Rethinking Performance Management Practices in Local Administrations? An Evaluation of BV, CPA, And WPI Practices in the United Kingdom

• Autorzy: Demokaan Demirel
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Performance is a fundamental tool that improves results oriented on public administration. Performance management applications have become very popular in public institutions over the past 20 years. Direct accountability to the political institutions and the public is ensured by defining the performance of public administrations according to their organizational goals and objectives. Local governments are using performance management practices to assess the quality of public services offered. In the United Kingdom, performance management practices at the local level were promoted under the leadership of the central government. However, there cannot be a certain standardization or stability in performance management applications. The Best Value (BV) regime was applied primarily in England and Wales. The system was later applied in Scotland in 2003. In 2002, Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) Programme was introduced. Wales preferred to stay outside of this program. The Wales Programme for Improvement (WPI) has adopted self-assessment and holistic assessment. After 2009, the cost-effectiveness of local services was evaluated through comprehensive area assessments. This practice was abolished after 2010, adopting a governance approach based on the common negotiations of local actors. This study aims to evaluate the performance measurement systems applied in the local area in the United Kingdom. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

High-performance computing systems; Comprehensive strategy; Local administration

PL

Systemy wysokiej wydajności; Strategia kompleksowa; Administracja lokalna

• Czasopismo: Foundations of Management
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 87--98

Twórcy

autor

Demokaan Demirel

• Kocaeli University, Turkey

Bibliografia

• Ashworth R., Boyne G., 2000. Promises and Performance, (edt. by T. Clark and K. Hoggart). People, Parties and Policies, Westview, Boulder.
• Audit Commission, 2002. Stewardship and Governance: A Review of the work of the Audit Commission's Appointed Auditors in 2002.
• Auguinis H., Gottfredson R.K., Joo H., 2013. Avoiding a "me" versus "we" dilemma: Using Performance Management to Turn Teams into a Source of Competitive Advantage. Business Horizons, 56, pp.503-512.
• Auguinis H., Gottfredson R.K., Joo H., 2012a. Using Performance Management to Win the Talent War. Business Horizons, 55, pp.609-616.
• Auguinis H., Joo H., Gottfredson R.K., 2012b. Performance Management Universals: Think Globally and Act Locally. Business Horizons, 55, 385-392.
• Boyne G., 2001. The Impact of Best Value on Local Authority Performance: Evidence from the Welsh Pilots. Local Government, 27 (2), pp.44-68.
• Boyne G.A.,. Gould-Williams J., Law J. and Walker J., 2002. Plans, Performance Information and Accountability: the Case of Best Value. Public Administration, 80 (4), pp.691-710.
• Bovaird T., 2008. Emergent Strategic Management and Planning Mechanisms in Complex Adaptative Systems: The Case of UK Best Value Initiative. Public Management Review, 10(3), pp.319-340.
• CRC for Construction Innovation (2002). Best Value Second Interim Report. CRC for Construction Innovation, Brisbane.
• Cuganesan S., Guthrie J., Vranic V., 2014. The Riskiness of Public Sector Performance Measurement: A Review and Research Agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 30 (3), pp.279-302.
• DETR, 1999. Best Value: New Roles for Members, London: DETR.
• Fryer K., Antony J., Ogden S., 2009. Performance Management in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22 (6), pp.478-498.
• Harris L., 2005. UK Public Sector Reform and Performance Agenda in UK Local Government: HRM Challenges and Dilemmas. Personnel Review, 34 (6), pp.681-696.
• Lin Shin-Jie and Po-Yu Lee, 2011. Performance Management in Public Organizations: A Complexity Perspective. International Public Management Review, 12 (2), pp.81-96.
• Martin S., Downe J., Grace C., Nutley S., 2013. All Change? Performance Assessment Regimes in UK Local Government. Public Money & Management, 33 (4), pp.277-280.
• Martin S., 2002a. Best Value: New Public Management or New Direction (edt. by Kate McLaughlin, et al.). New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London: Routledge, pp.129-141.
• Martin S., 2002b. The Modernization of UK Local Government: Markets, Managers, Monitors and Mixed Fortunes. Public Management Review, 4 (3), pp.291-307.
• Martin S. 2000. Implementing Best Value: Local Public Services in Transition. Public Administration, 78 (1), pp.209-227.
• Midwinter A., 2008. Performance Management and Best Value Audit in Scotland: A Research Note on Theory and Practise. Financial Accountability & Management, 24 (4), pp.439-453.
• Mueller-Hanson R., Pulakos E.D., 2015. Putting the Performance Back in Performance Management. Shrm-SIOP Science of HR White Paper Series, pp.1-25.
• Navarro-Galera A., Orti-Rodriguez D., and López-Hernández A.M., 2008. Identifying Barriers to the Application of Standardized Performance Indicators in Local Government. Public Management Review, 10 (2), pp.241-262.
• Nielsen P.A., 2013. Performance Management, Managerial Authority and Public Service Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, pp.431-458.
• Pulakos E.D., Mueller-Hanson R.A., O'Leary R.S., Meyrowitz M.M., 2012. Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look At Performance Management. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
• Pulakos E.D., Mueller-Hanson R.A., Arad S., Moye N., 2015. Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behaviour Change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), pp.51-76.
• Sanderson I., 2001. Performance Management, Evaluation and Learning in Modern Local Government. Public Administration, 79 (2), pp.297-313.
• Schachter H.L., 2010. Objective and Subjective Performance Measures: A Note on Terminology. Administration & Society, 42 (5), pp.550-567.
• Stevens P., Stokes L., O'Mahony M., 2006. Metrics, Targets and Performance. National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 197, July, pp.80-92.
• Vakkuri J., Meklin P., 2006. Ambiguity in Performance Measurement: A Theoretical Approach to Organizational Uses of Performance Measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 22 (3), pp.235-250.
• Wollman H., 2004. Local Government Reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany, and France: Between Multi-Function and Single- Purpose Organizations. Local Government Studies, 30 (4), pp.639-665.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/fman-2018-0008