A discussion of regulation can become a discussion of activity: rules issued, inspections completed, approvals processed or compliance costs recorded. A results perspective asks a further question: what do those activities tell us about the outcome regulation is intended to support?
The purpose is not to assume that more regulation is better or that less regulation is better. It is to make the performance question clearer.
Activity is not the complete performance story
Colin Ross's discussion of the performance audit paradox distinguishes confidence about observable activity from deeper insight into outcomes and public value. This provides a useful lens for a regulatory conversation.
Evidence that a process operates may be important, but it does not automatically establish its effectiveness. A stronger account explains what conclusion the evidence supports, how that conclusion was reached and where uncertainty remains.
Make trade-offs explicit
A proposed PPX discussion can ask what outcome is being protected or improved, which risks are relevant, what costs and benefits are considered, and whose experience is represented. These are suggested questions for professional exchange, not findings about a particular regulatory system.
The same discipline applies when reviewing a proposal to change a rule. A clear account should distinguish expected effects from observed effects and identify the evidence needed to assess the change. Neither a claim about burden nor a claim about protection should stand in for the full analysis.
Consider perspectives without treating them as neutral evidence
The Logic's sponsored feature, The Road to Risk-Smart Regulation, is an additional discussion resource associated with the Canadian Bankers Association. Its sponsorship matters when readers assess the perspective being advanced.
An industry contribution can be part of a useful conversation, but it should not be presented as independent research or as PPX endorsement. A balanced discussion should also seek regulatory, consumer, public-interest and research perspectives. This article uses the feature as a discussion resource, not as evidence establishing the effects of a specific reform.
Lesson learned
Managing for results in regulation means being clear about the intended outcome, the available evidence and the judgement connecting them. It also means making uncertainty and competing explanations visible.
For PPX, this is an opportunity to connect practitioners from regulation, evaluation, planning, risk and assurance around a common performance question. The value of that exchange lies in examining different perspectives, not assuming they already agree.
Does your regulatory performance story explain what changed, or mainly describe what was done?
Bring that question into a cross-community learning conversation and explore what additional evidence would make the answer stronger.
Sources and further reading
- Colin Ross. Debate: The performance audit paradox: more evidence, more confidence, but not necessarily more insight. Public Money & Management, 2026.
- The Logic. The Road to Risk-Smart Regulation. Sponsored content associated with the Canadian Bankers Association.
Continue learning with PPX
Explore results-based management training, browse PPX learning events, or join the PPX community.
Comments are closed.