Land Admin SystemsSummary
Draft for Ken's approval
A semirural Land Registry has low quality and a poor reputation. Roughly 20% of titleholders bypass it for property transactions. Government loses revenue, and the operations and maintenance budget barely covers salaries. Unlike Part B, this example has five performance improvement objectives, some of them interdependent. They are to improve quality and reputation, win back inactive customers and increase government revenue, while keeping backlogs and waiting times low.
Senior management built graphs of performance over time, a schematic of the core structure and a Strategy Dynamics model. They tested five performance improvement proposals (PIPs), and PIP#5 was the most efficacious. The strategy lifts quality to about 0.9. Once reputation reaches 0.7, a marketing campaign targets lost titleholders. A small percentage of the new revenue funds an adequate operations and maintenance budget.
Keeping standards high after aid ends prevents a vicious cycle of quality decay. Then the registry can be a goose that lays golden eggs. The model also serves as a living business model for monitoring and evaluation.
Key points
- Quality of products and services, and reputation as customers see it, affect how well the Land Registry operates through feedback loops.
- Keeping quality high after aid ends needs adequate yearly operations and maintenance funding, drawn from a small % of the extra revenue earned.
- Think carefully about the improvement objectives, because once they are set, the system, schematic, model and improvement strategy all follow from them.
- Drawing a schematic together, early and in country, builds shared understanding and buy-in, but only a Strategy Dynamics model gives quantitative results.
- A successful upgrade of a small Land Registry of ~100,000 titleholders could act as a pilot for improving many other Land Registries.