La gestion axée sur les résultats: Comparaison des cadres de gestion de huit juridictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Au cours des deux derniéres décennies, plusieurs gouvemements ont voulu réformer leur administration publique en mettant en place un cadre de gestion axée sur les résultats. Jusqu à tout récemment, la documentation scientifique n'abor‐dait que trés peu ce théme et, outre les travaux de l'OCDE, le concept de gestion axée sur les résultats et son contenu n' avaient pas été définis. Nous avons donc voulu éla‐borer une définition générique de la gestion axée sur les résultats et comprendre la façon dont elle s'intègre à différents aspects de la gestion des organisations. Pour ce faire, nous avons exploré le cadre de gestion proposé par les réformes mises de l'avant dans huit juridictions. Les pays et provinces canadiennes choisis ont une approche‐type de gestion anglo‐américaine, soit le Canada, le Québec, l'Ontario, l'Alberta, les États‐Unis, l'Australie, le Royaume‐Uni et la Nouvelle‐Zélande. Les modèles étudiés présentent plusieurs similarités. On observe que la gestion de la performance dans ces juridictions se déploie dans des cycles de gestion composés de plusieurs étapes. Les éléments communs de ces cycles sont la planification stratégique, la planification opérationnelle, la réalisation des plans et des programmes, la mesure ds résultats, la reddition de comptes et l'analyse et l'interpréta‐tion des résultats. Ces processus se concrétisent par la publication de documents. Par ailleurs, ces cadres de gestion ont tendance à s'intégrer aux autres enjeux de la gestion des organisations tels que la qualité du service à la clientèle, la gestion des res‐sources humaines et financières et la vérification. Abstract: Over the last two decades, several governments have wanted to reform their public administration by implementing a results‐based management framework. Until very recently, the scientific literature hardly addressed this issue and, other than the OECD work, the concept of results‐based management and its content had not been defined. We therefore wanted to develop a generic definition for results‐based management and to understand how it fits into various aspects of organizational management. To do so, we explored the management framework put forward through reforms introduced in eight jurisdictions. The countries and Canadian provinces chosen, i.e., Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, United States, Australia, United Kingdom and New‐Zealand, use the typical Anglo‐American management approach. The models considered have several similarities. We found that performance management in those jurisdictions was implemented throughout several steps of management cycles. Common elements in these cycles include strategic planning, operational planning, plan and program delivery, results measurement, accountability, and results analysis and interpretation. The process is documented through published documents. Moreover, these management frameworks tend to become part of the other organizational management components, such as quality of customer service, management of human and financial resources, and auditing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".