What does world-class performance mean to you?

I agreed that an attitude, a disposition and an outward focus on the people we serve is important and leaning from others. A whole of government performance matrix that inspires people and something that people can believe in is an important first step.

Australia has already signed up to the UN Sustainability Development Goals (SDG) that provide such a comprehensive all of government performance measure and the recent senate inquiry has recently recommended the adoption the UN SDG. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/SDGs/Report

In another interesting development, NZ is taking the measure of citizen well-being really seriously by developing a national budget to measure well-being for its first release in 2019 using a Living Standards Framework (LSF). “Our country describes the progress we are making towards high wellbeing for all New Zealanders for each of the 12 LSF current wellbeing domains.” (Source: RWJF 2019 Advancing Well-Being in an Inequitable World - Moving from measurement to action. P. 16)

NZ Treasury has developed dashboard measuring the LSF. https://nztreasury.shinyapps.io/lsfdashboard/

'World-class" is mere puffery unless it is evidenced by documented objective assessment against published criteria by a reputable independent entity that rates other nations and is respected by the international community.

I have seen instances where APS personnel have laid claim to "world-class" achievement without any such endorsement and in matters where I know from international experts that Australia is not held in high esteem.

I support the APS claiming excellent performance wherever it has evidence to support that, e.g. from benefits realisation assessments. But it should desist from "world-class" claims and aspirations altogether.

"World class", whatever it means and however it is defined, is a choice to make.

Do we want a "world class" public service, or do we want one that is simply effective and competent?

It seems to me the APS is funded at the 'effective and competent' level (if that), but we spend a lot of time and energy worrying about being world class.

Whether the APS is world class or not is a decision of government, in the end, because being world class requires the necessary financial resources to achieve that level.

It seems a better goal than worrying about whether the APS is world class is to worry about whether the APS is appropriately resourced to be effective and competent. Setting that as an objective might mean dialing down the dreams of senior managers/ministers, but it also gives people a more sensible, more realistic and more measurable performance objective.

To look at it another way - there is nothing the APS can do about how other countries choose to perform their public governance. We should be doing what works best given the environment we work in and the resources we have at our disposal, with regard to ideas elsewhere but not with a specific goal of meeting some external, subjective 'world class' standard.

At times, it may end up being the case we do things in a 'world class' way - or even that are new and innovative enough to be world leading. At other times though, it won't and that doesn't mean we haven't done a good job.

As a performance objective, something relatable and within our control and means is far more meaningful and powerful than exhortations to be some form of 'world class'.

I am concerned that the term “world class” has become too much of a vague cliché to really energise individuals and agencies to achieve high performance. It also undershoots what we should be aiming for in a nation as wealthy and developed as Australia. The APS should aim to achieve “global best practice” in everything it does.

To do this, it must do two things: learn from other global leaders in relevant fields; and from its own successes and mistakes. To help achieve the first of these, a central unit could be established to benchmark and review agencies’ work against global peers, and against best practice standards set by the OECD and other relevant bodies. This could act a bit like a more strategic version of the ANAO, or as an in-house APS consulting firm. Clearly, this unit would need to be properly resourced, so the review would need to consider the costs and benefits of this approach.

Learning from our own successes and failures would be easier, on one level, but would require agencies and their staff to be open to concluding that particular projects and programs did not succeed, or at least had faults. Agencies should be expected to review major projects – or at least a selection of them – periodically and report on the outcomes, including overall success or failure, what went well and what could be done better. This would be challenging in a failure-averse environment like the APS. Having a central function, like the one proposed above, could mitigate this to an extent. But to realise genuine value, agencies would need to buy into the process as well.

Ultimately, and counter-intuitively, this means that to be global best practice, the APS will need to learn to embrace failure and the lessons it can teach us

I agree that the term "world class" is a vague and qualitative descriptor

In a crucial area requiring a step change such as the shaping definition and execution of major capital projects the APS should set itself the goal by 2030 of being the "world benchmark" for major capital project development performance.

Successful performance in a stage-gated approach to capital project development is measured in terms of agreed/ set/ widely recognised criteria and "world benchmark" is a more readily defined term and understandable concept.

The overall APS goal is maximum consistent and repeatable spending effectiveness in major capital project development across all agencies.....that goal can be compared across the world …. agency by agency. Its achievement would require a cultural shift that major capital project development is core ongoing business for the APS as reflected in the organisation structure, management, personnel numbers and capability.

This is the “world benchmark” the APS could set as a goal for 2030.

This is addressed in more detail in our written submission to the APS Review Panel.. the submission is titled "Wasted Capital in Major Project Development"

To me it means performance above the average World practice. But in my view and proposal by the Public service should be to place Australia at the forefront of World practice.

In this respect, reference to past practice of The Warren Centre at Sydney University is the ideal example, but note this practice is no longer applied by that body. The Warren Centre previously took up challenges where it considered Australia was seriously lagging in World practice and accepted the challenge to move Australia to the leadership position in the World It did this by appointing an Australian leader in the particular field to lead and mange the project. It then selected a World leader in the filed generally from overseas to work with the Australian leader to review the field in every aspect of endeavour and produce a report to move Australia to World leadership. This generally was over a year but more extensive challenges could take longer e.g. "The Sustainable Transport in Sustainable Cites" project took 3 years 2000 to 2003

Part of the answer is demonstrating the longitudinal effectiveness of the APS over extended time, as required in Section 3 of the PS Act.

This can be achieved by program performance being routinely evaluated and the results being celebrated among staff and in public, in creating a high performing APS culture. This has been recently outlined by the Finance Department, in Morton, D., & Cook, B. (2018). "Evaluators and the Enhanced Commonwealth Performance Framework". Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 18(3), 141-164.

For example, smoking prevalence rates in Australia have been halved between 1990 and 2015: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-control-toc~smoking-rates. This lengthy period of 25 years illustrates the significance of extended time, in assessing outcomes and policy effectiveness. It could also illustrate the savings to Budgets and general tax revenues, by evaluating the illnesses not incurred and the consequent Medicare health rebates not needing to be paid.

Also by using the APSC's Framework: "Strengthening the performance framework: towards a high performance APS", which is at https://www.apsc.gov.au/strengthening-performance-framework-towards-high-performance-aps.

"World class" means that there are standards and a comparator in assessing Australia's performance. It may be more worthwhile examining the suggestion that each country gets the public service which is commensurate with its system of governance. Unitary systems of governance (such as New Zealand's) surely would result in more effective performance, than in the policy and program overlaps of Australia's federal system.

"World-class" has some pros and cons as an objective.

On the positive side:

• It show an inclination to continually improve serves towards better benchmarks; and

• Reflects a desire to learn from best practice outside the Public Service and outside Australia.

On the negative:

• Foreign practices (in particular foreign public sector practice) may not be all that great. The best practices in the world may be much better than that of the Australian Public Service, but the average performance may be much worse.

• Moreover, we rarely want or need to achieve the highest level of service. We need to achieve the right balance of effeciency and effectiveness.

• What is done overseas may not relate to Australian conditions.

Ideally we want the APS performance to continually improve, drawing on outside experience, to deliver the most fit-for-purpose policy and service.

But this might be too much of a mouthful!