Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:02:43.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Perversity in public service performance measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Mike Pidd
Affiliation:
Professor Lancaster University Management School, UK
Andy Neely
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, UK
Get access

Summary

Introduction: government, targets and measurement

The last twenty years have seen the use of performance measurement and performance management mushroom in government departments and agencies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. A review of the use of performance measurement in various countries can be found in Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, by Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004). Performance measurement is not a new feature of public administration, but it has become much more prominent in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and some other countries during the last two decades. A positive review of these developments in the United Kingdom was produced by the government's Comptroller and Auditor General in 2001 (National Audit Office, 2001). A rather more critical review can be found in the report produced by the Public Administration Select Committee in 2003 following its extensive discussions (Public Administration Select Committee, 2003).

There are many different aspects of the public sector that could be measured. These include issues of productivity, traditionally the domain of economists, which was the major concern of the Atkinson Review (Office of National Statistics, 2005), set up by the National Statistician “to advance methodologies for the measurement of government output, productivity and associated price indices in the context of the National Accounts …”.

Type
Chapter
Information
Business Performance Measurement
Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice
, pp. 408 - 430
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bird, S. M., Cox, D., Harvey, G., Tim, H., and Smith, P. C. (2003). Performance Indicators: Good, Bad, and Ugly, report of the Royal Statistical Society Working Party on performance monitoring in the public services. London: Royal Statistical Society.Google Scholar
Boyle, D. (2001). The Tyranny of Numbers: Why Counting can't Make Us Happy. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar
Boyne, G., Farrell, C., Law, J., Powell, M., and Walker, R. (2002). Evaluating Public Management Reforms: Principles and Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Brignell, J. (2000). Sorry, Wrong Number!: The Abuse of Measurement. London: Brignell Associates.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. B. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-year Retrospective. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Contandriopoulos, D., Denis, J.-L., and Langley, A. (2004). Defining the “public” in a public healthcare system. Human Relations, 57(12), 1573–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H., and Spiegelhalter, D. (1996). League tables and their limitations: statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 159, 385–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbard, J. H., and Peters, E. (2003). Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 413–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbard, J. H., Slovic, P., Peters, E., and Finucane, M. L. (2002). Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: evidence from controlled studies. Health Services Research, 37, 291–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstede, G. (1981). Management control of public and not for profit activities. Accounting, Oragnisations and Society, 6(3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, D. (1991). How to Lie with Statistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. N., Shekelle, P. G., Davies, H., and Smith, P. C. (2003). Public reporting on quality in the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs, 22(3), 134–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, D. (2003). The virtual moment. Royal Anthropological Institute, 9(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 75–83.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2001). Measuring the Performance of Government Departments: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 301. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, M., and Abma, T. (2003). Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration, 81(4), 853–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of National Statistics (2005). Atkinson Review: Final Report – Measurement of Government Output and Productivity for the National Accounts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pidd, M. (2003). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Public Administration Select Committee (2003). On Target? Government by Measurement. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ridgway, V. F. (1956). Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Smith, P. C. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. (2003). Involving People in the Public Disclosure of Clinical Data, report on research with user organisations and patients. London: Nuffield Trust.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×