Quarkside

10/02/2011

IG Outcomes: Focus on Benefits

Filed under: Objectives,Outcomes,People,Policy,Process,Strategy,Time — lenand @ 9:42 am
Tags: , , , ,

Quarkside’s reason for promoting Information Governance (IG) processes is a belief that better public services are possible. Better Outcomes. Benefits.

Information Governance is the setting of Objectives to achieve measurable Outcomes by People using information Assets in a life cycle Process that considers the impact of both Risk and Time.

Improved service levels and efficiency can result if more effective use is made of documents and data that is amassed in archives, filing cabinets and computer data stores. The current budget reductions need innovative thinking to abstract more from historical data, sharing data and sharing data centres.

The portents are good. It is now possible to share data between local authorities and the NHS by linking the N3 and GCSX networks. The Information Governance requirements have been met. This removes a major constraint to implementing the recommendations of Lord Laming’s Enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié.

Examples of outcomes can be found in the Scottish Government web site.  They are easy to understand and credibly linked to one another.  Information sharing partnerships could benefit from reviewing these and basing their own desired Outcomes upon them; children, crime, employment, health and enviroment all feature in the list of fifteen.

Outcomes, with good governance, should be comparable to the Objectives. The previous IG blog listed seven candidate secondary dimensions for Objectives. Let’s take them forward as an example of using the Framework; as questions that could appear in quality assurance of the results:

  • Policy: How far have we progressed towards the political vision and maximising value from the information assets? Are transformation targets being achieved?
  • Strategy: How many programmes have benefited from information sharing and improved knowledge management? Are the benefits being realised?
  • Law: Can we be assured that all laws, regulations and statutes have been followed?
  • Constraints: Have local conditions, culture and practice been factored into the Information Governance regime?
  • Scope: Have all target business area and organisational functions been included in the Information Governance processes?
  • Context: Has the impact on external and internal organisations met expectations?
  • Specifications: Has performance met the requirements and are control mechanisms in place? What is the evidence that information sharing has obeyed Information Assurance standards?

Secondary dimensions should be tailored to the organisation and its aspirations.  They need not be all embracing, but focussed on current and future priorities.

The political pressure for more shared services, in both central and local government, amplifies the requirement for shared Objectives and Outcomes.  Good Information Governance is necessary to build trust between partners.  Each partner has to be assured that other partners treat information with equal or greater respect, and this starts by aligning Objectives and desired Outcomes.  It should finish with an information assurance process that confirm that trust is deserved.

Identifying Outcomes and using them as a primary driver is not easy. The Local Government Improvement and Development agency (formerly IDeA) studied “Implementing outcomes based accountability in children’s services“.  Whereas People can easily accept the concepts, formal methods require a high level of training and adoption of common language.  This takes more time than People are prepared to invest.  Quarkside believes that Outcomes should be governed qualitatively, not quantitatively with manufactured measures that just feed bureaucrats.  Superficially at least, Scotland seems to have a more pragmatic approach.

Cultural considerations are so important for introducing change in Process, particularly in new information sharing partnerships. Culture is included in the People dimension of the 7DIG framework, to follow.

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. […] 7 Dimensional Information Governance Framework (7DIG).  The seven primary dimensions (Objectives, Outcomes, People, Assets, Process, Risk and Time) are intended to be MECE (Mutually Exclusive and […]

    Pingback by Objectives of IG « Quarkside — 02/03/2011 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  2. […] Outcomes […]

    Pingback by Information Governance defined? « Quarkside — 02/03/2011 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  3. […] Governance (IG) must have Process. The Process must consider IG Objectives, Outcomes, People and Assets.  Theses are the critical first five dimensions of the Seven Dimensional IG […]

    Pingback by IG Process: Due Diligence « Quarkside — 02/03/2011 @ 9:50 am | Reply

  4. […] and prioritise issues, then challenges your MP to respond“.  That’s not much of an Outcome.  An opportunity to reach an MP has many more effective […]

    Pingback by Digital Democracy: Challenge to MPs. « Quarkside — 04/03/2011 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  5. […] applies to all the other six dimensions of the 7DIG framework ie Objectives, Assets, People, Outcomes, Process and Risk.  Every single sub-dimension can have the question asked […]

    Pingback by IG Time: the spatio-temporal paradigm « Quarkside — 01/12/2011 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  6. […] practical problems of delivering IT enabled services to citizens – it is not driven by the outcomes that are at the forefront of delivery agencies’ […]

    Pingback by Plant the Flag: Think about outcomes « Quarkside — 07/02/2012 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  7. […] information governance with the Process that sets Objectives and uses Assets to achieve the desired Outcomes.  And it has a Risk […]

    Pingback by 7DIG: Time needs more than philosophy « Quarkside — 12/02/2012 @ 10:09 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: