Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22

Deliverology

Does ‘Deliverology’

Deliver?

Gregory

Richards

Carrie

Gallo

Murray

Kronick

n article in

The Economist

(March 8, 2015) notes that the

term ‘Deliverology’ was origi-

nally used to poke fun at Sir Mi-

chael Barber’s approach to managing the

Delivery Unit formed by the Blair gov-

ernment in 2001. Sir Michael adopted the

term and the rest, as they say, is history.

The term was subsequently adopted by

its proponents as a buzzword referring

to the capability of government organiza-

tions to deliver on policy commitments.

The UK government implemented Deliv-

erology through the creation of the Prime

Minister’s Delivery Unit; a centrally situ-

ated group with direct access to the PM

focused on clear outcomes for citizens.

The Delivery Unit model has been im-

plemented in over twenty jurisdictions

around the world over the past 15 years.

In some situations, positive results have

been reported, but the model has also

been the subject of some criticism.

To examine the impact of the Delivery

Unit concept, the Telfer School of Man-

agement at the University of Ottawa con-

ducted a systematic literature review. We

learned that there is, at this point in time,

no definitive research pointing to suc-

cess or failure of the concept. There are

many case studies which indicate that,

like other Results-Based Management

(RBM) models, success or failure depends

a great deal on the

“how”

of implemen-

tation. In this article, we first outline the

key components of Deliverology, discuss

what makes it different from other RBM

frameworks, identify lessons learned

from implementation in other jurisdic-

tions and conclude with practical consid-

erations for transitioning to the Canadian

Government’s new Policy on Results that

came into effect on July 1, 2016.

What is Deliverology and

how is it different?

Deliverology is an approach for manag-

ing and monitoring the implementation

of activities that, according to its creator,

have a significant impact on outcomes. (See

Michael Barber, Paul Kihn & Andy Moffit.

Deliverology: From Idea to Impact,

2011). It

is, therefore, similar in scope to other RBM

frameworks that encourage the setting of

clear targets and the use of performance

measurement to drive continuous program

improvements. The difference between

Deliverology and the other frameworks is

one of emphasis. Two aspects in particular

are key. First, the establishment of a central

unit with a focus onmanaging performance

against key policy outcomes. Second, the

development of processes for using perfor-

mance information to encourage change

and improvement.

In the first instance, many RBM frame-

works provide outlines for target setting

and the creation of performance measures.

The unspoken assumption is that perfor-

mance against expected policy outcomes

is everyone’s business. We have seen how-

ever, the silo effects that are created when

each individual department or responsi-

bility centre focuses on specific targets to

the degree that they lose sight of the big-

ger picture. The creation of a Delivery Unit

that helps to keep that broader policy out-

come in perspective is one area where the

Deliverology concept makes an important

contribution.

In terms of creating processes for im-

provement, every public sector organiza-

tion already gathers lots of data. The prob-

lem is that this data is often used primarily

for reporting purposes and rarely analyzed

in detail to drive program performance. By

encouraging the development of routines

for analyzing data and for implementing

changes based on the analysis, Deliverol-

ogy drives an important aspect of managing

organizational performance that is often

easy to forget – the discipline of “follow-up”.

Lessons Learned

Since the inception of the first Delivery

Unit in the UK in 2001, the concept has

spread to the USA, Africa, Southeast Asia

and Europe. Criticisms of the approach

December 2016 //

Canadian Government Executive /