Arie Halachmi

Performance measurement is only one way of managing performance

Purpose – Aims to introduce to a symposium, a set of linked papers, which illustrate the reality that, when it comes to boosting productivity, performance management is a broader and more meaningful concept than simple performance measurement. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a brief review of the issues involved in using performance measurement in general and balanced scorecard (BS) in particular. Findings – Performance management can take many forms from dealing with issues internal to the organization to catering to stakeholders or handling issues in its environment. Performance management involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative techniques and paying due attention to the human (behavioral) side of the enterprise. Originality/value – The article identifies performance measurement as a possible sub‐system of performance management. The article suggests that resorting to performance management is in fact a return to the basic concept of management, which assumes that there is a need to do something in order to assure that the use of resources results in the attainment of desired goals.

Performance Measurement, Accountability, and Improved Performance

Duing the past 20 years, performance measurement has become a salient item for governments all over the world. In the United States, the interest in performance measurement was demonstrated when President Clinton signed into law in 1993 the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Similar legislation can be found at the national and state (provincial) levels in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the countries of Western Europe. Reasons for the recent interest in performance measurement include the following:

Performance measurement: test the water before you dive in:

Performance measurement and reporting are promoted in various publications as a management concept that can help administrators and elected officials address the issues of productivity and accountability. This article challenges this general assertion for two reasons. First, because the cost of performance score cards is always significant while the benefits, in many instances, may be only tentative. Second, because of possible problems that result when measuring performance is used for two different and potentially competing functions: accountability versus productivity. The article concludes that while performance measurement has a potential, its use should be encouraged but not mandated by external bodies. The article asserts that a more prudent introduction and use of performance score cards may result from better understanding of two things: first, what can go wrong when compiling performance reports; and, second, that there might be a need for other corresponding changes, within and outside government agencies, in order to facilitate meaningful performance reports.

Performance measurement: a look at some possible dysfunctions

Performance measurement can promote both accountability and improved performance but schemes that are geared for one purpose may not be ideal for promoting the other. This paper suggests that performance measurement can involve the siphoning of resources from “production” to overhead (under noble pretenses) and that this may not foster greater value for money.

Performance measurement and government productivity

To be able to compete in the global economy, firms must become more efficient, more flexible and, above all, more customer‐oriented. The competitive edge of firms is determined not only by their own strategic choices, but also by what their respective governments do (or fail to do) in terms of providing a supportive infrastructure that helps them compete. This paper examines the changing nature of government, and in particular the changing nature of performance measurement and management as governments attempt to balance accountability for the resources they manage with flexibility in terms of the services they provide.

Process reengineering in the public sector: learning some private sector lessons

The possible applicability of business process reengineering (BPR) to organisations in the public sector is explored through analysis of the central issues in BPR and the emerging experience of organisations which have recently implemented it. In particular, the paper suggests that success of reengineering may depend critically on the strategic capability of the organisation prior to undertaking the effort. For that reason well-performing organisations are more likely to improve performance by means of BPR than are weak ones. Yet, in the public sector, it tends to be badly performing agencies which are most encouraged to undertake BPR. Knowing and understanding the reasons for success or failure of BPR in private organisations can prepare public sector managers for undertaking the effort, but each reengineering initiative must be tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the individual agency. Public sector managers should use the widest possible definition of `value? when analysing value-added in process reengineering and should be especially sensitive to the way in which `value? in the public sector is differently interpreted by major stakeholders. During this learning process, public sector agencies would be well advised to be conservative in estimating gains from BPR.

Merit Pay, Performance Targeting, and Productivity

Most merit pay plans have limited ability to motivate employees and to enhance productivity. This article suggests that performance targeting, a concept that is related to performance appraisal but different from it, may be a more promising approach to productivity enhancement. The article illuminates some of the main shortfalls of expectancy theory on which many merit pay plans are based and points out some of the possible problems with performance appraisal. The article sug gests that the productivity enhancement effort must include a deliberate effort to prevent the crea tion of demotivators and a search for a better understanding of what makes the individual employee tick. It cautions managers to consider the propositions that are provided by the equity and needs theories of motivation in developing programs to boost productivity.

Performance Measurement, Organizational Technology and Organizational Design

Hayes and Clark note that in many manufacturing companies managers: do not have adequate measures for judging factory‐level performance or for comparing overall performance from one facility to the next. Of course, they can use the traditional cost‐accounting figures, but often these figures do not tell them what they really need to know. Worse, even the best numbers do not sufficiently reflect the important contributions that managers can make by reducing confusion in the system and promoting organizational change.

Measurement as a means of accountability

Independent scrutiny can help empower bureaucracys critics so that they might question “government as usual” tendencies, and therefore pressure governments to produce services as advertised. Our premise is that in order to honestly share access to decisions bureaucracies must share access to the information necessary to make those decisions. In particular, more pointed and sophisticated external scrutiny may embarrass management into fully applying the tools it now has available, but often fails to utilise. Data-based dialogues can make government more responsive and responsible in its use of available resources, that is, more productive and more accountable.

Governance and risk management: challenges and public productivity

Purpose – This paper has two purposes. The first is to help elected officials address the issue of public accountability for crises and improve productivity and risk management in the process by outsourcing some traditional government functions to civil society based organizations that can do a better job. The second is to mobilize researchers to explore the implications of the shift from “governing” to “governance” for risk management and the development of risk culture.Design/methodology/approach – After exploring some case studies, the paper examines some leading resources on the shift from “governing” to “governance”. The paper goes on to present an alternative approach for managing public risks.Findings – In order to improve the management of public risks, and given the financial constraints faced by most governments, there is a need for a deliberate effort to entice civil society based organizations to help government identify and alert the public to possible risks. In other words, civil society bas...