Counting, Control and Calculation: Reflections on Measuring and Management

Abstract

This article explores fundamental issues in performance measurement systems broadly conceived. Three key moments or themes are identified. First, the foundations of measurement in counting practices, and their inherent reductionism, are considered. Second, the relations between measurement and technologies of monitoring and control, such as auditing, are discussed. Third, first- and second-order measurement (meta-measurement) are distinguished, respectively as particular institutions of counting and data production, and as related dense networks of calculating experts operating on these numbers within specific cultures of objectivity. Finally, arguments about the consequences of performance measurement systems are evaluated, contrasting democratic enthusiasm for performance measurement control technologies with the view that they are some kind of ‘fatal remedy’. In place of a simple dichotomy of trust or distrust in numbers, the development of performance measurement instruments is argued to be a cycle of innovation, crisis and reform, which continually expands into new regions of social and economic life, and which expresses varying degrees of commitment to precision.

Accounting information and managerial work

“…Here, accounting information can be used to create common categories for ordering and framing the discussions that take place between managers from different functional groups (for further elaboration, see, for example, Bowker & Star (1999);Power (2004); Espeland & Sauder (2007) and Millo & Mackenzie (2009)). An accounting language is also likely to be increasingly important in communicating with managers outside the organization as new forms of inter-organisational relationships become more prevalent (e.g., Dekker, 2004).…”

Just how difficult can it be counting up R&D funding for emerging technologies (and is tech mining with proxy measures going to be any better)?

“…Definitions are therefore artificial ontological constructs that are valid only within certain communities. Definitions are often devised through contentious processes which may be hidden to those beyond (cognitively, spatially, or temporally) the immediate debate (Power 2004(Power , 2005. Different communities will have different classifications that suit their individual needs as parties make formal or informal attempts to arrange their classification to reflect those issues (Bowker and Star 2000).…”

“…Quantification itself is an outcome of classifications: once things are classified they can then be counted (Power 2004). Within the sciences being able to count things is a highly desirable outcome - Porter (1992) characterises the desire for quantification as the 'accounting ideal' -that is, for the natural world to be clearly defined as a balance sheet.…”

“…The following summary draws exclusively on recent studies of performance measures in management (Power 2004) and financial risk in banking (Power 2005) to provide an extensive (but not comprehensive) account of why Quantification (Q) of data is often problematic: (Q.1) Methodthe ability to collect and measure data may not exist, even if it is possible to conceive a classification system (for example, how many black holes are there in the universe? ); (Q.2) Quantathe unit of measurement must be agreed and data collected in that mode e.g.…”

Understanding institutional conversion: the case of the National Reporting and Learning System

“…The creation, development and conversion of the NRLS highlights the influence of predispositions towards what could be described as quantitative rationalism (Porter 1995;Power 2004) and negativity bias (Soroka 2006) amongst some U.K. politicians and media. Here, 'quantitative rationalism' refers to the tendency of actors to privilege quantitative over qualitative sources of information, and to assume that quantitative information is in some way 'objective'.…”