Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

American humorist Mark Twain was quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Still, when it comes to performance, as with the recently adopted Executive Order 13450, it’s about time government started measuring the value it delivers. Bring on the statistics.

Executive Order 13450, Improving Government Performance, was signed by President Bush in November 2007 as a means of holding government agencies more accountable for tying financial projections and performance to mission goals. The order has been met with mixed reactions.

From our perspective, EO 13450 is simply another example of having government work in a more business-like fashion – measuring outcomes, and determining key performance indicators agency-by-agency, department by department.

Having a point person in each agency responsible for that agency’s performance (as called for in EO 13450) is a good idea if the goal is to measure progress by key performance indicators. Such indicators differ by agency and mission. Measuring Health & Human Services, for example, is different than measuring the Army.

It’s important to note, however, that unless you really understand where the information is coming from to support key performance indicators, it’s possible to get a false picture of performance. Knowingly or innocently, statistics can be used to support one’s own hypothesis – whether to look better to comply with regulations, or to demonstrate greater need to justify a budget increase.

Data used to project performance must come from established and sustainable processes that are integral to the agency’s business if that data is to be free from unintentional misinterpretation. Do you have processes in place to sustain data at a level of sufficiency and integrity to support the decisions you want to make – or to support valid key performance indicators?

I raise this question because of the cynicism with which EO 13450 has been met so far. OMB Watch maintains that EO13450 is political gamesmanship (see the article “Performance Improvement Order Gets Mixed Reaction” in this issue of Managing Change).

According to OMB Watch, EO 13450 is a way to require the use of the Performance Assessment Ratings Tool (PART), which they believe is flawed. OMB Watch also maintains that it puts the next administration in the position of completing the agenda of the current administration, and inheriting a management structure they might not agree with themselves.

Call me naïve, but ultimately all that is called for in EO 13450 is adherence to better business performance processes and tools – a means of accountability that has been gaining approval throughout the private sector for years. Creating a layer of management professionals focused on process improvement is not new.

Because government works in the public interest, an agency’s track record of performance should be viewable by the public. This order simply asks agencies to run their operations with some accountability and transparency, and to report regularly so we can all see how well everyone is doing.

That’s something with which we should all agree.


David Baxa
President and CEO
VISTA