Performance measurement in public administration is a management process whereby the quality and success of a government programme can be ascertained. It entails continuous collection of data on progresses achieved towards realising the set objectives of any organisation. Performance indicators are developed for the purpose of measuring or assessing the extent to which organisational objectives have been met. Performance measurement can, therefore, bring considerable benefits to public services delivery by ensuring greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.
'Performance measurement' should be distinguished from 'performance management', as they are often used interchangeably. In fact, performance management is a broader term which not only includes performance measurement but also sets appropriate level of performance, the reporting mechanism for performance and the utilisation of that data for comparing the actual level of performance with the desired level. Performance measurement is also confused with 'programme evaluation' and 'performance evaluation'. In reality, programme evaluation is an in-depth study conducted on a periodic basis to determine whether the objectives, designs or results of a programme are still appropriate. On the other hand, performance evaluation or appraisal is a human resource management-related concept that analyses the data on an employee's performance over time.
According to David Osborne and Peter Plastrik (2000), performance measurement enables officials to hold organisations accountable and introduce consequences for performance. It helps citizens and customers judge the value the government creates for them and provides the managers with the data needed to improve performance. The Accounting and Standards Board of the US government suggested that performance measures were needed to set goals and objectives, plan activities to accomplish those goals, allocate resources to those activities, monitor and evaluate the results to determine if they were making progress in achieving goals and objectives, and modify plans, if needed, to boost performance (Harry et al., 1990).
Performance measurement systems can provide several categories of information, including those on inputs, processes or activities, outputs, and outcomes or impacts. Inputs are the human, financial and material resources employed for implementing a programme; examples include money spent for a training or research programme. Processes or activities entail the use of inputs for achieving objectives; examples include designing a training course for public employees or a research programme for developing Ebola vaccines. Outputs are the products or achievements resulting from activities or processes; examples include the number of public employees trained, or effective vaccines produced for preventing Ebola. Outcomes or impacts are the medium or long-term changes or improvements resulting from implementation of any programme; examples include enhanced skills of employees through training and reduction in the number of Ebola cases through vaccination. Outcomes or impacts demonstrate the effectiveness of a programme.
It is, however, easier to generate data on inputs and outputs compared to those on outcomes or impacts. Besides, outputs divided by inputs is used as a measure of both productivity and efficiency. In many developing countries such as Bangladesh, the focus of performance measurement is mostly on inputs (e.g., the money spent), processes or activities rather than on outputs, outcomes or impacts. The traditional budgetary frameworks adhered to by governments in these countries are also usually attuned to this kind of input and activity-based approach.
According to Robert D. Behn (2003), public managers usually have 8 purposes for measuring performance. These are: (1) Evaluate: How well is the public agency performing? (2) Control: How can it be ensured that the subordinates are doing the right things? (3) Budget: On what programmes, projects or peoples should the agency spend public money? (4) Motivate: How can the manager motivate the staff, non-profit and not-for-profit collaborators, stakeholders and citizens to do required things for improving performance? (5) Promote: The manager needs to convince political masters, legislators, stakeholders, the mass media and citizenry that the agency is doing a good job? (6) Celebrate: The manager needs to identify the accomplishments that are worthy of organisational ritual or celebration of success? (7) Learn: The manager needs to understand why something is working and something is not? (8) Improve: The manager needs to identify what exactly should be done differently to improve performance?
According to Behn, public managers need some kind of standard to compare or evaluate performance. For example, a desired level is benchmarked as a measure to evaluate performance. Similarly, desired behavioural or input standards are needed to control behaviour; some idea about the good, acceptable or poor levels of efficiency is needed to budget performance; a sense of reasonable and significant target is required for motivating people; an understanding of what the public cares about is needed to promote an agency's performance; appreciation of significant developments and common organisational, human and social behaviours is required to apply performance measures for learning purposes; and an understanding of how actions affect the behaviour of people who contribute to desired outputs and outcomes is required to apply performance measures for improvement.
There are also numerous barriers to effective performance measurement. These include methodological, financial, governmental, political and public service-oriented ones. Methodologically, it may be easy to relate inputs with outputs, but relating the former with outcomes is difficult. For example, there may be other contributing factors apart from training which can enhance the skills of employees. Financial barriers emanate from the fact that effective performance measurement system may prove to be costly and may not be cost-effective. Government barriers result from the complex nature of public programmes as well as their shifting objectives. Politicians may also be disinterested about performance measurement if they sense that negative assessments may cause embarrassments to them. Likewise, public employees may be tempted to implement programmes in a manner that would show their performance in a positive light in terms of performance indicators applied.
Because of the above-mentioned barriers, there may be disagreements about the utility of performance measurement systems, and most entities may prefer to follow the age-old practice of relating inputs with outputs instead of with outcomes or impacts. Both public employees and elected officials should, therefore, give due consideration to the pros and cons of various choices before opting for a performance measurement system. Besides, as there is no single set of magical indicators for measuring performance, public managers should first identify the managerial purposes for which performance measurement is required. As a follow-up to that exercise, they should select a set of appropriate measures for achieving those purposes with the ultimate goal of ensuring accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in public services delivery.
Dr Helal Uddin Ahmed is a senior civil servant and former editor of Bangladesh Quarterly.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
