The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Annex 2 Case Study 2: Aberdeen City Council

Context

Aberdeen City Council ( ACC) was invited to take part in the CitiStat Pilot principally because of its recent move away from a Departmental structure towards a Neighbourhoods structure which meant that performance was a shared corporate responsibility, rather than singularly driven from within each service. This was expected to present specific challenges for the application of the model ( e.g. the need for collaboration, data consistency across services and areas, and significant resource requirements).

Aberdeen was attracted to the Pilot for two reasons. The first was that it was perfectly timed with the Council's launch of its new structure (and its desire to show the performance improvements achieved through its restructuring) and the second was that it fitted with the Council's desire to be innovative in managing and delivering its services. It was agreed that the Pilot would be applied to Environmental Service issues ( e.g. graffiti, litter, dog fouling, waste collection, etc) across the three Neighbourhoods.

Aberdeen City Council employs over 11,000 people, is administered by a coalition of Liberal Democrat and Conservative members and it is structured into Neighbourhoods. The Council is already familiar with a number of performance management models ( e.g.EFQM and Balanced Scorecard) but has not chosen to apply these across all services. Currently the approach to performance management familiar to all staff is the traditional committee decision-making process where committees set performance targets and authorise staff to manage resources accordingly. ACC is committed to improving its performance and has demonstrated this through a range of measures such as the creation of Aberdeen futures (a partnership approach to driving performance) and the establishment of the new post of Corporate Director of Continuous Improvement. The Council recognised the opportunity offered by CitiStat to build on this work.

An important factor that requires to be recognised in the evaluation of CitiStat in Aberdeen is the ongoing re-structuring of the Council. This has meant that there have been changes of key personnel during the Pilot which has inevitably created some disruption to the Pilot. In a radical reshaping, the Council has replaced the former 11 departments with the following service groupings:

• Neighbourhood Services x 3
• Strategic Leadership
• Continuous Improvement
• Resource Management
• Office of Chief Executive.

The CitiStat Process

The Aberdeen Pilot ran from the end of September 2005 until the end of February 2006 with a total of 6 sessions taking place. The process followed the standard CitiStat process; data was collected, analysed, the Panel brief was prepared, the session held, the evaluation session held, a wash-up meeting held, follow-up action was taken, and the new cycle began. Figure A2.1 illustrates this cycle.

Figure A2.1: Aberdeen City Council CitiStat cycle

Support for the process was delivered through the creation of a small CitiStat team which comprised three key Council personnel (from an Environmental Services background), a member of the Scottish Executive's Performance & Innovation Unit and a CitiStat administrator. This administrator was an external appointment and played a key role in the collation, management and presentation of data. All support team members contributed to all stages of the CitiStat process.

The basic structure of the CitiStat model as applied in Aberdeen City Council was:

• a Panel comprising Council Leader, the Chief Executive and Corporate Directors
• a group of respondents from appropriate teams led by Head of Shelter & Environment for one of the three Neighbourhoods
• a CitiStat support team.

Membership of the Panel was variable at the beginning of the Pilot but had moved towards consistency by the end. The size of the Panel reduced over the 6 month period from around 5-6 people down to 1-2. The Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive attended the majority of the meetings. The narrow attendance on the Panel was no doubt affected by the ongoing re-structuring of Aberdeen City Council which saw several changes in senior personnel during the 6 month period.

The respondents were led by the Head of Shelter and Environment for one of the three new Neighbourhoods. The number and membership of respondents generally remained constant at around six people. Interestingly when the scope of the Pilot extended to include Roads & Lighting this did not result in a significant increase in the number of respondents as only ever one member of staff from this service attended the sessions. It is not clear why this was the case.

The meetings were run with a semi-formal and participative style. The Panel Leader, usually the Chief Executive, used the Panel brief as a guide to his questioning and focus and encouraged an in-depth discussion with respondents on the issues he determined as priority. The discussions would focus on particular performance indicators obtaining an update of current activities, exploring possible ways forward and then agreeing the action to be taken for the next meeting. The Leader of the respondents invited others to contribute to the discussions as appropriate. The pace of the sessions was swift with each session usually taking just over an hour.

The focus of the CitiStat process was principally environmental quality but was extended to include elements of roads and lighting. Figure A2.4 (at the end of this case study) lists the performance indicators that were being used for environmental quality by the end of the Pilot. Data was reported for each of the three Neighbourhoods and for the City as a whole, recording whether this was an improvement upon last month's City figures. As the CitiStat Pilot progressed, the Panel would drill down into particular performance issues requesting new performance indicators to be developed when necessary. For example, at the beginning of the Pilot, the indicators did not distinguish offensive from non-offensive graffiti, nor did they separate staff absence due to long term sickness from staff absence due to short term sickness.

The typical questions used to begin a discussion would be as follows;

• "Why has there been such a marked improvement in response times for this reporting period?"
• "Are you confident that the current long term absenteeism levels can be maintained?"
• "How do you plan to co-ordinate the management of associated risks in the future? "
• "Why has only 1 Fixed Penalty Notice been issued for the last period?

By the end of the Pilot, although significant progress had been made in target setting, not all indicators were supported by agreed performance targets. Participants argued that because many indicators were new to the service, it was difficult to set challenging but realistic targets because of the lack of historical data.

The Evaluation Process

As with the other case studies, the evaluation methodology was based on the principles of action research, namely a participative process where everyone is involved in the learning process designed to ensure any learning points are implemented immediately. In Aberdeen City Council, the evaluation process consisted of four distinct elements:

• participative evaluation sessions
• interview with key Panel members
• maintaining personal diaries
• observations of the independent evaluator.

An evaluation session was held after each of the main CitiStat sessions where participants were encouraged to reflect on the sessions and service performance to date, extract the key lessons and to consider any additional actions that may be required to improve performance. This cycle of 'action, reflection, learning and further action' was a key element of the evaluation process and ensured that any necessary modifications were made as the Pilot progressed rather than at the end of the Pilot.

Participation in the evaluation sessions remained fairly constant with on average of five to six people at each session. It was rare for Panel members to attend the evaluation sessions (although they were interviewed separately). Attendance from respondents included several Heads of Service as well as a member of staff from the Scottish Executive's Performance & Innovation Unit. Sessions were facilitated in a way to encourage participation and learning, using such techniques as appreciative inquiry and visual inquiry.

There were five facilitated evaluation sessions in total. They focused on:

• identifying critical success factors
• evidencing progress against the success factors
• assessing performance improvements to date
• comparing CitiStat to the existing performance management model
• setting challenging questions.

Progress against success criteria

Aberdeen City Council set out its vision for a successful Pilot in its framework of critical success factors. Six factors (which were essentially desired outcomes) were identified along with likely sources of evidence, as shown in Figure A2.2. It was understood that not all these success factors could be fully achieved within a Pilot period of only six months and that there was probably a natural order to achieving these outcomes over time. Figure A2.3 sets out the expected order.

Figure A2.2: Aberdeen Critical Success Factors

Figure A2.3: Achieving success factors over time

Outcome 1: Improved understanding

Many of the improvements reported by ACC concerned better communication, analysis and understanding and improved speed of decision-making. They observed that previously they did not have many opportunities to meet to talk about performance management and so welcomed the space created by CitiStat to discuss service performance in some detail. They felt that " CitiStat concentrated people's minds" on improving performance. They reported that improved understanding was an important benefit as it helped everyone to better understand current performance and performance targets as well as the opportunities and challenges in meeting any performance gap. Three factors were identified as playing a key role in this improved understanding, namely; improved data, improved analysis and challenging discussion.

Participants argued that the refining of performance indicators and data over the duration of the Pilot has facilitated the emergence of consistent, useful and rigorous information on which to base management decisions. They felt there was now clarity of definitions that allowed performance to be compared across the Neighbourhoods and across services. This meant that all those involved in managing and reporting on performance had an increased confidence in the data, their analysis and use of it. Nevertheless there remained some concerns about the ongoing need to collect and report on performance indicators for purposes other than managing performance - e.g. some indicators reported to government were felt not to be particularly useful in managing service improvements. In addition, because much of the data had to be collected manually, data selection during the Pilot had to be realistic in terms of the resources available. It was therefore felt that should the Council decide to adopt the CitiStat model there would be additional work required to refine the performance indicators and data.

The analysis stage of the CitiStat process not only rigorously tested the validity of data, but it also identified the areas of concern and from this developed the key questions to be asked by the Panel. Participants commented that this stage contributed to improved understanding because it equipped them with a summary and critique of current performance and a focus for the discussions. This compared to their experience of committees where Elected Members are regularly presented with 170 pages of reports which can not reasonably be addressed in any detail within the time restraints.

Both Panel and respondents said that the challenging discussions were very useful in that they helped to communicate both the priorities of the Panel and the challenges facing staff in their attempts to improve performance. For everyone, this debate was the quintessential element of CitiStat; " without this interaction with the politicians we are back to the committee report process". The issuing of outline questions in advance of the sessions was found to be helpful in terms of preparing for the sessions and made the process less confrontational as it avoided any major surprises. One participant commented that " there has been an improvement in the way the part of the service I work in has been perceived by the Chief Executive and the Council Leader" while another confirmed that " one direct benefit is that we have been able to stop reporting other things as …this is all now embedded in the CitiStat process". There was a real sense that the Panel listened and understood some of the service's management problems.

Overall participants felt that the CitiStat model facilitated a significant increase in understanding - primarily about Council priorities and performance challenges. They attributed this to better data, improved analysis and challenging discussions. The only concern about the progress in achieving better understanding was a sense of disappointment that the sessions could not be as well attended as had been hoped. Most participants felt that understanding would have been even better had more of the corporate directors been able to contribute to the Panel and some said that it was disappointing that the attendance from the roads & lighting service was usually limited to one person.

Outcome 2: Action being taken to improve performance

Moving on to the second success factor, action being taken to improve performance, progress has been significant. From the very first session discussions have focused on agreeing what action needs to take place. Participants listed the most successful actions to date as the introduction of fixed penalty notices, production of the first graffiti policy with clear targets, the analysis of the causes of litter around schools and the concentrated actions to reduce staff absence due to sickness. Four factors are considered to be relevant to this progress: the frequency of the sessions, the focus on performance improvement, staff attendance at the sessions and the evaluation sessions.

The challenging timetable of monthly sessions with strict deadlines for data collection, analysis and discussions placed considerable pressure on services to deliver both information and agreed actions on time. Agreed actions were normally required to be delivered by the next session. It was exceptional for actions to be postponed to later sessions.

Secondly, the Council's commitment to improving performance has had a positive impact on the progress to date. The Panel was focused on getting results. They listened carefully to what was being said in terms of the challenges and then debated with participants the various options available to drive improvements. At the end of the session, each area of concern had a clear action point for the next session. These action points then informed the Panel brief for the next session. Over time, the Panel brief developed appendices setting out the agreed actions together with the progress made and some of the challenges faced.

Having key staff at the sessions has been critical to getting actions done immediately. Staff heard the Panel spell out the actions required, explain the priority and set the deadline. There was therefore no need for Heads of Service to explain this to staff later. Participants felt that there was " a bit of power to this". Equally, staff heard first hand the Chief Executive and Council Leader praising staff for their performance improvements. This helped to motivate staff to ensure progress was made.

Action points have originated from discussions at both the CitiStat sessions and the evaluation sessions. Whilst not a feature of the original Baltimore model, evaluation sessions were introduced as part of the Pilot process in Scotland to facilitate reflection on performance and the value of the CitiStat model. Progress to date suggests that the evaluation sessions have become an important element of the CitiStat process. They have not stood outside of the model but have become part of the model. They have enabled reflection and discussion on how the model and its use could be refined for the local context and as a result have generated questions and actions for the main sessions and the various stages in between.

Overall the evidence to date demonstrates that the Pilot has been successful in identifying and implementing a number of significant actions to improve performance. At the beginning of the Pilot, these actions tended to focus on establishing and refining the data and performance indicators, while in the later stages of the Pilot, the actions focused on driving real performance improvements. The only areas of concern raised here have been the participants' ability to quality-test the suggested actions during the CitiStat sessions and the participants' ability to get corporate buy-in where the actions need support from other services. The first concern had remained unresolved because the duration of the Pilot was too short to test whether the actions were consistently resulting in performance improvements, or whether sometimes they made no difference or even worsen the situation. The reason the second concern has remained unresolved is likely to be because the Pilot status of CitiStat meant that it was implemented as a standalone project, not linked into corporate systems.

Outcome 3: A ripple effect is observed

The third anticipated outcome is that a ripple effect is observed as the impact of CitiStat is felt across the organisation and a range of performance issues. During the six month period the scope of the Pilot was extended to include a second service, roads and lighting. In addition, running parallel to the formal Pilot, a second Pilot was established to focus on one performance area only - void housing. This additional Pilot did not form part of the evaluation process as it only got off the ground around the 4 ^th month. In addition to the expansion of the scope of the Pilot, there was evidence that the Pilot had started to establish improved links between operations and strategy. For example one of the actions led to the creation of a new graffiti policy while another fed new performance targets into the local service plan. Participants also commented that they have noticed a change in their behaviour at committee meetings; " I find that because I have more detailed information available I am tending to answer the questions in more detail".

This ripple effect to date was thought to be a consequence of one factor only: the buy-in from the existing participants. It was clear that the Chief Executive in particular had bought into the model at an early stage and consequently led its introduction into new performance and service areas and ensured its strategic alignment. Similarly the lead respondent, a Head of Service, committed significant resources to the Pilot in terms of the involvement of his staff which led to the impact being felt across a number of his service areas.

Whilst a ripple effect was clearly observed, the impact of the model has been limited to a few service and performance areas. This was no doubt due to the Pilot status of CitiStat, the resistance to change in some areas of the Council, the limited availability of Corporate Directors on the Panel and the ongoing re-structuring of the Council. Should the Council decide to implement CitiStat, the ripple effect would be expected to be more significant, especially once the new organisational structure has bedded down.

Outcome 4: Improved performance

Turning to the fourth success factor of improved performance, there was some early, but limited, evidence of success. It had always been agreed that the Pilot was too short to see noticeable results, but nonetheless, some improvements have been observed. The Panel noticed that there had been significant improvement in two key performance indicators. The first was the overall PAC¹ rating and the second was staff absence levels. Performance results were considered to be affected by five key factors: the reactive nature of services, the prioritisation of performance areas, the starting point for the Council, the ownership of the performance indicators and the time taken to tackle complex performance issues.

Many of the services involved in the CitiStat Pilot are reactive; they are only activated when a member of the public behaves inappropriately ( e.g. graffiti, dog fouling, litter, etc). In these services it is difficult to readily determine the basis of good performance. Is good performance removing graffiti very quickly or reducing the incidence of graffiti in the first place? This is often summed up in the advice " you can't measure what you can't describe" ². The less reactive the service, participants argued, the easier it is to achieve and evidence real performance improvements.

The clear prioritisation of performance areas by the Panel has helped to focus attention and resources to particular hot spots. For example, absence had long been a problem in certain service areas but nothing particularly innovative or radical was done in ACC to achieve the recent performance improvements. Rather the Panel simply gave clear targets and deadlines and managers responded positively. Some observed a " new lack of tolerance" of poor performance.

Some participants argued that it was difficult to demonstrate service improvements during the Pilot as CitiStat was building on effective performance management in the past. " We have been looking at performance for some time before CitiStat - any improvements will be due to factors other than CitiStat". Participants argued that existing performance was generally good and so achieving further improvements would be difficult to secure. This however is not the accepted position with void housing where performance has historically been poor. The decision to run a small, separate but parallel, Pilot looking into this issue was based on the belief that CitiStat could make a significant difference to performance where there is much room for improvement.

When the scope of the Pilot was extended, the joining services were obliged to agree to a number of existing performance indicators and data collection methods. Given that the joining staff were not involved in developing these indicators and methods at the outset, it was perhaps natural for them to have some difficulty in buying into them. It became clear that this was the case around the 4 ^th month of the Pilot and action was taken to review the indicators. It was observed that where participants found it difficult to take ownership of the indicators and data they inevitably found it difficult to prioritise their resources to these areas.

Where service improvements were prioritised for action, it was argued that these were sometimes too complex to see noticeable improvements within a six month Pilot. Rather they required long term action perhaps with several services working together to tackle the issue.

Overall it was observed that there had been one or two real improvements and that this was a good result given the short duration of the Pilot. Nevertheless not everyone was convinced that the performance improvements shown were real. There remained some concern that in the short Pilot data continued to be refined to the extent that it was difficult to identify any trends as data from month 1 could not be properly compared to data from month 6. Also in the case of the PAC rating, some participants argued that in the short term seasonal fluctuations can seriously affect performance as can the type of area inspected.

Outcomes 5 and 6: Improved customer satisfaction and the environment is noticeably improved

The fifth and sixth desired outcomes were those of improved customer satisfaction and the environment being noticeably improved. The results in both of these areas were inconclusive primarily because they did not feature highly in any of the discussions. Participants were waiting for the introduction of a corporate mail logging system which would provide better data on complaints and the sixth outcome was difficult to assess because the data was not captured within the existing performance indicators and was probably more anecdotal in nature.

In summarising the progress against the agreed success factors, it can be argued that progress has been very encouraging. Whilst it is agreed that it is too soon to see real performance improvements flowing from the process, the process has driven improved understanding of current performance and a number of significant actions which are expected to lead to service improvements in the longer term.

Unanticipated outcomes and additional learning points

In evaluating the Council's progress against its desired outcomes for the Pilot, a number of unanticipated outcomes and learning points were identified and discussed in the evaluation sessions and interviews. These are set out below.

Organisational culture

The Council decided to adopt a collaborative approach to implementing the model. Whilst recognising the application of a more confrontational model in Baltimore, ACC felt that this did not fit with its existing organisational culture, nor would it get the best out of its people. The Panel did suggest however that had performance not been so good they would have been " more robust" in their handling of the questioning.

Nevertheless, it appears that the application of CitiStat has revealed early signs of a shift in organisational culture. Participants reported that a " new sort of ruthlessness" was emerging from the Panel; one that was less tolerant of poor performance. Participants recognised a tightening up of timescales, more challenging questions and disappointment being expressed when actions were not fully implemented. For example, the Panel felt that giving warnings instead of immediately issuing fixed penalty notices for littering was far too lenient: " if Edinburgh City Council can issue 300 notices then why can't we?"

The respondents appeared to welcome the opportunity to account for their performance at the CitiStat sessions. They were given the opportunity to explain what they had achieved and were challenged on what they had yet to achieve. The respondents commented that they found this process both challenging and an effective vehicle for learning. Perhaps this was a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the discussions at committee given that CitiStat encourages a fuller, more detailed, discussion that is focused on finding solutions to performance difficulties. Everyone present at the session was always fully engaged with the process and making a difference.

Evidence base

There has been a review of existing performance indicators and data sources within the participating services which has led to the creation of a new, more relevant set of indicators often with new sources of data. Unlike other performance management systems used in ACC, participants said they appreciated being involved in designing and populating the performance framework. This, they argued, has led to more meaningful indicators and targets which in turn should lead to more effective performance management.

Participants reported that they felt more confident that decisions were now based on facts and clear evidence and that " any wooliness could now be challenged". Data was more up to date, consistent, relevant and rigorously analysed. CitiStat offered an elemental breakdown of the data which " allowed everyone to see the wood from the trees" and prevented the real problems being masked by aggregate figures.

Both Panel members and the respondents agreed that the introduction of a more streamlined and focused management report was beneficial. The reports were seen as succinct, user-friendly and effectively facilitated a style of questioning which focused on the exceptions, rather than general patterns or trends.

Participants often felt that some corporate systems were negatively affecting their ability to manage and report performance. People argued that corporate systems were often not aligned with current strategy and priorities, were unable to break data down into useful detail, did not collect the most useful data and were often incomplete. As a consequence staff were forced into collecting the data manually.

CitiStat support

The Council externally recruited a CitiStat Administrator for the period of the Pilot. Although not formally part of the evaluation process, it was observed that the Administrator brought a valuable independent perspective to data collection and analysis.

Staff from the Scottish Executive supported the Pilot in Aberdeen working closely with Council staff at all stages of the CitiStat process. It was observed that Scottish Executive staff played a key role in compiling the Panel brief and advising on suitable questions. It could be concluded therefore that this level of support was critical to the success of this case study.

The experience of setting up the CitiStat Pilot area in the first place (it started almost 2 months later than originally planned), together with the experience of expanding the scope of the original Pilot to include another service revealed the amount of pre-planning required before implementing the model. When bringing a new team into an existing Pilot, or rolling the Pilot out corporately, there is a need to think through how best to get buy-in to previously agreed frameworks and performance indicators. If running separate Pilots then buy-in may well be easier, as each can take its own form, but the ability to draw comparisons then becomes limited.

Focus

Critical to finding the focus of the performance issue has been the Panel's ability to ask the right questions. Participants argued that this worked best when:

• the Panel already had a good understanding of the service;
• the Panel was well-briefed;
• the data was detailed enough to allow detailed questioning;
• questions were focused on priority issues;
• questioning was followed through to the following session;
• questioning did not follow the brief too closely.

CitiStat appears to have driven an improved adherence to existing policies. For example, the recorded improvements to staff absence levels were not achieved by the introduction of new policies or procedures, but by improved compliance to existing policies and procedures. For whatever reason, managers had not been able to fully implement these policies and practices in the past. It is suggested that CitiStat provided a clearer focus for managers' efforts.

Aberdeen City Council did not expect to begin a second CitiStat Pilot during this six month period. However as the Panel started to appreciate the benefits of CitiStat, and was at the same time involved in putting together a team to tackle the Council's poor performance in managing its empty houses, it realised that CitiStat may offer a timely solution. A small (only 8-10 indicators) discrete project was established to apply CitiStat to housing voids. The Pilot has only run for two cycles and so has not had the opportunity to report any lessons or improvements, nor has there been the opportunity to conclude whether CitiStat was better suited to an organisation-wide setting or targeted to particular hot spots.

One of the challenges identified by the participants, but largely remained unresolved, was the need to design exit strategies for each of the performance issues. It was argued that once performance in a service issue was back on track, then the performance indicators and data sets should drop off the CitiStat report. Participants did not wish to see the reports escalate to huge data sets but remain focused on those performance issues requiring immediate attention.

During the 5 ^th and 6 ^th CitiStat sessions, the Panel asked questions about the performance of one of their partner organisations. The partner organisation made a key contribution to tackling one of the service challenges and their performance directly affected the performance of the Council. Whilst this was not fully explored in the evaluation sessions, it suggested that the Council may be interested in using the CitiStat model to explore the effectiveness of partnership working in key service areas.

Involvement of Elected Members

There is some evidence (albeit limited at this stage) that elected members liked the increased frequency of discussions. Compared to committee meetings which currently occur every eight weeks in the Council, CitiStat allows increased involvement and a better opportunity to influence actions.

CitiStat encourages senior staff and elected members to become involved in operational matters. Currently ACC, like most local authorities, encourages its Elected Members and senior staff to concern themselves more with strategic matters rather than operations. Whilst current participants felt that this new involvement had facilitated a better understanding between those who took part in the Panel and the staff who implemented the actions, they were unsure of how the Panel would work if it was opened to more Elected Members. The challenge would be twofold: how to involve Elected Members and senior staff in operational issues whilst at the same time continuing to empower the staff to design and deliver the necessary changes, and how to involve a wide range of political views while maintaining a collaborative approach to improving performance.

The CitiStat process has provided the Panel in particular with good news stories to share with local media, the public and colleagues. Panel members said that they now had " facts and figures at their fingertips".

Taking CitiStat forward in Aberdeen

At the end of the Pilot, the Panel confirmed that CitiStat " has been of real value to the Council" and expressed their wish to see CitiStat used more widely across the Council in the future. They added that there were a number of conditions to this:

• CitiStat must be under constant review to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs;
• sometimes it may be appropriate to step up the urgency by meeting every fortnight rather than every month;
• a central resource is found to replace the support provided during the Pilot by Scottish Executive staff;
• some of the performance indicators need to be re-examined to consider their relevance.

In addition to the conditions drawn up by the Panel, it is suggested that the Council carefully considers the selection of performance indicators in the future. The CitiStat framework in Aberdeen has to date not included many outcomes, for example outcomes such as cost, safety incidents or customer satisfaction were not included; existing research ³ suggests that performance frameworks should have an appropriate balance of performance drivers and outcomes.

Furthermore, the Council should consider appointing a CitiStat champion to co-ordinate and advise on taking CitiStat forward in the Council. Strong leadership (in both the Panel and the respondents) during the Pilot was shown to be effective in getting buy-in from staff at all levels. This will be critical to maintaining and enhancing the value of CitiStat to the Council in the future.

For CitiStat to offer value for money, it must not duplicate existing structures and processes. The Council already has clear governance and scrutiny structures and the use of CitiStat in the future should be dovetailed with these structures.

Finally, participants cautioned against CitiStat being used to compare performance across organisations. They argued that CitiStat must be designed to be relevant to the particular organisational and service context and therefore could not be effectively used to benchmark.

Figure A2.4: CitiStat performance indicators for environmental quality

« Previous | Contents | Next »