Dialogue: Needed: scorecard and action plan

We all want to build the best little country in the world. MARY QUIN* outlines a national strategy for achieving that goal.

Many contributors to the Herald's Common Core Debate have commented that New Zealand lacks a clearly articulated vision and a long-term national strategy for achieving that vision.

The many points of view have addressed a wide range of issues and possible solutions for the country. But they have also contained recurring themes about New Zealanders' core values, and our widely held priorities, which I have tried to capture in this vision statement: "By the year 2010, New Zealand has achieved for all its citizens levels of economic growth, environmental protection and overall quality of life among the top 10 nations in the world.

"Our country is internationally recognised for its vibrant, diverse and tolerant society, its contributions in the fields of arts, sports, science and technology and its participation in solving global issues. New Zealanders, living at home or abroad, are proud to be part of building the best small country in the world."

Let's assume for now that this vision statement is roughly right. Let's assume that the vast majority of New Zealanders, representing all segments of our society, feel good about being part of this vision. How would we go about making such a vision come true?

We would need a national strategy - a carefully chosen and widely agreed set of actions for getting to this desired future state.

Let's consider just the first sentence of the vision statement. Suppose we choose quality of life, economic growth and protected environment as our three fundamental priorities for the future and we build a national strategy around them.

As a framework for our strategy, we can visualise a triangle with quality of life at the apex, supported by economic growth and protected environment at the base of the triangle. The arrows indicate that economic growth and protected environment both contribute to quality of life but can sometimes be in conflict with each other.

A critical first step in developing a national strategy is defining exactly where we are today. What is our quality of life in 2001? How good is our economic growth? Is our environment sufficiently well protected? Are we already among the top 10 countries or do we rank much lower?

We can only answer these questions if we have a clear-cut set of metrics that let us measure how well we are doing and how our performance compares with the performance of other countries.

The trick is to pick the right metrics. Focusing on the vital few metrics which best represent the desired outcomes is more useful than trying to track dozens of secondary indicators.

Quantitative measurements such as gross domestic product per person, unemployment or air quality are already familiar and even for more intangible goals, such as human rights or the stability of families and communities, numerical indicators have been developed.

Various metrics are already in use by countries, states, and cities around the world and we can look to those for ideas on picking our own set of metrics for New Zealand. An illustrative set of vital few metrics is in the Strategic Framework diagram.

Once a reasonable set of metrics is chosen, it becomes straightforward to create a scorecard in which we fill in the current values for ourselves and for benchmark countries with which we want to compare ourselves.

This lets us objectively define our current state and engage in a national dialogue about what target values we want to set as goals.

Goals can be stated in absolute terms, such as a gross domestic product per capita of $43,000 by 2005 and $68,000 by 2010, or in relative terms, such as gross domestic product per capita among the top 10 countries worldwide.

What is important is that the goals are values that are broadly understood and agreed to by diverse segments of society. The scorecard provides a simple status report which can be published quarterly to keep all New Zealanders informed of where we stand against our chosen goals and how close we are to achieving our vision.

The achievements of other countries demonstrate what is possible and provide a useful benchmark for selecting goals. However, New Zealanders' three fundamental priorities are not necessarily the same as the priorities of Israelis, Australians or Singaporeans.

When conflicts arise between economic growth and environment, or between quality of life and economic growth, it is our own judgment that must make the right tradeoff and determine the best balance of goals for New Zealand.

We should examine the achievements of other countries but we should not feel compelled to blindly follow goals achieved by different cultures facing different circumstances.

This freedom of self-determination, an ability to choose our own future is, after all, the most treasured benefit of nationhood.

Once the current state and desired future state are established in terms of the vital few metrics, the real fun of strategy begins.

What set of actions (policies, laws, behaviours, training, investments and so on) will most likely get us from the current values of the metrics to the desired values in the planned time?

This comprehensive set of actions proposed by those with relevant experience and judgment, then debated and agreed upon by the broader population, constitutes a national strategy for achieving desired standards of quality of life, economic growth and protected environment.

Best practices should certainly be identified, and adopted where appropriate, from countries whose results we admire.

The successful actions of other countries; the recommendations of world and local experts; and our experience with what has, and hasn't, worked in New Zealand's own history - these all serve as valuable sources of ideas for our national action plan.

Much discussion and some conflict will inevitably arise as the action plan is put together. Differences in philosophy between political parties, between government and business, between unions and management, between cities and rural areas, will produce a diversity of inputs which usually leads to better strategic decisions than any one segment of society can generate on its own.

The action plan should also identify who in society is responsible for carrying out the different actions. Which elements of the plan are under the control of government? What activities belong in the sphere of business? Should individual citizens or private foundations be accountable for certain actions?

Only if accountability is clear upfront, and the viability of the actions is tested against available resources and skills, can there be a reasonable expectation that the strategy will work. Actions which are inadequately funded, or for which no one has clear responsibility, are doomed to failure from the beginning. Better to scale back the desired targets, or lengthen the deadline for achieving goals, than to give lip service to actions which cannot be successfully implemented and, therefore, undermine the entire strategy.

Once a set of actions has been selected for the national strategy, it is critical to maintain communication with all New Zealanders about why these particular actions were chosen, what results are to be expected, and when to expect them.

As progress on the chosen metrics is reviewed, it is likely that some activities, even if executed well, will not have the expected results. Periodic modification of some actions may be needed as better information becomes available or unexpected events outside our control take place in the global economy.

Diagnosing why we missed certain milestones in our metrics, and making well-considered adjustments to the underlying actions, allows the action plan to be continuously improved without changing the long-term strategy and goals.

In addition to achieving the desired state of the nation, some important side-benefits result from having an explicit long-term national strategy.

* The publication of the latest scorecards could become an exciting annual or quarterly event. As a population with an instinct for competing and winning in sports, we will eagerly anticipate finding out how the team to which we all belong, the real Team New Zealand, is scoring against our own goals in the global game of nations.

* Shortfalls to achieving milestones in the strategy will generate healthy public debate on the effectiveness or correctness of underlying actions. This kind of debate helps educate all of us on economic and political issues and contributes to a better-informed community.

* As we talk about the action plan and its purpose in achieving the desired state, each of us can better see how our own personal actions and behaviours, or the actions of organisations we control, directly influence the country's future.

We will increasingly find ourselves confronting John F. Kennedy's challenge to American citizens: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

* The action plan will give voters concrete guidelines by which to evaluate and select those who run for public office. We can ask ourselves how effective a candidate will be at implementing the national strategy and delivering its intended results.

Most important of all, the creation of a national strategy builds a civil society which combines tolerance of diverse views with a broadly shared sense of direction.

It creates current and future generations of New Zealanders who, throughout their lives, while at home or abroad, are proud to be part of building the best small country in the world.

* New Zealander Mary Quin is a former United States-based vice-president of Xerox Corporation.

Herald Online feature: Common core values

We invite to you to contribute to the debate on core values. E-mail dialogue@herald.co.nz.