On the topic of choice, I have expressed some opinions. I would like to elaborate on a related issue. In weighing the relative merits of choice and integration, I still remain committed to the idea that choice should trump and that neither the State nor Regional Centers, nor agencies have a compelling enough interest to push integration on those who prefer to live and receive services in a segregated system.
That said, after hearing a very compelling speech just yesterday on the topic, I also agree with two embellishments on that position.
The first additional point is that the boundaries of choice as a policy goal may vary in the advocacy of different people, but these distinctions are philosophical not moral. I may disagree with those who believe the state should differently fund integrated and segregated services in order to support the choice of integrated services, but I do so on practical grounds and with no truer compassion or greater honesty than those who take the opposite position. To the extent that state, regional center or agencies believe they have a compelling interest in limiting choice to a more integrated environment, it is appropriate for those entities to better support integrated services than segregated ones.
The second additional point I'll confess is that I agree absolutely with value-based funding as an improvement on the collossally irrational system we have now. I also agree that the supports necessary to sustain people with developmental disabilities in integrated lives are more valuable than those that support the same individual in a segregated setting, given that the former is harder to accomplish. If integrated services were to receive biased funding in their favor on the basis of value rather than cost, I could support such a policy.
OK, satisfied, J? And I posted in November, too.
Showing posts with label Earned Value Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Earned Value Analysis. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Anonymous, I hardly knew ye
In my previous post, an anonymous friend left a comment with three questions that seemed relevant to the blog in general. In my ongoing effort to provide maximum service to all of my reader(s), I thought I would respond in a new post.
1. What if the agreements, reached in the beginning, change or evolve as movement is made toward the goal?
This is an excellent question regarding Earned Value Analysis. Because clients are free to change goals at any time, many objectives become obsolete before they can be accomplished. There are methods for dealing with this that shouldn't damage the basic right of clients to change their minds. One offhand example is that most methods of counting Earned Value give partial credit for partial success, so that if an objective agreed upon and funded with a 6-month time horizon is changed after two months, and the objective were 1/3 complete as planned, then the agency would still be evaluated well (6/6=2/2=1.) If a funding mechanism were attached, compensation for the 2 months would be equal to the portion the agency expected to earn in the same time. Please, anonymous or other reader, feel free to ask for more clarification if I haven't answered the question.
2. Do you tend to lean more toward Weber or Durkheim in your analysis of institutions?
Do what now? You may be confusing "opinionated" with "informed." If you read more weblogs about politics and government, the distinction should sharpen nicely. (Shrug)
3. What should anchor decisions about the appropriate level of intrusiveness by public authorities in a self-determined service model?
My answer would be fraud, abuse and illegality should be actively watched for and trigger intervention when identified. Other than that, self-determination should mean what it says. By public authorities, I would include government entities, government entities that assemble boards and start carrying airs of private agencies, and any mandatory reporters in proximity to the self-determined use of state funds. Self-determination is a massive re-balancing of individual sovereignty against professionalism and shouldn't be sought or entered into by any party that doesn't accept that.
I expect self-directed services to be less gratifying to it's sponsors and the professional class of social servants, messier and less predictable. Professionalism has brought a level of order and advanced philosophy to this system which has value and cost attached. Scandals and catastrophes will be more frequent, but less pervasive than in the current system where many feel there is only one scandal and one catastrophe which are inclusive.
1. What if the agreements, reached in the beginning, change or evolve as movement is made toward the goal?
This is an excellent question regarding Earned Value Analysis. Because clients are free to change goals at any time, many objectives become obsolete before they can be accomplished. There are methods for dealing with this that shouldn't damage the basic right of clients to change their minds. One offhand example is that most methods of counting Earned Value give partial credit for partial success, so that if an objective agreed upon and funded with a 6-month time horizon is changed after two months, and the objective were 1/3 complete as planned, then the agency would still be evaluated well (6/6=2/2=1.) If a funding mechanism were attached, compensation for the 2 months would be equal to the portion the agency expected to earn in the same time. Please, anonymous or other reader, feel free to ask for more clarification if I haven't answered the question.
2. Do you tend to lean more toward Weber or Durkheim in your analysis of institutions?
Do what now? You may be confusing "opinionated" with "informed." If you read more weblogs about politics and government, the distinction should sharpen nicely. (Shrug)
3. What should anchor decisions about the appropriate level of intrusiveness by public authorities in a self-determined service model?
My answer would be fraud, abuse and illegality should be actively watched for and trigger intervention when identified. Other than that, self-determination should mean what it says. By public authorities, I would include government entities, government entities that assemble boards and start carrying airs of private agencies, and any mandatory reporters in proximity to the self-determined use of state funds. Self-determination is a massive re-balancing of individual sovereignty against professionalism and shouldn't be sought or entered into by any party that doesn't accept that.
I expect self-directed services to be less gratifying to it's sponsors and the professional class of social servants, messier and less predictable. Professionalism has brought a level of order and advanced philosophy to this system which has value and cost attached. Scandals and catastrophes will be more frequent, but less pervasive than in the current system where many feel there is only one scandal and one catastrophe which are inclusive.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Earned Value Analysis, Part II
OK, maybe I can make an early wrap-up of this wonkery. There are many important ways that Earned Value Analysis can be used to measure how work is going, providing, where necessary daily feedback to a client, a service provider, a regional center or the state.
One of these compares Earned Value (EV, the extent to which progress has been made against a goal) to something called Planned Value, the extent to which progress should have been made by the same point. Remember that Earned Value can be broken down into single steps, or even discrete portions of single steps. The ratio produced by dividing Earned Value by Planned Value allows an individual client to measure the success of their program, providing advice to the client or the service provider as to how successful their supports have been to any given point in time. For regional centers and the state, this ratio aggregated provides a comparable measure for external evaluation of a program or vendor. A high individual or aggregated ratio (in comparison) demonstrates that a program has been effective in assisting a client with their purpose.
Another important metric (EAC) compares EV with Actual Costs (AC, it means what it says.) This is a measure of efficiency which provides feedback to the agency as to whether it's service plan is being implemented effectively. This provides a useful metric for a service provider to identify supports which may have problems in effectiveness. Individual support plans which have an unusually low ratio of EV over AC are likely to have problems which have not been identified. For example an employee whose work typically has an unusually low EAC is a good candidate for additional training or discipline. Another example, an individual support which produces an especially low EAC vis-a-vis others in the same program with the same staff would be a good support for review as to whether there are unnoticed factors adversely affecting performance, such as the learning style of the client or environmental factors.
One of these compares Earned Value (EV, the extent to which progress has been made against a goal) to something called Planned Value, the extent to which progress should have been made by the same point. Remember that Earned Value can be broken down into single steps, or even discrete portions of single steps. The ratio produced by dividing Earned Value by Planned Value allows an individual client to measure the success of their program, providing advice to the client or the service provider as to how successful their supports have been to any given point in time. For regional centers and the state, this ratio aggregated provides a comparable measure for external evaluation of a program or vendor. A high individual or aggregated ratio (in comparison) demonstrates that a program has been effective in assisting a client with their purpose.
Another important metric (EAC) compares EV with Actual Costs (AC, it means what it says.) This is a measure of efficiency which provides feedback to the agency as to whether it's service plan is being implemented effectively. This provides a useful metric for a service provider to identify supports which may have problems in effectiveness. Individual support plans which have an unusually low ratio of EV over AC are likely to have problems which have not been identified. For example an employee whose work typically has an unusually low EAC is a good candidate for additional training or discipline. Another example, an individual support which produces an especially low EAC vis-a-vis others in the same program with the same staff would be a good support for review as to whether there are unnoticed factors adversely affecting performance, such as the learning style of the client or environmental factors.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Earned Value Analysis, Introduction
First, thanks to Dr. Strully for holding me accountable to something I don't get paid for. This post is dedicated to your carping.
In my previous post, lo those many weeks ago, I promised to write later about specific methods of better accounting for value created through our agencies. In this series of posts, I'll introduce an accountability discipline that I believe could be adapted successfully to improve our system. WARNING, this and the next few posts are for major wonks only.
Earned Value Analysis (EVA) is a discipline developed by project managers. In EVA, the value of a goal (deliverable) is agreed upon, a date set for completion, and, often, a standard for quality. When accomplishment of that goal requires that several objectives be met on the way, similar standards are set for each component process, with the sum of the parts equal to the whole budget.
Along the way, other related metrics (which I'll introduce in later posts) can be used to determine whether the methods employed to reach the goal are working so that there is feedback detailing how the plan is going and where the problems, if any, may lie. Between projects (Service Plans,) vigilant recording of how satisfactorily goals were reached leads to both the refinement of methods for predicting value, planning for unpredictability and identifying methods, policies and agencies which are notably (in)effective at helping individuals involved. Furthermore, because the values of projects are agreed to in advance, it offers a more flexible, client-centered alternative to accountability than a system predicated on tallying aggregated client outcomes. In short, EVA can be developed into a learning model of accountability that more effectively employs resources to help people with disabilities live according to their preferences, participate more fully in their communities and remain healthy.
More thorough and boring details will be provided in the next few posts.
And thanks again, Jeff. I needed a kick.
In my previous post, lo those many weeks ago, I promised to write later about specific methods of better accounting for value created through our agencies. In this series of posts, I'll introduce an accountability discipline that I believe could be adapted successfully to improve our system. WARNING, this and the next few posts are for major wonks only.
Earned Value Analysis (EVA) is a discipline developed by project managers. In EVA, the value of a goal (deliverable) is agreed upon, a date set for completion, and, often, a standard for quality. When accomplishment of that goal requires that several objectives be met on the way, similar standards are set for each component process, with the sum of the parts equal to the whole budget.
Along the way, other related metrics (which I'll introduce in later posts) can be used to determine whether the methods employed to reach the goal are working so that there is feedback detailing how the plan is going and where the problems, if any, may lie. Between projects (Service Plans,) vigilant recording of how satisfactorily goals were reached leads to both the refinement of methods for predicting value, planning for unpredictability and identifying methods, policies and agencies which are notably (in)effective at helping individuals involved. Furthermore, because the values of projects are agreed to in advance, it offers a more flexible, client-centered alternative to accountability than a system predicated on tallying aggregated client outcomes. In short, EVA can be developed into a learning model of accountability that more effectively employs resources to help people with disabilities live according to their preferences, participate more fully in their communities and remain healthy.
More thorough and boring details will be provided in the next few posts.
And thanks again, Jeff. I needed a kick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)