“Deliverology” and Evaluation: A Tale of Two Worlds

Abstract

In recent years, the new political governance, a partisan model that contributes to a permanent campaign, gained ground in public organizations. In this new context, “deliverology” is portrayed as an innovative method to help governments implement new policies and deliver on election promises. This article presents the similarities and diff erences that exist between “deliverology” and evaluation. Is deliverology really something new or is it another case of old wine in a new bottle? Is deliverology a substitute for or, instead, a complement to institutionalized evaluation? To what extent does new political governance (exemplified by deliverology and performance measurement) undermine evidence-based decision making? What is the value-added of deliverology? These questions are addressed through a critical reflection on deliverology and its value-added in Canada, where evaluation became institutionalized in many departments and agencies under the influence of results-based management, promoted by the advocates of new public management over four decades.r four decades.

Factors affecting policy implementation for childhood obesity prevention in New South Wales, Australia: policy mapping and interviews with senior officials

“…The Premier's Priority generated a perception of urgency for childhood obesity (Head 2008), linked to the political power it brought (including resources and authority) and the potential to cut through 'bureaucratic roadblocks' (Birch and Jacob 2019). The Premier's Implementation Unit were key policy brokers for the Premier's Priority.…”

“…They used deliverology methods in their approach which involved the use of data, targeted actions and routines. While older versions of deliverology were heavily top-down (Birch and Jacob 2019), the Premier's Implementation Unit undertook fieldwork that emphasised the experiences of local implementers (Needs 2019). Deliverology posits that within a strategy each intervention should be proven (evidence-based) or promising (evidence-informed) to impact directly on the target (Barber et al 2010).…”

“…Critics of deliverology rebuke claims that it is both an art and a science, pointing to the absence of quality peerreviewed literature of its efficacy (Birch and Jacob 2019;Behn 2017). Others scholars have noted issues when there are too many priorities (such as NSW's 12 Premier's Priorities and 18 State Priorities), then 'nothing is a priority' (May 2019).…”

“…Others scholars have noted issues when there are too many priorities (such as NSW's 12 Premier's Priorities and 18 State Priorities), then 'nothing is a priority' (May 2019). Ideologically, deliverology is rooted in neoliberal accountability and 'private-sector inspired' performance management, leading to a focus on 'costs rather than values and on gaming targets rather than achieving higher outcomes, which leads to increased costs to support gaming strategies, with perverse effects on outcomes especially in the health-care and education sectors' (p.312) (Birch and Jacob 2019). For HEAL and the Premier's Priority, the focus was on a BMI target and strategies to meet the 2025 target without thinking beyond that target.…”

Navigating the challenges of policy evaluation

“…However, the attempt to implement deliverology ended in 2019. The main difference between evaluation and deliverology is that evaluation assesses the relevance of programs and their medium‐ and long‐term effects, while deliverology measures the fulfillment of the government's electoral commitments by focusing on the elements that promote or hinder their implementation (Birch & Jacob, 2019).…”