|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Three Spheres of Performance GovernanceSpanning the Boundaries from Single-Organization Focus towards a Partnership Network
Petri Uusikylä
Net Effect, Finland, petri.uusikyla{at}neteffect.fi
Ville Valovirta
VTT Technical Research Centre, Finland, ville.valovirta{at}vtt.fi
This article argues that one of the reasons for unsatisfactory performance is the single-sighted and narrow scope of performance management models applied in most of the OECD countries. Performance targets are normally set from a single organization's perspective, which is not sufficient given the complex nature of societal problems that public agencies deal with. In the worst case, single-unit performance targeting and maximization of an organization's self-interest produces suboptimal results rather than positive impacts for society as a whole. After a critical assessment of existing performance management models, we suggest a more comprehensive approach. In our extended framework, the overall performance has been broken down into three fields of performance. The first field covers the enabling performance factors such as learning, process development and resources. The second field consists of a single organization's performance targets, i.e. measurable outputs delivered to customers and immediate results generated by these activities. The third field of our framework is called the multi-organizational sphere of effectiveness where positive results can only be created by multi-actor performance clusters. We conclude by discussing the potential strengths and weaknesses of the framework.
Key Words: evaluation • governance • networks • rational models
References
- Ambrosini, V. and C. Bowman (2002) `Mapping Successful Organizational Routines', in A. Huff and M. Jenkins (eds) Mapping Strategic Knowledge, pp. 19—45. London: SAGE.
- Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., R. Rist and E. Vedung, eds ( 1998) Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
- Bryson, J. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Burt, R.S. (1982) Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action. New York: Academic Press.
- Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. London: Blackwell Publishers.
- Chen, H.-T. (1990) Theory-Driven Evaluation: A Comprehensive Approach. London: SAGE.
- Chen, H.-T. and P. Rossi (1989) `Issues in the Theory-Driven Perspective', Evaluation and Program Planning 12(4): 299—306.[CrossRef]
- Coleman, J.S. (1990) Foundations in Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Conner, K. and C.K. Prahalad (1996) `A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism', Organization Science 7: 477—501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001) `From Programme Theory to Constructivism: On Tragic, Magic and Competing Programmes', Evaluation 7(3): 331—49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Eden, C. and F. Ackermann (1998) Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London: SAGE.
- Galaskiewicz, J. (1985) Social Organisation of an Urban Grant Economy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
- Heclo, H. and A. Wildavsky (1974) The Private Government of Public Money. London: Macmillan.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1994) Translating Strategy into Action: The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (2004) Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
- Kenis, P. and V. Schneider (1991) `Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox', in B. Marin and R. Mayntz (eds) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, pp. 26—62. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
- Kickert, W. and J. Koppenjan (1997) `Public Management and Network Management: An Overview ', in W. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn and J. Koppenjan (1997) Managing Complex Networks. London: SAGE.
- Kooiman, J. (1993) `Social-Political Governance Introduction', in J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance: New Government—Society Interactions, pp. 1—8. London: SAGE.
- Laumann, E.O. and D. Knoke (1987) The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- McLaughlin, J. and G. Jordan (1998) Logic Models: A Tool for Telling your Program's Performance Story. Performance Management Network, www.pmn.net.
- Mayne, J. (2001) `Assessing Attribution through Contribution Analysis Using Performance Measures Sensibly', Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 16(1): 1—24.
- Mizruchi, M.S. (1992) The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and their Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Montague, S. (1998) Build Reach into your Logic Model. Performance Management Network, www.pmn.net.
- Montague, S. (2000) Circles of Influence: An Approach to Structured, Succinct Strategy. Performance Management Network, www.pmn.net.
- Patton, M. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
- Pierre, J. and G.P. Peters (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.
- Poincaré, H. (1905) Science and Hypothesis. London: Walter Scott Publishing.
- Pollit, C. and G. Bouckaert (2003) `Evaluating Public Management Reforms: An International Perspective', in H. Wollmann (ed.) Evaluation in Public-Sector Reform. Concepts and Practice in International Perspective, pp. 12—35. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Rhodes, R. A. W (1988) Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: The Sub-central Governments of Britain. London: Unwin Hyman.
- Schneider, V. (1992) `The Structure of Policy Networks: A Comparison of the "Chemicals Control" and "Telecommunications" Policy Domains in Germany', European Journal of Political Research 21: 109—29.[CrossRef]
- Uusikylä, P. and V. Valovirta (2002) Osaoptimoinnista tulosketjuihin (From Sub- Optimising towards Results Chains). Helsinki: Net Effect.
- Valovirta, V. and R. Karinen (2003) `Providing Genuine Strategic Knowledge for the Regions: Moving Beyond Current Limits of Programme Evaluation by a Regional Contextualisation', a paper presented in the Fifth European Conference on Evaluation of the Structural Funds, Budapest, 26—27 June 2003.
- Vedung, E. (1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
- Weiss, C.H. (1997) `Theory-Based Evaluation Past, Present, and Future ', New Directions for Evaluation 76: 41—55.
- Wollmann, H., ed. (2003) Evaluation in Public-Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Evaluation, Vol. 13, No. 4,
399-419 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389007082128
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
|
|
