Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- Notes on contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: knowledge and performance – theory and practice
- 2 Knowledge from inspection: external oversight and information to improve performance
- 3 How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information
- 4 Citizens, users or consumers: the voice of the public and its influence on improving performance
- 5 Competition and choice: the place of markets in connecting information and performance improvement
- 6 The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance
- 7 Change at the top: connecting political and managerial transitions with performance
- 8 The role of leadership in knowledge creation and transfer for organisational learning and improvement
- 9 Process Improvement and Lean Thinking: using knowledge and information to improve performance
- 10 Using evidence: how social research could be better used to improve public service performance
- 11 Absorptive capacity: how organisations assimilate and apply knowledge to improve performance
- 12 Knowing through doing: unleashing latent dynamic capabilities in the public sector
- 13 Conclusions: a puzzle, three pieces, many theories and a problem
- Index
- References
3 - How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- Notes on contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: knowledge and performance – theory and practice
- 2 Knowledge from inspection: external oversight and information to improve performance
- 3 How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information
- 4 Citizens, users or consumers: the voice of the public and its influence on improving performance
- 5 Competition and choice: the place of markets in connecting information and performance improvement
- 6 The role of corporate governance and boards in organisational performance
- 7 Change at the top: connecting political and managerial transitions with performance
- 8 The role of leadership in knowledge creation and transfer for organisational learning and improvement
- 9 Process Improvement and Lean Thinking: using knowledge and information to improve performance
- 10 Using evidence: how social research could be better used to improve public service performance
- 11 Absorptive capacity: how organisations assimilate and apply knowledge to improve performance
- 12 Knowing through doing: unleashing latent dynamic capabilities in the public sector
- 13 Conclusions: a puzzle, three pieces, many theories and a problem
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction: why information is not always used
Poorly performing organisations probably do so for a reason. The logic behind many initiatives to improve the performance of public organisations has been to enhance the quality and availability of information about their performance, and the data-use skills within them. Knowledge about where performance fails is seen as a key factor for getting organisations back on track. By making the organisation and its environment more transparent, more known, it is argued, organisations can find new ways to reinvent themselves.
Such an approach is built on a number of assumptions. One is that this information unambiguously contributes to the identification of trouble spots and to the solution of these problems. Information, in such an approach, is seen as something that reduces uncertainty. This assumption is especially strong in the theory of evidence-based management, where it is assumed that the ‘current best evidence’ or the ‘best available evidence’ will be used in a ‘conscientious, explicit and judicious’ way (Nutley and Webb 2000; Stewart 2002), and that the information will actually lead to answers. Unfortunately, evidence-based management and policy has difficulties dealing with ‘wicked’ problems, and often fails to see that more (and better) information does not necessarily reduce uncertainty (Learmonth and Harding 2006). Indeed, more information may do little to improve our understanding of social problems (Tsoukas 1997).
A second assumption is that the mere existence of information will lead to its use by decision-makers. This assumption reflects an instrumental approach to information as neutral.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public ServicesFrom Knowing to Doing, pp. 33 - 54Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(2006). Local Politicians as Decision-makers: How Important is Performance Information? Survey Evidence from Norway. Mimeo.Google Scholar
(2008). ‘Determinants of Performance Information Utilization in Political Decision Making’, in and (eds.), pp. 125–39.CrossRef
(2008). In the Know: Using Information to Make Better Decisions: A Discussion Paper. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
and (1982). ‘The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings’, Administrative Science Quarterly 27(4): 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1998). Performance Measurement Concepts and Techniques. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.Google Scholar
, and (2000). ‘Introducing Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services’, in , and (eds.), What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). ‘Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation’, Public Administration Review 61(6): 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981). ‘Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol’, Administrative Science Quarterly 26(2): 171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Performance Measurement at the State and Local Levels: A Summary of Survey Results. Washington, DC: GASB.Google Scholar
(2003). Paths to Performance in State and Local Government. A Final Assessment from the Maxwell School of Public Affairs. Syracuse, NY: Maxwell School of Public Affairs.Google Scholar
(1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
and (1997). ‘Stories Citizens Tell and How Administrators Use Types of Knowledge’, Public Administration Review 57(5): 374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). ‘Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 217–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
and (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
(2003). ‘Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
and (2007). The Politics of Bad Ideas: The Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Politics and Public Policy.Google Scholar
and (1956). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
and (2006). ‘Evidence-based Management: The Very Idea’, Public Administration 84(2): 245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1987). ‘Ambiguity and Accounting: The Elusive Link between Information and Decision Making’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(2): 153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) (1988). Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
and (1988). ‘Gossip, Information and Decision-making’, in (ed.), pp. 429–42.
(2000). ‘How Much Does Evaluation Matter? Some Examples of the Utilization of the Evaluation of the World Bank's Anti-corruption Activities’, Evaluation 6(1): 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). ‘Non Profit Performance Indicators in the Public Sector’, Financial Accountability and Management 1(1): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). ‘Goal-based Learning and the Future of Performance Management’, Public Administration Review 65(2): 203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). ‘What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Performance? Dialogue Theory and Performance Budgeting’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 151–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
and (2000). ‘Evidence and the Policy Process’, in , and (eds.), What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar
(2003). OECD/World Bank Budget Practices and Procedures Database. Paris: OECD.
and (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector from Schoolhouse to Statehouse, City Hall to the Pentagon. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
(1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
(2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
(2006). ‘Performance Information for Democracy: The Missing Link?’, Evaluation 12(1): 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Evidence-based Management: A Practical Guide for Health Professionals. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press.Google Scholar
and (1982). ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, in , and (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
(2000). Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits from Selected Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
and (2007). Making Better Use of Information to Drive Improvement in Local Public Services: A Report for the Audit Commission. Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies.Google Scholar
and (2008). ‘In the Know or Out of the Loop?’, Public Money and Management 28(4): 196–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). ‘Publishing Performance Information: An Illusion of Control?’, in and (eds.).
(2005). ‘What Makes Organisations Measure? Hypotheses on the Causes and Conditions for Performance Measurement’, Financial Accountability and Management 21(3): 363–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach. Leuven: Faculty of Social Sciences, diss. doct.Google Scholar
(2008). ‘Nothing New Under the Sun? Change and Continuity in the 20th Century Performance Movements’, in and (eds.).
and (eds.) (2008). Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRef
(1988). ‘Selectivity and Selective Perception: An Investigation of Managers’ Belief Structures and Information Processing', Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 873–96.Google Scholar
(2000). ‘Hypotheses About Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 403–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). ‘The Distribution and Use of Policy Knowledge in the Policy Process’, Knowledge and Policy 4(4): 6–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization’, Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). ‘Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1980). ‘Truth Tests and Utility Tests: Decisionmakers’ Frames of Reference for Social Science Research', American Sociological Review 45(2): 302–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1986). ‘Reflections on Value: Policy Makers Evaluate Federal Information Systems’, Public Administration Review 46: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16
- Cited by