MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099979841 · doi:10.1108/13683041211204653

Making performance measurement systems more effective in public sector organizations

2012· article· en· W2099979841 on OpenAlexaff
Swee C. Goh

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasuring Business Excellence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sectorPerformance measurementConceptual frameworkPerformance managementAssertionStakeholderProcess (computing)Extant taxonPerformance appraisalProcess managementBusinessNew public managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceManagement sciencePublic relationsMarketingEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Performance management in public sector organizations is a growing phenomenon worldwide. Increasingly, questions are being raised as to its effectiveness in achieving the objective of improving the performance of public sector organizations. Research has shown that there seems to be questionable benefits and many barriers, challenges and problems with implementing performance management and measurement in the public sector environment. The purpose of this paper is to argue that this is due to the lack of focus on the process of managing the implementation of performance measurement. The author aims to review the relevant extant literature to support these assertions and to provide a conceptual framework that integrates these ideas. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the extant literature on public sector performance management and measurement and develops a conceptual framework to explain how public sector performance measurement systems can be made more effective in light of the research evidence. Findings This paper suggests that three important factors need to be considered in the effective implementation of a performance measurement system in the public sector. They are managerial discretion, a learning and evaluative organizational culture and stakeholder involvement. These three factors are discussed and its impact on performance measurement is explored. Research limitations/implications A proposed integrative framework is presented that supports the assertion of the importance of these three factors in influencing how performance measurement can lead to improved performance in public sector organizations. Some potential environmental and institutional constraints are also discussed in implementing some of the suggestions proposed. Practical implications The paper provides a model that explains three important facors that need to be considered in implementing an effective performance measurement system in public sector organizations and suggestions for how it can be implemented effectively. Originality/value The paper integrates and synthesizes the literature on public sector performance measurement into a comprehensive conceptual framework that explains more explicitly the factors that can influence the effectiveness of a performance measurement system in the public sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0240.018
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasuring Business ExcellenceSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207