Business First September 2017 Business First September 2017 | Page 45
to outcomes, and within outcomes from
results to impacts, is necessary not least
because it indicates where other factors
beyond our control might have an influence.
The following example shows us why,
without a wider perspective which
distinguishes outputs from outcomes and
results from impacts, we may fail to
understand what is going on.
Some time ago i n a remote rural community
farm incomes were low and there was little to
encourage young people to remain in the
area. Therefore, to encourage them to stay
and thus to keep the community alive, a
scheme was devised to improve farm incomes
by improving the quality of the cattle the
farms produced.
The planned output of the scheme was
therefore to be better quality cattle, and the
outcomes hoped for from that were that farm
incomes would increase and that more young
people would therefore stay in the area to
take over the farms.
In this case the increase in farm incomes
was the anticipated result and the retention
of young people was the impact which it was
hoped this would have.
The scheme involved methods such as
better AI, better feeding and better shelter for
the cattle and its effect was that the farms in
the scheme did produce better quality calves
which was evidenced by veterinary
inspections and the fact that they sold in
better quality markets.
The scheme therefore delivered the output
it was contracted to deliver. However farm
incomes did not increase as a result because,
in the meantime, the BSE problem had arisen
and depressed the price for all cattle.
The scheme could not be blamed for this
but it did mean that the hopedfor result was
not achieved.
Nevertheless there was some evidence that
more young people were staying on the farms
(the average age of the farm owners
registered with the scheme was going down),
possibly because they saw that some
attention was now being given to the area.
Therefore the desired impact was, to some
extent, happening.
However without that distinction between
outputs and outcomes and, within outcomes,
between results and impacts, it would not
have been possible to analyse properly the
effectiveness of the project.
OBA is about the process of
planning but does it lead us to focus
more on doing things the right way
than on doing the right things?
This is not unlike the difference between
applying medicine correctly and applying the
correct medicine. Obviously we would like
both but, if we had to have only one, we’d
probably ask for the correct medicine
(although even with the wrong medicine,
some patients get better because of the
placebo effect).
However, because it’s often difficult to find
the right policy, many policy makers appear
to prefer instead to focus on doing it the right
way – which OBA encourages.
But, if we can’t realise now that what we
are doing is not delivering the outcomes we
want, why should we think that we will
recognise it when this system produces the
same conclusion?
Surely it is better to accept that conclusion
now and start to change what we are doing
instead of waiting first to go through the
whole process of introducing and embedding
OBA?
But changing what we are doing is likely to
require experimentation and innovation and
OBA is not very compatible with things like
exploration (when you don’t know what you
are going to find), effectuation (‘effectuation
does not seek to avoid failure – it seeks to
make success happen’) and ‘trial and error’
(because trial and error works but until you
have tried something you don’t know how
well it will work and what to expect from it).
When you are innovating how can you set
indicators and targets for asyet undiscovered
methods?
So why is OBA popular?
Is it because, for those parts of the
government system which don’t have clear
aims and/or which are not achieving useful
outcomes, it’s introduction serves as an
excuse to postpone recognition of that reality.
For those who don’t want to realise, or can’t
comprehend, that they aren’t doing the right
things and their programmes don’t work, it
can be very welcome because, by the time an
OBA system has been installed and is starting
to indicate any lack of effectiveness, another
new system might well have come along. So
the recognition of problems can be put off
again and the cycle of evading reality can be
repeated.
In conclusion it has to be acknowledged
that there is a lot more to OBA that is
indicated in these few paragraphs and that it
might be helpful in those areas of government
where the aims are not clear and therefore
where at present it can be argued that
whatever is done is appropriate because ‘if
you don’t know where you want to go, any
road will take you there’.
However it is suggested here that there are
reasons to think that OBA is not going be the
universal panacea it is sometimes claimed to
be, not least because it is only a tool and one
which needs to be used appropriately in
combination with other tools. Nevertheless:
• It might help those areas of government
which should be doing something but
which do not have clear aims.
• But it is very unlikely to help either those
parts of government where the aims are
reasonably clear but the wrong methods
are being applied or those small
organisations and/or initiatives which
want, through innovation, to make a
difference.
• Further, by focussing too much on doing
things right to the detriment of doing the
right things, it is likely to provide a
welcome excuse for those who want to
procrastinate.
www.businessfirstonline.co.uk
43