Implementing Performance Measurement Systems in Local Governments: Moving from the “How” to the “Why”

Abstract

This paper examines how Performance Measurement Systems (PMSs) are implemented in local governments where the initial context is defined by equivalent external pressures and professional expertise, in order to address the question of "why" PMS implementation patterns differ from one setting to another. The study explored the reasons behind these different patterns in a context where local governments responsible for providing a local service implemented a PMS with the direct support of professional experts, and thereby it contributes to the extant literature in the field of PMS implementation. In order to achieve this purpose, the investigation analyzed three local governments (municipalities) that were required to implement a PMS because of external legislation requirements rather than by choice and is based upon a participatory case study approach involving interviews, observations and secondary data sources. Research was conducted through the theoretical lens of Old Institutional Economics to identify three PMS implementation patterns, here called formal compliance, shared vision and technical oligarchy. The role played by three factors, power, communication and an inclination to learn, is discussed in the results, as these three factors in particular may help to explain the heterogeneity in the implementation patterns observed.

Diagnostic and Interactive Use of PMM by Japanese Local Governments: Does the Context Affect the Fitness of Use?

“…Thus, as these authors argued, it is recommendable to have a situation approach to performance management. Similarly, Agasisti et al (Agasisti, Agostino, & Soncin, 2019) show that certain factors determines heterogeneity among PMM systems. Fitness of use appears with uncertainty, complexity and the bureaucratic culture.…”

“…Our starting point was that PMM systems have different types of uses (diagnostic and interactive) and that, depending on the context, one use may be more productive. Previous research has shown a low level of use of PMM systems, despite the great number of implementers (George et al, 2018;Gerrish, 2016) and has focused on identifying the key characteristics of the organizations that use performance measurement (Agasisti et al, 2019;Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008;Torres et al, 2011;Yetano, 2009). It seems clear that the use of performance management systems by itself does not produce results (Gerrish, 2016).…”

The Effect of External Pressure and Institutional Leadership on the Use of Local Government Performance Reports

“…Performance measurement is one result of the New Public Management (NPM) concept, which focuses on the accountability of managing public organizations (Osborne, 2006). To date, the institutional issues of NPM remain contentious (Hood & Dixon, 2015;Tallaki & Bracci, 2019) because the ongoing public sector reforms attract a lot of attention (Agasisti, Agostino, & Soncin, 2020;Modell, 2021Modell, , 2022Raboca, 2021;Tran & Nguyen, 2020) and the implementation of PMS is one alternative choice in public sector reform. The use of PMS as part of the public sector reform agenda (Cavalluzzo & Ittner, 2004;de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2002;Kurniawan & Akbar, 2021;Modell, 2001;Parwoto & Halim, 2020;Speklé & Verbeeten, 2014;Tran & Nguyen, 2020;Wijaya & Akbar, 2013).…”