An inquiry into the strategic‐operational role of performance management in local government

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to investigate the links and relationships between strategy and operations in local government improvement efforts under the umbrella of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda (LGMA) in England. More specifically, it explores the implementation of structured change methods and performance measurement and management initiatives that claim to have a linked strategic and operational focus through to stakeholder impact.Design/methodology/approachThis research adopts an interpretive multiple case approach (n=5), using in‐depth semi‐structured interviews and focus groups, as well as substantive archive information.FindingsThe structured integration of strategic level policy‐setting and its associated operational level activity in local authorities is often obscure and lacking in cohesiveness. Performance measurement and management at the strategic level is, for the most part, driven by emerging legislation and the need for compliance rather than improving service effectiveness. This has led to discontinuity, delays in implementing policy, and criticism of performance measures from service delivery staff.Practical implicationsThere is a need for improved integration across the strategic‐operational divide, which requires improved understanding and translation approaches. Methods adopted from other sectors should be assessed critically and tailored to suit this need rather than adopting an off‐the‐shelf provision.Originality/valueThere is a paucity of in‐depth studies relating to performance measurement and management across the strategic‐operational span in the public sector in general, and local government in particular. Increased understanding in this area is of critical importance in relation to implementing effectively the current and future modernisation and reform initiatives.

Which shape fits best? Designing the organizational form of local government procurement

“…Many authors in the public management field have explored how public organizations, constrained by political and institutional goals, always adapt their strategy and try to develop more effective managerial approaches, organizational models and tools (McAdam et al 2011;Rubery et al 2013;Iacovino et al, 2017), in this way creating a path towards continuous improvement. This is particularly true for public procurement, where government and politicians are pushing institutions at all levels to deliver efficiency and "value for money" in the use of public funds, whilst adhering to EU requirements and to national laws and policies (Coulson, 2008;Afonso et al 2010).…”

Organisational choices in public procurement: what can public management learn from the private sector?

“…This gap is particularly felt by local governments, which are heterogeneous in size, higher in number, and in which procurement is often a neglected aspect (e.g., McAdam et al, 2011;Murray, 2011). More than in other administrations, the procurement department in local governments is often assigned to a "bureaucratic role" (Patrucco et al, 2017).…”

Faktor Penentu Kinerja Pemerintah Daerah

“…Desentralisasi dan otonomi daerah memberikan dampak terhadap munculnya pergeseran kekuasaan dari pemerintah pu sat ke daerah. Salah satu penyebab yang mungkin terjadi korupsi semakin melebar di daerah adalah akibat banyaknya aturan ataupun regulasi yang inkonsisten antara pemerintah pusat dan pemerintah daerah (McAdam, Walker, & Hazlett, 2011;Laskar & Maji, 2018;Pahlevi & Setiawan, 2017). Untuk menghindari terjadinya korupsi, pe ngelolaan organisasi pemerintahan harus lebih akuntabel dan perlu adanya penga wasan (monitoring) yang ketat (Artha, Ba suki, & Alamsyah, 2015).…”