[toc]
Tracking progress with the APS Reform Performance Framework
The scope and scale of the APS Reform agenda requires a fit-for-purpose approach to tracking and reporting implementation, progress and impact. Progress is monitored through a cascading system of evaluation, known as the Performance Framework. It involves the following steps:
- Initiative level (quarterly). Monitoring and reporting on individual initiative outcomes, captured through the APS Reform reporting model. Quarterly reports focus on delivery status, progress against milestones, and emerging and anticipated risks. They are used to assess shared impact and risk.
- Outcome level (annually). Performance measures and metrics to determine progress against each of the 8 APS Reform outcomes. Current performance tables are provided at Appendix B.
- Program level (2-3 years). Formal whole-of-program reviews and evaluations as initiatives are completed (noting it can take some time before effects are visible).
- Impact level (3-5 years). Deep-dive research into the lived experience of people and businesses affected by APS Reform outcomes, and continual review to ensure the program is targeting activities that will have the greatest impact. This work is under consideration and subject to agreement.
Using metrics to measure performance
The performance of the APS Reform program reflects a collaborative whole-of-government effort, supported by 9 lead agencies who are leading the initiatives and responsible for managing existing whole-of-APS data collections.
The APS Reform Program Performance Framework includes 16 overarching performance measures across the 8 Reform outcomes. These are supported by 51 metrics, drawn from at least 2 different data sources.
Where possible, data sources include internal APS reporting and externally validated reporting such as the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. They predominantly derive from existing reliable sources, such as the APS Employee Census, Agency Survey, Remuneration Survey, APS Employment Database and Survey of Trust in Australian public services.
Additional data sources are being developed in collaboration with agencies to focus on partnerships, engagement and service excellence, and First Nations peoples’ experiences working with government under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. These additional sources will include qualitative and quantitative data, as well as case studies. They will be used to measure the impact of reform initiatives and inform an evidenced-based and reliable approach to tracking APS Reform Outcomes 3 (the APS delivers human and user-centred policy and service excellence) and 4 (the APS has effective relationships and partnerships with First Nations peoples).
The performance measurement of APS Reform is not fixed, and may evolve as new datasets and insights become available. Outcomes reporting will strengthen and mature over time.
The performance tables are structured as follows:
- Outcome. The measurable, long-term program objectives describing the intended end-state.
- Performance measure. A broad statement describing a change, indicating that an outcome is being achieved. Each performance measure is supported by one or more metrics drawn from reliable and verifiable data sources, to reduce potential bias in measurement and reporting.
- Metric. A specific variable or feature tied to a data source that can be counted, measured, observed or described as evidence of change.
- Data source. Consistent and verifiable source of data collection supporting the progress of outcomes through the measure of specific metrics.
- Baseline. The performance metrics supporting each outcome describe the indicative trajectory of progress. That is, the change expected from the outlined baseline (i.e. increase, decrease or maintain) rather than setting specific targets. The expected trajectory against the baseline will be reviewed annually to set a realistic expectation of progress.