nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. The Need of a Dynamic Performance Management Approach to Foster Sustainable Organizational Development

verfasst von : Carmine Bianchi

Erschienen in: Dynamic Performance Management

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The concept of organizational growth concerns the strategic domain of management. It underlies the aptitude of an organization to attain a set of results leading to its long-term success and continuity.

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 Managing Organizational Growth and Dynamic Complexity

Nächstes Kapitel Fostering Sustainable Organizational Development Through Dynamic Performance Management

“Accountability may have to be interpreted as the development of mutual accountabilities between different organizational participants (and indeed between different organizations) rather than as solely a hierarchical process” (Otley 1994, p. 297. Italics added).

Social capital refers to the connections among individuals and organizations, and to the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness arising from them (Putnam 2000). Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions in a society; it is rather the glue that holds them together.

Though Fig. 2.5 may look like a causal loop diagram, this is not properly the case here. In fact, it tries to capture both the public and private sector into a single and abstract framework. Such framework remarks the role of the public sector into the wider system where it operates, and therefore underlies the main conditions for assessing its performance.

Such additional resources correspond to those that a single public sector institution (or a group of them) ruling a local area is able to procure from third actors (e.g. the Union funding for infrastructure building to the benefit of European Regions). It is worth remarking that this analysis is relevant not only for those public services generating a financial value (e.g. in the case of infrastructures, education, enterprise funding, local area marketing) but also for those generating a qualitative value (e.g. in the case of health care, police or environmental care services, whose indirect outcomes have, however, an economic value too).

According to Pollitt (2003, p. 35), ‘“Joined-up government” is a phrase that denotes the aspiration to achieve horizontally and vertically coordinated thinking and action. Through this coordination, it is hoped that a number of benefits can be achieved. First, situations in which different policies undermine each other can be eliminated. Second, better use can be made of scarce resources. Third, synergies may be created through the bringing together of different key stakeholders in a particular policy field or network. Fourth, it becomes possible to offer citizens seamless rather than fragmented access to a set of related services’.

Christensen and Laegreid (2013) describe the Norwegian experience in dealing with such wicked problems, with a specific reference to welfare services. In 2005, Norway merged the central pensions and employment agencies and creates a partnership with locally based welfare services. In the years 2006–2009, Norwegian municipalities established local one-stop-shop welfare offices. In 2008, regional pension units and administrative back offices were established in the counties.

For instance, in the UK, the Blair government implemented intensive whole-of-government programs, which led to a stronger role of the center (Christensen and Laegreid 2013). Australia and New Zealand governments established new organizational units (e.g. cabinet committees, inter-ministerial or inter-agency collaborative units, inter-governmental councils, task forces, cross-sectoral programs) to foster coordination among different decision makers (Halligan and Adams 2004).

Ackoff, R. (1986). Management in small doses. New York: Wiley.

Bianchi, C. (2002). Introducing SD modeling into planning and control systems to manage SMEs’ growth: A learning-oriented perspective. System Dynamics Review, 18(3), 315–338.CrossRef

Bianchi, C. (2010). Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through system dynamic modeling: From and ‘external’ to an ‘internal’ perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27, 361–384.CrossRef

Bianchi, C. (2015). Enhancing joined-up government and outcome-based performance management through system dynamics modeling to deal with wicked problems: The case of societal ageing. Systems Research & Behavioural Science, 32, 502–505.CrossRef

Bianchi, C., & Montemaggiore, G. (2008). Enhancing strategy design and planning in public utilities through “dynamic” balanced scorecards: Insights from a project in a city water company. System Dynamics Review, 24(2), 175–213.

Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. (2012). A comparative analysis of performance management systems. The cases of Sicily and North Carolina. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 509–526.

Bianchi, C., & Williams, D. (2015). Applying system dynamics modeling to foster a cause-and-effect perspective in dealing with behavioral distortions associated with a city’s performance measurement programs. Public Performance Management Review, 38, 395–425.

Bianchi, C., & Xavier, J. A. (2014). The design and execution of performance management systems at state level: A comparative analysis of Italy and Malaysia. APPAM Fall Research Conference. November 6–8, Albuquerque.

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 5, 846–860.CrossRef

Bovaird, T., & Loffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 313–328.

Bovaird, T., & Loffler, E. (2007). Assessing the quality of local governance: A case study of public services. Public Money & Management, 27(4), 293–300.

Borgonovi, E. (1996). Principi e sistemi aziendali per le Amministrazioni Pubbliche (Management Principles and systems for Public Administrations). Milano: Egea.

Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2014). Joined-up government for welfare administration reform in Norway. Public Organization Review, 14(4), 439–456.CrossRef

Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007a). Transcending new public management. Surrey: Ashgate.

Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007b). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.

Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2013). Welfare administration reform between coordination and specialization. International Journal of Public Administration, 36, 556–566.

Coda, V. (2010). Entrepreneurial values and strategic management. Essays in management theory. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Dyson, R. (2000). Strategy, performance and operational research. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(1), 5–11.CrossRef

Flamholtz, E. (1996). Effective organizational control. A framework, applications, and implications. European Management Journal, 14(6), 596–611.CrossRef

Flamholtz, E., & Hua, W. (2002) Strategic organizational development, growing pains and corporate financial performance: An empirical test. European Management Journal, 20(5), 527–536.

Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50, 4.

Halligan, J., & Adams, J. (2004). Security, capacity and post-market reforms, public management change in 2003. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 85–93.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Head, B., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, Published online, doi:10.1177/0095399713481601

Henri, J. F. (2006). Organizational culture and performance management systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), 77–103.CrossRef

Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government. A historical perspective. In Bogdanor V. (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford, British Academy: Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The Balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kloot, L. (1997). Organizational learning and management control systems. Management Accounting Research, 8, 47–73.CrossRef

Johnson, H., & Kaplan, R. (1987). The rise and fall of management accounting. Mass. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Laegreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2014). Governance for complexity—How to organize for the handling of «Wicked Issues»? Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies. https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/9384

Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and strategy: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 207–232.CrossRef

Linard, K., & Dvorsky, L. (2001) People—Not human resources: The system dynamics of human capital accounting. In Operations Research Society Conference. Bath: University of Bath.

Linard, K., Fleming, C., & Dvorsky, L. (2002) System dynamics as the link between corporate vision and key performance indicators. In Proceedings of the 20th System Dynamics International Conference. Palermo: System Dynamics Society.

Linard, K., & Yoon, J. (2000). The dynamics of organizational performance development of a dynamic balanced scorecard. In The First International Conference of System Thinking in Management (pp. 359–364).

Lorange, P., & Vancil, R. (1976) How to design a strategic planning system. Harvard Business Review, 54, 75–81.

Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Managerial Accounting Research, 13, 47–90.

Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: A research note. Management Accounting Research, 12, 207–220.CrossRef

Martinsons, M., Davison, R., & Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: A foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems, 25(1), 71–88.

Meier, K. J., & Hill, G. (2005). Bureaucracy in the twenty-first century. In: E. Ferlie, L. Lynn & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 51–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 39–59.

Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value. Strategic management in government. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Mooraj, S., Oyon, D., & Hostettler, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: A necessary good or an unnecessary evil? European Management Journal, 17(5), 481–491.

Morecroft, J. (2007). Strategic modeling and business dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

Munro, M., & Wheeler, B. (1980). Planning, critical success factors, and management’s information requirements. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 4(4), 27–38.

Norton, D. (2001). Building strategy maps. Part 3: The importance of time-phasing the strategy. In Balanced scorecard: Insight, experience and ideas for strategy focused organizations (pp. 1–4). USA: Harvard Business School. March/April.

OECD. (2005). Modernizing government. Paris: The Way Forward. http://www.oecd.org/gov/modernisinggovernmentthewayforward.htm

Osborne, S. P. (Ed.) (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

Otley, D. (1994). Management control in contemporary organizations: Towards a wider framework. Management Accounting Research, 5, 289–299.CrossRef

Peters, G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management. The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1, 34–49.CrossRef

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster

Radermacher, W. (1999). Indicators, green accounting and environment statistics—Information requirements for sustainable development. International Statistical Review, 67(3), 339–354.

Rainey, H. G., & Han Chun, Y. (2005). Public and private management compared. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riccaboni, A. & Leone, E. L. (2010). Implementing strategies through management control systems: The case of sustainability. Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(2), 130–144.

Richmond, B. (2001). A new language for leveraging scorecard-driven learning. Reprinted from “Balanced Scorecard Report”. Harvard Business School Publishing, 3(1(), 11–14.

Ritchie-Dunham J. L. (2001). Informing mental models for strategic decision making with ERPs and the balanced scorecard: A simulation-based experiment. In Proceedings of the 19th International System Dynamics Conference. Atlanta: System Dynamics Society.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Schreyögg, G., & Steinmann, H. (1987). Strategic control: A new perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 91–103.

Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement & control systems for implementing strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Sloper, P., Linard, K., & Paterson, D. (1999). Towards a dynamic feedback framework for public sector performance management. In Proceedings of the 17th International System Dynamics Conference, Wellington: System Dynamics Society.

Sorci, C. (2007). Lo sviluppo integrale dell’azienda (Holistic Business Growth). Milan: Giuffrè.

Talbot, C. (2005). Performance management. In: E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Warren, K. (2008). Strategic management dynamics. New York: Wiley.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRef

Werther, W. B., & Chandler D. B. (2006). Strategic corporate social responsibility. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wisniewski, M., & Dickson, A. (2001). Measuring performance in dumfries and galloway constabulary with the balanced scorecard. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52, 1057–1066.

Titel: The Need of a Dynamic Performance Management Approach to Foster Sustainable Organizational Development
verfasst von: Carmine Bianchi
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Dynamic Performance Management
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31844-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-31845-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31845-5_2