Introduction

Result Oriented Management (ROM) approach is a management model which seeks to optimize
the use of resources available by focusing on the results delivered at institutional and individual
level in line with sector plans and the over-arching national development framework (UNDP,
2007). The ROM concept of management is being introduced into the service to focus civil
servants' mind-set on service delivery to the public. Result-Oriented Management (ROM)
concentrates attention and resources on the achievement of definite objectives within definite
time targets. In particular, in applying this concept the civil service will have to adopt approaches
(a) that determine objectives and achieve targets for ministries, departments and subordinate
units all the way down to individual officers; (b) that stress the importance of concrete outcomes
over expenditure of money and materials, (c) that achieve speedy results by mobilizing all the
talents and expertise necessary for the execution of programs and! projects; and (d) that regularly
appraise performance in order to take timely remedial action when necessary. ROM will allow
the service to specify its objectives, and to organize how and when the components of these
objectives will be achieved by each ministry, by the various departments within each ministry
and by the individual civil servants. The ROM technique will also allow for a regular and
individual level performance appraisal which will be judged against the timely achievement of a
set of clearly identified objectives. Another aspect of ROM is the evaluation, feed-back and
redirection of efforts to meet predetermined work assignments, In this respect, ROM is
corrective and supportive rather than fault-finding, and as such it helps to build up a results-
oriented, fully accountable and responsible work force.

How the Results Oriented Management (ROM) approach can influence the performance of
an organization

More Useful evaluation results

Clarifying results during planning and internal monitoring prepares projects for effective
evaluations. Any organization that knows where its results are, and how to document them, is in
a much stronger position to make its case effectively when external evaluations occur. More
important, such an organization is also well positioned to learn lessons from its own internal
monitoring (Meier 2003). Evidence-oriented management replaces vague hopes about what
works, with real understanding of how things can be improved. Implementers can themselves
monitor progressive change as they work, looking at whether and how they are incrementally
making a difference to the situation - in other words, realizing results. They can then either
continue with greater assurance or take corrective action as needed. Implementers can also
identify unplanned results, as they occur, and assess if these are desirable, or problematic,
requiring support or coping strategies.

Stronger capacity development

Identifying intended results in a clear, workable and realistic way, helps us build capacity,
because it clarifies for us what we need to concentrate on, what resources we need to bring to the
job, and what our real assumptions are about cause and effect. Understanding results as part of an
incremental “results chain” can help identify where interventions to build capacity are necessary,
and likely to work (Saldanha 2002).

More realistic project schedules

Clear results-oriented planning produces more realistic schedules, forcing us to think through the
preconditions and sequence for actions, and the resources they require.(Meier 2003).

Reducing opportunities and pressures for corruption

Focusing clearly on results, and making the links between inputs, funded activities and the
results they should be leading to, reduces the potential for corruption or simply indifferent
thinking and wasted resources in decision-making and project implementation (Amjad 2008).
When we are planning for results we don't fund just any activity that comes along. Nor do we
continue to fund activities just because they have been done before. We fund what clearly
contributes to the results we have identified as priorities

Changing organizational culture

Facilitating changes in the agency’s culture i.e., the values, attitudes, and behaviors of its
personnel - required for effectively implementing results based management. For example,
instilling a commitment to honest and open performance reporting, reorientationaway from
inputs and processes towards results achievement, encouraging a learningculture grounded in
evaluation, etc ( International Labour Organisation 2011).

Better communication

Clarifying what we mean by results lets us deal with differences of understanding before a
project begins, and helps implementing agencies communicate results to funders national
governments, donor agencies, communities and taxpayers in a clear, unambiguous manner
(Posner & Rubin 2006).

Mutual partnership

Canadian International Development Agency (2000) believes that RBM and participatory
development approaches are complementary approaches. Moreover, Meier (2003) states that
RBM should to be based on mutually beneficial partnership relationships that are built on trust
among all the role players. Mutually defined and agreed upon results may enhance role players’
sense of ownership and their consequent commitment to performance appraisal, continuous
performance monitoring and management for results (Amjad 2008). Moreover, the participation
of staff members may promote the quality and sustainability of a programme and its
effectiveness. It is also a main aspect of accountability in implementing a particular programme.

Transparency

Transparency is necessary to ensure the advantages of RBM (Meier 2003; Canadian International
Development Agency 2000). It implies the clear identification of expected results so that these
results can be measured. Meier (2003) believes that the RBM approach is substantially weakened
in an environment that lacks transparency.

Simplicity

Simplicity is considered to be crucial for the effective implementation of result-based

management (Meier 2003). Donors often provide consultants who take over the organisation’s
leadership and who merely transplant a successful structure in their own developed country
without considering the feasibility and the conditions in the developing country (Amjad 2008).
Very often local capacities in developing countries cannot cope with the sophisticated systems in
developed countries (Saldanha 2002). This means that the implementation of the RBM approach
in developing countries needs to be adapted to ensure that simplicity and clear and easy
understanding are applied effectively (Canadian International Development Agency 2000; World
Bank 2011; Col, Holzer, Posner & Rubin 2006).

Organisational learning

According to Meier (2003), organisational learning is the rationale for highly effective
organisations to implement a RBM approach. It improves organisational learning by providing
performance information to decision-makers through performance evaluation and monitoring.
This offers the necessary opportunities at individual, group and system level to adapt the
organisation continuously to satisfy its role players (Amjad 2008; International Labour
Organisation 2011). In essence, it means that RBM should be refined in view of what an
organisation has learnt from its experiences (Bester 2012).

Obstacles in Implementing ROM

The focus has changed. Early efforts at integrating performance information in public
management and budgeting were most often focused on outputs the direct goods and services
produced rather than on outcomes—the benefits achieved as a result of those goods and services.
Today the focus is more on outcomes; what are citizens really getting for their tax money? Are
the beneficiaries really benefiting as intended from the service or programme? Whatever the
challenges there were in using output information in public management, the challenges are
significantly more complex and have a much greater affect on public management when
outcome information is the focus. Lessons learned when using output information may be of
limited use when outcome information is sought and used (Poate, 2012).

Organizations may establish performance goals for the duration of the contract or may identify
goals on an annual basis and amend the contract based on experience, available funding, changes
in target population or other variables (Kiboi, 2006). Organizations experience challenges in
identifying concrete outcomes or results for a service. For example, training services may be
provided to employees with the goal of disseminating information and modifying people’s
behavior. However, it may be difficult to track individual employees and determine whether the
training changed the behavior and increased their competency.
Overcoming Organizational Fears: Departments and agencies can be apprehensive about using
performance measures, worrying that unfavorable results will have negative consequences on
funding or jobs. They often claim that what they do can’t be measured and might see
performance management as a public relations effort to justify services or the department as a
whole. In fact, everything can be measured. If current measures don’t adequately describe the
end result provided by the department, this is not a reason to opt out of the system but an
indication that the measures need to be reviewed and changed. Also, when developing a
performance management system, the organization must communicate that the purpose of
performance management is to learn and improve, not to reward or punish specific results or the
achievement of predetermined targets (Mayne, 2007a).

Finding Appropriate Levels of Resources to Devote to the Effort.: Performance management can
be viewed as a complex, time-consuming task that requires a tremendous effort, given resource
constraints. However, performance management does not look the same in every organization.
Jurisdictions with 50 employees have developed successful practices that are far different from
the practices that work for organizations with tens of thousands of employees. Similarly, not
every organization has to invest in expensive technology. Jurisdictions can find information or
attend training on common styles of performanc (Mayne, 2007a).

Results‐oriented Management is complex to handle at organisational and human level. It is

repeatedly reported that the results management perspective, in its more holistic form results-‐
based management, is ambitious. One is asking mostly non-results-oriented organisations to
institute large measures of change in planning, reporting, and implementation. When introduced
at an organisational level, there seems to be a tendency to interpret the results perspective as
mechanistic and deterministic, in contrast with analytic and responsive-to-change notions. The
review conducted by UNDP (2001) suggested that organisations often fail to make out workable
results oriented models, or even put performance information to use as intended by results
management.

Conclusion

ROM aims to provide feedback on employees’ work progress and accomplishments based on
clearly defined goals and objectives and track accomplishments against objectives to determine
appropriate, corrective actions if needed. ROM calls for a major shift in focus where government
officials focus their attention on regular and objective performance measurement and making
adjustments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programmes for the sake of
achieving the desired results.
References:

Adaptation Fund.(2009). Results-oriented management Framework. A paper presented at

the Adaptation Fund Board, Bonn. November 16 – 18.
Bana, A.B. (2009). Performance Management in the Tanzania Public Service. A paper
presented at the Conference on Governance Excellence: Managing Human Potential
held at Arusha International Conference Centre, United Republic of Tanzania.
Binnendijk A 2000. Results-oriented management in the Development Cooperation
Agencies: A Review of Experience. Paris: OECD.
Bohte, J. & Meier, K.J. (2000).Goal Displacement Assessing the Motivation for
Organisational Cheating.Public Administration Review.60(2):173-182.
Bouckaert, G. & Peters, G.B. (2002). Performance Measurement and Management: The
Achilles Heel in Administrative Modernisation. Public Performance Management
Review.25(4), 359-362.
Boyne, G. & Law, J. (2005).Setting Public Service Outcome Targets: Lessons from Local
Public Service Agreements.Public Money & Management.25(4), 253-260.
Boyne, G. (2003). Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research
Agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.13(2), 767-794.
Kusek,J.Z.&Rist,R.C.(2004).TenStepstoaResultBasedMonitoringandEvaluationSystem.Was
hington,DC:WorldBank. Kusek, J.Z. &Khatouri, M. (2006).Results-based Monitoring
and Evaluation in Bank Projects.Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lee,Y.(2002).BuildingEffectiveEvaluationCapacity:LessonsfromPractice.NewJersey:
TransactionPublishers.
Rasappan, A. (2002). Government of Zimbabwe ROM Programme: Results-Based
Budgeting System: Guidelines for Developing a Performance Agreement. Harare:
Government Printers.
Williamson, T. (2003).Targets and Results in Public Sector Management: Uganda Case
Study. London: Overseas Development Institute.