Outcomes are normally part of a performance measurement framework of one type or another. Most often, they will be used in the public sector or the non-profit sector to explain how their activities’ contribution to society. The might also be used at a lower level to measure the implementation of a strategy in the private sector. In that particular case an organization would be measuring the outcome of a strategy, although in the terminology generally used in public sector performance measurement; this would be closer to an expected result.
Regardless, the purpose of this post is to clarify a perceived ambiguity surrounding outcome levels. In performance measurement literature, different levels of outcomes are often mentioned, such as immediate, intermediate, long-term and final outcomes. The descriptions given usually revolve around time and impact on society.
However, to clearly define outcomes, they need to be perceived through at least 3 dimensions:
- reach or societal impact,
- time (frame, lag, or delay) and
- attributability or responsibility
The reach or societal impact can be generally conceived of as the “societal importance or value” of the outcome. For example, “reducing the number of sick Canadians” may be an outcome, but “healthy Canadians” is a broader, and further reaching one.
The time dimension is a little more complex, because more things can be measured here. For example, an outcome could be defined as a desired end-state. In that context the time dimension would refer to the time required to bridge the gap between the current state and the desired end-state. The time dimension can also be important in a context where an organization’s action will only have an impact on the outcome after a period of time.
The attributability of an outcome for the organization or the responsibility or the organization for the outcome are also to be considered. Attributability can be defined as the amount of “credit” an organization can take for the change in the outcome. Most often, not all change in an outcome can be attributed to the actions of an organization. The concept of attributability is closely linked to the concept of causality. A change in the outcome is attributable to the organization if the organization’s actions are the cause of the change. Responsibility, however, is a different concept. Where attribution is when an organization appropriates changes in an outcome, responsibility is when an organization is made responsible for an outcome, or if you prefer, is mandated to have an impact on the outcome. However, attributability of the change in the outcome still remains to be proven of organizations with clear responsibilities. For example, the Bank of Canada has an agreement with the Government of Canada regarding target inflation rates. To a certain extent, it is responsible for the rate of inflation. The question in that case is, what level of change (or lack of) in the inflation rate can the Bank take credit for?
Although it has not been included with the 3 other dimensions, the measurability of an outcome should always be considered. It is hard to measure the performance of a set of actions if the change in the outcome itself is not measurable. An unmeasurable outcome will also lead to questions and debates about methods and approaches, and may lead to questioning of the value the organization brings to society.
