Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Shifting from Output to Outcome Measurement in Public Administration-Arguments Revisited Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

15. Performance-Based Funding and Internal Resource Allocation: The Case of Italian Universities

verfasst von : Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini

Erschienen in: Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Management literature has emphasized the importance of performance measurement systems (PMS) that are consistent with the organization’s context and strategy. However, little attention has been paid to factors that explain the design of PMS not adequately reflecting an organization’s business model. We use the case of Italian universities to highlight how performance-based funding impacts resource allocation systems of faculty positions to academic departments. The findings show a variety of PMS in use. Differences across systems arise from different strategies and priorities. We have limited evidence that the systems’ features can explain the disparities in research performance and funding, which suggest that part of the explanation may reside in the size of the organization or in the power of academic disciplines.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Performance Measurement Systems in Universities: A Critical Review of the Italian System
Nächstes Kapitel Performance Reporting in Italian Public Universities: Activities in Support of Research, Teaching and the “Third Mission”
Fußnoten
1
To maintain anonymity, the university names have been replaced by letters.
 
Literatur
Amigoni, F. (1992). Planning management control systems. In C. Emmanuel, D. Otley, & K. Merchant (Eds.), Readings in accounting for management control, part one (pp. 174–185). London: Chapman & Hall.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 470–489.CrossRef
Berry, A., Coad, A., Harris, E., Otley, D., & Stringer, C. (2009). Emerging themes in management control: A review of recent literature. The British Accounting Review, 41(1), 2–20.CrossRef
Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the British health care sector. Public Administration, 84, 517–538.CrossRef
Bouckaert, G., & Balk, W. (1991). Public productivity measurement; diseases and cures. Public Productivity and Management Review, 15, 229–235.CrossRef
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London: Routledge.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
Bower, J. L., & Gilbert, C. (2005). From resource allocation to strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the “New Public Sector”. Management Accounting Research, 11, 281–306.CrossRef
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1364.CrossRef
Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The three corners of the accountability triangle: Serving all submitting to none. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education (pp. 296–324). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432–453.CrossRef
Burke, J. C., & Serban, A. M. (1997). Performance funding and budgeting for public higher education: Current status and future prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Chenhall, R. (2007). Theorising contingencies in management control research. In C. S. Chapman, A. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (pp. 163–206). Oxford: Elsevier.
De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578–594.CrossRef
Dearden, J. (1971). What’s wrong with your financial control system (pp. 27–35). Paris: European Business.
Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms, what are the impacts?. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dougherty, K.J., & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In T. Bailey & V.S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51–86). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Ferreira, A., Otley, D. (2010). Design and use of management control systems: An analysis of the interaction between design misfit and intensity of use, Working paper, Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London: CIPFA.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organisational design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Govindarajan, V., & Fisher, J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 259–285.CrossRef
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.CrossRef
Harnisch, T. (2011). Performance based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Higher Education Policy Brief. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges.
Huber, G. F. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.CrossRef
Jacobs, K., Marcon, G., & Witt, D. (2004). Cost and performance information for doctors: An international comparison. Management Accounting Research, 15(3), 337–354.CrossRef
Jones, D. P. (2012). Performance funding: From idea to action. Washington, DC: Complete College America.
Jongbloed, B. (2001). Performance based funding in higher education: an international review, Working paper no. 35, Monash University, ACER, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 58(1), 686–705.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Strategy and Leadership, 29(3), 41–42.
Lawson, R., Stratton, W., & Hatch, T. (2003). The benefits of a scorecard system. CMA Management, 77(4), 24–26.
Layzel, D. T. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233–246.CrossRef
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469–489.CrossRef
Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure up!: Yardsticks for continuos improvement. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., & Reily, R. R. (2003). Beyond the balance scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 187–204.CrossRef
Massy, W. F. (Ed.). (1996). Resource allocation in higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McDonnel, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.CrossRef
Moynihan, D. P. (2009). Through a glass, darkly. Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.CrossRef
Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Moynihan, D., & Ingraham, P. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use. Administration and Society, 36(4), 427–453.CrossRef
Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.CrossRef
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.CrossRef
Otley, D. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 413–428.CrossRef
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. New York: Penguin Books.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventors filedbook: Tools for transforming your government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organisational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.CrossRef
Paranjiape, B., Rossiter, M., & Pantano, V. (2006). Performance measurement systems: Successes, failures and future—a review. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 4–14.CrossRef
Pidd, M. (2005). Perversity in public service performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 482–493.CrossRef
Simons, R. (1992). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives. In C. Emmanuel, D. Otley, & K. Merchant (Eds.), Readings in accounting for management control (pp. 622–645). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277–310.CrossRef
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tosi, H. R., Jr., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10, 9–26.CrossRef
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.
Wagoner, B., Neely, A. D., & Kennerley, M. P. (1999). The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Production Economics, 60–61(3), 53–60.CrossRef
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Metadaten
Titel
Performance-Based Funding and Internal Resource Allocation: The Case of Italian Universities
verfasst von
Andrea Francesconi
Enrico Guarini
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57017-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-57018-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57018-1_15

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise