Lessons from mandated implementation of a performance management system

Abstract

PurposeLean-inspired approaches and performance management systems are being implemented in public healthcare organisations internationally. However, the literature is inconclusive regarding the benefits of these management tools and there is a lack of knowledge regarding processes for large-scale implementation of these tools. This article aims to describe the implementation process and to better understand how this process influences the mandated performance management system.Design/methodology/approachThis research is based on a comparative case study of three healthcare organisations in Canada. Data consist documents, non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews with key actors (n = 30). Analysis is based on a sociotechnical approach to management tools that considers organisational context, and the tool's technical substrate, theory of action and managerial philosophy.FindingsResults show that despite a standardised national mandate, the tool as implemented varied between organisations in terms of technical substrate and managerial philosophy. These variations are explained by the flexibility of the technical substrate, the lack of clarity of the managerial philosophy, and some contextual elements. Successful implementation may rest upon high hybridization of the tool on these different dimensions. A precise and prescribed technical substrate is not sufficient to guarantee implementation of a managerial philosophy.Practical implicationsMandated implementation of management tools may be more successful if it is explicit on the managerial philosophy, the technical substrate and the link between the two, and if it provides some leeway to adapt both to the organisational context.Originality/valueThis is one of the few studies to describe and analyse the process involved in mandated large-scale implementation of performance management systems in public healthcare organisations.

Unveiling the Impact of Lean Leadership on Continuous Improvement Maturity: A Scoping Review

“…In this stage, a notable proportion of HCOs reported that their leaders tended to adopt a hierarchical leadership style. 2 , 16 , 36 , 39 , 45 , 49 This finding is consistent with the typical leadership characteristics we identified in this stage, as hierarchical leadership was highly uncommon in the Intermediate stage 50 , 51 and absent in the Expert stage of maturity.…”

The persistence of organizational performance problems the public services in Ghana: The perspective of societal culture

“…Most contemporary research into PM of government organizations is based on refining and improving objective goal-setting, information-gathering, performance measurement, and feedback” (Asif and Rathore, 2021: 9). In other words, significant literature on PM has been devoted to what we may describe as the instrumentality in the implementation of PM (de Waal, 2007; Liu and Dong, 2012; Marchand et al, 2021; Ohemeng et al, 2015; Rhodes et al, 2012) rather than a careful examination about how individual behaviours affect PM in general, which in turn affect organizational performance. In addition, what is missing with the limited behavioural approach is the link between how culture determines certain behavioural traits, which are brought to the organization, and the subsequent effect on PM and organizational performance.…”

Key forces compelling the monitoring of hospital performance: An exploratory study

“…One of the key elements or characteristics of NPM reform is performance management (Hood, 1991, 1995; Pollitt, 1995). Bouckaert and Halligan (2008, p. 72) asserted that “performance management has to be located within a broad construction of organisational life, which recognises that performance management cannot be considered in isolation from other factors that make up public management and the more general public administration system.” Many private sector performance management frameworks and techniques have been applied to the public sector, particularly hospitals, including Lean‐based management (Marchand et al., 2021; Radnor et al., 2012), the balanced scorecard (Chang, 2007; Jackson & Lapsley, 2003; Radnor & Lovell, 2003), performance indicators (Flynn, 1997; Tyagi & Singh, 2019), benchmarking (Northcott & Llewellyn, 2003), and standard costing via diagnosis related groups (Guven‐Uslu & Conrad, 2008; Jones, 1999). Yet the simple adoption and adaption of private sector performance management techniques fail to consider the complexity of public sector organizations (Arnaboldi et al., 2015).…”