Collaborative Performance Measurement: Examining and Explaining the Prevalence of Collaboration in State and Local Government Contracts

Abstract

Viewing collaboration as an imperative for public managers, scholars are calling for a better understanding of its origins, prevalence, and impact on organizational performance. The objective of this study is to explore the prevalence and the determinants of collaboration pursued in the course of monitoring government contracts. The theoretical framework proposed in this study explores the effect of several categories of collaboration determinants pertaining to government agencies, contractors, contractual relationships, services, and markets. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews administered to 69 state and local contract managers as well as nonprofit and for-profit contractors in five jurisdictions. Qualitative analysis identifies a variety of collaborative strategies used by agencies seeking vendors' input and by vendors proposing and negotiating performance monitoring arrangements. Regressions analysing the determinants of collaboration suggest that the latter is more often pursued by nonprofit contractors and vendors with a unique expertise and higher resource dependency. Governments with advanced in-house professional capacity and willingness to collaborate are also more likely to rely on the contractors' input. Meanwhile, high service measurability, long-term relationships, and dynamic markets reduce the likelihood of collaboration. This study suggests that collaborative performance evaluation presents both challenges and opportunities for effective contract implementation. The responsibilities of monitoring officers appear to extend beyond specifying and enforcing performance standards-they require the skills and motivation to empower contractors and to learn from their input and the professional capacity to evaluate their claims.

What is the Effect of Performance Measurement on Perceived Accountability Effectiveness in State and Local Government Contracts?

“…These and other factors may decrease their opportunistic behavior and increase compliance and cooperation in the oversight process. Amirkhanyan (2009) finds that nonprofit service contractors are more likely to collaborate with public agencies in the oversight process, and Van Slyke (2009) suggests that nonprofits may be initially perceived as more trustworthy. On the other hand, contracting research suggests that public managers are aware of the performance problems, lack of management capacity, financial abuses, and political behavior prevalent in the nonprofit sector (Arenson 1995;Grimaldi and Trescott 2008;Reaves 2001;Hansmann 1986;Johnston and Romzek 1999;Prager 1994;Rose-Ackerman 1996).…”

“…At this stage, the partners discuss the basic approaches to service delivery, standards and expectations. The contract implementation and evaluation phases often run in parallel, with the service delivery being observed, inspected, recorded, and reported upon, while the partners clarify and, sometimes, modify performance standards in a collaborative fashion (Amirkhanyan 2009). …”

“…The literature on performance measurement found evidence of both the government agencies and the private contractors participating in the formation of monitoring systems. Amirkhanyan (2009) found that a variety of collaborative activities are employed by both parties: monitoring officers seek their contractors' input on performance evaluation, meanwhile the contractors develop and…”

“…Notably, government respondents are more likely to report the use of each measure than the contractors. Several arguments have been proposed to explain these findings (Amirkhanyan 2009 (see table 3). First, respondents who reported that their contracts involved monitoring service costs reported significantly higher perceived levels of contractor compliance and information timeliness and accuracy (Model 1).…”

“…2 This is a term coined by Milward and Provan (2000). 3 Most of the information pertaining to data and measurement appeared in earlier publications based on the same data: Amirkhanyan (2009) and Amirkhanyan (2010). 4 The instrument included questions with nominal or ordinal response categories, as well as those requiring descriptive explanation and, hence, producing data that were appropriate for both qualitative and quantitative analyses.…”