Performance management in the UK public sector

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore the issues involved in developing and applying performance management approaches within a large UK public sector department using a multiple stakeholder perspective and an accompanying theoretical framework.Design/methodology/approachAn initial short questionnaire was used to determine perceptions about the implementation and effectiveness of the new performance management system across the organisation. In total, 700 questionnaires were distributed. Running concurrently with an ethnographic approach, and informed by the questionnaire responses, was a series of semi‐structured interviews and focus groups.FindingsStaff at all levels had an understanding of the new system and perceived it as being beneficial. However, there were concerns that the approach was not continuously managed throughout the year and was in danger of becoming an annual event, rather than an ongoing process. Furthermore, the change process seemed to have advanced without corresponding changes to appraisal and reward and recognition systems. Thus, the business objectives were not aligned with motivating factors within the organisation.Research limitations/implicationsAdditional research to test the validity and usefulness of the theoretical model, as discussed in this paper, would be beneficial.Practical implicationsThe strategic integration of the stakeholder performance measures and scorecards was found to be essential to producing an overall stakeholder‐driven strategy within the case study organisation.Originality/valueThis paper discusses in detail the approach adopted and the progress made by one large UK public sector organisation, as it attempts to develop better relationships with all of its stakeholders and hence improve its performance. This paper provides a concerted attempt to link theory with practice.

Factors influencing use of a performance measurement system in a rehabilitation hospital

“…Indeed, organizations can develop distinct but interrelated PMSs to reconcile those different purposes and address the different information needs of decision makers. [39][40][41][42] This would allow the inclusion of a more strategic and "accountability" oriented component for hospital boards or other external users, and a more operational and "decision" oriented component for executive committees or other internal users. The development of a more operational component of a PMS may encourage organizations to develop PMSs with characteristics (e.g., quality, relevance, usefulness of indicators) that will adequately meet the needs of decision makers.…”

Accountability standards and legitimacy of not-for-profit organizations in the Netherlands

“…B. King & Fine, 2000) Accountability is the readiness and preparedness of an organization to give an explanation and justification to relevant stakeholders for its judgment, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so (Rasche & Esser, 2006) Failure to attend to stakeholder interests and information can easily lead to disaster (McAdam, Hazlett & Casey, 2005) International Review of Public Administration 167…”

Quality_Family Deployment: A New Perspective in Determining Priority Importance for Improving Work Performance in Organization

“…The ergonomic of work stations, machines and tools that contribute to work flows could influence team work on productivity of organization (Ingram and McDonnell 1996;Ingram 1997). In addition, defining production capacity to match the market demand could contribute to allocation of organizational resources efficiently (McAdam et al 2005). The task of controlling on amount of materials, operators, productions and facilities that are required is beneficial to the organizations (Amaratunga et al 2001;Marr and Schiuma 2003).…”