SELF APPRAISAL in quality MPM management

The purpose of self assessment

There is growing acceptance that an organisation is more likely to gain the full benefits of an improvement program if effective self-assessment is a routine part of its management processes. It is not enough for MPM Managers to concentrate on isolated aspects of their service. Self-assessment involves regular and systematic review of all activities of the organisation.

The quality criteria for the Australian Quality Awards that we discussed in this and the previous chapter can be used for this purpose. The Australian Quality Council publishes a document, Achieving Best Management Practice through Self-Assessment Using the Australian Quality Awards Criteria, that assists managers who wish to use the criteria for self-assessment. The Council also offers training courses, in particular the Organisational Self-Assessment Course.

Governance role in MPM

Comparing governance and delivery roles

You will have noticed that much of the emphasis in our discussion of evaluating management practice in MPM has been on general ways to achieve outcomes, rather than on the nitty gritty of what, who, how and when. Not that the delivery of services, facilities and products is not important. It is, and we deal with it in much more detail in PetPlan's Skilling section. But here in Pet Plan's Information section we have been looking mainly at the big picture for MPM units.

Defining MPM's governance role

The governance role of MPM units refers to how they lead, manage, organise, coordinate and account for outcomes on the communityís behalf.

Governance is the role of democratically elected bodies such as local councils. At its core lie community values and aspirations.

Governance is not a process that can be safely contracted out; outside organisations do not always act according to the communityís values and aspirations. But once an MPM direction is agreed upon by a community through a governance process, in theory at least, the actual delivery of the MPM services can be handled by any organisation that can meet the service specifications.

One of the main governance issues facing local authorities is how the MPM activities of the council should be financed. There are several options. (See: Funding sources for MPM services and some issues raised) In some states, some of the decision-making on this issue has been taken away from local authorities by state legislation. The legislation specifies how MPM revenue may be raised, and even, in some cases, states the exact amounts of fees and charges. The issue of who should pay for MPM services is important to any discussion of registration issues.

Whatever their source, funds for MPM activities are short in most municipalities. Many local authorities are looking for ways to cut the cost of services. Contracting out is seen as one way to cut costs.

Contracting out

Private organisations have contracted MPM services to local authorities for decades in both Australia and New Zealand. The process of contracting out was given legislative impetus when Victoria passed its compulsory competitive tendering legislation in October 1994. In many cases, councils tender to continue offering MPM services using an in-house MPM unit. Competition between bidders is designed to make services more cost-effective for the ratepayer.

The contracting and tendering process generally progresses in predicatable steps although many councils have far less formal arrangements with their service suppliers. Or a council may engage freelance enforcement officers. In some states, legislation dictates the extent of private involvement in the MPM business. (See also: Advantages and disadvantages of contracting out)

Councils contracting out MPM services will find practical advice on the process in the Municipal Association of Victoriaís CCT series of publications. Issues considered include:

ï how to select services for tender

ï how contracts should be packaged

ï specification of services

ï costing of services

ï the tender process

ï evaluation of bids

ï creating a competitive organisation

ï enterprise bargaining

Costing issues

Accurate costing of services has become a central issue for councils involved in contracting arrangements because price is a major determinant of who gets the contract. The various elements of total cost are discussed by Boyd in his CCT series publication, Costing for Contestibility.¹  (See: Total cost for a local government service)

In the past, local authorities have tended to make financial decisions independently of strategic decisions. Increases in funding have usually been based on increases in the previous yearsí allocation. Although competitive tendering is often the reason councils develop new costing systems, MPM Managers can take advantage of these better costing methods to improve other aspects of the unitís management. (See: Reasons for accurate costing of MPM services)

Because accurate costing is an important issue for local authorities and their financial managers, accounting systems which provide accurate costing are needed.

All financial managers of MPM services will be faced at some time with having to reduce costs, and they will need reliable costing information for deciding on appropriate cost-cutting measures.

Evaluating effectiveness of MPM unit's roles

What makes an effective MPM organisation?

As we said before, councils considering changes to the way they deliver MPM services have a number of structural options to consider. It would be difficult to say which of these models is the ëbestí; the answer differs from municipality to municipality. But a council that ignores the governance aspects of its MPM role or abdicates governance to private operators is unlikely to be delivering the same quality of MPM service, facilities and products to its residents as a council that concerns itself with governance. This is because councils concerned about governance tend to be concentrating on the issues that are central to the quality of our communities:

ï maintaining community cohesion

ï safeguarding environmental quality

ï bringing social justice

Contracting organisations, on the other hand, are more likely to be concerned with profit.

To operate successfully, Councils (and MPM units) require different qualities depending on whether they see governance or delivery as their primary responsibility. Any MPM unit that embraces both governance and delivery roles needs both sets of qualities to operate successfully. (Dog chewing a shoe (cartoon))

The Casablanca Theory

In thIs section about quality management practice in MPM , we have discussed many new management approaches that are finding their way into local government administration and MPM units. Just some of the approaches we have highlighted are:

ï better leadership

ï longer-term planning

ï emphasis on the use of facts and data in problem solving

ï training employees for teamwork and problem solving

ï resident focus

ï striving for quality of process, product and service

ï monitoring organisational performance

ï building a culture of continuous improvement

ï emphasising the distinction between governance and delivery roles

How new is this really? A lot of it seems like common sense. So thereís no need to be overawed by the plethora of management information available. Neither should we follow all the new ideas slavishly if they go against our better judgement.

In a recent Wall Street Journal, Hal Lancaster refers to this as the Casablanca Theory. In the end, Lancaster says, management theories come and go but you must remember this:

A kiss is still a kiss, a sigh is still a sigh.

The fundamental things apply as time goes by.

1. Boyd L. 1994. Costing for Contestibility. MAV CCT Series 4. Melbourne: Municipal Association of Victoria.