Mapping public value processes

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to add to the analytic toolkit of public sector practitioners by outlining a framework called Public Value Process Mapping (PVPM). This approach is designed to be more comprehensive than extant frameworks in either the private or public sectors, encapsulating multiple dimensions of productive processes. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores the public administration and management literature to identify the major frameworks for visualising complex systems or processes, and a series of dimensions against which they can be compared. It then puts forward a more comprehensive framework – PVPM – and demonstrates its possible use with the example of Indigenous child nutrition in remote Australia. The benefits and limitations of the technique are then considered. Findings – First, extant process mapping frameworks each have some but not all of the features necessary to encompass certain dimensions of generic or public sector processes, such as: service-dominant logic; external as well internal providers; public and private value; and state coercive power. Second, PVPM can encompass the various dimensions more comprehensively, enabling visualisation of both the big picture and the fine detail of public value-creating processes. Third, PVPM has benefits – such as helping unearth opportunities or culprits affecting processes – as well as limitations – such as demonstrating causation and delineating the boundaries of maps. Practical implications – PVPM has a number of uses for policy analysts and public managers: it keeps the focus on outcomes; it can unearth a variety of processes and actors, some of them not immediately obvious; it can help to identify key processes and actors; it can help to identify the “real” culprits behind negative outcomes; and it highlights situations where multiple causes are at work. Originality/value – This approach, which draws on a number of precursors but constitutes a novel technique in the public sector context, enables the identification and to some extent the comprehension of a broader range of causal factors and actors. This heightens the possibility of imagining innovative solutions to difficult public policy issues, and alternative ways of delivering public services.

The how and why of integrated reporting in a public health care organization: The stakeholders' perspective

“…The recipients of the AOU report, as internal stakeholders, are mainly the region, as a financing istitution and regulatory authority and, as external stakeholders, citizens who are both users and taxpayers. The citizens are the “major resource providers to public sector entities” (Cohen & Karatzimas, , p. 452) and those who “personally benefit” from health care services (Alford & Yates, , p. 337). Despite this inherent benefit, the goal of reaching a wide audience over the course of a year is not met by the PHO, as demonstrated by poor attendance during the public presentations of the integrated reports.…”

Leading and recognizing public value

“…This is found in empirical work (Benington and Turbitt ; Esposito and Ricci ). Public value stream analysis (Benington and Moore ) or public value mapping (Alford and Yates ) indicates that public value can be undermined, wasted or destroyed through, for example, incivility, factional interests, destructive behaviour, or the misappropriation of public resources. Empirical research on public value needs to be alert to the full spectrum of possible outputs and outcomes and not normatively assume that there are benefits.…”

The social impact of advice during disability welfare reform: from social return on investment to evidencing public value through realism and complexity

“…To understand the creation of public value, we need to take account of social factors beyond an organisational focus to include political, policy and community values (Bryson et al 2017;Haynes 2017). Current approaches to evidencing public value include public value process mapping, which can help us understand how different social factors contribute to the creation of public value in society (Alford and Yates 2014). Bozeman and Sarewitz's (2011) public value mapping analyses the activities that can create public value, tracking how social outcomes evolve.…”

“…Public value definitions are considered, exploring the tensions and difficulties in their measurement. Insights from public value accounting and mapping (Moore 2014;Bozeman and Sarewitz 2011;Alford and Yates 2014), alongside complexity perspectives and realism (Pawson 2013;Room 2013;Walton 2016;Westhorp 2012) are detailed. A brief overview of the health and disability benefits system in the context of welfare reform is outlined, before detailing how the research focus developed.…”