V CONCLUSIONS
60. The process of objective and target setting has
been flawed by frequent amendment or deletion of current targets
and creation of new ones. As a result —
- the spring 2001 Report will presumably provide
partial figures of achievement in 1999-2000 against the 1998 targets,
and complete the information on achievement of those targets in
1998-99:
- the spring 2002 Report may provide similar information
on achievement in 1999-2000 against the 1998 targets. These will
by then have in practice been superceded by the new targets set
in July 2000. But it will not be in a position to report achievement
in 2000 - 2001 against these new targets.
The new 2000 targets represent at least a marginal
improvement on the 1998 targets. We applaud the Treasury's declared
intention to make them "specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant and timed" (SMART).[92]
61. On closer examination the superstructure of
measurable targets and sub-targets below the headline objective
is alarmingly fragile. The targets set in 1998 were in a number
of cases insufficiently precise, incapable of timely measurement
or ill-judged. They were unduly reliant on bespoke surveys, which
take time and money to develop, rather than readily available
and validated statistics. Where outcome can be measured,
some significant targets have been missed. In most cases we are
left in the dark at to whether they were met or not. In some cases,
we will never know. There is a prospect of never catching
up with what has actually happened. The bleak truth is
that we cannot tell whether some of the department's crucial objectives
over the past three years, such as the promotion of enterprise,
innovation and increased productivity, have been achieved.
92 Cm 4808, para 1.15 Back
|
