The biggest problem with cost-cutting “success” stories is they measure the wrong details.
Any kind of change, especially sociocultural/socioeconomic change, requires a strategic approach. It isn’t hard to do but it is complex, and it does require specificity from the outset.
TL;DR
- Change management success depends on having clear strategic objectives, defined KPI’s (outcomes, not outputs), and risk management planning.
- measuring spending alone is short-sighted.
- measuring outcomes and impact against spending gives a more accurate picture.
- If you’re working to improve outcomes, especially for people, cost cannot be your only measure of success.
The school lunch debacle all over socials and news sites gives us an excellent real-time example of how diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) gets a bad reputation via poorly designed interventions. This isn’t a political commentary from me, it’s a professional observation that what the Government has rolled out is a prime example of how not to implement change of any kind – DEI or otherwise focused.
Why? Glad you asked….
So a not terribly in-depth overview:
Ka Ora, Ka Ako was introduced in 2020 as a government-sponsored healthy lunch programme to improve equity outcomes for child poverty.
- The reason: an estimated 15% of NZ children living in homes with food insecurity (a lack of access to adequate and safe food). This is a leading cause of worse developmental outcomes in life with linkages to lower levels of concentration, cognitive functioning, engagement and academic achievement.
- The target: schools/kura with the highest concentration of learners facing socioeconomic barriers; approximately 222,000* learners across 967 schools/kura across Aotearoa NZ (informed by the Ministry’s Equity Index).
*Actual numbers realised = 127,000 across 761 schools
Onto my point; the reason the current government announced for changing the structure of the school lunch programme wasn’t related to any of the parameters, or even the intended outcomes; it was solely around cost of provision.
Cost cutting. Nothing else changing.
Except, it has.
Look, we’ve all seen the media; the pictures of meals most of us wouldn’t touch by choice, the reports of injury, the wastage, the complaints by parents. We’re smart enough to know that two things can be true at once: bad news sells, and smoke usually indicates a fire nearby.
That’s relevant but, again, not my point.
Back to the original point of Ka Ora, Ka Ako: Addressing food insecurity.
How do you think the cost saving changes to the programme have impacted upon this?
When the current government decided to change the playing field by cutting costs and disrupting existing delivery methods within the program, they changed the parameters of this program. That’s going to have an impact upon the primary objective.
Secondary to this is the quality of data being collated and that’s evident in the public communications (anecdotal evidence from government and public); one side says it’s successful, while others are screaming failure.
Well, how do we know what’s true on either side:
By what measures are we adhering to? More than adhering to either contract or budget??
The biggest problem with cost-cutting success stories is they measure the wrong details.
“We saved $xxxxxx!“
“There are less <people costing us in this spending>“
When we focus on cost of outputs, of course the numbers look better. But when we measure outcomes, evidence tells a very different story.
If the primary objective is to improve food security, then the objectives also need to include availability of culturally acceptable options – not just the availability of any food.
In this example, is the current output being documented in the media meeting the objectives?
If you’re investing in change of any kind, but especially if there is a DEI focus to your program, your data quality is imperative to demonstrating success.
Instead of focusing on bottom-line numbers, look at outcome-focused key results; it’s macro vs micro details. The numbers that tell one success story look very different to the numbers that tell you about the journey and added value results.
Phew, thanks for sticking with me on this one. The school lunch changes are such a good example of how DE&I is often misrepresented as “feel good change that doesn’t change anything” when its actually that the wrong details being focused upon.
Change management of any kind requires more than a focus on costs. Otherwise what’s the point?