Home page
> Management Advisory Committee
> Connected Government > Good practice guide > Managing connections outside the Australian Public Service
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 17 June 2005
Managing connections outside the Australian Public Service
The Australian Public Service has a significant role
A sound whole of government approach requires understanding how programs and policies will affect particular communities, social groups, sectors of the economy and/or regions. APS employees need to understand how the policies and programs delivered by different departments and agencies come together and impact on the general public. Think about whether:
- the programs and policies from different departments are mutually supportive or whether they are duplicative or inconsistent
- key stakeholders and their communities of interest know about and value government policies and programs and whether they find them easy to access and use
- policies and programs allow scope for tailoring to individual, community, sectoral or regional priorities.
APS employees therefore require a good understanding of key stakeholders and their issues and an ability to engage them closely in the design and implementation of policies and programs. The capabilities required for whole of government activities are greater than for other government activities, and include:
- the ability to identify and analyse the widest possible range of views and to represent those views in advice to government
- skills in communicating and consulting with the public to assist with informed decision making
- sufficient experience and authority to interact with local communities and to make decisions on behalf of the agencies involved.
When is it necessary to engage with people outside the APS?
Consultations, networking and liaison are time and resource intensive, so you need to decide how much, and what kind, of input from external stakeholders is necessary.
There are three initial questions to ask:
- Does your task have multiple government and non-government players potentially affected by the new policies and programs? If yes, then a whole of government approach to engaging external stakeholders will help in the development of policy advice that fairly reflects competing views and provides a balanced assessment of them.
- Do several government agencies deliver programs or services to a common or overlapping client base? If yes, then the government will need advice about the full range of programs and services to particular client groups and their impact.
- How can stakeholder views be presented in a balanced way? Stakeholder views may vary significantly, some may be more skilled than others in dealing with government, and the broader public interest may be too diffused to be heard clearly.
Be clear about the constraints on your project, the most common being the need for confidentiality, timeframes and budget. Your decision will reflect the balance between the importance of understanding the issues for external stakeholders and the constraints around the project.
Be aware that engagement with external stakeholders is always of close interest to ministers, and arrangements for such engagement need to be managed with the knowledge and confidence of ministers.
Select the method that suits the problem and the stakeholders
It can be useful to categorise ways of working with external stakeholders. One simple way to do this is categorising into a ‘top–down’ or a ‘bottom-up’ approach. These commonly used labels simply mean that either the external stakeholders drive the engagement (bottom-up) or government drives the interactions (top–down).
A bottom-up approach is likely to suit whole of government problems where the solutions require development and support by the external stakeholders.
The right solution to a problem might not be known. There might be many possible solutions and the one which will work best will be the one owned by the people affected.
Bottom-up approaches are sometimes called ‘capacity-building’ or ‘community development’ approaches because the external stakeholders initiate the appropriate solutions.
A top–down approach is suitable when the government needs to ensure consistency, safety, equity or other levels of control over the solutions. Responses to crises are a good example of when and where top–down approaches are essential.
Top–down or bottom–up approach to engagement
 |
<< No | Does the matter need to be addressed urgently? | Yes >> | A top–down approach is likely to be appropriate |
| << No | Is cross-portfolio coherence needed? | Yes >> |  |
|
| << No | Is the matter open for debate? | Yes >> | ||
| << No | Is there general stakeholder agreement? | Yes >> | ||
| << No | Are stakeholder views well known? | Yes >> | ||
| << No | Are there high risks in not consulting? | Yes >> | ||
| A bottom–up approach is likely to be appropriate | ||||
 |
Many whole of government initiatives will need both top–down and bottom–up engagement at different points of the policy integration process or the service integration process. If time permits, err in favour of a bottom–up approach as most stakeholders want to own solutions, but be aware of group interests. | |||
Community engagement can take many forms, such as:
- provision of information
- undertaking market research
- client satisfaction surveys
- formal consultations
- approaches through advisory groups or peak organisations
- engaging with key stakeholders on taskforces.
Different approaches suit different problems and different stakeholders, sometimes depending on the organisations and interests represented. Identifying which approach suits a problem is useful because taking the wrong approach can waste time, sour relationships, and jeopardise outcomes.
How complex is the issue? What commitment is there to act?
Engagement with external stakeholders is complex and involves balancing a range of interests. Achieving successful whole of government outcomes and engagement will be easier if there is a strong imperative for stakeholders to act. It is essential to understand that not all issues are quickly resolved—it depends on the imperative and importance of the issue to the government. Keep your task in perspective.
Balancing complexity with the imperative to act can be used as a guide to assess the likelihood of moving particular issues forward, as shown in the following table. This table assumes that whole of government issues involving external stakeholders are likely to be complex (routine, simple issues without external stakeholders are not included):
- Quadrant A issues have a high probability of being resolved successfully. They can be very complex but are not intractable.
- Quadrant B covers those whole of government issues which have high commitment levels and have proved difficult to address.
- Quadrant C issues have relatively little imperative for action, but fortunately are not intractable, increasing the chance of a successful resolution.
- Results are hardest to achieve in whole of government issues in Quadrant D. They are complex to the point of intractability, and there is relatively little imperative to do something about them.
Balancing complexity with the imperative to act
HIGH LOW |
QUADRANT A
|
QUADRANT B
|
|||
QUADRANT C
|
QUADRANT D
|
||||
|
|||||
Formal relationships are sometimes more appropriate than on-off engagements
Formal relationships and partnerships are important when government is entering into funding contracts and ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders to resolve specific issues.
There may be merit in analysing the nature of the formal relationship with external stakeholders in terms of: the process for selecting partners; the nature of the partnership; how partnerships are managed; the performance measures in place; and the balance of risks each party carries. Possible approaches under each of these form a continuum:
- Under selecting partners, appropriate possibilities could involve the use of traditional competitive tenders; submission-based selections; invitations to participate; and community development approaches designed to work with a community in a way which they direct—i.e. bottom–up.
- The nature of the partnership can range from the more traditional purchase of service approaches through to arrangements based on complementary or shared goals. Sometimes the partnership might involve sharing the same values as the nongovernment organisation.
- Managing partnerships can take the form of contract management, contract and relationship management, relationship management only, or an equal relationship based on trust.
- In terms of measuring performance of a partnership, the range of options includes measuring inputs (such as how much money is being spent on Indigenous nongovernment health organisations), measuring outputs (such as the number of Indigenous health workers employed) or assessing outcomes (such as the extent to which Indigenous health improves). Sometimes both parties are in the project for the same outcomes.
- Risk controls are important in any external relationship. Commonly each party would carry different risks. The risk to government of a relationship not working might lie in the risk to government policy or reputation. The risk to a non-government organisation might be its financial viability. Sometimes risks are genuinely shared.
A guide to assessing stakeholder issues
Formal non-government relationships—possible approaches
| Approach to: | Responses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selecting partners |  |
|||
| Competitive tender | Submission | Invitation | Community development | |
| Nature of partnership | |
|||
| Purchase of services | Complementary goals | Shared goals | Shared values | |
| Managing partners | |
|||
| Contract management | Contract and relationship management | Relationship management | Trust | |
| Performance measurement | |
|||
| Inputs | Outputs | Outcomes | Joint outcomes | |
| Risk control | |
|||
| Risk lies with partner | Each party carries different risks | Shared risks | ||
