Meetings

Commissioners agreed changes to the corporate KPIs, and note the development of internal output and workload indicator measures.  They agreed to receive interim KPI data reflecting the sixth month point in the year.

Commissioners had agreed to consider a new set of corporate performance indicators.

The new Performance Indicators continue to align with Commission’s goals and priorities, but take a revised approach containing two shorter and more focussed sets of indicators. Commissioners agreed:

a.    A set of strategic measures of overall corporate performance; and

b.    A set of measures that provide ‘stretch’ to develop performance where there is a need for improvement.

Commissioners discussed the nature of stretch targets, welcoming their development. They requested descriptive narrative around aspects of the indicators relating to procurement, language and engagement.

The new indicators will be introduced for the new financial year 2019-20.

Commissioners agreed that both sets of indicators will be reported in the Annual Report, rather than in a separate performance report.

Dave Tosh presented a discussion document on proposed new indicators and modifications to existing indicators, with a view to identifying whether they adequately met performance measure needs. In many cases, the KPIs remained unchanged as they were appropriate measures that could not be significantly improved. The ideal was to move from volume based to outcome based measures that would reflect levels of improvement, better engagement and greater awareness, for example. This was not always easy to achieve, as was also the experience of the Scottish Parliament and NI Assembly, who had been consulted during the review. Areas that were more difficult to measure included, for example, the effectiveness of engagement.

It was agreed that more time would be taken to assess priorities before making substantive changes to the KPIs. It was also agreed they should be rationalised downwards. In the meantime, any changes would be minimal. The KPIs would be reported annually in the Annual Report and Accounts, published in July.

ACTIONS:

in advance of next year’s Annual Report and Accounts, a number of focused outcome-based indicators would be developed, and Non Gwilym and Natalie Drury-Styles to work particularly on rationalising the engagement KPIs.

Commissioners confirmed that the Corporate Performance report should be published in the usual way.

Dave Tosh presented the KPI report for the period April to September. The report conveyed a picture of good performance against the strategic goals across the board as well as a high level of activity.  The performance indicators needed a regular review to ensure they remained relevant and meaningful in light of changes to focus or technology. A review would take place over the coming months to revise and replace the current KPIs.

Management Board reviewed the ‘amber’ areas and also noted that comparison with the same period in 2016 could be greatly affected by specific activities at the time, such as the election.

ACTIONS:

·                Non Gwylim and Mark Neilson to review the indicators on the YouTube and Senedd.tv views to better reflect the change to the way plenary coverage was presented.

·                Governance team to review KPIs with Heads of Service and bring back to Management Board in early 2018, before presenting to the Commission.

Commissioners considered the first annual Corporate Key Performance Indicator Report of the Fifth Assembly. It presented how the Assembly Commission performed against its strategic goals for the period April 2016 to March 2017.

Commissioners note the report and agreed it should be published.

The report would be presented to the Commission on 12 June. As part of the longer term planning there would be a review of the KPIs to ensure they reflected the right goals.

Paper 4

Commissioners received the first Corporate Key Performance Indicator Report of the Fifth Assembly, showing at how the Assembly Commission performed against its strategic goals for the period April to September 2016.

Commissioners asked about work that is being done to improve sickness absence. Following up on earlier discussions they congratulated staff on the prompt payment of suppliers, but asked whether steps are taken to ensure that this prompt payment approach exists within the supply chain.

They welcomed the positive performance and agreed the report should be published.

14.0     Corporate performance report – mock KPI report

ACARAC (05-16) Paper 18 – mock KPI report - cover paper as presented to the Commission

ACARAC (05-16) Paper 18 – Annex A - Mock KPI report

14.1    Committee members were impressed with the new KPI report, the format for which had been approved by the Commission in September.  The format and content would be subject to continual review to ensure it remained fit for purpose and to take on board feedback from the Commission. 

14.2    In response to questions from Committee members around the setting of performance targets, Dave confirmed that targets were set by Heads of Service, based on previous reports or on statutory compliance. 

14.3    The Committee urged officials to be realistic about how achievable targets of 100% would be.  They suggested that the report could include some outcome-based KPIs rather than just targets, average performance statistics of key systems and progress of key projects and programmes.   

14.4    Dave agreed to consider the Committee’s suggestions and thanked Victoria for her hard work in reviewing and producing the new KPI report. 

Action

-        KPI report to be circulated when published.

Paper 3 – Assembly Commission Corporate Performance Report April 2015 – March 2016

10.1 The Committee noted the Assembly Commission Corporate Performance Report April 2015 – March 2016.

The Corporate Performance Report Apr 2015-Mar 2016 was noted, and will be published on the website and sent to the Finance Committee for information.

Commissioners considered proposed changes to the KPI report. The existing KPIs were developed in 2013 and had been reviewed to ensure that they meet the Commission’s performance reporting needs and are useful and relevant for the Fifth Assembly.

The proposals change how the KPIs are presented to include a number of headline indicators and, under these, specific indicators with targets. This headline/indicator set-up allows the report to change over time, while still ensuring consistency and being able to show a comparable dataset of headline indicators.

Commissioners agreed that the new format is easy to understand and more user friendly, and approved it for future use.

Paper 3 – Letter from Claire Clancy, Chief Executive and Clerk to the National Assembly for Wales – 9 December 2015

Paper 4 – Assembly Commission Corporate Performance Report: April 2015 to September 2015 – December 2015

6.1 The Committee noted the report.

The Commission considered the first report on the corporate performance of the Commission for the financial year 2015-16.

Commissioners commented particularly on detail of sickness absence, visitor numbers and participation in CPD. They also suggested that some of the indicators could be refreshed and that it was useful to be able to make comparisons over time.

The Commission agreed to publish the report, along with a letter to the Finance Committee. The next report will be produced and published after the end of March 2016.

Paper 5 – Letter to Chair of Finance Committee from Chief Executive and Clerk to the Assembly

9.1 Peter Black AM excused himself from the item due to his role as Commissioner.

9.2 The Committee considered the Assembly Commission Corporate Performance report for April 2014 to March 2015.

9.3 The Committee noted the report and agreed to write to Claire Clancy for further information.

Commissioners considered the third, and final, draft performance report for the financial year 2014-15. It provided information for the period April 2014 – March 2015.

The report identified a number of highlights:

Performance in providing outstanding parliamentary support

•        Increase in the number of Welsh learners.

•        Completion of Members’ preference exercise to improve support for committee work.

Performance in engaging with the people of Wales and promoting Wales

•        Increases in visitors on tours with an increase in visitor satisfaction.

•        Successful engagement week with significant increases in social media interactions.

•        External recognition in terms of accessibility and inclusivity.

Performance in using our resources wisely

•        Continued improvements, or maintained levels of performance for:

-        budget management;

-        energy emissions; and

-        levels of satisfaction in services provided to Assembly Members.

Commissioners reflected on the staff sickness absence rates and the causes, and discussed stress-related illness.

Commissioners agreed to publish the report. They also agreed to move to producing it twice a year. The reports will now need to cover April to September and then April to March.

5.1     The Committee considered the Assembly Commissions Corporate Performance report for April to December 2014.

5.2     The Committee noted the report and agreed to write to Claire Clancy for further information.

Commissioners considered a paper which set out the draft Corporate Performance Report for the period April - December 2014.

Commissioners explored a number of areas covered in the report, particularly focussing on visits by schools and improvements in staff sickness levels.

Commissioners commented on how useful the report is but further consideration might be given to simplifying it and not having too many targets.

The Board were asked to comment on the draft corporate performance report for the period April to December 2014 and check that the information they had provided was captured in the detailed tables. Particular items of note, to be included in the introduction, were:

·      improvements to Member satisfaction;

·      budget, managing resources and Value for Money savings;

·      social media, Senedd.tv, visitor numbers;

·      awards received during the period;

·      post ICT transition cost savings; and

·      further work needed on public engagement.

A root and branch discussion on the format of the next KPI report would be helpful to pre-empt items that could be included.

Action: Management Board to provide any further comments to Dave Tosh and Gareth Watts.

paper 6

The Commission considered the corporate performance report for the period April – June 2014. The indicators being reported had been reviewed over the summer, resulting in some changes:

·         more stretching targets for circulation of committee papers and publishing the committee Record of Proceedings;

·         a new measure for the issue of Marshalled Lists for Stage 3 Bills (to supplement the legislative timetable graph which we have moved to the Annex with the other graphs);

·         details of repeat participants in CPD activity to better reflect attendance by Members and their support staff;

·         more detail on social media interactions, such as total engagement figures for Facebook, Twitter and Senedd.tv as well as adding YouTube minutes watched; and

·         new measures for ICT delivery and satisfaction.

Commissioners felt that this latest KPI report was clear and easy to understand. They asked that, prior to publication, the document be reviewed to increase the size of font used in some areas to make the report more accessible.

The Board considered the draft report that would be presented to the Commission at their meeting on 29 September.

It was agreed that Management Board would consider the narrative, in particular to explain progress to ensure the Commission was provided with meaningful information on the indicators.

Action: Management Board to feedback comments and suggested wording to Kathryn Hughes as soon as possible.

Paper 3 and annex

Dave Tosh introduced the recommendations for changes to the indicators for future Corporate Performance reports; the next report for the period April to June 2014 was due to be published in the Autumn term.

Following a full year of reporting, Kathryn Hughes (Risk and Governance Manager) had reviewed the indicators with Service Heads and data providers. Based on the review some more meaningful indicators had been proposed.

The Board agreed the following:

·      to move to quarterly data, reported on a termly basis;

·      Heads of Service to work with Kathryn Hughes to identify specific measures in some areas, for example bilingual working, and to address the questions raised in the paper, by the end of August;

·      to combine this work with that being done by Strategic Transformation Service on measuring benefits, where possible and appropriate; and

·      that HR/resourcing information would be provided to the Investment and Resourcing Board.

The next Corporate Performance report would be reviewed by the Commission at their meeting on 29 September.

paper 3 parts a,b,c

The Corporate Performance Report summarises performance against the Commission’s Key Performance Indicators over the year 2013-14. 

Across the year as a whole positive progress had been made in most areas. Commissioners noted that indicators for the value for money programme, budgetary performance and the robust governance structures in place had been consistently strong throughout the year. The ICT transition and Machine Translation projects were also areas where there had been significant achievements in the most recent reporting period (January – March 2014).

Some indicators would be adjusted for the forthcoming reporting period to ensure they remained relevant and provided useful information for monitoring purposes.

The report would be shared with the Assembly’s Finance Committee and published on the Commission’s website.

paper 5 and annex

The second report showing progress against the Commission’s Key Performance Indicators representing activity between April and December 2013 showed that good progress had been made in number of significant areas including the estate, ICT, Official Languages and taking forward the Youth Engagement project.

Performance could be seen to improve over the period in terms of timeliness of the services provided and disruptions to committee/ plenary meetings. Commissioners asked for future reports to include an indicator showing the percentage of papers published to mod.gov on time.

Whilst improving performance could also be seen in visitor numbers to the Assembly and in social media interactions, use of Senedd.tv had fallen.  Broadcast and print media promotion of Assembly Committee reports had also fallen. It was agreed that the indicator for public engagement would be reconsidered.

Performance remained outside of target levels in relation to reductions in energy usage.  Commissioners agreed that they would need to consider further investment in sustainability, or revisit the energy reduction targets.

The Corporate Performance Report would be published on the Commission website and shared with the Assembly’s Finance Committee.

paper 3 & annex

During the scrutiny of the Commission’s budget in October 2012 the Finance Committee recommended that the Commission should publish annual performance indicators. The Commission had written to the Finance Committee informing them of the proposed indicators and explaining this iterative process will develop over time.

The first of these reports, representing performance from April – June 2013, provided an overview of performance in a number of areas. Included in the report were a number of quantifiable targets or, where there was no obvious target, comparators had been used. Red, Amber, Green statuses had been used to convey performance achievement.

Commissioners proposed changes in some areas and agreed that the document should be simplified before it was published so that readers could easily get a picture of overall performance and any areas of concern. 

The report would be amended in line with Commissioners’ comments, sent to the Finance Committee, and published on the Assembly’s website. It was therefore agreed that the meeting paper would not be published.

FIN(4)-10-13 Paper 11

7.1 The Committee discussed Assembly Commission Key Performance Indicators.

7.2 The Clerk agreed to draft a letter to the Assembly Commission noting their proposal on KPIs and requesting comparisons with previous years/terms where applicable.

During its scrutiny of the Commission budget, the Finance Committee recommended that the Commission should publish annual performance indicators. Commissioners discussed a range of proposed indicators that would demonstrate progress being made towards the Commission’s Strategic Goals. These would be published regularly and were likely to evolve and be refined over time.

Commissioners agreed that the indicators would need to be qualitative as well as quantitative, and that progress against targets would be shown, where appropriate. Benchmarking against other organisations would also demonstrate the extent to which progress was being made, although this would not be possible across all areas.

Emphasis was placed on the need to include indicators that were relevant to the performance of the Commission. Changes to the proposals in the paper were suggested in the following areas:

·         Bilingual services and increase in the use of Welsh;

·         Public engagement through the website, Senedd TV and social media;

·         Media coverage inside and outside Wales, including through non-traditional media outlets;

·         Links with international representatives;

·         Levels of engagement with civic society;

·         Improved engagement with hard to reach groups;

·         Risk management;

·         User satisfaction with ICT.

It was agreed that the Finance Committee would be consulted on the performance indicators.

Action: Management Board to revise the indicators.