“Measuring up”: a systematic literature review of performance measurement in Australia and New Zealand local government

Abstract

Purpose Measurement practices have long been considered vital for informing the management of performance in organisations. Their application to local governments is a more recent, yet multi-decade phenomenon facilitated by New Public Management trends. This paper aims to review the landscape of publications that discuss performance measurement (PM) practices in Australian and New Zealand local government contexts and identify implications for future research. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review methodology was used to identify a shortlist of publications. Next, a rating-based researcher appraisal process was applied. Multiple iterations of search and appraisal were conducted to form the basis for inductive thematic analysis and synthesis. Findings Analysing 65 PM publications, two interrelated themes, namely, discourses of performance as efficiency, accountability or strategic growth and change were identified, which influence the adoption of local PM tools and frameworks. As demands for strategic growth and more complex service delivery increase, strategic and localised adaptation of PMs may be required to integrate learning and communicative competencies with technical and operational capabilities. Research limitations/implications The systematic review methodology has been applied to address some of the limitations of publication and reporting biases in literature. This research provides a starting point for future investigations and broadening of discourse in local government contexts. Originality/value This paper represents the first systematic review of 1995–2020 publications on performance management practices used by local governments in Australia and New Zealand.

Sustainability materiality research: a systematic literature review of methods, theories and academic themes

“…We applied this method by collecting and analysing scholarly literature referring to sustainability materiality research. In doing so, we followed the research methods of prior SLRs (Dienes et al , 2016; Hinze and Sump, 2019; Johnsson et al , 2021; Mio et al , 2020b; Roberts et al , 2021; Veltri and Silvestri, 2020; Widyawati, 2020). Thus, we developed a research protocol consisting of methodological steps regarding the research plan, search strategy for conducting the review, content analysis of the extant literature and compilation of the findings.…”

Public value accounting and the use of performance measurements as a management tool in a context of various assessments

“…When it comes to the use of PM for improvements, it seems that a choice must be made between using the PM to develop and improve the local operations or using it for comparability on a macro-level (Johnsson et al , 2021; Zidarov et al , 2017). For example, Johnsson et al (2021) showed that models of working with quality and continuous improvements in performance resulted in improvements on a local level, but when used for benchmarking between organisations, the results instead emphasised the lack of flexibility in the models and difficulties in using them for improvements. In line with this, Lewis (2015) concludes that PMs are mainly used at the meso-level, by managers, and not by politicians at the macro-level nor at the micro-level of operations.…”

“…In their study, it was reported on a macro-level that the PMs for benchmarking purposes worked and were perceived as useful and valid, but became too general and difficult to use on a micro-level. This indicates that comparing measures for the same activities can be used for benchmarking purposes, but when the perspective is moved to the organisational level, measures may lose relevance for the operative level (Zidarov et al , 2017; Johnsson et al , 2021).…”

“…Not only must the performance indicators be precise and clear, meeting their obligations regarding the overall budget framework of RS; they are also to be used as a metric to compare activities between units and departments. The health-care service providers must be able to steer their activities in a direction that leads to goal fulfilment and they must be able to compare their performance indicators with each other through benchmarking activities (Johnsson et al , 2021). A politician said:…”

“…Using standardised indicators, the politicians argue, will enhance the quality and public value of health care by using the results from the performance indicators to improve “low-performance” hospitals. However, for performance indicators to be used for improvements, previous research has shown that a choice must be made either between using PMs to develop and improve one’s own local operations or using them for comparability purposes (Johnsson et al , 2021; Zidarov et al , 2017). In our case, they tended to choose comparability.…”