Performance measurement in the public sector: Mapping 20 years of survey research

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2022-10-08 DOI:10.1111/faam.12345
Berend van der Kolk
{"title":"Performance measurement in the public sector: Mapping 20 years of survey research","authors":"Berend van der Kolk","doi":"10.1111/faam.12345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper maps 20 years of survey research on performance measurement (PM) practices in public sector organizations. Cumulative findings from the discipline of accounting enhance the understanding of public sector PM and its antecedents and effects. Four maps are presented that visualize the relationships among key variables from prior research in four empirical settings: government, health, education, and other domains. Furthermore, this review distinguishes between individual-level and organization-level effects of PM, and includes reflections on the appreciation of PM by public sector employees. The findings highlight that PM use and attributes such as fairness, subjectivity, and clarity significantly impact the outcomes yielded by PM systems. This paper contributes by synthesizing prior research on public sector PM and by identifying research gaps, areas of debate, and avenues for future research. In addition, findings from this review have the potential to add nuance to the sometimes-polarized debate on the acclaimed “benefits” and “costs” of PM in the public sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12345","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper maps 20 years of survey research on performance measurement (PM) practices in public sector organizations. Cumulative findings from the discipline of accounting enhance the understanding of public sector PM and its antecedents and effects. Four maps are presented that visualize the relationships among key variables from prior research in four empirical settings: government, health, education, and other domains. Furthermore, this review distinguishes between individual-level and organization-level effects of PM, and includes reflections on the appreciation of PM by public sector employees. The findings highlight that PM use and attributes such as fairness, subjectivity, and clarity significantly impact the outcomes yielded by PM systems. This paper contributes by synthesizing prior research on public sector PM and by identifying research gaps, areas of debate, and avenues for future research. In addition, findings from this review have the potential to add nuance to the sometimes-polarized debate on the acclaimed “benefits” and “costs” of PM in the public sector.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共部门的绩效评估:绘制20年的调查研究
本文对20年来公共部门组织绩效评估(PM)实践的调查研究进行了分析。来自会计学科的累积发现增强了对公共部门项目管理及其前因和影响的理解。本文提出了四张地图,将先前在政府、卫生、教育和其他领域四种经验设置中研究的关键变量之间的关系可视化。此外,本综述区分了项目管理的个人层面和组织层面的影响,并包括公共部门员工对项目管理的评价。研究结果强调,项目管理的使用和属性,如公平性、主观性和清晰度,显著地影响了项目管理系统产生的结果。本文通过综合先前对公共部门PM的研究,并通过确定研究差距,辩论领域和未来研究的途径做出贡献。此外,这一审查的结果有可能为公共部门项目管理的广受赞誉的“收益”和“成本”时而两极分化的辩论增添细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1