Searching for Organizational Intelligence in the Evolution of Public-Sector Performance Management

• Authors: Petri Virtanen , Jarmo Vakkuri
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article explores the transformation process of evaluation, performance monitoring and accountability in the public sector. The process underlines that horizontal accountability referencing a wide democratic footprint is likely to become more explicit. To this end, this article develops the idea of transformation of public sector performance management from the viewpoint of organizational intelligence. Much of the current doctrine originates from rationalistic performance management and evaluation models and are therefore reluctant or unable to see the social mechanisms incorporated in the mechanisms of accountability. This article concludes that ‘hard nose’ rationalistic models of performance and evaluation are not anymore fit for purpose. To be measured by traditional performance metrics, the society is far too complex, constructed by various social networks and retrospective interlink-ages, and constituted by public service systems. Thus, the need for intelligence in organizational knowledge management and decision-making processes ought to be addressed more systematically.

Keywords

EN

performance management; organizational intelligence; social mechanisms

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 89-99

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-01-29

Contributors

author

Petri Virtanen

author

Jarmo Vakkuri

References

• Bort, E., R. McAlpine and G. Morgan. 2012. The Silent Crisis: Failure and Revival in Local Democracy in Scotland. Glasgow: The Jimmy Reid Foundation.
• Bouckaert, G. and J. Halligan. 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
• Bouckaert, G. and W. Van Dooren. 2009. “Performance Measurement and Management in Public Sector Organizations.” In T. Bovaird and E. Loffl er (eds). Public Management and Governance. London: Routledge. 151 - 164.
• Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Checkland, P. 1980. “The Systems Movement and the ‘Failure’ of Management Science.” Cybernetics and Systems 11(4), 317 - 324.
• Choo, C. W. 1998. The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dahler-Larsen, P. 2006. “Evaluation aft er Disenchantment ? Five Issues Shaping the Role of Evaluation in Society.” In I. F. Shaw et al. (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. Th ousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 141 - 160.
• Ferlie, E., L. Fitzgerald, G. McGivern, S. Dopson and C. Bennett. 2011. “Public Policy Networks and ‘Wicked Problems’: A Nascent Solution ?” Public Administration 89(2), 307 - 324.
• Fischer, F. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. New York: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
• Greve, C. 2015. “Ideas in Public Management Reform for the 2010s: Digitalization, Value Creation and Involvement.” Public Organization Review 15(1), 49 - 65.
• Hamel, G. and L. Välikangas. 2003. “The Quest for Resilience.” Harvard Business Review 81(9), 52 - 63.
• Head, B. W. 2008. “Wicked Policy Problems.” Public Policy 3(2), 101 - 118.
• Hedström, P. and R. Swedberg (eds). 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heinrich, C. J. 1999. “Do Government Bureaucrats Make Eff ective Use of Performance Management Information ?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(3), 363 - 394.
• Hernes, T. 2014. A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hodges, R. 2012. “Joined-Up Government and the Challenges to Accounting and Accountability Researchers.” Financial Accountability & Management 28(1), 26 - 51.
• Kaivo-oja, J., P. Virtanen, H. Jalonen and J. Stenvall. 2015. The Eff ects of the Internet of Th ings and Big Data to Organizations and their Knowledge Management Practices. KMO proceedings from the 2015 KMO Conference. Maribor: Springer.
• Kaufmann, X.-F. 1987. “Prevention and Intervention in the Analytical Perspective of Guidance.” In K. Hurrelmann et al. (eds). Social Intervention: Chances and Constraints. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3 - 20.
• Koppell, J. G. S. 2005. “Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of ‘Multiple Accountabilities Disorder’.” Public Administration Review 65(1), 94 - 108.
• McManus, S., E. Seville, J. Vargo and D. Brunsdon. 2008. “Facilitated Process for Improving Organizational Resilience.” Natural Hazards Review 9(2), 81 - 90.
• March, J. G. 1978. “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity and the Engineering of Choice.” Bell Journal of Economics 9(2), 587 - 608.
• Moran, P. 2005. “Structural vs. Relational Embeddedness: Social Capital and Managerial Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 26(12), 1129 - 1151.
• Neely, A., M. Kennerly and A. Walters. 2006. Performance Measurement and Management: Public and Private. Cranfi eld: Cranfi eld School of Management.
• Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• North, D.C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Patton, M. Q. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Th ousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Pawson, R. and N. Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
• Schillemans, T. 2011 “Does Horizontal Accountability Work ? Evaluating Potential Remedies for the Accountability Defi cit of Agencies.” Administration & Society 43(3), 387 - 416.
• Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus. Th ousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Tsoukas, H. 2005. Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Vakkuri, J. 2013. “Interpretive Schemes in Public Sector Performance: Measurements Creating Managerial Problems in Local Government.” International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management 2(2), 156 - 174.
• Vakkuri, J. 2010. “Struggling with Ambiguity: Public Managers as Users of NPMOriented Management Instruments.” Public Administration 88(4), 999 - 1024. Van Helden, G. J., A. Johnsen and J. Vakkuri. 2012. “Evaluating Public Sector Performance Management: The Life Cycle Approach.” Evaluation 18(2), 159 - 175.
• Vedung, E. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
• Virtanen, P. and J. Stenvall. 2014. Älykäs julkinen organisaatio [An intelligent public organization]. Helsinki: Tietosanoma.
• Virtanen, P. and P. Uusikyla. 2004. “Exploring the Missing Links between Cause and Eff ect: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Micro-Macro Conversions in Programme Evaluation.” Evaluation 10(1), 77 - 91.
• Weber, E. P. and A. N. Khademian. 2008. “Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings.” Public Administration Review 68(2), 334 - 349.
• Weiss, C. 1998. Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Wholey, J. S. and H. P. Hatry. 1992. “The Case for Performance Monitoring.” Public Administration Review 52(6), 604 - 610.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/nispa-2015-0010