Plan performance monitoring is a crucial step in the cyclical process of policy-making. Feedback from the monitoring process helps to provide more relevant information that can be used to pinpoint specific performance issues and significant effects and thus lead to more informed policy and decision-making.

Four broad principles underpin the initial development of a monitoring framework (ODPM 2005):

• making use of existing information: information and indicators should be drawn from existing sources (e.g. public service agreements, best value, sustainable communities, quality of life, regional competitiveness indicators etc) to avoid unnecessary duplication;
• being consistent with national and regional monitoring: approaches should be consistent with those used to monitor spatial planning across national, regional and sub-regional levels;
• setting objectives, policies, targets and indicators: this requires setting clear objectives, policies, targets and indicators to facilitate implementation, monitoring and review;
• taking a forward looking approach: in line with ‘plan, monitor and manage’, monitoring should not just be about collecting information and indicators. An analytical and action-orientated approach is required which results in sound and reliable information. This in turn will inform the development of a comprehensive evidence base upon which spatial development document preparation must be based.

Monitoring is essential to establish what is happening now, what may happen in the future and then compare these trends against existing policies and targets to determine what needs to be done. Monitoring helps to address questions such as (ODPM 2005):

• are policies achieving their objectives and in particular are they delivering sustainable development?
• have policies had unintended consequences?
• are the assumptions and objectives behind policies still relevant?
• are the targets being achieved?

A target is a commitment to achieve a specific quality, or level of service. Setting them enables service delivery to be focused and measured, leading to continuous improvement. The commitment to apply a target sends a clear message of where an organisation is focusing its resources and where it intends to improve its performance. The development and monitoring of targets is an integral part of planning for the future.

Targets can be both long and short term. Long-term targets are specific statements of where we want to be in, say, ten to 20 years time. Short-term targets, or mile stone targets, underpin these and represent the steps we take to achieve the long-term targets. Targets must be realistic and achievable within the time period specified. To this end, organisations should adopt the ‘SMART’ approach of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound targets wherever practicable.

Target setting is a key plan making tool, which should be used by everyone responsible for developing policy, and delivering policy implementation. Targets help to clearly focus on what is important. However, the number of targets set is also important. Setting targets for the sake of it can be counter productive and lead to ‘target fatigue’. Too few can mean that attention is too focussed on a few targets at the expense of other areas of work. Getting the balance right so that the correct numbers of targets are set which reflect the priorities of the services involved needs to be managed carefully.

By establishing clear and specific objectives, this in turn guides the selection and measurement of meaningful indicators and targets. The monitoring and evaluation of progress towards objectives and targets then forms part of the feedback mechanism to ensure the effective operation of policies, or highlight any revisions that may be required. In a well-prepared spatial plan, policies are clearly linked to the specified objectives, with targets that, wherever practicable, are quantified and supported by an implementation plan to facilitate monitoring.

Whilst the analysis of indicators and meeting set targets is a means of assessing implementation in absolute terms, it is useful to compare policy performance with the performance of other strategic spatial plans in other regions. Such a benchmarking exercise may help the process of determining what is the best policy and what standards should be set for policy targets.

Recommended further reading

SMART targets, plan monitoring and sector alignment in the Highlands and Islands. A paper by Clive Bowman, Centre for Mountain Studies, November 2006

http://engage.comms.gov.uk/knowledge-bank/strategic-planning/aims-and-objectives/making-your-objectives-smart.html

ODPM 2005, Regional Spatial Strategy Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/home/cs-chief-exec-target_setting_guide.pdf