In developing countries, performance measurement systems are widely adopted but understudied. Using a case study approach, we assess performance measurement systems for the timely delivery of public services in Karnataka, India. We identify the gaps and propose a five-stage framework to measure performance as per an ‘authentic’ performance measurement approach. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework by comparing performance measured under the existing framework vis-à-vis proposed, using two-year administrative data. The comparative analysis reveals that the present system lacks accuracy, does not pinpoint low-performing services and departments, and misrepresents performance by wrongly aggregating it to create a favorable impression. The study highlights the lack of policy and analytical capacity in analyzing and interpreting performance data, which limits its appropriate use in diagnosing and perforcing performance. The proposed framework can be adapted for use across context and for different dimensions of performance in services delivery.
BouckaertG. (1993). Measurement and meaningful management. Public Productivity & Management Review, 31–43.
3.
BouckaertG., and PetersB. G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: The Achilles' heel in administrative modernization. Public performance & Management Review, 25(4), 359–362.
4.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
5.
BoyneG. A. (2002). Public and Private Management: What's the Difference?Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.
6.
CarterN., DayP., and KleinR. (1995). How organisations measure success: The use of performance indicators in government. Psychology Press.
7.
ChristopherH., & HoodC. (2006). Gaming in target world: The targets approach to managing British Public Services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.
Dahler-LarsenP. (2014). “Constitutive effects of performance indicators: getting beyond unintended consequences.” Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986.
10.
De BruijnH. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578–594.
DPAR (2014) Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Karnataka, 2015, Monthly Report December 2014–15.
13.
FolzDavid H. (2004) “Service quality and benchmarking the performance of municipal services.” Public Administration Review, 64(2), 209–220.
14.
FiszbeinAriel, RingoldDena, and Halsey RogersF.. Making services work: indicators, assessments, and benchmarking of the quality and governance of public service delivery in the human development sectors. The World Bank, 2011.
15.
GargManish. (2017). Right to Service Acts in India— Fundamental Governance Reforms or an Exercise in Political Rhetoric? A Case Study of Delhi Administration. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4), 537–556.
16.
GaoJ. (2009). Governing by goals and numbers: A case study in the use of performance measurement to build state capacity in China. Public Administration and Development, 29(1), 21–31.
17.
GaoJ. (2015a). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: some lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 86–96.
18.
GaoJ. (2015b). Pernicious manipulation of performance measures in China's cadre evaluation system. The China Quarterly, 223, 618–637.
19.
GreilingD, HalachmiA. (2013). Accountability and organizational learning in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review36(3): 380–406.
HalachmiArie. (2005). Performance measurement: test the water before you dive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 255–266.
22.
HeathG., & RadcliffeJ. (2007). Performance measurement and the English ambulance service. Public Money and Management, 27(3), 223–228.
23.
HenmanP. (2016). Techniques and paradoxes in performing performance measurements: concluding reflections. Policy Studies, 37(6), 597–609.
24.
HoodC. (2007). Public service management by numbers: Why does it vary? Where has it come from? What are the gaps and the puzzles?Public Money and Management, 27(2), 95–102.
JohnsenA. (2005). What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management?Public Money and Management, 25(1), 9–17.
27.
JulnesP. D. (2001). Does participation increase perceptions of usefulness? An evaluation of a participatory approach to the development of performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 403–418.
28.
KannehL., and HaddudA. (2016). Performance management in Sierra Leone public sector organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 2(4), 411–429.
Le GalèsP. (2016). Performance measurement as a policy instrument. Policy Studies, 37(6), 508–520.
31.
MeierK. J., & O'TooleL. J. (2012). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–456.
32.
MerchantKenneth A., and Van der StedeWim A.. Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives. Pearson Education, 2007.
33.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.
34.
MkasiwaT. A., & GasperA. F. (2014). Complexities in Performance Measurement and the Reaction of Actors: The Case of Tanzania. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 2(3), 41–50.
35.
MoynihanD. P. (2009). Through a glass, darkly: Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.
36.
MoynihanDonald P.The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press, 2008.
37.
MoynihanD. P., FernandezS., KimS., LeRouxK. M., PiotrowskiS. J., WrightB. E., & YangK. (2011). Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21(suppl_1), i141–i155.
38.
MundialB. (2002). World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World— Transforming Institutions Growth and Quality of Life.World Bank.
39.
Nicholson-CrottyS., TheobaldN. A., and Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Disparate Measures: Public Managers and Performance-Measurement Strategies. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 101–113.
40.
OhemengF. L. K. (2011). Institutionalizing the performance management system in public organizations in Ghana: Chasing a mirage?Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 467–488.
41.
PabbisettyS. and VijendraM. (2012). Assessment of the Usage of Sakala–Karnataka Gurantee of Services to Citizens act – Pilot Phase Center for Public Policy, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
42.
ParasuramanAnantharanthan, ZeithamlValarie A., and BerryLeonard L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 41–50.
43.
PoisterT. H., and StreibG. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public administration review, 325–335.
44.
PutuS.N., Jan van HeldenG., and TillemaS. (2007). Public sector performance measurement in developing countries: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 3(3), 192–208.
45.
RadnorZ. (2008). Muddled, massaging, manoeuvring or manipulated? A typology of organisational gaming. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(4), 316–328.
46.
RadnorZoe J., and BarnesDavid. “Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management56, no. 5/6 (2007): 384–396.
47.
RajneeshS. (2013). Guarantee of Services to Citizens: A Case Study of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 26–49.
48.
RajneeshS. (2015). Value Creation in Citizen Services: Sakala as India's Most Effective Citizen-first Public Engagement Model. Journal of Creating Value, 1(2), 275–291.
49.
TalbotColin. “Public Performance-towards a new model?” Public Policy and Administration14, no. 3(1999): 15–34.
50.
TillemaS., MimbaN. P. S., & Van HeldenG. J. (2010). Understanding the changing role of public sector performance measurement in less developed countries. Public Administration and Development, 30(3), 203–214.
Van DoorenW. (2006). Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach. Doctoral dissertation. Leuven, Belgium: Faculty of Social Sciences, Leuven University.
55.
Van DoorenW., BouckaertG., and HalliganJ. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.
56.
YinR. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
