From output to outcome measures in the public sector: a structured literature review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to perform an analysis of the current literature providing a deep contribution to understanding the paradigm shift from output to outcome measures in the public sector. Thus, the main aim is to provide relevant insights of both theoretical and empirical studies, offering a critique of the schemes and the research methods used and underlining future research opportunities for the compelling (or underestimated) contents and new emerging trends. Design/methodology/approach Articles published in main public management and administration journals, as internationally recognized, are analyzed using a structured literature review methodology. The paper investigates selected contributions published in Association of Business Schools (ABS) (Chartered Association of Business Schools – UK] Grade 4, 3 and 2 journals specializing in the field of “Public Sector Management,” dealing with the topic of performance measurement, from output to outcome. Findings Findings are described defying a framework that deepens emerging elements of current literature such as main countries analyzed, main research topics highlighted, research methods applied (qualitative versus quantitative; case studies, interviews, comparative studies etc.), different definitions of “output” and “outcome,” top keywords and their connections. Originality/value The paper’s findings aim to offer insights and a current “shared vision” into the state of the art and possible future research avenues on the topic of output and outcome measures in the public sector fostering the development of further studies especially in the direction of sustainability.

Crypto‐economy and new sustainable business models: Reflections and projections using a case study analysis

“…Moreover, case studies grant a better analysis of a “real‐world case” (Ridder, Hoon, & McCandless Baluch, 2014). Besides, qualitative methodologies can usually be better understood by practitioners in leading to managerial practices (Dal Mas et al, 2019), helping to bridge the gap between academia and practice (Massaro et al, 2018). Thus, we argue that such methodology is appropriate considering the specific research questions of our research.…”

“…Initially, scholars concentrated on innovative business models to enhance the economic value creation for shareholders. Lately, a growing number of studies emphasized the necessity to involve other stakeholders such as the local communities, the central State or government, and the natural environment to design SBMs (Birkin, Cashman, Koh, & Liu, 2009; Lozano, 2012, 2018; Wilson & Post, 2013), and even new types of organizations (Gazzola, Grechi, Ossola, & Pavione, 2019; Stubbs, 2019) highlighting the need to reach sustainability outcomes for the society (Birkin, Polesie, & Lewis, 2009; Dal Mas, Massaro, Lombardi, & Garlatti, 2019; Gazzola et al, 2019). The need to merge sustainability into the BM is also fostered by increasing external pressure by stakeholders (Cantele & Zardini, 2020).…”

Industry 4.0 and circular economy: An exploratory analysis of academic and practitioners' perspectives

“…Practical solutions may be the collaboration between scholars and managers as coauthors, in which the academics may need to take the lead, the so‐called ‘third mission’ of universities in dealing with research or interventionist research projects within the industry, forums or think‐tanks among various stakeholders to gather ideas, issues and challenges to be addressed. The use by academics of case studies instead of complex quantitative analysis may also help to share knowledge with practitioners, as already suggested by some literature streams (Dal Mas, Massaro, Lombardi, & Garlatti, 2019). The translation of academic studies into practitioners' oriented sources like financial newspapers or magazines or blog posts may also represent winning strategies to help to bridge the divide and give data to academics and tentative rigorous solutions to managers.…”

Knowledge Translation in Oncology. A Case Study

“…Productive relationships need to be managed as part of this complex system, and interactions among various actors allow to "produce valuable, new, and unpredictable capabilities that are not inherent in any of the parts acting alone" (Plsek and Wilson, 2001, p. 746). Healthcare ecosystems have been experiencing a shift from a centralised and sequential model of value creation to a more distributed and open model (Bowser et al, 2019;Chen et al, 2019;Cobianchi, 2020b;Gordon, Perlman, and Shukla, 2017;IBM, 2013;Siemens, 2018), where citizens and patients are co-creators of their own wellbeing (Batalden et al, 2016;Bessant, Moeslein, and Kunne, 2012;Biancuzzi et al, 2020b;Dal Mas et al, 2019a;Dal Mas, Paoloni, and Lombardi, 2019;Dal Mas andPaoloni, 2019, 2020). The healthcare ecosystems usually involve a vast number of parties (patients, physicians, clinical researchers, nurses, policymakers) that share their innovation processes to incorporate knowledge flows originated from or co-produced with external stakeholders (universities, research centres, industries, governmental agencies, NGOs, public institutions) (Ardito and Messeni Petruzzelli, 2017;Cobianchi, et al, 2020a;Dal Mas et al, 2018;Gassmann, Enkel, and Chesbrough, 2010;Huizingh, 2011;Renaudin et al, 2018).…”