Performance management in a setting of deficient output controls

Abstract

PurposeSets out to stress the need to adjust performance management to the deficiencies inherent in the output controls within The Netherlands defence forces.Design/methodology/approachBy analysing the management control reforms of the recent past, the paper assesses the scope for a “decision revelation” within the Defence organisation. It develops a framework for disclosure of decentralised decision making focusing on the allocation of labour time within the fixed labour force. Recent developments in the Defence organisation units for officer education and training are used to illustrate the framework.FindingsManagement control systems fail because of weaknesses in the management accounting information underlying them. Management accounting information with respect to defence expense budgets does not grasp the relevant decentralised decision making to be controlled. This decision making is primarily concerned with the opportunity costs of the allocation of time within the labour force of the Dutch Department of Defence.Practical implicationsVariability of costs should be disclosed in terms of labour time information. Budgetary accounting restricted to the department's (fixed) expenses on military personnel will not reveal for which purposes defence money is actually spent.Originality/valueOutlines a framework for decision revelation as a base for management contracting between central management and lower level organisation units.

Performance Measurement and Management Systems: A Perspective from Complexity Theory

“…Therefore, as more organizations become democratic, the focus of control should shift from command and control to something more participative (Bititci et al 2012;Bourne et al 2000;Mol and Beeres 2005). Therefore, as more organizations become democratic, the focus of control should shift from command and control to something more participative (Bititci et al 2012;Bourne et al 2000;Mol and Beeres 2005).…”

Ranking the Performance of European Armed Forces

“…To this effect, Figure 1 visualizes the production process of the armed forces of an EU member state, distinguishing between preparing units for deployment (home-based) and generating effective military crisis response performance (based in-theatre). Figure 1 is based on the customary analysis in terms of input (resources), throughput (activities), and output (results) (e.g., Berman, 2006;Mol and Beeres, 2005). To analyse the production process, it is important to develop meaningful and measurable indicators ( Van den Doel, 2004).…”

Ambitions and Opportunities for Assessing Military Performance in Crisis Response Operations

“…To this end, Figure 1 visualises the production process of the NAF distinguishing between preparing units for deployment (home‐based) and generating effective military crisis response performance (based in‐theatre). Figure 1 is based on the customary analysis in terms of input (resources), throughput (activities), output (performance) and outcome (effects) (e.g., Berman, 2006; and Mol and Beeres, 2005). In order to analyse the production process, it is important to develop meaningful and measurable indicators (van den Doel, 2004).…”

“…The 'Production Process' of the Armed Forces C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd (e.g., Berman, 2006;and Mol and Beeres, 2005). In order to analyse the production process, it is important to develop meaningful and measurable indicators (van den Doel, 2004).…”

“…First, we have developed a quantitative measure to assess the extent to which the armed forces’ crisis response operations are considered successful on the basis of self‐evaluations. As our second contribution we provide a qualitative overview of the pros and the cons of measuring performance in a setting of ‘deficient output controls’ (Mol and Beeres, 2005) for an organisation that is ‘traditionally characterised by a strict sense of secrecy, discipline and hierarchy’ (Catasús and Grönlund, 2005).…”