The contingencies of performance measurement in the public sector

Citation

Van de Walle, S. and Van Dooren, W. (2006), "The contingencies of performance measurement in the public sector", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2006.07955faa.001

The contingencies of performance measurement in the public sector

Steven Van de WalleLecturer in Public Management at the Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Wouter Van DoorenResearcher at the Public Management Institute, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

The contingencies of performance measurement in the public sector

Performance measurement has conquered a permanent place in public administrations, and in public administration research. Public sector reforms have for decades now repeated the mantra that measuring is a priori good, and that measuring a lot is better. With a constant attention for more measurement, the focus has all too often been on the technicalities of measurement. Only public sectors and public sector organisations with performing performance measurement systems are said to be able at efficiency and effectiveness. Did performance measurement live up to its promise? Did performance measurement lead to evidence-based and rational decision making? Have public sectors become more efficient as a result of performance monitoring? The articles in this issue each deal with a different aspect of these questions.

The use of indicators in government has a long history: censuses and moral statistics in the nineteenth century, the scientific management movement in the first decades of the twentieth century, the work of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, the social indicators movement in the 1960s and 1970s, PPBS experiments, etc. New public management was certainly not the first reform paradigm that relied extensively on performance measurement. What is new, however, is that public administration scholars began to analyse the contingencies of performance measurement. Rather than just relying on performance information for studying or reforming organisations, performance measurement systems themselves became an object of study. The contingencies of the systems almost developed into a separate branch of organisational research. A focus on the technicalities and implementation of performance measurement systems was supplemented by study of the origins, management, and effects of performance measurement systems. Politics was brought back into public administration research after the Second World War (e.g. Waldo, 1948), and especially since the 1960s. The late 1980s and the 1990s introduced politics (together with economics, sociology and psychology) to performance measurement research.

In a public sector context, different rationalities coexist. What is considered as performance at one time and place, may elsewhere be seen as a despised aberration, as an administration gone astray, as an administration working towards the wrong ends using unacceptable means. Government performance is an ultimate balancing act between different types of performance: sigma, theta and lambda types of values, as Hood (1991) has described them. A lean and purposeful government needs at the same time to safeguard fairness and honesty, but its organisation needs also be robust to survive and adapt to crises. These types of performance each have different time-frames and require different management techniques. A focus on one definition or approach over another ultimately leads to disastrous results in other areas. Ignorance of multi-faceted challenges inherent in performance measurement and management may well lead to wrong decisions, financial loss, and demotivated staff. Performance management itself, rather than a key to modernization, can become the Achilles’ heel of the modernization process (Bouckaert and Peters, 2002, p. 359).

Dysfunctions of performance measurement have received extensive attention in the literature. This does not make performance measurement exceptional within public administration. Much of the public administration scholarship has grown out of the observation of, or dissatisfaction with, dysfunctions of administration: research on political-administrative relations followed excessive political interference in the administration, principal-agent approaches were developed following a perceived absence of control on the administration, public choice theories were developed following the observation of budget-maximising and bureau-shaping behaviour, and new public administration followed dissatisfaction with the administrator’s neutral competence leading to social inequity.

Performance management is different from performance measurement (Hatry, 2002). The articles in this issue each present a different challenge in the management of the measurement. The management of performance measurement is about making decisions about measurability. Rather than taking indicators for granted, reflection on the measurability of input, process, output and effect is essential to reach agreement about the indicators between all stakeholders. Only then, a technically sound performance measurement system can be developed. Performance management is thus about critical analysis of measurement practices, but also about convincing about the validity and legitimacy of the system. Performance management also implies recognition of various gaming strategies employed for dealing with performance measures. Rather than merely measuring, performance indicators themselves evolve into a causal factor of organisational performance. Finally, performance management is the management of resources, and implies decisions on the cost-effectiveness of measurement.

Performance measurement in the public sector: what has come from it?

This issue contains four articles. They each attempt to evaluate a specific aspect of performance measurement and performance management practice. Three papers analyse specific cases, while one is of a theoretical nature.

The focus on technicalities of measurement has driven the basic question somewhat to the background: does performance measurement contribute to a more efficient public sector? Dorothea Greiling analyses the theoretical underpinnings of performance measurement. Measuring performance is an important element in many research paradigms, but at closer inspection, she finds that many of these theories are actually quite sceptical about the potential of performance measurement as an efficiency driver.

A second paper introduces the reader to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) system in the United Kingdom, whereby local authorities get scored as excellent, good, fair, weak, or poor. In his contribution, Chris Game describes in a vivacious way how a performance measurement system has gone wild. The focus on constant improvement in the scoring threatened to make the entire system useless. He also deals with the potential negative effects of being labelled as a bad performer.

Performance indicators are only useful when they are also used. Only when performance information is used by key stakeholders, may it have an impact on policy or management. Mathias Brun and John Philipp Siegel surveyed members of the Swiss Federal Parliament, Cantonal parliaments and government, to see how they use performance information and assess the availability of performance reports. Recipients of performance information often had other requirements and wishes than those preparing the information. The results of the survey were used to set standards for performance reporting.

Wouter Van Dooren and Miekatrien Sterck focus on reform discourse in relation to public sector financial management reform in Australia and the USA. In both countries, financial management reforms attempted at integrating performance information in the budgeting system. They study how a political change has an impact on the reform discourse and the reform decisions. Using performance information influences power relations between politicians and administrations, between executive and legislative powers, and between central and decentral agencies.

The articles in this issue have earlier been presented at one of the annual meetings of the Permanent Study Group on Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector, a part of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA). Founded in 1986, the study group meets at least once a year during the EGPA conferences, to discuss issues related to the productivity, efficiency and quality of public services. The aim of the study group is to create a network in the European public administration community, and to promote exchanges between the academic and the practitioner community. From 2001 to 2004, the focus was on quality, satisfaction and trust, and from 2005 on, the main topic was performance measurement. The editors of this special issue would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have contributed to the quality of the articles.

Steven Van de Walle, Wouter Van DoorenGuest Editors