Performance Measurement and Accounting: Museums in Austria

Ten years after: The rise and fall of managerial autonomy in Pompeii

“…the new stress on the measurement of the arts' impacts in clear and quantifiable way: see DCMS, 1999, as a typical example) is seen as an element of the so-called instrumental turn -the use of public subsidies for the arts as a way to create jobs, to promote tourism and to contribute to urban regeneration and social inclusion (Belfiore, 2004;Glow and Johanson, 2009;Newman, 2013). Alternatively, authors have linked the increased use of performance measurement in arts organizations to NPM reform packages that transfer private-sector techniques into to the public sector (Gstraunthaler and Piber, 2007). According to these perspectives, the diffusion of accountability in cultural organizations has been mainly an externally and top down driven process, in the face of which cultural managers have had to adapt and comply.…”

Managing performance in publicly funded museums in England: effects, resistances and revisions

“…As a result, the cultural sector has been trying to play the instrumentalist game and reframe itself along the creative and cultural industries paradigm to make itself more attractive to policy-makers and private funders (Craik 2005, Skilling 2005, del Barrio et al 2009, Scott 2009, Belfiore and Bennett 2010. Further, where public money is at stake in fundingor contributing to funding -museums and arts and cultural organisations in general, there has been a policy-driven fixation on an evidence-based approach to policy-making, including cultural policy-making (Evans 2005, Gstraunthaler and Piber 2007, Boaz et al 2008, Levitt 2008. A good deal of this approach comes under the umbrella of performance management, mainly revolving around measuring impact, which has been adopted as a response to evidence-based policy drivers; as Levitt (2008, pp.…”

“…As Gstraunthaler and Piber (2007, p. 363) note, '[c]ompetitive environments can … be created by making the performance of various bodies visible and comparable by benchmarking systems'. In the case of museums, this means creating comparability across publicly funded museums (Gstraunthaler andPiber 2007, Gray 2011).…”

The Quality of Annual Reporting by Italian Museums: An International Comparison

“…The quality of these reporting practices can be evaluated and "measured" using disclosure indices (Coy & Dixon, 2004). A few studies focusing on the quality of museum reporting and accountability practices have been conducted: for instance, Jackson (1991) in the United Kingdom, Weil (1994) in the United States, Rentschler and Potter (1996) in Australia, Pignataro (2002) in Italy, Christensen and Mohr (2003) in the United States, Gstraunthaler and Piber (2007) in Austria, Da Silva Menezes, West (2009) in Portugal andDainelli, Manetti, andSibilio (2013) in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and US. Wei et al (2008) and Botes et al (2013) tried to evaluate the quality of museums' annual reporting using the already cited MPADI and MPADI2.…”

“…To take into consideration the different needs of the various stakeholder, an approach based on multiple dimensions, internal and external, is necessary; for this reason the balanced scorecard (BSC) model will be employed (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Adopting multiple perspectives not only allows us to understand if each stakeholder category is given a proper level of information, but it also allows us to identify better means of compliance and determine if informative objectives are met (Gstraunthaler & Piber, 2007;Turbide & Laurin, 2009).…”