This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
This TIE and TIF matrix is interesting but could be misleading, particularly if we were to use OBI measures. TIF The problem with achieving budget formulation high measures is through publishing documents at various points in the planning process with sufficient information and with enough time for scrutiny. But, the political system can provide all sorts of opaqueness outside of these documents - such as in the Westminster system where "budget confidentiality" is preserved or in cases where there is a strong business lobby. And, even if timely and complete, it doesn't mean that the legislature will provide effective oversight. (i.e. Westminster system, one does not vote against your party, in the US, it's all about horse trading and very little about performance) TIE Providing information in documents for TIF and TIE enables governments to present narratives. (That's what budget documents are all about, a political document - and the budget speech from the Minister of Finance.) The entire government "story" becomes embedded in narrative. Having the ability to drill into budget execution information provides a far better return for oversight. On the other hand Budget transparency seems to be a genie that may be most difficult to return to the bottle. Perhaps we should be far less concerned about isomorphism in budget transparency, especially for execution, because it can lay the seed for oversight that can lead to better outcomes. It has been found by a few studies that automating budget execution first is a better practice in fragile states than trying to automate budget preparation first. (This is a classic PDIA problem because of the gap between plans made by highly educated public servants with technical assistance from more highly educated donors moving to execution.) Perhaps the International Budget Partnership should consider country capacity to determine whether TIE ought to be a focus in some circumstances. I read OBI reports where the recommendations are about improving all dimensions rather than what makes sense for that country.
Speaking of the past, seems almost like SAP is following the old BASF advertising from the 80s as the tech company you've never heard of but improved many things we take for granted. Maybe it's a German thing, but it seems rather odd that such a well-known firm feels obligated for such hyperbole. Perhaps the median of what is considered acceptable in taking credit for customer success has travelled somewhat.
Toggle Commented Jul 24, 2013 on SAP: Run Like Before at deal architect
There is a real need for the international community to change the risk calculus from "risk aversion" (i.e. no one got fired by implementing a "best practice") to "risk management". The trend to using best practices and mimicry seems to come from institutional fear - if it doesn't work AND it wasn't a best practice... Risk management is a discipline of identifying risks by impact and by probability. One accepts certain risks, mitigates other risks and refuses some risks. And, one uses evidence beyond a risk matrix rather than fear.
Interesting how you've broken through the hype, especially the vender consolidation financial soap opera. Consolidation, especially outside the traditional core, is giving buyers pause to consider alternatives. The 'me too ness' in the ERP market, for example, encourages CFOs to consider something different (like some of the vendors mentioned) or very different (ie SaaS). It's an interesting market disruption where conventional thinking (ie own the customer by controlling the stack) is beginning to falter
These observations are useful. It's the kind of insight that begs that we peel the onion more. The problem with the WGIs is that many of the sources are perception-based, overlap of 3rd party indicators across the WGI roll-ups, range of the number of indicators per WGI roll-up, and lack of weighting on what is important. A good anchor none the less. The next step could be to drill into those countries where the investment was significantly correlated with success and those where is was significantly correlated with reduction of economic development. There is also the question of the type of investment made. That might provide additional insight. Governance has many moving parts. The evidence might show that there is a difference between reform as ceremony and government owned reform. For example, PEFA assessment results seem to show that many operational reforms do not take hold. On the other hand, certain types of public financial management automation tends to improve some aspects of governance. Government-led reforms tend to work better than donor-led, from anecdotal evidence - but that gets into a chicken-and-egg discussion. (i.e. if government led the reform, there may have been formal or informal governance mechanisms.) There's also " modalities " of reform. As much as I dislike the jargon, this seems to be another avenue to consider. Another problem in analysis: lack of transparency on information (hence #makeaidtransparent - we need to all sign up on this petition. Result? - getting the information to answer the questions that you've raised and make aid effectiveness.) Not to mention asymmetrical improvements in governance that could be lost in the numbers. Some of the countries that you have mentioned have had excellent results in some aspects of governance but poor in others. The aggregate result hides these successes. The coin toss might depend on the context.
Govenment performance management is thought to be a closed system of outputs and outcomes. Yet, there are so many unintended outcomes for government programs. Effective government performance management needs collaboration or Government 2.0. Citizens can provide governments with unexpected insight about government programs.