The philosophy of New Zealand’s Performance Improvement Framework: Why it matters

1/3/2019

I have several reasons for wanting to be transparent about the epistemology, ontology, theoretical basis and methodology of the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF).

My reasons are three-fold. First, to communicate the philosophy of the PIF to interested academics to ensure criticism and analysis is well-informed. As signalled previously, the PIF was designed to push against agency and contract theory and the cult of managerialism. As Allen and Eppel (2019) discovered, new public management still holds a tight grip on New Zealand’s state servants,
including the PIF.

Second, to ensure intellectual rigour in PIF development and implementation. That said, transparency in performance improvement no longer appears to be fashionable. For example, there has not been a PIF review published in several years. Perhaps Dormer (2015) was right when he wondered if the PIF was
another central agency fad destined to come and go.

But, my chief reason is this – I want to disclose the basis on which the information was collected for my insights into the performance of the New Zealand public management system between 2009 and 2016. Being able to judge the performance of the system matters right now because the Public Service Legislation Bill found its way into the House last week. The Bill repeals the State Sector Act 1988 and makes minor changes to the Public Finance Act 1989. It proposes a new framework for achieving something called a:

“more adaptive and collaborative Public Service by expanding the types of agencies that comprise the Public Service, unified by a common purpose, ethos, and strengthened leadership arrangements.”

This rather bold claim will be tested in the House, by the media and ultimately by the public over the coming months. For my part, I will be looking to understand what problem the Bill seeks to solve. For example, suppose the system-level analysis from over one hundred PIF reviews is correct. In that case, the main problem with New Zealand’s public institutions is that it is run by a senior cadre of officials and political appointees (I decorously call it Wellington Inc) that is far too responsive to the political executive and far too adept at managing immediate issues, transactional stakeholder relationships and the priorities of the day.

I am not blaming them. This is not personal. I hold it to be true that every individual operates according to the incentives around them and from their own mental models. Further, Wellington Inc. has not always been empowered to build strong and enduring public institutions whose individual statutory purpose and roles are clear and whose core business effectiveness and efficiency are as strong as their ability to manage issues and events. The current statutory framework and system complexity further hamstring Wellington Inc, as it blurs accountability for decision-making.

Maybe the Bill addresses this. I am not sure. I see some good things in the Bill. Still, I also see a thread of thinking that conflates collaboration and meetings between senior officials with changes to delivery for whānau.

With that in mind, as I blog about the philosophy of the PIF, I will also start to disclose what the findings of all the PIF reviews say about system-level performance. That way, others can judge whether the solution proposed in the Bill addresses the strengths and weaknesses at the heart of the New Zealand
public management system.

Next week I will cover what it means to be an insider researcher. Specifically, a Māori public servant, researching an area I worked in for a doctoral proposal while still meeting my obligations under the State Sector Code of Conduct. This particular post will clarify the source of my information, all of which is already publically available information.

References

Allen, B. and Eppel, E., 2019. Holding on tight–NPM and the New Zealand performance improvement framework. Australian Journal of Public Administration.

Dormer, R., 2016. Organisational management in New Zealand’s public service.
Public Money & Management, 36(6), pp.433-440.