Performance Management Systems as Driver of Public Administration Improvement: A Dream?

  • Debora Tomasi
  • Stefano Scravaglieri
  • Maurizio Decastri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)


Recently the Italian Government required public administrations to manage organizational and individual performance and to implement pay for performance systems. Actually each Italian public administration has to adopt Performance Management Systems (PMS). The Reform recalls the New Public Management framework in several points even if there’s a great controversy in the literature concerning the effective implementation of PMS in public administrations: for some authors PMS would run well while for others they need an adaptation to the public context. In this scenario, we assess the design of PMS on the basis of the empirical evidence collected in an Italian public administration and we indentify which parts of the literature are consistent with the empirical results. Our aim is to contribute to knowledge base on performance management in public administrations through an action design research approach based on the empirical evidence collected in the design of a PMS in Italy.


Performance management Public administration management Design science methodology 



We acknowledge the ISPRA control management department and the participants to the ISPRA PMS project for their contribution to this research.


  1. 1.
    Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all season. Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollit, C., & Bouckaret, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emery, Y. (2004). Rewarding civil service performance through team bonuses: findings, analysis and recommendations. International Review of Administrative Science, 70, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kettl, D. (2000). The global public management revolution. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varone, F., & Giauque, D. (2001). Policy management and performance related pay: comparative analysis of service contracts in Switzerland. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67(3), 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15, 80–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emery, Y., & Giauque, D. (2005). Employment in the public and private sectors: toward a confusing hybridization process. International Review of Administrative Science, 71, 636–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gualmini, E. (2008). Restructuring Weberian bureaucracy: Comparing managerial reforms in Europe and the United States. Public Administration, 86, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kickert, M. (1993). Complexity governance and dynamics: Conceptual explorations of public network management. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ingraham, P., James, R., & Elliot, F. (1995). Political management strategies and political/career relationships: Where are we now in the federal government? Public Administration Review, 55, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thompson, J. (2006). The federal civil service: The demise of an institution. Public Administration Review, 66, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust. Control and Post-Bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 2, 229–250.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodgson, D. (2004). Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Organization, 1, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kallinikos, J. (2004). The social foundations of the bureaucratic order. Organization, 1, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    March, S., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75–105.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hevner, A. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Aken, J. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sein, M., Henfridsoon, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., & El Sawy, O. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walls, J., & Widmeyer, G. (2004). Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 43–58.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance. International comparisons. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OECD. (2004). Public sector modernisation: Governing for performance. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plant, R. (2003). A public service ethic and political accountability. Parliamentary Affairs, 56, 560–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flamholtz, G. (1995). Il sistema di controllo come strumento di direzione. In F. Amigoni, Misurazioni d'azienda. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boivard, T. (1996). The political economy of performance measurement. In A. Halachmi & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Organizational performance and measurement in the public sector: Toward service, efforts and accomplishment reporting. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hinna, L., & Monteduro, F. (2003). Trust in local authorities : The role of social reporting to citizens. European group of public administration, Oeires.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mussari, R. (2000). La valutazione dei programmi nelle aziende pubbliche. Giappichelli, Torino.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ford, J., & Schellenberg, D. (1982). Conceptual Issues of linkage in the assessment of organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 49–58.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bannister, B., & Balkin, D. (1990). Performance evaluation and compensation feedback messages: An integrated model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 97–111.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heeks, R. (2000). The approach of senior public officials to information technology-related reform: Lessons from India. Public Administration and Development, 20, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    von Waldenberg, W. (2004). Electronic government and development. European Journal of Development Research, 16, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Madon, S. (2006). IT-based government reform initiatives in the indian state of Gujarat. Journal of International Development, 18, 877–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hood, C. (1995). Emerging issues in public administration. Public administration, 73(1), 165–183.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pollit, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Mass. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Daley, D. (1992). Performance appraisal in the public sector—Techniques and applications. CT: Quorum, Westport.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pynes, J. (1997). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kellough, J., & Selden, S. (1997). Pay-for-performance systems in state government: Perceptions of state agency personnel managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guion, R. (1997). Criterion measures and the criterion dilemma. In N. Andreson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 287–302). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (1992). Performance related pay: Objectives and application. Human Resource Management Journal, 2(3), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Campbell, D., Campbell, K., & Chia, H. (1998). Merit pay, performance appraisal, and individual motivation: An analysis and alternative. Human Resource Management, 37(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beer, M., Cannon, M. (2004). Promise and peril in implementing pay for performance. Human resource management, 43(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kim, J. (2010). Strategic human resource practices: Introducing alternatives for organizational performance improvement in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Latham, G., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New developments in performance management. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Daley, D. (1993). Performance appraisal as an aid in personnel decisions. American Review of Public Administration, 23(3), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li, L. (2000). An analysis of sources of competitiveness and performance of Chinese manufacturers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(3), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roback, T. (1989). Personnel research perspectives on human resource management and development. Public Personnel Management, 18(2), 138–162.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baron, A., & Armstrong, M. (1998). Out of the box. People Management, 23, 38–41.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    DeNisi, A. (2000). Performance appraisal and performance management: A multilevel analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowki (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 121–156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mondy, R., Noe, R., & Premeaux, S. (2002). Human resource management. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Roberts, G. (2002). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 333–342.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990).Work motivation: The high performance cycle. In U. Kleinbeck & et al. (Eds.), Work motivation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Guest, D. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brown, M., & Heywood, J. (2005). Performance appraisal systems: Determinants and change. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(4), 659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Soltani, E. (2005). Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(8), 796–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hodgetts, R. (1993). Modern human relations at work. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Reinhardt, C. (1985). The state of performance appraisal: A literature review. Human Resource Planning, 8(2), 105–110.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Spagnoletti, P., & Federici, T. (2011). Exploring the interplay between FLOSS adoption and organizational innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(15), 279–298. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Winter, R., & Strauch, B. (2003). A method for demand-driven information requirements analysis in data warehousing projects. Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debora Tomasi
    • 1
  • Stefano Scravaglieri
    • 1
  • Maurizio Decastri
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations