Discussion of the 'Contract management' principle / issues outlined in Chapters 4 and 5 has been re-fashioned to emphasise the public partner's wider role in managing consortia performance as well as the dual nature of this undertaking - this relates to performance monitoring which can be described as a process of review (i.e. a passive function) and taking corrective action to address under-performance (i.e. an active function).
An effective way for the public partner to hold its private partner accountable for their performance is through the continuous application of contract administration. This is important because if performance is not well managed, it can put VfM outcomes at risk. Without a strong understanding of the service delivery environment, public partner contract managers may find it difficult to accurately evaluate operational performance (Edwards et al 2004: p.49). See Table 6.23 for identified sub-issues and case study examples.
Table 6.23 Sub-issues Arising From Performance Monitoring and Adjustment.
Sub-issues | Generic case study findings |
- Performance evaluation - Management reporting - Managing performance shortfalls - Opportunity (risk) implementation | - Public partner performance management systems should be designed to capture outputs that do not meet stipulated standards as well as for complaints lodged against service operators - VfM outcomes may not be achieved to their full potential unless service outputs are regularly benchmarked against operational best practices - In circumstances where service operators are responsible for monitoring their own performance, service outputs should still be validated by the public partner to confirm delivery standards and compliance with policies, procedures and plans - The public partner has a responsibility to complete and keep its contract administration manuals up-to-date |