[Ed Hammond]

Aaaargh!

This seems to come up every six months or so and every time it does I have slightly revised my opinion.

I used to be a keen advocate of developing a "scrutiny scorecard", a balanced method for assessing the health and effectiveness of the scrutiny function. Since I started at CfPS, I have been gradually revising my opinion to the point now where I'm much more dubious. In short, such systems will not be able to give you a clear indication of your success. Academics have been grappling with the "effectiveness" of select committees for thirty years and many of the issues are the same - ie it is practically impossible to measure, because the impact comes through influence rather than through concrete action.

Nevertheless, I do think there is some use in getting members and officers to do something like this as an exercise, because it brings several points home;

1) It is very difficult to write a performance indicator;

2) It is similarly difficult to set a target;

3) Data quality is very difficult to get right;

4) Performance management, and the measurement of performance information, are not the same thing.

Members can take this experience and apply it to their own analysis of evidence from service departments and partners.

[Nick Beale]

Do your scrutiny members find the work rewarding and productive? If so, job done.

Does the Cabinet take any notice of scrutiny? If so, that's a definite bonus (if not, then there's obviously something wrong with the Cabinet).

[Josh Mynott]

Ed

Welcome to the dark side of PI sceptics. We knew we'd get you eventually.

[Paul James]

I agree that a score card would be difficult in view of the type of work scrutiny does.

Scrutiny members should ask themselves - has our work realy been productive - when they compile the annual report.

The ultimate question should be - has scrutinys work had a positive outcome on the services we provide to the public we serve?

Paul James
Herefordshire. Council