Was I Too Quick to Judge the Nine Quarterly Targets? Yes, yes I was.

17/03/2025

I was pretty critical of the last government for refusing to name outcome areas or set any shared targets for the public management system. They didn’t want to be pinned down. They said it was about flexibility and complexity, but in practice, it made it hard to know what mattered, who was responsible, or what success even looked like.

And most importantly, in today’s always-on political environment, if there are no targets or outcomes, there’s no performance story. And if there’s no performance story, there’s nothing real to talk to the electorate about: there is nothing that builds trust or confidence.

So now this government has launched nine targets. They’ve picked clear issues: emergency departments, elective treatment, school attendance, youth offending, climate and so on, and most importantly they’ve committed to reporting on them every quarter. Ministers and chief executives have been given clear lead roles. It’s all very visible and structured.

And my first instinct? I winced. Be honest, it wasn’t just me. So did you.

That is because we’ve seen too many target regimes go wrong. Especially when narrow numbers that miss the point are picked, or the focus is on activity rather than change.

I’ve written before about the risks of performance theatre and target-chasing, especially when it crowds out local solutions or strips away context. But I’ve been thinking, maybe I’ve been too quick to judge.

The nine areas are not unreasonable. In fact, they line up with things that really do matter to people: Shorter waits in EDs and for surgery. Keeping kids in school. Making sure Year 8s can read, write and do maths. Fewer families stuck in emergency housing. Getting emissions down.

These are real-world issues, not bureaucratic fluff. And the way they’re being set up: with lead roles, quarterly updates, and clear accountability suggests this is more than just window dressing.

The real question for me is whether the system around the targets will do the hard work. Are agencies sharing what they’re learning? Are ministers backing joined-up action? Are we going to get better results, or just more reporting? I’m told this work is underway.

Sure, I still have concerns. The ED target has been used before, and while it helped in some places it also led to gaming the system. But dishonest public officials is a reason for more transparency not less. The Jobseeker target might ignore those who genuinely need longer-term support. And it’s hard to see how much will shift quarter-to-quarter on something like emissions.

But it’s also true that you get what you measure. And for all their flaws, these nine targets put a stake in the ground. They say: these are the things we want to shift. These are the things we want to talk to the electorate about in 18 months.

So yes, I’ll keep asking questions. And while I’m listening to the answers, I will also be willing to admit I might have been too quick to dismiss the quarterly targets.

We need the public service to focus on outcomes. We also need transparency and learning: not just pressure and spin.

Whether these targets help us get there, well, that’s still an open question. But be honest: it’s a lot closer than we were a couple of years ago.