Sherman, Weinberg, and Lewis Cite

Sherman, Weinberg, and Lewis cite Mark Moore's "Creating Public Value" as providing a framework for creating public value. However, they believe that it falls short in offering a means by which to measure value creation. Summarize and discuss their position.

According to Mark Moore's book, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, managers in public agencies are duty bound to not only deliver high quality services, but to continuously improve the delivery of these services in ways that add value to investment of scarce taxpayer resources. In what he describes as a "strategic triangle" of public value, Moore suggests that modified corporate strategy used in the private sector can provide a useful framework in which public value can be realized by public managers to the extent that they integrate:

Substantive judgments of what would be valuable and effective;

A comprehensive analysis of political expectations; and,

Pragmatic and realistic assessments of what is operationally possible.

As Moore sums it up, "In short, in envisioning public value, managers must find a way to integrate politics, substance, and administration" (22). It is reasonable to maintain that most public managers already do this to some extent whether by design or otherwise, but Moore insists that these criteria provide the metrics by which public managers can gauge the value of their actions based on whether the purpose of such actions are publicly valuable, whether they will be politically and legally supported, and whether they are administratively and operationally feasible.

In their response to Moore's work, Sherman, Weinberg and Lewis argue that although Moore's framework provides a useful starting point, the corporate strategy he borrows and applies to the public sector fails to include another important private sector strategy, which is the need to measure the foregoing metrics in order to determine how effective public managers are in all three legs of the so-called "strategic triangle." Sherman et al. quote Moore's text to provide the essence of his concepts: "Moore's concepts are, 'predicated on the judgment that society needs value-seeking imaginations (and associated technical skills) from its public sector executives no less than from its private sector managers'" (Moore, 1995, p. 21 quoted in Sherman et al. At 1). This sweeping assessment, though, does not include a specific requirement for developing quantifiable measures for the value strategies involved such as those used in total quality management and other modern performance management methods.

On the one hand, Sherman et al. argue, "Our work with public sector executives has confirmed that the Strategic Triangle framework helps focus managerial attention on the three key areas, which are necessary for managers to create greater success: value creation, political management, and operational capacity" (1). On the other hand, though, these analysts also note that, "However, we found that one of the problems with the model was the need to measure the effectiveness of a manager's focus on these three strategic areas. Managers need to develop outcome measurements for each on the elements of the triangle -- value creation, political management and operational capacity" (Sherman et al. 1). Based on their empirical observations (and apparently nothing else), Sherman et al. also argue that many public managers tend to take the easy way out by concentrating on those activities that are most comfortable for them to the exclusion of the other legs of the strategic triangle that are essential elements in creating public value. In this regard, Sherman et al. report that, "Managers have a tendency to focus on areas that they feel most comfortable. For example we have found that many public managers know that to be successful, they need to develop and implement a political communication strategy but most managers feel uncomfortable doing so" (1).

Without quantifiable measures to assess the effectiveness of activities in this area, public managers will likely fail to garner the support they will need to achieve these goals and will focus on developing a consensus for action rather than measuring the effectiveness of the action (Sherman et al.). Moreover, the dynamic nature of public service requires a more flexible means of measuring these components over time as situations change. In this regard, Sherman et al. note that, "The performance measures developed in many traditional strategic planning processes are not as effective, because the manager needs to change as situations change more quickly than the plan can be changed" (1). Taken together, Sherman et al.'s argument is that Moore's framework represents a useful starting point for public managers, but that it needs to be refined to focus on a few truly important indicators that can be measured in all three legs of the strategic triangle described by Moore.

3.

From your reading of Moore thus far, what are the key principles for public managers?

Because resources are by definition scarce, Moore maintains that public managers are obligated to use taxpayer resources to their maximum advantage by creating value and exploiting unexpected opportunities whenever possible. In this regard, one key point made by Moore is that, "Society needs value-seeking imaginations (and associated technical skills) from its public sector executives no less than from its private sector managers" (21). In furtherance of this overarching need, Moore maintains that public administration must determine what the public can legitimately and reasonable expect from public managers, identify resources that can provide public managers with the tools and information they need to respond to these expectations and to develop more streamlined methods by which public managers can respond to rapidly changing situations and exploit them to the public's advantage.

The application of modern performance management techniques from the private sector to the public sector, modified for the unique circumstances involved, just makes good business sense given the increasingly complex nature of the enterprise which is simply exacerbated by downturns in the economy that demand public managers identify opportunities to create public value through innovation and imagination. These are difficult challenges, of course, even during the best economic conditions but they are all the more important during periods that are characterized by dwindling state budgets and radical downsizing throughout the public sector. In these types of demanding and rapidly changing environments, Moore maintains that public managers can use many of the same methods used in the private sector to perform ongoing cost-benefit analyses to determine how much value constituents are receiving in return for their investment of scarce taxpayer resources. The "bottom-up" and "top-down" aspects of Moore's strategic triangle provide public managers with solid steps that can help guide them in achieving these value-added outcomes. In reality, there is nothing particularly earth-shattering about Moore's guidance, but he does describe some typical dilemmas that public managers encounter in their day-to-day work as well as on-point recommendations concerning how these managers could better respond to the needs of the public that could be applied in a wide range of settings. In sum, Moore's key point thus far involves the need for public managers to reevaluate their approach to public administration by becoming more effective in creating value for the people they serve.

1. In Moore's two case studies regarding Harry Spence and the BHA and Lee Brown's command of HPD, what is Moore telling us about what public managers must do?

To mix some metaphors, in his case study of Harry Spence and the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and Lee Brown and the Houston Police Department (HPD), Moore tells public managers that new brooms must not only sweep clean, they must also "walk the walk" to deliver the goods. As to the latter, in Moore's words, "In seeking public value, we come finally to what many believe is the essence of management: the self-conscious, skilled deployment of legal, financial, material, and human assets to produce concrete results" (193). With regards to the latter as well, Moore suggests that, "It is one thing for managers to have visions, and still another for them to mobilize a flow of resources to their enterprises. But the heart of management lies in delivering the envisioned value" (193).

In order to deliver the envisioned value as defined by the mandate, public managers must be responsive to changing circumstances, even when it means abandoning what is known and comfortable for what may be untried and untested. Although there is little room for false starts and experimentation in public administration, Moore emphasizes the need for public managers to recognize when changes are needed. In this regard, Moore points out that, "Neither political aspirations nor operational tasks remain constant; they both change. With change comes the need to adapt and innovate. The BHA and the HPD reach the public sector equivalent of bankruptcy in part because of their difficulty meeting the challenge of change" (207). This same demand for responsiveness exists in the private sector as well, of course, but the conventional views of public administration do not include the role of all of the stakeholders in achieving this level of flexibility. According to Moore, "Government is not exclusively (perhaps not even primarily) a 'service' sector. Both the BHA and the HPD oblige their clients as well as serve them. Both agencies use public authority as well as public money to accomplish their aims" (208).

Although all public service agencies are unique in some fashion, the two cases cited by Moore are also similar in this aspect because they both use public resources in the provision of services with the concomitant authority to obligate the recipients of their services in various ways, meaning that there are two distinct "audiences" involved. As to the "must-do's" for the public managers in the BHA and HPD case studies, Moore states that for the business end of their operations, each of these agencies must seek to satisfy the customers who use their services or who are the focus of an obligation. As examples, Moore provides the following: