Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article, drawing on a large data set collected as part of the national evaluation of a UK public service award scheme, aims to understand its relationship with performance measurement, reporting and management. The data set collected over three years includes case study analyses, two national surveys and a staff survey. Through a framework of performance measurement and management, the article illustrates how there is little direct connection made between the award scheme and performance measurement and management, although recognition is made that they do support each other in driving and supporting improvement and performance. The article highlights the complexities of the current improvement landscape for many public services but supports the finding that many of the organizations in the sample are taking a corporate approach to the engagement with improvement activities and initiatives in order to support performance.

Points for practitioners

This article illustrates that award schemes can support performance, maybe not always directly with performance measures but in recognizing good ideas and practice for service improvement. Applying for an award, disseminating good practice or taking time to understand awarded practice from another organization all appear to have a positive impact on performance. It is also important to take a corporate approach to improvement. For many public service organizations, the number of initiatives focused on performance, improvement and service delivery is vast, from award schemes to audit and inspection regimes. Organizations need to decide which, what and when to engage with in order to support focused improvement and performance.

Keywords

award schemes performance management performance measurement service improvement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benington, J. ( 2007) The Reform of Public Services. London : Stationery Office and National School of Government .

Bouckaert, G. ( 2001) ‘Pride and Performance in Public Service: Some Patterns of Analysis’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 67: 15-27.

Bourgault, J. and Gusella, M. ( 2001) ‘Performance, Pride and Recognition in the Canadian Federal Civil Service’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 67: 29-47.

Bovaird, T. ( 2008) ‘Political Economy Perspectives on Performance Measurement’ , in R. Thorpe and J. Holloway (eds) Performance Management: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, pp.184-98. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bovaird, T. and Halachmi, A. ( 2001) ‘Performance Measurement and Best Value: An International Perspective’, International Journal of Business Performance Management 3(2/3/4): 119-34.

Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E. ( 2002) ‘Moving from Excellence Models of Local Service Delivery to Benchmarking ‘"Good Local Governance"’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 68: 9-24.

Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E. ( 2003) ‘Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 69: 313-28.

Boyne, G.A. , Gould-Williams, J.S. , Law, J. and Walker, R.M. ( 2002) ‘Best Value - Total Quality Management for Local Government?’, Public Money and Management 22: 9-16.

Cabinet Office (2006) The UK Government’s Approach to Public Service Reform. London: Cabinet Office.

10.

De Bruijn, H. ( 2007) Managing Performance in the Public Sector, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

11.

De Nahlik, C. ( 2008) ‘Currents and Controversies in Contemporary Performance Management’, in R. Thorpe and J. Holloway (eds) Performance Management: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 40-52. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and Regions) ( 1999) First Report of the Advisory Panel on Beacons Councils . London: DETR.

13.

Dtlr (2001) Strong Local Leadership - Quality Public Services. London: The Stationary Office.

14.

Fisher, J. ( 1995) ‘Contingency-based Research on Management Control Systems’, Journal of Accounting Literature 14: 24-53.

15.

Haas, M.D. and Kleingeld, A. ( 1998) ‘Multilevel Design of Performance Measurement Systems: Enhancing Strategic Dialogue through the Organization’, Management Accounting Research 10: 223-61.

16.

Halachmi, A. ( 1995) ‘The Pros and Cons of Participating in a Quality Award Program’, National Productivity Review 15(1): 87-100.

17.

Hartley, J. ( 2008) ‘Does Innovation Lead to Improvement in Public Services? Lessons from the Beacon Scheme in the United Kingdom’, in S. Borins (ed.) Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition and Replication. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press.

18.

Hartley, J. and Downe, J. ( 2007) ‘The Shining Lights? Public Service Awards as an Approach to Service Improvement’, Public Administration 85(2): 329-53.

19.

Hartley, J. , Rashman, L. , Radnor, Z. and Withers, E. ( 2007) ‘Learning, Improvement and Innovation in Local Government: Final Report of The Beacon Scheme Evaluation’, unpublished.

20.

HM Government (1990) Measuring Up: Performance Indicators in Further Education. London : HMSO.

21.

Holloway, J. and Thorpe, R. ( 2008) ‘Conclusions and Reflections’, in R. Thorpe and J. Holloway (eds) Performance Management: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 259-80. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan .

22.

Johnston, R. and Clark, G. ( 2005) Services Operations Management, 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education .

23.

Lebas, M.J. ( 1995) ‘Performance Measurement and Performance Management’ , International Journal of Production Economics 41(1): 23-35.

24.

Morrell, K. and Hartley, J. ( 2007) The Role of Frontline Staff in Service Innovation and Improvement: Local Authorities and their Engagement in the Beacon Scheme (FIN10/06).

25.

Neely, A. ( 1998) Measuring Business Performance. London : The Economist.

26.

Pidd, M. ( 2005) ‘Perversity in Public Service Performance Measurement’ , International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54(5): 482-93.

27.

Pollitt, C. ( 2002) ‘Clarifying Convergence’, Public Management Review 4(1): 471-92.

28.

Pollitt, C. ( 2003) The Essential Public Manager. Philadelphia , PA: Open University Press.

29.

Pollitt, C. ( 2006) ‘Performance Information for Democracy - The Missing Link?’, Evaluation 12(1): 38-55.

30.

Pollitt, C. ( 2009) ‘Bureaucracies Remember, Post-bureaucratic Organizations Forget?’, Public Administration 87(2): 198-218.

31.

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. ( 2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32.

Radnor, Z. and Barnes, D. ( 2006) ‘Historical Analysis of Performance Measurement and Management in Operations Management’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56(5/6): 384-96.

33.

Radnor, Z.J. and Noke, H. ( 2006) ‘Development of an Audit Tool for Product Innovation: The Innovation Compass’, International Journal of Innovation Management 10(1): 1-18.

34.

Radnor, Z. , Rashman, L. , Hartley, J. , Withers, E. and Stephens, A. ( 2005) Time 1 Cross-case Analysis Report (FIN06/06).

35.

Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. with IFF Ltd (2006) 2004 Survey of Local Authorities. Final Report. (FIN004/04).

36.

Rashman, L. and Radnor, Z. ( 2005) ‘Learning to Improve: Approaches to Improving Local Government Services’, Public Money and Management 25: 19-26.

37.

Thorpe, R. and Holloway, J. ( 2008) ‘Viewing Performance’, in R. Thorpe and J. Holloway (eds) Performance Management: Multidisciplinary Perspectives , pp. 249-57. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Withers, E. , Radnor, Z. , Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. ( 2007) Case Studies of Engagement, Learning and Improvement through the Beacon Scheme: Time 2 Cross-case Analysis Report. (FIN12/06).

Understanding the relationship between a national award scheme and performance

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References