A number is not a measure until its rules are clear
A report may show that 82 per cent of requests were assigned within two business days. Before treating that as a performance result, a reader needs to know what counted as a request, when the clock started, what “assigned” meant and which cases were included.
If two teams use different rules, they can produce different numbers from similar work. If a definition changes between reporting periods, an apparent improvement or decline may reflect the change in calculation rather than a change in service.
This guide offers a practical way to define one council performance measure. It is not a statutory standard or a claim about any particular council. State and territory reporting frameworks, service requirements and local policies may prescribe definitions that must take priority.
1. Start with the decision the measure should inform
Write down the service objective and the decision a manager, executive or council committee may make after seeing the result. “Improve performance” is too broad. A more useful purpose might be to understand whether routine service requests are reaching the responsible team promptly without increasing misrouting or leaving some channels behind.
Then identify what the measure describes. An output measure records a product or service delivered. An efficiency measure relates resources used to outputs. An effectiveness measure asks whether activity contributed to the intended result. The Australian Government Department of Finance explains these distinctions for Commonwealth entities; councils can use them as a design prompt, but the Commonwealth rules do not automatically apply to local government. [1]
A measure should fit its purpose. Counting completed requests can show workload. It cannot, by itself, show whether the service solved the resident’s problem.
2. Write the calculation in words before building a dashboard
For a percentage measure, state the numerator, denominator, unit and reporting period. Define who or what is in scope, and make the calculation understandable to someone who does not manage the source system.
For example, a council might define an illustrative measure as: “The percentage of routine service requests received during the month that were assigned to the responsible team within two business days of first receipt.”
That definition still needs rules. Does “assigned” mean a team was selected, or that a named officer accepted the work? Are requests that are later redirected counted as assigned on the first transfer or only after reaching the correct team? How are public holidays treated? What happens when a request arrives outside business hours?
If information is missing, avoid silently stopping the clock unless that is what the measure is intended to assess. If the question is end-to-end responsiveness, retain time from first receipt. You can separately report time from complete information to assignment to help identify where delay occurs. State the two measures clearly so they are not mistaken for each other.
3. Make inclusions, exclusions and exceptions visible
Specify the service boundary, geography, channels, case types, and any eligibility rules. Decide how duplicates, test records, cancelled requests, reopened work and requests transferred between teams are treated. Record exceptions rather than removing inconvenient cases without explanation.
These choices affect interpretation. A channel may appear slower because it serves more complex requests. A service may look faster if cases that are waiting for information are excluded. A change in the mix of requests can shift an overall result even when the underlying process has not changed.
Where it is useful and safe, report relevant breakdowns such as channel, request type or location. Consider privacy, small-group re-identification and whether the breakdown supports a decision. A single council-wide average can conceal meaningful differences in access or experience.
4. Connect the result to its evidence
Document the source system, fields used, extraction date, calculation steps, validation checks and the person accountable for the measure. Identify who prepares, reviews and approves the result. Keep the definition and calculation notes with the reporting material, and record the effective date of any change.
The National Archives of Australia describes data quality as an ongoing activity across the data lifecycle and notes that documented requirements and metadata help people assess whether data is fit for their needs. [2] In practice, ask whether records are complete, valid, consistently coded and available in time for the reporting cycle. Also ask whether a system or business-rule change has altered what the data mean.
If the measure uses a proxy because the intended outcome cannot be observed directly, label it as a proxy and explain its limits. A proxy may be useful, but it should not be presented as the outcome itself.
5. Read the measure alongside balancing information
No single number gives a complete view of service performance. The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services uses a framework that considers outcomes and output measures, including equity, effectiveness and efficiency. It also describes dimensions such as access, timeliness, quality and appropriateness. The framework is not a council mandate, but it is a useful reminder to check what a measure leaves out. [3]
If a team is asked to reduce processing time, pair that measure with relevant information about accuracy, rework, complaints, unresolved cases or access. Otherwise, staff may meet the time target by transferring work sooner without improving the experience, or by prioritising straightforward cases while complex cases wait.
The point is not to create a large dashboard. Select only the balancing information needed to detect a plausible adverse effect, and explain how it relates to the decision.
6. Establish a baseline before setting a target
Use a consistent definition to calculate a baseline and check whether the data are sufficiently reliable for comparison. If the definition or collection method changes, explain the break in the series. Do not imply that results are directly comparable when the rules or coverage differ.
The Department of Finance’s guidance for Commonwealth entities recommends explaining the rationale for targets where they are set, considering whether targets are specific and achievable, and guarding against targets that encourage adverse results. It also recognises that there may be cases where a target is not reasonably practicable, such as while a baseline is being developed. These are useful design principles, not local-government obligations. [4]
A target should be tested against the service objective and any balancing measures. If the target has been met for several periods or stays unchanged, review whether it remains informative or explain why it remains appropriate.
Why definition discipline matters
A 2019 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office audit of the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework found that six of 30 results it tested were materially different from what councils should have reported under the framework’s calculation rules. The audit also identified gaps in council quality assurance and documentation. This was a Victorian review of selected councils and indicators, not a finding about all Australian councils. It illustrates how inconsistent interpretation can weaken confidence in comparison. [5]
A one-page measure definition
Before a measure goes into a report, capture:
• Purpose: the service objective and decision the measure supports.
• Measure type: output, efficiency, effectiveness or outcome, as appropriate.
• Calculation: numerator, denominator, unit, time period and rounding.
• Boundary: population, service, geography, channels, inclusions, exclusions and exception rules.
• Evidence: source systems and fields, extraction date, calculation steps and validation checks.
• Accountability: preparer, reviewer, approver and measure owner.
• Interpretation: limitations, proxy status, relevant breakdowns and any comparability caveat.
• Performance level: baseline, target rationale and balancing information, where appropriate.
• Change control: definition version, effective date and how prior results are treated.
Before publishing, ask: Could another team calculate this result from the definition alone? Can a reader tell what is included and excluded? Is the data source reliable enough for the decision? Could meeting the target damage quality, access or outcomes? If definitions differ across services or councils, are those differences explained before results are compared?
Clear definitions do not guarantee better services. They make it easier to see what a result means, what it cannot tell you and what evidence is needed before deciding what to change. The practical sequence is simple: define the measure, test the data, explain the context, then compare performance.
References
[1] Australian Government Department of Finance, “Measures of outputs, efficiency and effectiveness,” Resource Management Guide 131.
[2] National Archives of Australia, “Data quality.”
[3] Productivity Commission, “Report on Government Services 2026: Performance measurement.”
https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/report-on-government-services/approach/performance-measurement/
[4] Australian Government Department of Finance, “Targets, where reasonably practicable,” Resource Management Guide 131.
[5] Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, “Reporting on Local Government Performance,” 23 May 2019.
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/reporting-local-government-performance/?section=
Published by
About our partner
C51 Consulting
C51 Consulting helps Australian councils and public sector teams improve reporting, strengthen evidence traceability and reduce avoidable administrative effort. Council Reporting & Evidence Assurance — Review a defined corporate reporting process to identify evidence gaps, manual follow-up and unclear ownership. Indicative diagnostic: A$7,500 + GST, subject to agreed scope. Public Sector Workflow Reviews — Map one operational workflow, pinpoint bottlenecks and duplicated work, and identify practical improvements and appropriate automation options. Indicative diagnostic: A$7,500 + GST, subject to agreed scope. Practical AI Productivity Clinics — Build staff capability through a practical session on useful tasks, responsible use and internal policy constraints. Indicative clinic: A$1,500 + GST, subject to format and agreed scope. We start with a defined business problem, agree deliverables and focus on measurable improvement opportunities. We work alongside existing systems where practical; implementation is separately scoped. Clinics respect each organisation’s security, privacy, records-management and AI-use requirements. Request a scoping conversation about a council reporting process, government workflow or team clinic. https://c51consulting.com
Learn more
Help your peers
Share what you've learned with fellow public servants