Output steering in public organizations: about the use of a product approach and a process approach

Emerald - Tập 18 Số 4 - Trang 303-312 - 2003
Hansde Bruijn1
1Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Focuses on managing performance in public, professional organizations, specifically those using output steering. Asks whether these organizations can use output measurement effectively in spite of the tool’s shortcoming. Outlines the positive effects of output steering as well as the “perverse” effects and derives three mechanisms that usually manifest themselves when output steering is used. Also deals with an alternative to output: a focus on throughput. Output steering focuses on an organization’s products; throughput steering focuses on the process of generating these products. Asserts that effective performance management implies that a manager and a professional use both approaches and make a creative use of the tension between the two approaches. They constantly move to and fro between a product approach and a process approach.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Argyris, C. (1991), “Teaching smart people how to learn, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 99‐109.

Argyris, C. (1994), “Communication that blocks learning”, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 77‐85.

Barzelay, M. (2001), The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, Wildavsky Forum 3, Oxford.

Behn, R.D. and Kant, P.A. (1999), “Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting”, Public Productivity and Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 470‐89, 74.

Boer, A.J., den and Fuhler, M.C. et al. (2001), Building Community Policing, Playing with Measuring (in Dutch), The Hague.

Bouckaert, G. and Auwers, T. (1999), “Prestaties meten in de overheid”, Overheidsmanagement, Vol. 5, Die Keure, Brugge.

Bowerman, M. and Hawksworth, S. (1999), “Local government internal auditors’ perceptions of the Audit Commission”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 14, No. 8.

Broere, H. (2001), Symbol City, NSPA, The Hague.

Bruijn, H. de (2002), Managing Performance in the Public Sector, Routledge, London.

Bruijn, H. de and ten Heuvelhof, E. (2000), Networks and Decision Making, Lemma, Utrecht.

Bruijn, H. de and de Nerée tot Babberich, C. (2000), Opposites Attract, Competing Values in Knowledge Management, Lemma, Utrecht.

Chung, L.H. et al. (2000), “The influence of subsidiary context and head office strategic management style on control of MNCs: the experience in Australia”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol 13 No. 5, pp. 647‐68.

Durch, J.S. et al. (1997), Improving Health in the Community, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

DUT (2000), “Output models at various universities”, Evaluating the Allocation Model Applied, Delft University of Technology, Delft (in Dutch).

Fiske, E.B. and Ladd, H.F. (2000), When Schools Compete. A Cautionary Tale, The Brooking Institution, Washington, DC.

Gaebler, T. (1999), Positive outcomes, Raising the Bar on Government Reinvention, Chatelaine Press Burke, VA.

Good, T.A. and Braden, (1999), The Great School Debate: Choice, Vouchers, and Charters, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Hoogland, A. (1998), The Public Prosecution Service in the Dock, No. 2, Hollands Maandblad (in Dutch).

Johnson, T.H. (1991), Relevance Lost. The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Larsen, B. (2001), “Measurement is better than 1,000 opinions, is it?”, Managerial Auditing Journal, No. 2, pp. 63‐8.

Leeuw, F.L. (1996), “Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and answers”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 92‐102.

Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structures in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government, Penguin, Reading, MA.

Osborne, D. and Plastrik, P. (1997), Banishing Bureaucracy, Perseus Press, Reading, MA.

Osborne, D. and Plastrik, P. (2000), The Reinventors Fieldbook. Tools for Transforming Your Government, Josey‐Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press Oxford.

Power, M. (1997), The Audit Explosion, Fontana Press, London, pp. 286‐93

Quinn, R. (1998), Beyond Rational Management, Wiley, San Francisco, CA..

Rohe, W.M., Adams, R.E. and Arcury, T.A. (2001), “Community policing and planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 67, No. 1.

Smith, M.. et al. (2001), “Structure versus judgement in the audit process: a test of Kinney’s classification”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1.

Sol, H.G. (1985), “Aggregating data for decision support”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 111‐21.

Veld, R.J. in ’t (1989), The Dynamics of Educational Performance Indicators, Ministry of Education, Rotterdam.

Veld, R.J. in ’t (2001), Relations between the State and Higher Education, Kluwer Law, The Hague.

Wilson, J.Q. (1973), Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Winston, J.A.. (2000), available at: www.city.grande‐prairie.ab.ca/perfm_a.htm#Top

Witte, J.F. (2000), The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America’s First Voucher Program, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Zollers, N. and Ramanathan, A.K. (1998), “For profit charter schools and students disabilities: the sordid side of the business of schooling”, Phi Delta Kappa, Vol 81, p. 297ff.

OECD, International comparisons: see the PUMA (public management) activities of the OECD, available at: www.oecd.org/puma/

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Tập 18 Số 4

303-312

Thông tin tác giả