Some of the more interesting reactions to this week’s Programme for Government progress update from the Northern Ireland Executive came not from the politicians themselves, but from analysts and commentators pointing out something that I, and it would seem, many other people instinctively felt while reading it.
John Manley in The Irish News spoke of a report “…..heavy on numbers but light on accomplishments”
One of the key points that Pivotal highlighted in its analysis of the document was this:
“Many of the achievements tended to focus on inputs rather than outcomes.”
It went on:
Across the document, there are numerous examples of investments being made or strategies being published, for example, £767k allocated to priority economic sectors, £20.5m to free up capacity in the courts, or launching the Warm Healthy Homes Strategy. While these investments are positive, there is little focus on outputs or outcomes. It can be difficult to quantify how these are making a meaningful difference or are enhancing a strategic goal, particularly given the absence of any outcome-based targets by which this could be measured. There are also some examples of strategies which have been “developed” but not published, such as the framework to reduce offending and reoffending.
My take:
A great deal of what was presented as “progress” appeared to revolve around money invested, programmes launched, consultations held and commitments made. In other words, much of the document focused on activity rather than actual measurable change in people’s lives.
That may sound like a technical distinction, but it points to a much deeper problem in how government increasingly measures success.
Over the years, working across policy, communications, public affairs and organisational strategy, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the words “inputs”, “outputs” and “outcomes” used interchangeably — often by people who genuinely believe they mean the same thing, or indeed do not understand what they mean at all!
And understanding the difference matters enormously because it shapes how governments, public bodies and organisations judge whether they are succeeding or failing.
Please indulge me here, I feel this is of the utmost importance and if you think I am being condescending, more onto the next article.
Inputs are the resources that go into a project or service. Funding allocations, staff recruitment, new buildings, strategies, consultations, training programmes or investment announcements. Inputs tell us what has been committed.
Outputs are the immediate activities or products delivered as a result of those inputs. More appointments carried out. More homes built. More people trained. More inspections completed. Outputs demonstrate that something tangible happened.
Outcomes are something entirely different again. Outcomes are the actual changes experienced by people and communities. Improved health. Reduced waiting lists. Better educational attainment. Lower crime. Higher productivity. Reduced poverty. Better quality of life.
The distinction is crucial because a system can generate enormous amounts of inputs and outputs while still failing to improve outcomes.
That is the uncomfortable truth sitting beneath much modern government reporting.
The simplest way to explain it is probably through the analogy of a gym membership.
Inputs are buying the gym clothes, paying the monthly fee and hiring the personal trainer.
Outputs are attending the gym three times a week.
But outcomes are the thing that actually matters: losing weight, improving fitness, lowering blood pressure and becoming healthier.
Most ordinary people instinctively understand this. If somebody spends a fortune joining a premium gym but remains unhealthy six months later, nobody would seriously argue that the investment alone represented success.
Yet governments frequently report progress in exactly this way.
Money allocated becomes evidence of achievement. New strategies become evidence of transformation. The launch of initiatives becomes evidence of delivery.
Sometimes even outputs are presented as if they are outcomes. Carrying out additional operations, for example, is not automatically the same thing as improving population health. Building houses is not necessarily the same thing as solving housing inequality. Training schemes are not themselves proof of higher employment or productivity.
Outputs tell us what was done.
Outcomes tell us whether it worked.
And increasingly, it feels as though our political system is far more comfortable measuring the former than confronting the latter.
Partly that is understandable. Outcomes are difficult. They often take years to emerge. They can be influenced by factors beyond the control of a single department or minister. They require honesty about what is not working. Most importantly, outcomes expose whether reform has genuinely improved society rather than simply generated activity.
Inputs are much safer politically.
It is far easier to announce £50 million of investment than to demonstrate whether that spending materially improved public services. Easier to launch a strategy than to prove transformation. Easier to count programmes than to measure trust, wellbeing or opportunity.
That is why so much official reporting increasingly feels disconnected from public experience.
People hear announcements about funding, frameworks and delivery plans while simultaneously struggling to access GP appointments, find affordable housing, navigate overstretched public services or see visible improvement in their communities.
The public experiences outcomes, not administrative activity.
And perhaps that is the real issue at the heart of Northern Ireland’s governance challenge. We have developed a system exceptionally skilled at measuring process, but far less comfortable measuring impact.
The result is a political culture where governments often end up reporting motion rather than meaningful progress.
At some point, we need a more honest conversation about whether we are simply getting better at describing activity — or whether we are genuinely getting better at changing lives.
Process has de facto become the mantra and the practice of our public sector! Progress is far more difficult to measure
Eugene Reid is a keen observer of all things business and politics. A former elected representative who has had a career working across the private, public and voluntary sectors! Bringing a unique perspective from a diverse and varied background.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
