The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: exploring developments in professional-service organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Author | Christine Teelken |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852308098471 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The intricate implementation of performance measurement
systems: exploring developments in professional-service
organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector
Christine Teelken
Abstract
Institutional and organizational theory supports the argument that current
features of performance measurement systems (PMS) in public organizations are
generally unsuitable for the actual nature of these professional organizations.
Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in the health care and higher education
sectors in the Netherlands have shown that, despite external pressures, the imple-
mentation of such systems is slower than intended and seems to occur outside
the primary process of the organization. Two rounds of interviews with quality
coordinators in 2003 and 2006 showed that the gap between performance
measurement systems and the operational process continued to exist, although
its nature had changed. In general, quality coordinators responded pragmatically
to the changes imposed upon them, as peer review and collegial trust played a
vital part. The empirical findings illustrate that institutional and professional
theories supplement each other in a fruitful way.
Points for practitioners
Policy-makers in the public sector involved with quality care and assurance should
be aware that a well-structured performance measurement system (PMS) is no
guarantee of smooth implementation. On the contrary, the implementation
deserves attention in its own right. The more sophisticated and demanding the
design of PMS, the more likely it is that employees find ways to work round such
a system and only use it in a superficial or compliant manner. If implementation is
not taken seriously into account, this will only lead to a greater gap between
reality and rhetoric.
Christine Teelken works as Associate Professor at the Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Social
Sciences.
Copyright © 2008 IIAS, SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol 74(4):615–635 [DOI:10.1177/0020852308098471]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Keywords: accountability, health care, higher education, institutional theory, per-
formance measurement
Introduction
Public sector organizations in continental Western Europe and the Anglophone coun-
tries are generally encouraged by their central governments to be more accountable
to their funding bodies and the purchasers of their services. However, despite many
policy programmes aiming to achieve this and a great deal of time and resources
expended on this matter, there is little empirical evidence showing that performance
measurement actually leads to better service provision or more satisfied clients. On
the contrary, the few studies available show a disappointing picture (Townley, 2003).
The aim of this article is to offer an explanation for the slow implementation and
disappointing effects of performance measurement based on empirical evidence in
the Dutch higher education and health sectors. Seventeen interviews were held with
support staff in the health and higher education sectors in 2003 and 2006, supple-
mented with document analysis, to explore difficulties with the implementation of
performance measurement and the consequences for the organizations. It was
particularly fascinating to find out how the implementation of performance measure-
ment occurred within the systems of quality care and how these systems have been
adapted according to external and internal pressures. While the explicit focus of the
study is on performance management, aspects of quality care played an important
and manifest role.
Carrying out this investigation in the Netherlands is interesting for two reasons.
First, it belongs to a group of countries which comes closely behind the pioneer
group of public service reformers, which includes Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
This following group of public service reformers are mainly from continental Europe
and are actively pursuing policy on the different forms, ways and shapes of perform-
ance measurement in the public sector. As this group shows an optimistic attitude
and a constructive approach to the reform of public services, it provides an interest-
ing model (Politt and Bouckaert, 2004). Within this group of countries is the
Netherlands, an early adopter of the quasi-market principle (Dent, 2003).
A second, more specific reason for the Netherlands being an interesting case
comes from the historical analysis of Walter Kickert (2003). He suggested that the
traditions of governance in the Netherlands show a ‘remarkable continuity’ (p. 119)
and go back to underlying age-old traditions, such as tolerance, pragmatism and
consensus. These deeply embedded values may be more difficult to overrule, or to
discuss or evaluate critically, than less persistent customs, for example neo-liberalism
and the belief in the market model. The more embedded the values, the more likely
it is that they can be concealed by mimetic behaviour on the surface (Kickert, 2003).
This makes it possible that people will react or adapt to environmental changes only
at a superficial level. Pollitt (2005), for example, sees this as a major explanation for
the slow implementation of performance indicators in the Dutch health care system.
Under these circumstances performance management systems can be seen as ‘new
techniques of legitimation’ (Rose, 2000: 1405) or even as ‘rituals of verification’
(Czarniawska and Genell, 2002).
616 International Review of Administrative Sciences 74(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial