The increasing complexity of policy challenges necessitates robust monitoring functions within centres of government. This chapter examines the role and methods employed by Thailand’s centre of government in monitoring cross-cutting policy areas. It explores the centre of government’s responsibilities over monitoring, the processes and mechanisms it utilises and the tools and resources available to enhance performance management practices.
Governing Cross‑cutting Challenges from the Centre in Thailand
Abstract
The Centre of Government (CoG) plays a critical role in the performance management of cross-cutting issues, providing a holistic, system-wide perspective. To enhance this role, CoGs should integrate stakeholder perspectives, establish learning mechanisms, and ensure that monitoring insights directly inform future decision-making.
Thailand’s strategic planning framework relies on a multi-layered system of key performance indicators (KPIs), which guides the CoG’s monitoring of national strategies and policy performance.
The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) and the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) are the primary CoG bodies overseeing KPIs, but their responsibilities sometimes overlap, which may hinder coordination and accountability.
Thailand could improve its performance monitoring system by adopting a more integrated and forward-looking approach to setting indicators—ensuring a balance between short-term operational metrics and long-term strategic outcomes.
Thailand’s CoG could strengthen the integration of monitoring outputs into governance processes to further institutionalize evidence-informed decision-making. Continued improvements in data availability, integration, and collection will be key enablers of this effort.
Monitoring government performance includes the systemic collection and analysis of data to provide policy makers and stakeholders with information on progress (Baredes, 2022[1]). The SIGMA Principles of Public Administration highlight the importance of a comprehensive approach to monitoring; Principle 3 requires governments to monitor in an effective and inclusive manner (OECD, 2023[2]). In the context of Thailand’s net zero efforts, the 2023 OECD report NetZero+: Climate and Economic Resilience in a Changing World recommends that governments set up mechanisms to track progress and use the information to compare and evaluate potential alternative options to “optimise the policy mix for each context” (OECD, 2023[3]). For net zero goals, following up on policy actions is necessary to monitor overall progress of actions and to help governments make decisions (Kaur et al., 2023[4]).
The growing complexity of policy issues (for example net zero) and the consistent demand for results has led to the CoG’s increasing role in monitoring government performance (OECD, 2024[5]). The “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government” (hereafter the OECD survey) (OECD, 2023[6]) found that 19 out of 26 CoGs responded that whole-of-government performance, including cross-cutting issues, was their top or significant priority function (Figure 4.1). CoGs monitor top issues in recognition that this can also support accountability to and transparency for citizens and provides legitimacy for the use of public funds (OECD, 2020[7]).
Several aspects have been found to support CoGs in their performance management functions:
Clarity of roles and responsibilities in the institutional setup around monitoring and trusted relationships between line ministries and the CoG.
Use of mechanisms such as data routines and deep dives to monitor for uncertain and complex issues.
Using digital and other solutions to better present information.
An overall performance and data-driven culture and the right skills and resources in the CoG and for those involved in monitoring processes across the administration.
Note: n=26; Respondents to the OECD survey were asked: “How much of a priority are the following functions in the CoG? [Monitoring whole-of-government performance]”.
Source: OECD (2023[6]), “Survey on strategic decision-making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
This chapter explores the CoG in Thailand’s institutional setup and approaches for monitoring the performance of cross-cutting issues such as net zero. The conclusion of this chapter presents a summary of opportunities from the CoG to enhance monitoring approaches. The chapter is structured as follows:
CoG responsibilities for performance management of cross-cutting issues.
Processes for monitoring government performance from the CoG.
Mechanisms to enhance performance management and monitoring at the CoG.
Tools and enablers for the CoG to drive better performance management practices.
CoGs use different structures and institutional setups for managing performance, including in cross‑cutting issues. This responsibility may lie with central finance or planning ministries, the Office of the Prime Minister or ministries dedicated to public sector development, depending on the nature and topic of the monitoring (OECD, 2024[5]). Some CoGs also use specific delivery units that are typically located in the Office of the Prime Minister and that report directly to top-level decision makers on top priorities (OECD, 2024[5]). These functions monitor the various KPIs set out by the strategic planning framework (Figure 4.2).
In Thailand, both CoG institutions – the NESDC and the OPDC – share functions pertained to performance management of cross-cutting issues such as net zero. The NESDC develops national plans (as discussed in Chapter 2), sets specific targets and monitors them respectively. To reach the 20-year National Strategy, the NESDC as the secretariat works together with different subcommittees to adopt specific 5-year targets corresponding to Master Plans under the National Strategy. Line ministries are required to report to the NESDC on policy progress at the National Strategy level, including strategic KPIs for the NESDC to monitor performance against the overall National Strategy.
Based on the developed 5-year objectives and targets, the OPDC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Division (M&E Division) is responsible for setting and analysing progress on some strategic KPIs and joint KPIs. The OPDC collaborates with ministries to ensure the KPIs are robust, measurable and consistent with broader objectives, then monitors the progress of the indicators at three-month intervals. Overall, while the NESDC monitors progress on the more systemic and high level, the OPDC engages directly to track performance at the ministry and department level, as well as each provincial and provincial clusters level.
NESDC monitoring is carried out separately from monitoring of the OPDC’s operations. The NESDC uses a monitoring and evaluation system called “eMENSCR” at the national level. The system tracks the operations of government agencies without causing an excessive burden, as it is paperless and provides channels for public participation in monitoring. It also serves as a tool for analysis and processing for all government agencies on the same platform. The plan data entered into the system shows the alignment with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 plans. It can link and exchange data with various government agencies and systems, and agencies including OPDC can utilise this data.1
Monitoring is also done within line ministries. The ministries usually have lead departments that co‑ordinate the required reporting up to the CoG functions. The 2023 OECD Economic Survey of Thailand found the implementation of robust performance management mechanisms by the Department of Climate Change and Environment (DCCE) critical to supporting the net zero transition, given the matrix of different and overlapping environmental policies and plans operating in the country (OECD, 2023[8]). This should be done in consideration of which indicators are then also reported to the NESDC and OPDC to avoid duplication or use of different indicators to monitor the same issue at different levels.
Source: Drawn from NESDC (2023[9]), The Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023‑2027), https://www.nesdc.go.th/article_attach/article_file_20230615134223.pdf.
Opportunities to enhance and clarify responsibilities for monitoring through the CoG
Overall, Thailand could consider providing further clarification and delineations around institutional responsibilities for monitoring cross-cutting issues like net zero. Given the close links between what is monitored by the NESDC and OPDC, it could be helpful to establish coordination discussions between the two entities and consider opportunities to streamline performance management processes and reduce the burden for line ministries. This should be complemented by clearer coordination with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, which acts as Thailand’s UNFCCC focal point, to ensure alignment between climate monitoring and national performance frameworks.
As clarified during the fact-finding mission, Thailand previously had a Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) from 2017 to 2022, which was responsible for supporting government operations through strategic, integrated efforts. The PMDU focused on resolving critical issues that could not be effectively addressed through standard bureaucratic processes or that were experiencing significant delays.
Following the PMDU’s dissolution in 2022, Thailand established the Strategic Transformation Office (STS) under the Prime Minister’s Office. Unlike the PMDU, the STS is a temporary entity tasked with driving and integrating national strategic policies into concrete actions. It also works to expand the impact of policy implementation and build strategic networks to ensure long-term sustainability. While the STS serves as a proactive mechanism to enhance national strategic policy execution, its temporary status raises questions about long-term institutional capacity for overseeing cross-cutting priorities like net zero.
Given this context, Thailand could consider strengthening its existing mechanisms or reintroducing a dedicated delivery unit (DU) to support net-zero priorities. A DU could help enhance monitoring, conduct deep dives, and improve performance management of key climate goals, offering a more structured approach than the broad mandates currently covered by NESDC and OPDC. Delivery units can also provide technical assistance to support cross-cutting priorities, as seen in other countries. For example, France recently established a Government Delivery Unit, while the United Kingdom continues to operate the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (OECD, 2024[5]).
By leveraging lessons from past experiences with the PMDU and STS, Thailand could explore options to further institutionalise performance management functions for cross-cutting policies, ensuring sustained impact beyond short-term initiatives. However, for delivery units to work, they need to have clear mandates and a very small number of explicit and well-defined priorities (World Bank, 2010[10]). In determining what to use, it is particularly crucial to focus on priorities that are neither too broad nor too ambiguous, shared by the majority of stakeholders involved in delivery, operationalised through measurable indicators and whose outcomes matter to citizens (Shostak et al., 2023[11]).
Delivery units can drive progress in high-priority policy areas by providing technical and subject expertise while being integrated into the institutional framework at the appropriate level for the policy issue at hand. As of 2015, the Government of Canada introduced publicly available ministerial mandate letters, which outline the objectives each minister will work to accomplish as well as the pressing challenges they will address in their respective role. The Results and Delivery Unit (RDU) at the Privy Council Office was created, in large part, to oversee and support the implementation of the government’s key commitments, as well as advocate for and facilitate greater use of disaggregated data.
The RDU’s work includes:
Leveraging data to help support evidence-based decision making.
Systematically measuring progress via performance indicators toward desired outcomes that help demonstrate results for Canadians.
Supporting work in policy prioritisation and resource allocation for results.
The methodology followed by the RDU aims to answer three underlying questions:
What are you trying to achieve?
How will goals be achieved?
Are desired results being achieved, and if not, how will adjustments be made?
The RDU provides oversight and co‑ordination to keep the focus on top government priorities, monitor progress and recalibrate efforts as required.
Source: Government of Canada (2018[12]), The Mandate Letter Tracker and the Results and Delivery Approach, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/results-delivery-unit.html.
Monitoring strategic KPIs through the CoG
Figure 4.2 illustrates that first- and second-level strategies are overseen using strategic KPIs. During OECD consultation with the OPDC M&E Division, it was confirmed that, across 20 ministries, there are a total of 294 strategic KPIs being monitored, averaging approximately 5 KPIs per ministry. Each ministry is responsible for progress against their KPIs and reporting these data to the NESDC and OPDC.
Both the NESDC and OPDC receive progress reports on strategic KPI progress. All agencies are required to report their achievement on KPIs to OPDC twice a year – typically on 6th and 12th month. The NESDC receives project progress every three months from line ministries and agencies. The NESDC reports to the Cabinet of Thailand (hereafter the Cabinet) on the overall progress of the strategic KPIs as it relates to the master plans and national strategy. The NESDC is also required to prepare an annual report summarising the implementation of the national strategy by government agencies. This report is submitted to the National Strategy Committee, the Cabinet, the heads of government agencies in the legislative and judicial branches, independent organisations or the office of the Attorney General and the Parliament within 90 days of receiving the reports from the agencies annually.2
For net zero, relevant strategic KPIs are contained within Master Plan 18 (second-level strategy). The main (high-level) two indicators are:
Quantity of greenhouse gas emissions – reduction annually.
Environmental risk index climate change ranking – improvement annually.
Beyond these two high-level indicators, the Master Plan 18 prescribes other KPIs relevant to net zero. These pertain to different areas, for example, green space, water quality, marine ecosystem. However, these indicators are not as precise and direct as the two main indicators.
The DCCE within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is responsible for reporting on these strategic KPIs to the NESDC, which in turn reports to the Cabinet. The DCCE co‑ordinates monitoring information from different areas of the ministry to provide the NESDC with an overall view of progress. Additionally, greenhouse gas emission reduction volume is a Joint KPI that government agencies, including the DCCE, must report on as an indicator, reflecting collaborative efforts across various agencies to track progress toward national goals.
Monitoring functional KPIs through the CoG
Functional KPIs are drawn from ministerial action plans set at the department level, with approximately 5 KPIs selected for reporting to the OPDC M&E Division. Functional KPIs can be linked to strategic KPIs; however, this is not mandatory and not all individual KPIs are linked, which can cause some confusion to staff.
The OPDC M&E Division develops functional KPIs collaboratively and annually through a committee process led by the CoG (NESDC, OPDC and Budget Bureau) and the relevant ministry. During the OECD fact-finding process, stakeholders noted that there could be challenges in setting the indicators, as there are differences in views of what is ambitious enough, what is feasible and what can be measured with the data available. Further, local authorities were not consistently brought into conversations around functional KPIs at the department or ministry level, despite them being a primary implementer of related actions and possessing local knowledge that could offer crucial information on whether a KPI is appropriate.
Functional KPIs are developed only once per year. If a new function or agency is set up and requires KPIs, an M&E Division will develop interim KPIs. The example of this is the August 2023 creation of the DCCE (Government of Thailand, 2023[13]). After the establishment of the new department, the OPDC provided support to transfer the monitoring process of the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) to the DCCE. The interim KPI transitions to a standard functional KPI at the beginning of the next fiscal year.
Ministries report against functional KPIs directly to the OPDC M&E Division twice a year, usually on the 6th and 12th month. Based on the collected performance data in the 6th month, the OPDC once a year evaluates the progress ministries have achieved in their main policies. This helps ministries to understand the focus areas for the work in the next six months before the 12th month reporting. Every year the operational performance data from the monitoring and evaluation is processed to generate the 12-month report. The report is sent to the prime minister, deputy prime ministers, governing ministers and the Office of the Civil Service Commission for review and alignment with performance plans. Functional KPIs are primarily developed to enable operational monitoring and are linked to performance agreements for individual senior officials. Specifically, the evaluation results obtained in 6th month are used to conduct performance assessment scores of the heads of agencies. This supports the accountability of senior officials and ensures a connection between the strategies and operational work plans.
Monitoring joint whole-of-government KPIs through the CoG
In addition to strategic and functional KPIs, there are also joint KPIs that apply across the whole of government. Joint KPIs are derived from first- and second-level strategies and are developed annually to focus on pressing and emerging issues. In 2025, the five joint KPIs, of which three are of relevance to Thailand’s ambitions around net zero, are as follows:3
Water system management and conservation.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction.
Income from tourism.
Entrepreneur’s income small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) and OTOP.
PM2.5 and PM10 particulate matter reduction.
Performance and capability of students to match with the OECD PISA.
Joint KPIs are determined via workshops convened with ministries and experts, including consultation at the provincial level and with the public. The development of a joint KPI examines the entire value chain, as depicted in Figure 4.3 showing the considerations underpinning the joint KPI developed for the reduction of GHG emissions. The considerations range from policy enactment and infrastructure improvement to agency implementation and enhancing the overall ecosystem. This value chain approach, including holistic consideration of responsibilities, is applied for the development of each joint KPI, to help ensure identification of all ministries needing to be included.
Source: Drawn from internal documents provided by representatives of the government of Thailand.
The approval of the joint KPIs starts at the OPDC Sub-committee on Monitoring and Evaluation, which then proposes these to the Public Sector Development Commission. The KPIs are then reported to the Cabinet, specifically to the Public Service Committee and Evaluation Committee.
Joint KPIs necessitate collaboration between various departments, ministries, public organisations, state enterprises, provinces and their clusters, demanding comprehensive data collection and integration. To contribute to the overall joint KPI, each ministry provides data based on its functional KPIs, which are then combined to assess the broader performance. An overview of the reporting pathways for the three types of KPIs is provided below in Table 4.1.
Note: Each government agency submits their KPI reports to the OPDC, which will then report to the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), the responsible ministries, the respective ministers, and the Cabinet.
Opportunities to enhance monitoring of joint KPIs through the CoG
At present, the success of joint and strategic KPIs is informed by the aggregation of functional KPIs. This approach may not be sufficient for promoting the systemic change required for cross-cutting policies for achieving net zero and may instead reinforce silos. Thailand’s CoG may want to consider introducing KPIs that require combined efforts across ministerial accountability lines or consider further analysis to support the selection of sectoral emissions targets that will contribute to the combined goal. For instance, in Germany, the climate law passed by the federal government in 2019 and amended in 2021 lays out annual sectoral targets for six individual sectors until 2030 (see Box 4.2 and OECD (2023[14])) that contribute jointly to the overall targets. Similarly in Ireland, carbon budgets set out for 2035 are now translated into sectoral emissions ceilings, with details on how these will be achieved in national climate action plans.4
Thailand may also need to consider incorporating more time-sensitive design and flexibility into KPIs for GHG emissions. While these KPIs are decided annually, complex issues such as achieving net zero require sustained and consistent effort over decades, especially given the carbon neutrality target by 2050 and net zero GHG emission by 2065. The influence of election cycles and shorter-term priorities may require additional mechanisms for long-term goals and monitoring approaches.
Cross-cutting issues present challenges for holistic monitoring and effective approaches require the ability to understand the multiplicity of factors that may influence one high-level target. In Germany, one approach has been to address climate policy monitoring through cross-sectoral targets. An independent Council of Experts on Climate Change (Expertenrat für Klimafragen), created in 2019, assesses annual GHG emission trends and the effectiveness of climate measures. It also advises the federal government on the implementation of the Federal Climate Change Act. Among others, the Council of Experts assesses immediate action programmes (Sofortprogramm).
On 21 June 2023, the German government cabinet passed the second reform of the federal climate law. The German climate objectives will now be verified based on cross-sectoral and multi-annual accounting. The main mechanism of the law is now foresight-based and is focused on the projection of future emissions until 2030 based on the common European Union methodology. If this projection shows that the sum of annual emissions across all sectors up until 2030 is above the emissions reduction goal, the government must pass measures to ensure the goal will be met. The reform also strengthens the role of the independent Council of Experts on Climate Change.
Source: OECD (2023[15]), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Germany 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/f26da7da-en; OECD (2023[14]), Germany’s Annual Sectoral Emissions Targets, https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/germany-s-annual-sectoral-emissions-targets-2148cd0e/.
Integrating strategic, joint and functional KPIs: The tri-KPI system and CoGs role in monitoring cross-cutting issues holistically
Consideration of good performance management mechanisms is particularly critical to the implementation of net zero, given it is complex and not always easy to measure. Research shows that establishing common monitoring arrangements is useful for aligning strategic documents across time and levels of government. A key step for more holistic performance management is to identify key output and outcome indicators common to the different strategies (Falduto and Rocha, 2020[16]).
As an example of how strategic, functional and joint KPIs align in practice, Table 4.2 depicts how the three types of KPIs are interrelated. Joint KPIs are in the top left, next to strategic KPIs. Functional KPIs then cascade down from specific strategic KPIs, aligned horizontally with the responsible department. As evident in Table 4.2, there is an ability for additional, standalone KPIs that are not linked to any strategic KPIs.
Opportunities to enhance integrated monitoring through the CoG
During the fact-finding process, a few challenges were found with the overall KPI framework. First, stakeholders highlighted possible issues from linking several departments to a single strategic KPI. The Sky Train project was cited as an example. Here, multiple departments have functional KPIs tied to the overarching Sky Train delivery strategic KPI and there can be impacts from the delays in one department on the KPIs of another. For instance, if factors outside its control hamper one department’s progress, e.g. those that originate from another department’s lag, this setback adversely impacts the overall KPI assessment for other departments. These types of challenges are not always considered during the monitoring processes by the CoG. The Sky Train scenario demonstrates the need for a more co‑ordinated performance management approach that uses cross-ministry communication and sense-making. This is particularly important for cross-cutting issues such as net zero as they are complex. In designing strategic KPIs for cross-cutting policy, Thailand could consider setting longer time horizons for achievement. Strategic indicators designed for the long term would ideally remain the same year over year, whereas functional KPIs would be regularly updated to reflect current progress. In increasing the time horizons for monitoring cross-cutting issues, the CoG can help guide the longevity of priorities through transitions of different governments and senior leadership (OECD, 2024[5]).
Note: Occasionally, there are cases where strategic KPIs may not align with functional KPIs.
Source: Drawn from internal documents provided by representatives of the Government of Thailand.
A second challenge noted by interviewees during the OECD fact-finding process is that joint KPIs do not always reflect the nuances (e.g. GHG emissions) by sector or context, partly due to a lack of availability of data. As an example, the Pollution Control Department discussed the standard procedure for collecting ambient air samples, which does not consider local geographic variations. When factories (required to submit samples to the Pollution Control Department) are situated adjacent to sugar cane fields that are subject to burning, there is no method to adjust the ambient air sample data to reflect these specific environmental factors. This limitation highlights the need for the Thai CoG to develop more nuanced and adaptable KPIs that can accurately represent and respond to local environmental conditions.
In this context, Thailand may draw inspiration from the World Bank approach integrating both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Thailand’s current KPIs, while developed collaboratively, lack flexibility and, at times, do not sufficiently account for local context. Thailand could use mechanisms such as companion qualitative process evaluations (CQPE). CQPEs can help to integrate local insights and conditions and address the multifaceted nature of cross-cutting issues. They have been used successfully in India to evaluate a programme seeking to promote participatory democracy in rural communities: while initial quantitative assessment showed no mean impact, a CQPE showed results were affected by local qualitative factors which the quantitative instrument missed (Bridges and Woolcock, 2022[17]).
Building more collaborative and contextualised work
The CoG performance management system for KPIs in Thailand is structured to ensure accountability and efficiency. Twice-a-year agencies are obligated to report performance data for KPIs to the OPDC based on the assigned responsibility. The NESDC quarterly monitors performance of agencies via the electronic system “eMENSCR”, fostering a regular and timely update of performance data. This digital system streamlines data management and allows for effective oversight; however, it is not the same system utilised by the Budget Bureau or OPDC. The system’s functionality could be thus enhanced through integration with the Budget Bureau and OPDC systems, considering how this could be expanded by linking it to workflow monitoring systems.
The performance review process executed by the NESDC/OPDC is comprehensive, involving a detailed assessment of any factors that may have affected progress and an evaluation of whether adjustments to KPIs are warranted for the next fiscal year. The CoG generally seeks to work informally with line ministries to resolve any identified issues; however, the OECD fact-finding process revealed that this is usually done individually with line ministries rather than looking at themes or cross-cutting issues holistically. A recent government-commissioned review also noted that collaboration mechanisms will be necessary to develop meaningful measurement capability for agencies and the private sector across the country (Somboonpakorn, 2023[18]). One approach Thailand could adopt is through data-driven deep dives or reviews, which CoGs use to involve stakeholders in monitoring practices. While data are, of course, the main topic of discussion, the context and broader information are also important. Data-driven review meetings highlight the need to make sense of the data and for continuous learning. Box 4.3 outlines an example from the United States.
Following this review process, performance reports are forwarded to the Cabinet for further scrutiny and approval if required. This step adds a crucial layer of high-level examination, ensuring that KPIs are not just overseen by the implementing bodies but also subject to a policy-level review.
Typically, the KPI review and reporting cycle spans three to five years. This duration is strategically chosen to provide sufficient time for implementing and realising KPI-related initiatives. If a KPI fails to meet its objectives at the end of this period, the OPDC may initiate a restructuring process involving its subcommittee on structural reform. The subsequent evaluation and report submitted to the cabinet determine the ongoing relevance and necessity of the KPI.
Regular reviews involving stakeholders across multiple bodies can be useful to build better data practices across the whole of government. The 2010 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act introduced the need for quarterly review meetings on each long-term federal government priority. These review meetings discuss data on the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, the likelihood of meeting goals and the planned level of performance against quarterly targets and milestones.
The federal government’s priority goals are categorised according to the risk of not achieving their planned level of performance. For those at highest risk, review meetings allow for the identification of prospects and strategies for performance improvement, including any required changes to agencies, organisations, programme activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies or other activities. The accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards achieving the priority goal are also discussed.
These meetings are organised by the director of the Office of Management and Budget with the support of the Performance Improvement Council. Meetings include officials from the agencies, organisations and programme activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each federal government priority goal. Since then, agencies have started to organise regularly scheduled, structured and rigorously prepared data-driven meetings to review performance indicators with department or programme personnel. According to the United States Government Accountability Office, to engage in data-driven reviews, the following conditions need to be met:
Programmes have identified their strategic priorities.
Leadership is authentic to support and engage in the process.
Programmes have the capacity to gather and synthesise data related to those priorities.
Source: United States Congress (2010[19]), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf; United States Congress (2018[20]), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf .
Embedding performance management to better inform decision making
Monitoring is important for effective governance and the achievement of government objectives. It enables evidence-informed decision making, integrating diverse information sources to guide actions towards sustainable development and enhanced societal well-being (OECD, 2020[21]). Effective use of evidence is key to embedding it in policy and decision-making processes (OECD, 2021[22]). Without the use of evidence, gaps will remain between what is known to be effective and decision making in practice. Yet, using monitoring evidence remains a challenge for OECD countries (see challenges identified in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States in OECD (2021[22])).
Thailand should enhance its monitoring from the CoG to institutionalise evidence-informed decision making, for example through embedding monitoring information in strategic planning, policy development cycles and budget processes (OECD, 2020[23]). Monitoring outputs must be integrated across all governance processes to meaningfully drive and inform decision making (OECD, 2020[23]). Interviews from the OECD fact-finding process acknowledged that Thailand has comprehensive monitoring processes; yet such processes could be better optimised to inform decision making.
In Thailand, greater co‑ordination between the NESDC and OPDC monitoring functions, and the budget proposal reviews or spending reviews could help the country link monitoring information to investment funding for cross-cutting policies for net zero. Currently, the NESDC sets the indicators and targets, the OPDC establishes KPIs for government agencies and the Budget Bureau allocates financial resources for the policies. While some collaboration exists in developing the annual budget allocation strategy, the budget allocation practice does not strictly follow the set criteria or targets. Additionally, given there is no single platform with monitoring information, the CoG may not fully use monitoring information to inform such decisions.
Further, the fact-finding process observed the absence of a system for updating key institutions, such as the National Climate Change Council (refer to Chapter 3) on KPI progress (for example, joint KPI to reduce GHG emissions). While joint KPIs are reported to the Cabinet, the governance mechanisms for sharing results across the government for application and how it is used to inform decision-making methodology at the highest levels remains unclear. This could be strengthened as part of an overall policy development framework (see Chapter 3). In this way, Thailand can also consider how to best present monitoring information to high-level decision makers, which tend to have little time at their disposal and require access to evidence they can easily digest. It is, therefore, crucial to bring the right information in front of the right people at the right time. CoGs should share simple, results-focused and visual information if helpful.
Examples of how performance information can be presented to decision makers in an easily digestible way include the common operating picture and action sheets introduced in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to their usefulness, these have now been adopted for general use within the Cabinet (Box 4.4).
Regular and simple presentation of data to decision makers is a key enabler for better decision making and policy development. Triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required more thorough and frequent situation assessment, the CoG in Australia developed two standard performance information tools that, based on metrics, support high-level decision makers in dealing with the complexity of the public policies under their responsibility.
The “action sheets” are meant to remind decision makers what has already been done in a specific policy area. Sometimes they are just a list highlighting the main events or actions taken so far but, in doing so, offer a base for future work. An additional benefit is that their preparation forces interdepartmental meetings to take stock of what ministries are doing and what is really happening.
The “common operating picture” supports strategic decision making. It integrates performance metrics across various departments and presents them in a traffic-light format to tell decision makers clearly whether actions taken are producing the expected results or need adjustment.
While line ministries create the products, the CoG plays a major role in ensuring sufficient quality, consolidating robust routines and boosting their use. The CoG also created one general overview by pooling the various pictures into one weekly briefing for the Prime Minister.
The introduction of these new tools by the CoG represented a turning point in monitoring. Traditionally, performance metrics were released on an annual basis through vast reports. Instead, this new approach makes for a much more frequent release of information.
Source: Interview with officials of the government of Australia, Priorities and Delivery Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Using digital tools to enhance the awareness and use of performance information
Policy makers and stakeholders cannot use evidence if they do not know about it (Haynes et al., 2018[24]). Therefore, the first step to promoting use is that data and results be made available to their intended users, including the general public. But publicity alone is not enough and active communication and dissemination strategies are needed to promote use.
OECD data show that evaluation results are increasingly made public by countries (OECD, 2020[7]). Only one surveyed country reported that evaluation results are only available to selected officials on an ad hoc basis, while 16 OECD countries make findings and recommendations available to the public by default, for example by publishing the reports on the commissioning institutions’ website. Currently, some Thailand’s monitoring information is available to agencies and public – twice-a-year assessments results are available in the OPDC’s “eSAR” system and agencies are required to publish these reports on their websites. However, a more systematic and coherent approach to publishing monitoring information is needed in Thailand, for example, through one centralised platform for monitoring information coming from all CoG bodies.
In recent years, governments have introduced the use of digital tools for monitoring and sharing performance information. For example, some OECD countries publish performance information and data linked to government progress on net zero issues. This could be useful for Thailand to continue to engage stakeholders, provide transparency on performance and how this influences policy decisions. It can also help governments retain long-term indicators that extend beyond election cycles. Examples of online dashboards to monitor government progress in implementing its environmental objective can be found in Estonia, France and Scotland (Box 4.5). To completement such tools, Thailand could develop tailored communication and dissemination strategies that increase access to clearly presented monitoring results. These strategies can include the use of infographics, tailored synthesis of research evidence (e.g. in the form of executive summaries), dissemination of “information nuggets” through social media, seminars to present research findings, etc. (OECD, 2020[7]).
Scotland
A more comprehensive online dashboard to monitor government progress in implementing its environmental objectives can be found in Scotland’s new Open Data Portal, which is currently under development. The portal’s Environment Strategy Monitoring Framework section contains the following information: a dashboard summarising the status of each indicator, an overview of the environment strategy, an environment outcomes hub summarising the initial monitoring framework, a technical information hub and a page to download the available data.
Estonia
Estonia’s “tree of truth” portal presents key indicators of importance for the country, including on the environment. The indicators directly relate to the country’s existing strategies, in particular the Estonian National Strategy on Sustainable Development, Estonia 2035 and the Action Plan of the Government of the Republic. The indicators include environmental and climate issues and are colour-coded to communicate the government’s progress on its stated goals.
French barometers of public action results and public services
The French Minister of Transformation and Public Service launched the Baromètre des résultats de l’action publique or barometer of public action results. Responsible for co-ordinating the monitoring of all priority government reforms, the CoG (DIPT) was fully mobilised to design and deploy this barometer. The objective was to enable French citizens to measure and be aware of the progress of these public policies in their daily lives. The barometer displays the status and concrete results of 25 priority reforms carried out by the government. These cover eight essential dimensions of everyday life for citizens. With quantified data, the barometer presented the state of implementation in 2020 and the government’s target for 2022 for each policy. The barometer is updated regularly and enriched with new policies so that French citizens can measure the progress of government action. France has also set up a regular barometer (survey) of citizens, called the Baromètre Delouvrier, on their satisfaction with key life events.
Source: Open Data Scotland (n.d.[25]) , Welcome to Open Data Scotland, https://opendata.scot/ ; Ministère de la transformation et de la fonction publiques (n.d.[26]), Le baromètre des résultats de l’action publique, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/transformer-laction-publique/le-barometre-des-resultats-de-laction-publique; OECD (2019[27])., Tree of Truth, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/the-tree-of-truth/.
Digital tools support performance monitoring by allowing for real-time data and instant analysis, publicity or dissemination of information and good opportunities for data visualisation to better present the data (OECD, 2024[5]). Digital tools also provide excellent opportunities for data visualisation, making the presentation of data more comprehensible for decision makers. These tools can be customised to meet different users’ specific requirements and roles. For example, Thailand could consider the use of real-time data platforms from the CoG for monitoring performance, such as that in the United Kingdom (Box 4.6).
Better data visualisation practices allow results and progress to be better communicated to decision makers, informing better practices. In 2019, the CoG in the United Kingdom started moving towards real-time performance tracking. Triggered by the preparation of Brexit and sped up by the COVID-19 pandemic, the new dashboard, called Government Performance App, was extended to the top 200 and top 35 government priorities.
The Government Performance App is managed by the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury and fed by the different departments leading the government priority projects. Consistent with standard operational procedures, every four weeks at least, lead departments are requested to co‑ordinate with “contributing” departments and agencies and regularly provide the CoG with information on progress against milestones and deliverables and major concerns. The Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit has full access to information. Focusing on a limited number of key policies can get a structured situational overview of progress on the overall government portfolio and inform decision making.
Source: UK Government (2023[28]), Project Delivery: Guidance - The Role of the Senior Responsible Owner, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1158010/2023-04-11-V2-AFIGT-The-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner-2.pdf .
Environmental data streamlined in the e-government portal in the United Kingdom
The UK Government’s main portal (gov.uk) provides access to e-government services and open data, via individual registration to the service or through the use of identity assurance system gov.uk Verify.
The section Environment and Countryside gives users access to an extensive list of environment-related services and additional information, e.g. on land management, coastal erosion or fishing permits.
Open access environmental information in Ireland: The Environmental Protection Agency’s geoportal
The geoportal in Ireland provides access to all environmental information, licensing and permitting, enforcement regulations, monitoring and environmental assessment data, research and education as well as key publications. The portal also provides access to videos, news and events and has a section for contacting portal administrators. The portal is a good example of a single web access point for environmental information.
Source: UK Government (n.d.[29]), Environment and Countryside, https://www.gov.uk/browse/environment-countryside; Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland (n.d.[30]), Geoportal, https://gis.epa.ie/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).
Currently, Thailand does not have an integrated and accessible data portal for net zero-related data. During the OECD fact-finding process, many stakeholders saw this as an essential step for more evidence-informed policy development and monitoring. Thailand – its National Statistical Office for example – could consider developing integrated, accessible data portals to support data transparency and allow cross-sharing of information. Two examples could provide inspiration for Thailand: the United Kingdom’s broader number of relevant environmental datasets and Ireland’s mature open data portal and geoportal (Box 4.7).
Building the capability for performance management of cross-cutting policies
To enhance CoG effectiveness in performance management of cross-cutting issues, staff need to possess a diverse set of skills, including proficient analysis and interpretation of information, the ability to present data in an accessible and user-friendly manner, and the capability of managing large data volumes efficiently (OECD, 2024[5]). This is vital for converting monitoring activities into actionable insights that inform government decision making (Vági and Rimkute, 2018[31]). During the OECD fact-finding process, stakeholders noted that CoG staff must be adept at synthesising and interpreting complex information from a variety of sources. The CoG needs to grasp the broader implications of policies to facilitate informed decision making. Line ministries also need to have skills and capabilities to support good monitoring practices. They need to understand the importance of good data measurement and have expertise in gathering, analysing and communicating sector-specific data. This was reinforced through the recent review of net zero in Thailand, which noted that many public servants do not see the importance of data and lack knowledge of measurement and reporting systems (Somboonpakorn, 2023[18]).
Interviewees further noted that staff needed a greater understanding of the complexities of cross-cutting issues such as net zero. For instance, the Department of Pollution Control has emphasised the need for educational initiatives to shift cultural attitudes, highlighting the importance of individuals understanding the impact of their actions, such as the environmental effects of certain farming practices or the use of single-use plastics.
The OECD’s recent Open and Connected Government Review of Thailand found capacity-building programmes should be prioritised in Thailand to advance the open and connected government agenda (OECD, 2022[32]). Specific to monitoring cross-cutting issues, the OPDC might consider establishing a training programme to enhance the capabilities of public servants across government. The OECD has developed a framework for civil servant skills, where data and analytical skills are prominent (OECD, 2017[33]). The CoG should cultivate a culture of continuous learning and adaptability across government, for example, through community practices or knowledge exchange fora.
The OPDC could also consider providing further guidance on good monitoring of cross-cutting issues and the practices line ministries need to use through a whole-of-government monitoring framework. The United Kingdom’s Green Book represents an inspiring practice in that regard (Box 4.8).
Providing guidance on good practices is one way the CoG can drive better practices, including in monitoring, across the whole of government. The UK Government’s Green Book (Buehring, 2023[34]) provides central government guidance on appraising and evaluating policies (including alternative policy options), projects and programmes. It sets out the requirements for options analysis, an approach to cost-benefit analysis, and M&E. It includes climate mitigation and adaptation examples and information on accounting for GHG emissions, the approach to the environment, natural capital and biodiversity.
This guidance concerns the provision of objective advice by public servants to political decision makers. It is aimed at all public servants concerned with proposals for the use of public resources, not just analysts. The key specialisms involved in public policy creation and delivery, from policy at a strategic level to analysis, commercial strategy, procurement, finance and implementation, must work together from the outset to deliver the best public value.
The Green Book is not a mechanical or deterministic decision-making device. It provides approved thinking models and methods to support the provision of advice to clarify the social – or public – welfare costs, benefits and trade-offs of alternative implementation options for the delivery of policy objectives.
Supplementary subject guidance explains how the Green Book can be applied when dealing with topics such as GHG emissions, air pollution and impacts on well-being. Additional guidance on accounting for the effects of climate change helps identify how climate impacts and challenges can affect a project. It outlines how to approach climate risk assessment, considering direct and indirect effects, and supports the development of alternative policy options in response to climate challenges, focusing on adaptation.
An Excel-based calculation toolkit is provided to convert energy consumption increases or decreases into GHG emissions changes and value these changes. Data tables containing the latest published estimations for carbon values, energy prices, long-run variable energy supply costs, emission factors and air quality damage costs are provided.
Source: Buehring, S. (2023[34]), “HM Treasury Green Book – What is it?”, https://www.knowledgetrain.co.uk/project-management/business-cases/hmt-green-book.
Enhancing the availability of data to improve the usefulness of the information
Recognising the importance of data as a cornerstone of open government, the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[35]) recognises the need for transparent, accessible and comprehensive data sources. This is crucial for creating accountable policies and maintaining governance integrity. Thailand has already taken several significant steps towards leveraging data for evidence-informed decision making, including improving data systems and practices and employing more open data principles. However, challenges persist in many countries, including Thailand, where the development of net zero-related statistics is hampered by limited resources and the inaccessibility of data (UNECE, 2021[36]). Environmental data at the national level often remain inaccessible, fragmented across various sources or not presented in user-friendly formats that facilitate comprehension and enable its effective utilisation for decision-making purposes (UNECE, 2021[36]).
In the context of net zero in Thailand, recent fact finding by the OECD has identified a significant gap in the integration of data from the private sector. At present, there is no requirement for the private sector to disclose information about their initiatives towards net zero, which poses a challenge for the government in obtaining a holistic view of the progress. The introduction of the Climate Change Act, expected in 2024 (Kingdom of Thailand, 2022[37]), aims to bridge this gap. It will introduce a legal requirement for mandatory reporting from the private sector, ensuring that the government has comprehensive access to all relevant data.
Through the Open and Connected Government Review of Thailand, the OECD supports the Thai government in advancing towards digital government maturity, building an open state and unlocking the benefits of digitalisation (OECD, 2022[32]). This work is forthcoming and will be foundational to support Thailand’s transition towards a more open, transparent and data-driven governance model. By implementing recommendations from the 2022 OECD review and aligning with OECD standards and practices, Thailand will be able to better access and utilise data to support cross-cutting policies, including achieving net zero.
Thailand could consider the following opportunities to enhance monitoring practices from the centre on cross-cutting issues:
Enhance the performance management and monitoring system to better enable it to inform decision making:
Adopt a comprehensive definition of performance management and monitoring and establish a shared understanding of their objectives in the public sector. This should clarify the different approaches and actors involved in monitoring cross-cutting issues from the CoG, monitoring internal operations and monitoring other programmes or services.
Engage internal and external stakeholders in performance management and monitoring processes. Thailand can consider using data reviews or deep dives to better involve stakeholders in the monitoring processes and identify decision-making implications.
Enhance the availability of data and monitoring results to internal and external stakeholders, for example by using communication strategies, digital tools (including those available to the public) such as a dashboard and knowledge-sharing networks or policy briefs or papers.
Promote alignment between existing monitoring platforms to facilitate better information exchange and evidence-informed policy making at all levels of government.
Embed monitoring processes into the broader processes for Cabinet decision making, budget proposals and broader policy development frameworks.
Further strengthen the alignment of KPIs and performance management approaches:
Utilise more collaborative approaches across ministries and with local governments and stakeholders to design functional and strategic KPIs.
Enhance co-ordination between NESDC and OPDC by ensuring that strategic KPIs linked to net zero are consistently defined and monitored across all levels. This includes improving alignment between NESDC’s value chain framework and OPDC’s monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, potentially through a more integrated workflow system.
Ensure KPIs are both quantitative and qualitative, thus providing more comprehensive understanding of performance.
Introduce KPIs that require joint efforts from multiple ministries for cross-cutting issues rather than relying on the aggregation of individual ministry efforts. This can be underpinned by an operational framework for how joint action would be undertaken.
Guide good monitoring practices from the centre, including:
Clarify leadership and co-ordination mechanisms for net-zero monitoring to ensure a clear main host agency and improve alignment between relevant agencies. This can help address siloed work practices and foster shared goals.
Enhance understanding of the importance of monitoring cross-cutting policies by building expertise within the CoG and line ministries to ensure effective implementation.
Develop standards, guidance materials, and tools to promote consistent monitoring and data practices for net-zero policies, demonstrating how monitoring is linked to the broader policy development and implementation cycle.
Equip implementation counterparts with clear guidelines and training on collecting, managing, and reporting data and evidence for cross-cutting policies. This can enhance data quality and consistency, improving the overall effectiveness of monitoring efforts.
References
[1] Baredes, B. (2022), “Serving citizens: Measuring the performance of services for a better user experience”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 52, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en (accessed on 7 February 2024).
[17] Bridges, K. and M. Woolcock (2022), “Measuring what matters principles for a balanced data suite that prioritizes problem-solving and learning”, World Bank Policy Research Working Papers, Development Economics Development Research Group, World Bank Group, http://www.worldbank.org/prwp (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[34] Buehring, S. (2023), “HM Treasury Green Book – What is it?”, Knowledge Train, https://www.knowledgetrain.co.uk/project-management/business-cases/hmt-green-book (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[30] Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland (n.d.), Geoportal, https://gis.epa.ie/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[16] Falduto, C. and M. Rocha (2020), “Aligning short-term climate action with long-term climate goals: Opportunities and options for enhancing alignment between NDCs and long-term strategies”, OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers, No. 2020/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c980fce-en (accessed on 5 September 2022).
[12] Government of Canada (2018), The Mandate Letter Tracker and the Results and Delivery Approach, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/results-delivery-unit.html (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[13] Government of Thailand (2023), Royal Decree regarding Changing the Name of the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP) to Department of Climate Change and Environment (CCE) B.E. 2566 (2023).
[24] Haynes, A. et al. (2018), “What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review”, Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 16/1, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12961-018-0277-1.
[4] Kaur, M. et al. (2023), “Steering responses to climate change from the centre of government: A stocktaking”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b95c8396-en.
[37] Kingdom of Thailand (2022), Thailand’s Fourth Biennial Update Report, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Thailand_BUR4_final_28122022.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
[26] Ministère de la transformation et de la fonction publiques (n.d.), Le baromètre des résultats de l’action publique, Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique, Paris, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/transformer-laction-publique/le-barometre-des-resultats-de-laction-publique (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[9] NESDC (2023), The Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council and Office of the Prime Minister, https://www.nesdc.go.th/article_attach/article_file_20230615134223.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[5] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
[14] OECD (2023), Germany’s Annual Sectoral Emissions Targets, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/germany-s-annual-sectoral-emissions-targets-2148cd0e/.
[3] OECD (2023), Net Zero+: Climate and Economic Resilience in a Changing World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/da477dda-en.
[8] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4815cb4b-en.
[15] OECD (2023), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Germany 2023, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f26da7da-en.
[6] OECD (2023), “Survey on strategic decision-making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[2] OECD (2023), The Principles of Public Administration, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7f5ec453-en (accessed on 18 December 2023).
[32] OECD (2022), Open and Connected Government Review of Thailand, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e1593a0c-en.
[22] OECD (2021), Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-term Development, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[21] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en (accessed on 26 January 2024).
[7] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
[23] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[27] OECD (2019), Tree of Truth, OPSI Case Study Library, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/the-tree-of-truth/.
[35] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[33] OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264280724-en.
[25] Open Data Scotland (n.d.), Welcome to Open Data Scotland, https://opendata.scot/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[11] Shostak, R. et al. (2023), The Center of Government, Revisited: A Decade of Global Reforms, https://doi.org/10.18235/0004994 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[18] Somboonpakorn, A. (2023), “Suggestions for future public administration”, Unpublished.
[28] UK Government (2023), Project Delivery: Guidance - The Role of the Senior Responsible Owner, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1158010/2023-04-11-V2-AFIGT-The-role-of-the-senior-responsible-owner-2.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[29] UK Government (n.d.), Environment and Countryside, https://www.gov.uk/browse/environment-countryside (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[36] UNECE (2021), Conference of European Statisticians’ Set of Core Climate Change-related Indicators and Statistics Using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/CES_Set_Core_CCR_Indicators-Report.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[20] United States Congress (2018), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[19] United States Congress (2010), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[31] Vági, P. and E. Rimkute (2018), “Toolkit for the preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of public administration reform and sector strategies: Guidance for SIGMA partners”, SIGMA Papers, No. 57, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/37e212e6-en (accessed on 7 February 2024).
[10] World Bank (2010), “GET Note: Center of government delivery units”, Recently Asked Questions Series, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/923311468337217269/pdf/600920BRI0GET010BOX358310B01PUBLIC1.pdf.