problems simultaneously is not likely to lead to success. Even within a relatively ‘resource rich’ delivery system such as the UK, the PMDU found that relentless prioritisation (on, for example, early grade literacy or results in Inner London schools) was necessary, if rapid improvements were to be brought about.

When adopting the Delivery Approach governments must be clear as to what they want to achieve, selecting a limited number of key areas which are a priority. They must then ensure that these priorities are clearly understood: from national level, through regional and local government structures, down to individual schools, colleges or training centres. If there are dis-connects or conflicts in any part of the delivery system then this will undermine the chances of success. Actors throughout the system need to know what the government wants to achieve and how their individual actions will contribute towards these goals.

Prioritisation is one thing, but it must then be backed up by resources. This does not necessarily mean utilising more resources or launching new projects. Within the UK PMDU when teams conducted problem solving ‘Priority Reviews’ with stakeholders the question of finance was specifically addressed. Stakeholders were told that they could not suggest increased resources as a solution to delivery issues unless they specified which things they would stop financing to make the additional resources available. The focus of the PMDU therefore was very much on achieving better results with the resources which were currently available.

This is not to say that the Delivery Approach cannot be a means of securing additional funding for priority areas, indeed in many cases it serves this purpose. The problem arises when governments produce and communicate aspirational delivery plans which contain unfunded commitments. In many countries there is often a sense of weariness or policy fatigue when governments announce new plans and objectives. Citizens often see this as purely political - having heard many promises of better results over the years without seeing tangible change. Announcing ambitious delivery plans which contain aspirational and unfunded commitments runs the risk of adding to this sense of cynicism.

The final aspect of prioritisation is that of citizen centred outcomes. This involves viewing policies, interventions and targets from the perspective of the citizens who will benefit from improved services. Too often, at a national level, success is viewed in terms of the amount of money spent or beneficiaries reached, rather than the actual quality of delivery or actual impact on peoples’ lives. Looking at service delivery from the perspective of the end users is an important shift in thinking, which can then permeate the delivery system. Taking a citizen centred approach enables governments to then start thinking about how they can achieve ‘better for less’.

Data, Information & Routines

The second key success area, Data, Information and Routines, requires governments to establish mechanisms to collect accurate and timely data related to their priorities and then use this data to hold the delivery system to account. Timely and accurate data is the lifeblood of the Delivery Approach. Without it there is no means for the centre of government to hold actors in the system to account for their progress in achieving results. Regular, monthly, independent collection of school specific data on teacher attendance and a set of other indicators was a key feature of the Punjab Roadmap reform programme, that were used to generate heat maps for senior level performance monitoring and course correction meetings5

It is important to develop good quality data and metrics to measure what matters. ‘What matters’ is important. Too often traditional reporting systems gather masses of data infrequently (for example, a very long annual school census questionnaire). Collecting masses of data increases the length of time and complexity of analysis, by the time information is available it is then often too late to take remedial action to get delivery back on track.

The quality and reliability of the data which is being collected is another important issue. If there is significant doubt then it will lose its effectiveness as a means of holding actors to account for performance. Time will then be spent disputing the validity of the situation portrayed by the data rather than focusing on addressing delivery issues.

The Delivery Approach relies on collecting reliable data for a small number of priorities and then ensuring that data is rapidly analysed and used regularly to inform decisionmaking. In some cases data collection can be as frequent as daily, weekly or monthly whilst for assessments of achievement it may be quarterly or annually. It is important not to overburden the system by collecting too many metrics or data which will not be analysed and used for decision-making. Use existing systems wherever possible to reduce cost and enhance the potential for sustainability and introduce rapid, adaptive feedback loops so that the people collecting data know that it is being analysed and used.

Data collection and analysis by itself is insufficient to drive change, it must be used as the basis for establishing effective performance management routines. These routines rely on regular meetings with system leaders where information is reviewed, analysed and used to course correct and agree remedial actions.

Initially governments should work with stakeholders to develop delivery plans with actions and named responsibilities. These plans should then be used to plot evidence based performance trajectories which will be used to track progress over time. Forums then need to be established to review progress and ensure that the appropriate people are held accountable. A typical performance management routine would involve regular meetings within the education ministry that cascade bi-directionally. Accountability should not just stop at ministerial level, consequences for performance right throughout the system is needed to develop a results culture which is everybody’s business.

Analysis and Understanding of Delivery Issues

The third key success area, Analysis and Understanding of Delivery Issues, requires government to develop an understanding of what exactly is required to achieve results. In some countries writing policies and agreeing targets is technically out-sourced to external consultants, with little consideration of the political economy. Problems arise when it comes to turning these policies and targets into tangible delivery. Prioritisation and improved data flows linked to performance management routines can all play a role in addressing this core problem. By themselves these actions are not going to succeed unless government has a clear idea as to how services are actually delivered (in reality rather than set out in guidelines) and the incentives to adjust them by stakeholders throughout the delivery system.

One way of attempting to address this issue is by actively engaging stakeholders in analysing delivery issues and owning outcomes. One means of doing this is through ‘Delivery Labs’, first introduced by PEMANDU in Malaysia, where a range of stakeholders (senior government officials, academics, union representatives, local government workers, teachers and civil society) worked together to identify problems, analyse issues and develop a mutually agreed delivery plan.

Whichever method is chosen to identify and analyse issues it is important that stakeholders develop a clear understanding of the education delivery systems and identify the drivers of successful outcomes and the motivations and perceptions of actors throughout the system. Without this understanding interventions designed at a national level will often fail because they don’t take account of the actual situation on the ground and make ungrounded or unrealistic assumptions. It is vital to involve frontline workers (including teachers, principals, local government officials and community leaders) in analysing problems and developing solutions.

At times government will be faced with a trade-off in terms of the desire to move rapidly and put in place an ambitious, nationally agreed set of targets and the need to consult and gain local understanding and ownership. The two issues are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Representative stakeholders can be involved in national level discussions whilst flexibility should be built into the planning and target setting process so that national targets can then be disaggregated by locality or school. The same process of results accountability which has been put in place at a national level should then be reflected in regional, district or local level arrangements so that a ‘delivery culture’ can be promoted throughout the system.

Dedicated Delivery Units or their equivalent at both a national and local government level can play an important role in assisting stakeholders to analyse and understand delivery systems and instil a proactive culture of analysis and problem solving although care must be taken not to establish ‘parallel structures’ which undermine existing systems. Small units of talented staff can play an invaluable role as a support and challenge function, adding real value by working collaboratively to build capacity and solving problems. Often when governments adopt the Delivery Approach they focus initially at the national level, looking at the capacity and culture which exists within national ministries. This is a necessary first step to achieving results but strengthening the centre alone does not provide a sustainable basis for transformational change. The Delivery Approach needs to become embedded at sub-national and institution level, so that stakeholders are locally responsive and accountable.

Communication and Culture Change

The fourth and final key success area, Communication and Culture Change, requires governments to communicate their priorities to actors within the delivery system and the public at large in order to create a culture of shared responsibility for achieving results.

The Delivery Approach is often adopted by governments to rapidly engender change and reform to ‘turn around’ a perceived decline or deficit in standards of service delivery. This requires government to acknowledge that there is a problem, to be transparent and frank with their citizens. It is then important to attempt to inculcate a sense of shared responsibility for results transformation rather than seeing service delivery as an ‘us and them’ issue; whereby government delivers and citizens receive.

To do this entails engaging multiple stakeholders and creating in them both the belief that things can change and the willingness to engage in change. This in turn means that significant effort has to be put into publicising the work, and eventually the successes, of relevant actors including ministries, local governments and schools. In short government needs to develop an effective communications strategy.

In some systems (such as Malaysia) the unit responsible for the Delivery Approach is given a very high profile and takes much of the credit for the successes achieved. In others (such as the UK) the central unit was all but invisible to the general public and facilitates the processes behind the scenes whilst ensuring that credit for success is taken by the relevant line ministries, local governments and schools.