Gathering key performance indicators (KPIs) is increasingly standard practice for cities. The underlying logic is that if an entity identifies its most important functions and carefully measures progress in achieving their goals, citizen service will improve. 

But the old rubric that “what gets measured gets managed,” runs into trouble when  there are problems with the development and use of KPIs as an October report from San Diego’s Office of the City Auditor points out.  In that city all departments, with exception of the City Attorney’s office, develop KPIs (and the auditor recommends that the City Attorney should join the rest). The two major findings in the report were:

Although they are a critical governance and management tool, the city utilizes KPIs and should strengthen oversight to ensure greater accuracy, transparency and value for city services. 

As the report explains, “Only one out of seven council offices and 9 out of 27 departments that responded to our KPI survey reported routinely using KPIs to inform budget, policy and/or operational decisions.”

Why not? Apparently, there are council and management concerns about the accuracy and value of KPIs, and as the report states, “Limited oversight and controls can lead to inaccurate KPIs, KPIs that are not priorities and KPIs that are irrelevant unrealistic or misaligned with best practices.”

The City lacks a cohesive approach to KPIs and should provide increased guidance for their selection and development to enhance accountability and comparability.

As the report explains, “On average, the city met 48 percent of its KPI targets; however, due to the differing ways in which departments select KPI goals, it is unclear what conclusions decisionmakers and the public are supposed to reach.” 

Moreover, “while the performance and analytics department provides support for their KPIs, the city does not have a formal enforceable policy on whether KPIs should be aspirational or realistically achievable.” 

This is an important distinction, and the auditor points out that though city departments and council offices are inconsistent in their use of aspirational and achievable goals “most agree that departments should have at least one of both.”

As one respondent told the auditor’s office, “The KPIs should include both aspirational and realistic targets and should differentiate between the two within the budget document.

Having a handful of aspirational goals is good to list, however, the majority of KPIs should focus on achievable goals that can be reached with proposed budget allocations.”

#StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #CityPerformanceAudit #SanDiegoPerformanceAudit #SanDiegoKPIs #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #CityPerformanceManagement #CityPerformanceMeasurement #SanDiegoKeyPerformanceIndicators #StateandLocalKeyPerformanceIndicators #CityKeyPerformanceIndicators #CityKPIs  #StateandLocalGoalSetting #StateandLocalAchievableAndAspirationalGoals #SanDiegoCityAuditor #PerformanceMeasurementPitfalls #StateandLocalManagementNews #StateandLocalPerformanceAuditNews #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurementNews #BarrettandGreeneInc