Resource management, plan quality and governance: A report to Government

This Report contains the main findings from FRST-funded research into planning under the Resource Management Act. It includes five sets of interrelated recommendations. These recommendations identify many actions that are essential if Government is serious about achieving its goal of environmental sustainability. Implementation of the recommendations will require a significant increase in expenditure at all levels of the planning hierarchy, but especially central government

"New" and distributed leadership in quality and safety in healthcare, or "old" and hierarchical? : An interview study with strategic stakeholders

Peer reviewedPostprin

The friends and family test : a qualitative study of concerns that influence the willingness of English National Health Service staff to recommend their organisation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The quality of district plans and their implementation: Towards environmental quality

Since inception of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) the issue of sustainable management has dominated planning practice in New Zealand. Over the past decade, councils have wrestled with converting the concept of sustainable management into policy and practice. Implicit to the requirement that district councils develop plans for managing the environmental effects of the use and development of natural and physical resources is the assumption that good quality plans will result in improved environmental quality. The key question to be addressed in this paper is: Do good plans matter? Measuring the quality of plan implementation is a complex task, and little, if any, attempt has been made in councils to do it. The PUCM research is the first in New Zealand to attempt a quantitative analysis of the links between the quality of plans produced under the RMA and the quality of plan implementation. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology that we adopted for the research and to present some preliminary results from studying the implementation of plans through the resource consent process. Overall, we are trying to determine: how best to measure the quality of plan implementation and the effect that district plan quality has on implementation quality; and what factors influence the relationship between plan quality and implementation quality. This paper is structured into three main parts. The first is a description of the methodological approach taken to conduct the research. In the second part, the key preliminary results are presented. Finally the findings and the implications for achieving good environmental outcomes are discussed

Taking the heat or taking the temperature? A qualitative study of a large-scale exercise in seeking to measure for improvement, not blame.

Measurement of quality and safety has an important role in improving healthcare, but is susceptible to unintended consequences. One frequently made argument is that optimising the benefits from measurement requires controlling the risks of blame, but whether it is possible to do this remains unclear. We examined responses to a programme known as the NHS Safety Thermometer (NHS-ST). Measuring four common patient harms in diverse care settings with the goal of supporting local improvement, the programme explicitly eschews a role for blame. The study design was ethnographic. We conducted 115 hours of observation across 19 care organisations and conducted 126 interviews with frontline staff, senior national leaders, experts in the four harms, and the NHS-ST programme leadership and development team. We also collected and analysed relevant documents. The programme theory of the NHS-ST was based in a logic of measurement for improvement: the designers of the programme sought to avoid the appropriation of the data for any purpose other than supporting improvement. However, organisational participants - both at frontline and senior levels - were concerned that the NHS-ST functioned latently as a blame allocation device. These perceptions were influenced, first, by field-level logics of accountability and managerialism and, second, by specific features of the programme, including public reporting, financial incentives, and ambiguities about definitions that amplified the concerns. In consequence, organisational participants, while they identified some merits of the programme, tended to identify and categorise it as another example of performance management, rich in potential for blame. These findings indicate that the search to optimise the benefits of measurement by controlling the risks of blame remains challenging. They further suggest that a well-intentioned programme theory, while necessary, may not be sufficient for achieving goals for improvement in healthcare systems dominated by institutional logics that run counter to the programme theory