Zervopoulos, Panagiotis and Palaskas, Theodosios (2010): Εφαρμογή μετρήσεων απόδοσης – αποτελεσματικότητας - αποδοτικότητας στη δημόσια διοίκηση: διεθνής και ελληνική εμπειρία.
Download (358kB) | Preview
A plethora of performance – effectiveness – efficiency measurement methods have been developed and implemented to public organizations since the mid-nineteenth century. However, the ’60s have been considered a milestone for the measurement methods embraced by the public sector, initially in the United States and later in most of the OECD countries, when sophisticated accounting and financial performance methods were developed. During the first era, of the ’60s and ’70s, the public administration became process-oriented and adopted output assessment methods. The second era of measurement methods’ implementation to public organizations started in very early ’80s and continues today. During the second period, the public administration’s strategy started becoming extroverted focusing on the outcomes assessment rather than the output, shifting from financial performance assessment methods to those of efficiency, effectiveness and performance. The main goals set for the second period are expenses squeeze for public organizations, efficiency and effectiveness attainment, transparency and accountability.
The implementation of performance – effectiveness – efficiency measurement methods within public organizations is a condition for measuring and assessing the output and outcome of the administrative units, and for establishing operational optimization plans, though, it is not adequate to ensure the accomplishment of the aforementioned goals. Political and managerial commitment to the implementation and handling of measurement methods, the application of the proposed methods’ reforms to the operational units, personnel experience to the usage of measurement methods, and readiness for change are considered vital prerequisites for success.
It has been established that the more sophisticated the method, the more demanding it turns to be. As a consequence, the failure rate is greater for the performance assessment methods (i.e., for the Balanced Scorecard) than the straight financial performance ones or the efficiency measurement methods.
Given the drawbacks of most of the existing performance – effectiveness –efficiency measurement methods, which are already adopted by public organizations, and the attributes of public administration, we have developed a comparative effectiveness measurement method called Quality-driven – Efficiency-adjusted Data Envelopment Analysis (QE-DEA). This method introduces synchronous analysis of operational efficiency and citizen satisfaction for a group of homogeneous operational/administrative units. It’s not demanding in terms of data collection, imputation, elaboration and report, hence, skilled personnel are not required. Nevertheless, similar to the rest of the performance – effectiveness – efficiency measurement methods, QE-DEA goal attainment depends on political and managerial commitment to restructuring the assessed public organizations according to a road-map provided in order to improve their effectiveness.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Εφαρμογή μετρήσεων απόδοσης – αποτελεσματικότητας - αποδοτικότητας στη δημόσια διοίκηση: διεθνής και ελληνική εμπειρία|
|English Title:||Performance – effectiveness – efficiency measurement methods in public sector: international and greek experience|
|Keywords:||Efficiency; Effectiveness; Performance; Public Management; Greek Public Sector Reform; QE-DEA|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
P - Economic Systems > P4 - Other Economic Systems > P41 - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C61 - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
|Depositing User:||Panagiotis Zervopoulos|
|Date Deposited:||18. May 2011 14:57|
|Last Modified:||11. Feb 2013 19:29|
Aigner, D.J., Knox Lovell, C.A. and Schmidt, P.(1977) ‘Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models’, Journal of Econometrics, 6 (1), 21-37
Alfonso, A., Schuknecht, L. and Tanzi, V. (2005) ‘Public Sector Efficiency: An International Comparison’, Public Choice, 123, 321-347
Anderson, E. and Fornell, C. (1994) A Customer Satisfaction Research Prospectus cited in Rust, R. and Oliver, R., Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, California: Sage, 241-268.
Athanassopoulos, Α. (1997) ‘Service Quality and Operating Efficiency Synergies for Management Control in the Provision of Financial Services: Evidence from Greek Bank Branches’, European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 300-313.
Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000) ‘An Institutional Perspective on Performance Measurement and Management in the New Public Sector’, Management Accounting Research, 11 (3), 281-306
Chan, Y. (2004) ‘Performance Measurement and Adoption of Balanced Scorecards: A Survey of Municipal Governments in the USA and Canada’, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 (3), 204-221
Chander, P., Dreze, J., Knox Lovell, C.A. and Mintz, J. (2006) Public Goods, Environmental Externalities and Fiscal Competition, New York: Springer
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1985) ‘Preface to topics in data envelopment analysis’, Annals of Operations Research, 2, 59-94.
Coelli, T.J., Prasada Rao, P., O’Donnell, C.J. and Battese, G. (2005) An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Springer
De Borger, B., Kerstens, K., Moesen, W. and Vanneste, J. (1994) ‘Explaining Differences in Productive Efficiency: An Application to Belgian Municipalities’, Pubic Choice, 80, 339-358
De Bruijn, H. (2007) Managing Performance in the public sector (2nd ed.), Oxon: Routledge
Emrouznejad, A., Parker, B. and Tavares, G. (2008) ‘Evaluation of Research in Efficiency and Productivity: A Survey and Analysis of the First 30 Years of Scholarly Literature in DEA’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42, 151-157
Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. and Pollitt C. (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, New York: Oxford University Press
Ghobadian, A. and Ashworth, J. (1994) ‘Performance Measurement in Local Government – Concept and Practice’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14 (5), 35-51
Hornren, C., Harrison, W. and Bamber, L. (1999) Accounting (4th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Hughes, O. (2003) Public Management & Administration: An Introduction (3rd ed.), Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Kald, M. and Nilsson, F. (2000) ‘Performance Measurement at Nordic Companies’, European Management Journal, 18 (1), 113-127
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Survive in the New Business Environment, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996) Balanced Scorecard: The Translating Strategy into Action, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
Karkazis, J. and Thanassoulis, E. (1998) ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Regional Development Policies in Northern Greece Using Data Envelopment Analysis’, Socio-Economic and Planning Science, 32 (2), 123-137
Kloot, L. and Martin, J. (2000) ‘Strategic Performance Management: A Balanced Approach to Performance Management Issues in Local Government’, Management Accounting Research, 11, 231-251
Kumbhakar, S. and Knox Lovell, C.A. (2003) Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McAdam, R. and Walker, T. (2003) ‘An Inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within Best Value Implementation in UK Local Government’, Public Administration, 81 (4), 873-892
Meeusen, W. and van den Broeck, J. (1977) ‘Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error’, International Economic Review, 18 (2), 435-444
Melkers, J.E. and Willoughby, K.G. (1998) ‘The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50’, Public Administration Review, 58 (1), 66-73
Mũniz, M., Paradi, J., Ruggiero, J. and Yang, Z. (2006) ‘Evaluating Alternative DEA Models Used to Control for Non-Discretionary Inputs’, Computers & Operations Research, 33, 1173-1183
Neely, A. and Bourne, M. (2000) ‘Why Measurement Initiatives Fail’, Measuring Business Excellence, 4 (4), 3-7
Niven, P. (2003) Balanced Scorecard for Government and Nonprofit Agencies, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
Norman, M. and Stoker, B. (1991) Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
OECD (1997) In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Ouellette, P. and Vierstraete, V. (2004) ‘Technological Change and Efficiency in the Presence of Quasi-Fixed Inputs: A DEA Application to the Hospital Sector’, European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 755-763
Paradi, J., Vela, S. and Yang, Z. (2004) Assessing Bank and Bank Branch Performance: Modeling Considerations and Approaches, cited in Cooper, W., Seiford, L. and Zhu, J., Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 349-400.
Pestieau, P. (2009) ‘Assessing the Performance of the Public Sector’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80 (1), 133-161
Poister, T. (2003) Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Oxford University Press
Pyhrr, P. (1977) ‘The Zero – Base Approach to Government Budgeting’, Public Administration Review, 37, 1-8
Quiggin, J. (2002) ‘Risk and Self-Protection: A State-Contingent View’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25 (2), 133-145
Radnor, Z. and McGuire, M. (2004) ‘Performance Management in the Public Sector: Fact or Fiction?’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53 (3), 245-260
Radnor, Z. and Lovell, B. (2003) ‘Success Factors for Implementation of the Balanced Scorecard in a NHS Multi-Agency Setting’, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 16 (2), 99-108
Sherman, D. and Zhu, J. (2006a) Service Productivity Management: Improving Service Performance Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). New York: Springer.
Sherman, D. and Zhu, J. (2006b) ‘Benchmarking with Quality-Adjusted DEA (Q-DEA) to Seek Lower-Cost High-Quality Service: Evidence from a U.S. Bank Application’, Annals of Operations Research, 145, 301-319.
Thanassoulis, E. (2001) Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis: A Foundation Text with Integrated Software. New York: Springer.
Wilcox, M. and Bourne, M. (2002) Performance Measurement and Management: Research and Action, Performance Management Conference, Boston: Centre for Business Performance
Wisniewski, M. and Olafsson, S. (2004), ‘Developing Balanced Scorecards in Local Authorities: A Comparison of Experience’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53 (7), 602-620
Worthington, A. and Dollery, B. (2000) Efficiency Measurement in the Local Public Sector: Econometric and Mathematical Programming Frontier Techniques, [Online], Available: http://business.qut.edu.au
Zervopoulos, P. and Palaskas, T. (2010a - forthcoming) ‘Applying Quality-Driven, Efficiency-Adjusted DEA (QE-DEA) in the Pursuit of High-Efficiency – High Quality Service Units: An Input-Oriented Approach’, IMA Journal of Management Mathematics
Zervopoulos, P. and Palaskas, T. (2010b) Applying Quality-Driven, Efficiency-Adjusted DEA (QE-DEA) in the Pursuit of High-Efficiency – High Quality Service Units: An Input-Oriented Approach, 8th International Conference on Data Envelopment Analysis, Performance Management and Measurement: Lebanon
Zhu, J. (2003) Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver. New York: Springer.