Performance Management Thought for the Performance Management Thought for the DayDay

“The perfect is the enemy of the good”- Voltaire

• The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien,” from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

• In other words, pursuing the "best" solution may end up doing less actual good than accepting a solution that, while not perfect, is effective

• Best Available Science - “Ultimately, successful management of aquatic ecosystems will rely on scientists, managers and decision makers who have the skills and courage to apply the best science available and not wait for the best science possible” – Marine and Freshwater Research, 2010• Leadership’s relationship management challenge

… the Science ~ Policy dance …

Today’s outcomesToday’s outcomes

• Obtain Leadership Council support for launching the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators and review next steps

• Continue to discuss natural and social science underpinnings for Dashboard indicators, relationship to health of Sound and improving people’s behavior in that context

• Continue to discuss dynamic nature of dashboards and other such performance management tools for use with our collective, collaborative leadership and continuous performance improvement approaches

• Review collaborative target setting work plan and timeline

Today’s agendaToday’s agenda

• Brief recap on role of the Leadership Council

• Brief recap on big picture of performance management and key deliverables in 2010

• Review of changes made to DRAFT Dashboard and next steps

• Briefing on importance of Dashboard indicators to set a context for further use of Open Standards

• Begin to explore the larger families of measures for each of the Dashboard indicators developing within the Open Standards results chains

Leadership Council Performance Leadership Council Performance Management Focus for 2010Management Focus for 2010

• Choose ecosystem indicators for DashboardChoose ecosystem indicators for Dashboard

• Re-start Open Standards Results Chains workRe-start Open Standards Results Chains work

• Set some 2020 targetsSet some 2020 targets– Targets may be set for either ecosystem indicators or Targets may be set for either ecosystem indicators or

threat reduction indicators or boththreat reduction indicators or both

Inputs

Outputs

• Action Agenda 20XX: priorities, strategies and

actions, incorporating revisions to the previous

version(s)

• State of the Sound 20XX

• Science Update synthesis document (this could be post-2010 iterations of the Science

Update)

• Current Open Standards application products:

components/attributes, threat definitions and ratings/tiers,

action outputs, threat reduction objectives, component

objectives

• Current reporting indicators (distinguished from the broader set of components, attributes, or indicators being

tracked)• Progress towards threat

reduction indicator targets and ecosystem indicator

targets• Action output results

State of the Sound 20XX+2

Action Agenda 20XX+2: priorities, strategies and

actions, incorporating revisions to the previous

version(s)

Action Agenda

performance assessment

Budget guidance

Program

guidance

Process

• Monitoring program products: addressing

ecosystem status and trends and effectiveness of actions and

programs

Biennial Science Work Plan 20XX+2

Action Agenda Assessment and Adaptation Conceptual Action Agenda Assessment and Adaptation Conceptual ApproachApproach

Work accomplished so far and next steps in Work accomplished so far and next steps in 20102010• Initial Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators work completed Initial Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators work completed

– – Need for continuous improvementNeed for continuous improvement

• Open Standards results chains next steps:Open Standards results chains next steps:– Ecosystem components list in placeEcosystem components list in place– Results chain work restartingResults chain work restarting

• Science Update chapters completed/nearing completionScience Update chapters completed/nearing completion

• Working list of topics generated for 2020 target setting Working list of topics generated for 2020 target setting efforteffort

• Inventory of state agency measures completedInventory of state agency measures completed

• Governor’s GMAP for Natural Resources being launchedGovernor’s GMAP for Natural Resources being launched

Magical Dashboard Mystery TourMagical Dashboard Mystery TourIndicators Action Team started mid-March Indicators Action Team started mid-March

• weekly Team meetings weekly Team meetings • continuous improvement based on input received by Team continuous improvement based on input received by Team

ChampionsChampions

Starting in June, DRAFT Dashboard presented to:Starting in June, DRAFT Dashboard presented to:• Cross-Partnership Work Group on Performance Management Cross-Partnership Work Group on Performance Management • Science PanelScience Panel• State CaucusState Caucus• Puget Sound Environmental CaucusPuget Sound Environmental Caucus• Ecosystem Coordination BoardEcosystem Coordination Board• Leadership CouncilLeadership Council

Further distributed to key leaders through:Further distributed to key leaders through:• Partnership websitePartnership website• Monitoring mailingsMonitoring mailings• State-level Performance Managers’ groupState-level Performance Managers’ group• Governor’s Office on Government Management Accountability Governor’s Office on Government Management Accountability

and Performance (GMAP)and Performance (GMAP)• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional and federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional and federal

officesoffices

Dashboard of Ecosystem IndicatorsDashboard of Ecosystem Indicators

• Total 20 indicators included – 12 Natural Dimension, 6 Total 20 indicators included – 12 Natural Dimension, 6 Human Dimension and 2 Program DimensionHuman Dimension and 2 Program Dimension

• Action Agenda Goals – 2 Human Health, 4 Human Well-Action Agenda Goals – 2 Human Health, 4 Human Well-Being, 2 Water Quality, 1 Water Quantity, 4 Species Being, 2 Water Quality, 1 Water Quantity, 4 Species and Food Web and 5 Habitatand Food Web and 5 Habitat

• Champion systems helping in the development, Champion systems helping in the development, shepherding and improvement of Dashboard indicators shepherding and improvement of Dashboard indicators

• Relationship to Science Update ProcessRelationship to Science Update Process

• Dashboard indicators to serve as lead indicators for Dashboard indicators to serve as lead indicators for families of measures, threat reduction indicators, families of measures, threat reduction indicators, results chains, other dashboard efforts (GMAP and results chains, other dashboard efforts (GMAP and EPA), associated drill down details, problem solving, EPA), associated drill down details, problem solving, research, story telling, etc.research, story telling, etc.

1) Jellyfish replaced by 1) Jellyfish replaced by Pacific herringPacific herring

2) Personal Vehicle Miles Traveled replaced by 2) Personal Vehicle Miles Traveled replaced by Puget Sound Puget Sound

Behavioral IndexBehavioral Index – ‘under construction’ – ‘under construction’

3) Puget Sound Regional Council’s ‘Trends Index’ replaced by 3) Puget Sound Regional Council’s ‘Trends Index’ replaced by

Puget Sound Quality of Life Index Puget Sound Quality of Life Index – ‘under construction’– ‘under construction’

4) Working with Indicator Champions to further improve 4) Working with Indicator Champions to further improve

indicators – ongoing indicators – ongoing

Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators ImprovementsDashboard of Ecosystem Indicators Improvements

Dashboard next stepsDashboard next stepsAction PlanAction Plan

• Establish new Indicator Champions to collaboratively move Establish new Indicator Champions to collaboratively move the Dashboard forwardthe Dashboard forward

• Tell the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators story – using a Tell the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators story – using a formal Communications Plan-driven processformal Communications Plan-driven process

• Continuously test ecological importance and social Continuously test ecological importance and social resonanceresonance

• Collect, cleanse and analyze the associated dataCollect, cleanse and analyze the associated data

• Work select families of indicators through the Open Work select families of indicators through the Open Standards processStandards process

Drum roll please …Drum roll please …

Recommended Leadership Council actionRecommended Leadership Council action

The Leadership Council affirms the Dashboard of Ecosystem The Leadership Council affirms the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators and is committed to:Indicators and is committed to:

1.1. The Indicators Action Team completing the documentation of The Indicators Action Team completing the documentation of the process used to derive the current list of Dashboard the process used to derive the current list of Dashboard indicators;indicators;

2.2. A research program determining the social resonance of the A research program determining the social resonance of the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators with the public; and, Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators with the public; and,

3.3. Conducting regularly scheduled reviews of the the Dashboard of Conducting regularly scheduled reviews of the the Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators to improve the Dashboard consistent with Ecosystem Indicators to improve the Dashboard consistent with scientific findings and public input.scientific findings and public input.

A Science and Leadership-driven A Science and Leadership-driven Dashboard of Ecosystem IndicatorsDashboard of Ecosystem IndicatorsRecognizing the Indicators Action Team Members:Recognizing the Indicators Action Team Members:• Leonard Bauer, Department of CommerceLeonard Bauer, Department of Commerce• Helen Berry, Department of Natural ResourcesHelen Berry, Department of Natural Resources• Mary Beth Brown, Puget Sound PartnershipMary Beth Brown, Puget Sound Partnership• Rob Duff, Department of EcologyRob Duff, Department of Ecology• Angela Grout, US Environmental Protection AgencyAngela Grout, US Environmental Protection Agency• Ken Currens, Northwest Indian FisheriesKen Currens, Northwest Indian Fisheries• Phil Levin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Phil Levin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationAdministration• Tim Quinn, Department of Fish and WildlifeTim Quinn, Department of Fish and Wildlife• Trina Wellman, Northern Economics, Inc. Trina Wellman, Northern Economics, Inc. • Jacques White, Long Live the KingsJacques White, Long Live the Kings• Bethany Johnson, University of Washington (student) Bethany Johnson, University of Washington (student) • Brian Payne, University of Washington (student) Brian Payne, University of Washington (student)

Tuesday’s Fortune Cookie MysteryTuesday’s Fortune Cookie Mystery

Looking back … lessons learnedLooking back … lessons learned

• Performance Management’s role – help leaders work Performance Management’s role – help leaders work better together and ultimately make better decisionsbetter together and ultimately make better decisions

• Provide tools for design, management and improvement Provide tools for design, management and improvement of our business processes – improving organizational and of our business processes – improving organizational and inter-organizational performanceinter-organizational performance

• Manage with facts Manage with facts – critical, fundamental principle of – critical, fundamental principle of Performance Management in this contextPerformance Management in this context

• Three other fundamental principles of Performance Three other fundamental principles of Performance Management … Management … Respect People, Customer Focus and Respect People, Customer Focus and Plan-Do-Check-ActPlan-Do-Check-Act

• Other lessons learned?Other lessons learned?

Questions? Comments?Questions? Comments?

Setting TargetsSetting Targets

• Partnership will set 3-5 priority 2020 targets by Partnership will set 3-5 priority 2020 targets by February 2011February 2011

• Include a mix of human and environmental targetsInclude a mix of human and environmental targets

• Other targets will be set later … not everything will Other targets will be set later … not everything will need to have a targetneed to have a target

• Need to set targets within the context of performance Need to set targets within the context of performance management and an adaptive cyclemanagement and an adaptive cycle– First group set in 2010First group set in 2010– Design long-term process for setting and evaluating targetsDesign long-term process for setting and evaluating targets

Target Setting ContextTarget Setting Context

• Partnership can define “What is a healthy ecosystem?”Partnership can define “What is a healthy ecosystem?”

• 2020 tangible progress best measured by setting targets 2020 tangible progress best measured by setting targets for reducing threats to a healthy ecosystemfor reducing threats to a healthy ecosystem

• Target setting process needs to have scientific integrityTarget setting process needs to have scientific integrity

• Why set 2020 targets?Why set 2020 targets?– Called for in Partnership statuteCalled for in Partnership statute– Defines what is a healthy Puget Sound by 2020Defines what is a healthy Puget Sound by 2020– Helps guide regional (Federal, State, tribal, local) work Helps guide regional (Federal, State, tribal, local) work

prioritiespriorities– Needed for milestones that show progress along the way Needed for milestones that show progress along the way

2020 target setting input and decisions to 2020 target setting input and decisions to datedate

March/April 2010:March/April 2010:

– Cross PSP group on performance, threats, strategies Cross PSP group on performance, threats, strategies advise on topics for target setting and give guidanceadvise on topics for target setting and give guidance

– ECB and LC weighed in on the topics and discuss the ECB and LC weighed in on the topics and discuss the guidanceguidance

– Science Panel reviewed listScience Panel reviewed list– Roles of LC, ECB, SP and Cross-PSP group clarifiedRoles of LC, ECB, SP and Cross-PSP group clarified

Indicators to be investigated for Target Setting in Indicators to be investigated for Target Setting in 2010/20112010/2011

(* Indicators more likely to be recommended for 2010 approval)

Indicators from Dashboard of Indicators from Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators Ecosystem Indicators

• Swimming beachesSwimming beaches

• Shellfish beds restored*Shellfish beds restored*

• Chinook salmonChinook salmon

• OrcaOrca

• Pacific herringPacific herring

• Shoreline armoring/alterationShoreline armoring/alteration

• Eelgrass*Eelgrass*

• Land use/land coverLand use/land cover

Other indicators related to key Other indicators related to key investments or threatsinvestments or threats

• Estuary restoration*Estuary restoration*

• Surface water runoff Surface water runoff (pollutants and volume)(pollutants and volume)

• Growth management (related Growth management (related to the land use/land cover to the land use/land cover indicator)indicator)

Proposed steps and schedule for Target Proposed steps and schedule for Target SettingSetting1.1. Initial policy direction to the scientific and technical work - Initial policy direction to the scientific and technical work -

build support for the overall process (August 2010)build support for the overall process (August 2010)

2.2. Conduct technical background work Conduct technical background work – For targets set in 2010: August – September 2010For targets set in 2010: August – September 2010– For targets to be set in 2011: August - October 2010For targets to be set in 2011: August - October 2010

3.3. Convene first science-policy discussionsConvene first science-policy discussions– For targets set in 2010: September 2010For targets set in 2010: September 2010– For targets to be set in 2011: October 2010For targets to be set in 2011: October 2010

4.4. Develop and vet draft target optionsDevelop and vet draft target options– For targets set in 2010: October 2010For targets set in 2010: October 2010– For targets to be set in 2011: November 2010For targets to be set in 2011: November 2010

5.5. Resolve issues, adopt targets, incorporate targets into Action Resolve issues, adopt targets, incorporate targets into Action Agenda assessment and updated strategy developmentAgenda assessment and updated strategy development– For targets set in 2010: Approval November 2010For targets set in 2010: Approval November 2010– For targets to be set in 2011: Approval February 2011For targets to be set in 2011: Approval February 2011

Criteria for selecting targets to work on in Criteria for selecting targets to work on in 20102010(March 2010)(March 2010)• All:All:

– Must have data availableMust have data available– Must include a mix of human and environmental targetsMust include a mix of human and environmental targets

• Ecosystem indicator targetsEcosystem indicator targets::– An indictor that is “highly” likely to be selected is a good An indictor that is “highly” likely to be selected is a good

candidate for target settingcandidate for target setting

• Sound-wide threat reduction indicator targets:Sound-wide threat reduction indicator targets:– Ranked very high or high in the 2009 Threats Technical MemoRanked very high or high in the 2009 Threats Technical Memo– Is currently lower ranked but needs continued investments to Is currently lower ranked but needs continued investments to

stay managedstay managed– Is an existing reporting target required under the National Is an existing reporting target required under the National

Estuary Program and needs updated numeric targetsEstuary Program and needs updated numeric targets– Region has a reasonable chance of setting a sound-wide target in Region has a reasonable chance of setting a sound-wide target in

20102010– Resolution of issues about the existing definition or ranking would Resolution of issues about the existing definition or ranking would

not elevate the threat as a candidate for target setting in 2010not elevate the threat as a candidate for target setting in 2010

Target Setting Process Input to dateTarget Setting Process Input to date

• From the Cross-PSP work groupFrom the Cross-PSP work group– Issues of scale related to threats need resolution at some Issues of scale related to threats need resolution at some

point (watershed? Action Area?) point (watershed? Action Area?) • Some threats are more localizedSome threats are more localized• Identifying local contributions to achieving the Sound-Identifying local contributions to achieving the Sound-

wide targetwide target– Need to consider long-term implications and scenarios Need to consider long-term implications and scenarios

related to climate change and population growth related to climate change and population growth – Consider existing standards that we already need to meetConsider existing standards that we already need to meet

• From Science PanelFrom Science Panel– Providing directional arrows indicating trends may be Providing directional arrows indicating trends may be

more appropriate than setting “targets” for ecosystem more appropriate than setting “targets” for ecosystem indicatorsindicators

– Numeric threat reduction targets are appropriate for Numeric threat reduction targets are appropriate for setting policy objectivessetting policy objectives