Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance information use in public administration: an exploratory study of determinants and effects

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The public sector performance movement has intensified during the past three decades, increasing formalized planning, control and reporting across all OECD countries. Notwithstanding the extant literature on performance management, empirical evidence on how and why performance information is used in day-to-day practice is still rare. Such research is relevant not only to advance theory but also to inform decision makers in designing the conditions that effectively contribute to performance and accountability improvements. We aim to contribute to a better understanding of the effects and determinants of use by considering the characteristics of performance management systems, the characteristics of users and context features. We selected two central government case studies from Italy, a country that has adopted several reforms on performance management since the early 1990s. In order to gain insights from both supply and demand side, for each ministry we interviewed people responsible for the design and functioning of the performance management system and top managers that are supposed to use performance information when taking decisions. Results show the prevalence of passive rather than purposeful use. Motivations and obstacles to the use of performance information are identified, drawing relevant practical and policy implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Still available at: http://www.tecnichenormative.it/RapportoGiannini.pdf.

  2. CIVIT has been transformed into the National Anticorruption Authority (ANAC) in 2013.

  3. On 11 August 2014 performance management related functions were transferred from ANAC to the Ministry of Public Administration (DFP).

  4. Cf. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2015_gov_glance-2015-en.

  5. Recent empirical research on how performance management influences performance outcomes includes a survey of Hvidman and Andersen (2014) comparing Danish public and private schools and showing that the effectiveness of performance management in private schools is not transferred to the public schools, although public schools use performance management much more than private schools. Poister et al. (2013) have examined the impact of performance management practices on organizational effectiveness in 88 small and medium-sized local transit agencies in the United States providing evidence that more extensive use of performance management practices does in fact contribute to increased effectiveness.

  6. In particular, we focused the attention on the performance-related documents such as (a) the “Monitoring and evaluation system plan”, that is, the document defining the elements and the technical choices to control the progresses of the organization in achieving performance and to evaluate its results; (b) the “Performance plan”, that is, the document defining the elements on which each administration will base its program of measuring and evaluating and the process of accountability; (c) the “Annual report on performance” containing information on both the adoption of performance management systems and the use of performance data.

References

  • Ammons, D. N., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askim, J. (2009). The demand side of performance measurement: Explaining councillors’ utilization of performance information in policymaking. International Public Management Journal, 12(1), 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askim, J., Johnsen, Å., & Christophersen, K. (2008). Factors behind organizational learning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M., & Ikerd, J. (1996). Outcome budgeting: Catawba County, NC. Washington: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.

  • Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance, international comparisons. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdeaux, C., & Chikoto, G. (2008). Legislative influences on performance management reform. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. (1996). The Political Economy of Performance Measurement. In A. Halachmi & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Organizational performance and measurement in the public sector: Toward service, effort and accomplishment reporting (pp. 145–165). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Problems of rational planning in public organizations: An empirical assessment of the conventional wisdom. Administration & Society, 36, 328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadnax, W. D., & Conway, K. J. (2001). The social security administration and performance management. In D. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American government (pp. 143–175). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 178–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepiku, D. (2014). Network performance: Towards a dynamic multidimensional model. In R. Keast, M. P. Mandell, & R. Agranoff (Eds.), Network theory in the public sector building new theoretical frameworks. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepiku, D. (2017). Performance management in public administrations. In T. R. Klassen, D. Cepiku, & T. J. Lah (Eds.), Handbook of global public policy and administration. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepiku, D., Bonomi Savignon, A., & Corvo, L. (2012). Strategic management in Italian ministries: An empirical assessment of gains from and gaps in reforms. In G. Tria & G. Valotti (Eds.), Reforming the public sector: How to achieve better transparency, service, and leadership (pp. 194–218). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2004). Performance management and public sector reform: The Norwegian Hospital reform. In Paper presented to Study Group on Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector at EGPA Conference, Ljubljana, 1–4 Sept.

  • Curcio, C. F. (1996). Performance indicators: Phoenix parks, recreation and library department. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lancer, J. P., & Holzer, M. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dente, B. (1997). Sub-national governments in the long Italian transition. West European Politics, 20(1), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Mascio, F., & Natalini, A. (2013). Context and mechanisms in administrative reform processes: Performance management within Italian local government. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study research methodology in business research. Oxford: Butterworth.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Boston: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, J. (2015). Performance measurement in Canadian employment service delivery: 1996–2000. Canadian Public Administration, 58(1), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerschmid, G., Van de Walle, S., & Stimac, V. (2013). Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: Results from an international survey. Public Money & Management, 33(4), 261–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

  • Hatry, H. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 352–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. P., Blair, L. H., Fisk, D. M., Greiner, J. M., Hall, J. R., & Schaenman, P. S. (1992). How effective are your community services? Procedures for measuring their quality. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute and International City/County Management Association.

  • Heinrich, C. J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. T. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of city mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, M., & Halachmi, A. (1996). Measurement as a means of accountability. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(11/12), 1921–1944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 31(1), 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. T. (2005). Collaboration and performance measurement: Lessons from three watershed governance efforts. In J. M. Kamensky & A. Morales (Eds.), Managing for results (pp. 379–424). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (1996). Lessons learned from Minnesota’s government performance report. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. J. M. (2005). Distinctiveness in the study of public management in Europe: A historical-institutional analysis of France Germany and Italy. Public Management Review, 7(4), 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, A. (2013). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: A planned-behavior approach. The American Review of Public Administration. doi:10.1177/0275074013486180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2015). Does training matter? Evidence from performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 411–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K., & Wright, N. S. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making? Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 11, 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDavid, J., & Huse, I. (2012). Legislator uses of public performance reports: Findings from a five-year study. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, V. (2010). Innovation policy in Italy (1993–2002). Governance, 23(2), 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., Hildreth, B., & Rabin, J. (2001). Performance based budgeting. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49–61.

  • Montesinos, V., Brusca, I., Manes Rossi, F., & Aversano, N. (2013). The usefulness of performance reporting in local government: comparing Italy and Spain. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Why and how do state governments adopt and implement “managing for results” reforms? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453.

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2004). Creating desirable organizational characteristics: How organizations create a focus on results and managerial authority. Budapest: Paper presented at the eighth International Research Symposium on Public Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Government at a glance 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Eldgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change. The case of the national health system. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(S1), s246–s254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poister, T. H., Aristigueta, M. P., & Hall, J. L. (2015). Managing and measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. An integrated approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poister, T. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Hamilton Edwards, L. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 625–636. doi:10.1111/puar.12076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2006a). Performance management in practice: A comparative stuffy of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2006b). Performance information for democracy: The missing link? Evaluation, 12(1), 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 19(4), 346–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2011). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision making. Public Administration, 89, 860–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakkuri, J., & Meklin, P. (2006). Ambiguity in performance measurement: A theoretical approach to organisational uses of performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(3), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W. (2006). Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach. Leuven, Belgium (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universitiet, Faculty of Social Science).

  • Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., & Berman, E. (2000). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: Findings from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 403–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidner, M., & Noss-Reavely, M. (1996). The council on human investment: Performance governance in Iowa. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45(2), 302–313.

  • Wholey, J. S., & Newcomer, K. N. (1997). Clarifying goals, reporting results. In K. N. Newcomer (Ed.), Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs (pp. 91–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Wilkins, K. (1996). Performance measurement: A work in progress Minnesota’s department of labor and industry. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2006). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2010). Analytic generalization. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Columbia 2, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Denita Cepiku, Alessandro Hinna, Danila Scarozza & Andrea Bonomi Savignon

Authors
  1. Denita Cepiku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Hinna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danila Scarozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Bonomi Savignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denita Cepiku.

Appendix 1—questionnaires

Appendix 1—questionnaires

1.1 Questionnaire 1 (public managers)

Background information on the performance management system (when it was introduced, the official documents, key actors in terms of its development and maintenance) is discussed with the interviewee.

1.1.1 Part I

  1. 1.

    Do you regularly use performance information in taking decisions? What kind of decisions are mostly determined by performance information vis-à-vis other factors? Can you provide some specific examples?

  2. 2.

    As a public manager, have you contributed to the development of the performance management system in your ministry? How?

  3. 3.

    What are the main benefits deriving from the use of performance information? Can you provide some specific examples?

1.1.2 Part II

  1. 4.

    What performance information do you need to better carry out your tasks? Can you provide some specific examples (both in terms of performance dimensions and level of detail)?

  2. 5.

    Is the performance information you receive sufficient/adequate to fulfil your needs? Are you satisfied with the quality of performance data? Are you satisfied with the timing in which you receive performance data? Are data adapted to your needs?

  3. 6.

    How do you consider your skills and the time available to elaborate, interpret and use performance data?

1.1.3 Part III

  1. 7.

    Are there any other obstacles to performance information use that you consider relevant and we haven’t discussed during the interview?

  2. 8.

    Are there any other elements that facilitate performance information use that you consider relevant and we haven’t discussed during the interview?

1.2 Questionnaire 2 (strategic unit members)

Background information on the performance management system (when it was introduced, the official documents, key actors in terms of its development and maintenance) is discussed with the interviewee.

1.2.1 Part I

  1. 1.

    Based on what you have observed in your role, do public managers regularly use performance information in taking decisions? What kind of managerial decisions are mostly determined by performance information vis-à-vis other factors? Can you provide some specific examples?

  2. 2.

    When the performance management system was introduced in your ministry, did public managers actively contributed to its development? How?

  3. 3.

    What have been the main benefits deriving from the use of performance information in your ministry? Can you provide some specific examples?

1.2.2 Part II

  1. 4.

    What have been the aims pursued through the introduction of a performance management system in your ministry? Discuss the relative strength of law requirements vis-à-vis organisational objectives.

  2. 5.

    What kind of performance information is measured and reported? Through which instruments? Is it adapted compared the blueprint provided by the law? Can you provide some specific examples (both in terms of performance dimensions and level of detail)? Do you consider it reliable and useful?

  3. 6.

    Has there been any dedicated training to performance management? Who benefited (only SU staff or all public managers)?

  4. 7.

    Has there been an involvement of main stakeholders in designing the system, in measuring performances, in reporting performances? Can you provide some examples?

  5. 8.

    How do you consider the resources (financial and non financial) available for the proper functioning of the performance management system?

1.2.3 Part III

  1. 9.

    Are there any other obstacles to performance information use that you consider relevant and we haven’t discussed during the interview?

  2. 10.

    Are there any other elements that facilitate performance information use that you consider relevant and we haven’t discussed during the interview?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cepiku, D., Hinna, A., Scarozza, D. et al. Performance information use in public administration: an exploratory study of determinants and effects. J Manag Gov 21, 963–991 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9371-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9371-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation