Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research is an empirical analysis of the effects of the benchmarking of Efficiency Performance Measures on total costs for six Public Works service delivery areas based on data over the period 1998 to 2011 from municipalities participating in the North Carolina Performance Measurement Project, a well-established and nationally recognized performance measurement and benchmarking system. The results of this research are significant in providing empirical evidence that the benchmarking of Efficiency Performance Measures for the six Public Works service delivery areas had modestly positive impacts on total cost-effectiveness in a significant percentage of these Public Works service delivery areas. The results reflect that management decision-making utilizing performance measures in a benchmarking context, especially in Public Works service delivery areas, can be effective and that performance measurement and benchmarking can achieve identifiable efficiencies and modest improvements in cost-effective outcomes in Public Works service delivery areas over time.

Keywords

performance benchmarking performance measurement public works performance measures Efficiency Performance Measures cost-effectiveness of public works service delivery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ammons

D. N.

(2012). Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Ammons

D. N.

Rivenbark

W. C.

(2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68, 304-318.

Cope

G. H.

(1987). Local government budgeting and productivity: Friends or foes? Public Productivity Review, 19(3), 45-57.

Frevert

Newfarmer

Paul

A. C.

(1998). Kansas City’s public works benchmarking experience. Public Management, 80(8), 12-16.

A. T.

(2011). PBB in American local governments: It’s more than a management tool. Public Administration Review, 71, 391-401.

Kelly

Rivenbark

W. C.

(2011). Performance budgeting for state and local government (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Meszaeros

Owen

C. J.

(1997). Improving through benchmarking: A comparative assessment of municipal utility services. Public Works Management & Policy, 2, 11-23.

Moynihan

D. P.

Panday

S. K.

(2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 849-866.

Poister

Streib

(1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59, 325-335.

10.

Rivenbark

W. C.

(2004). Defining performance budgeting for local government. Popular Government, 69, 27-36.

11.

Rivenbark

W. C.

(2008). Performance budgeting in local government. In Redburn

Stevens

R. J. S.

Buss

T. F.

(Eds.), Performance management and budgeting: How governments can learn from experience (pp. 135-148). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

12.

Rivenbark

W. C.

Kelly

(2004). Performance budgeting in federal, state & local government. Journal of Government Financial Management, 53, 50-58.

13.

Rivenbark

W. C.

Kelly

(2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 35-46.

14.

Sanger

M. B.

(2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through barriers to state and local performance [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 68, S70-S85.

15.

Wang

(1999). Conditions to implement outcome-oriented performance budgeting: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 11, 533-552.

16.

Wang

(2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20, 102-118.

17.

Wang

(2002a). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of U.S. local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26, 26-43.

18.

Wang

(2002b). Perception and reality in developing an outcome performance measurement system. International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 805-829.

19.

Wang

(2008). Convincing legislators with performance measures. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 654-667.

20.

Wang

Gianakis

G. A.

(1999). Public officials’ attitudes toward subjective performance measures. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 537-553.

The Effects of Benchmarking of Public Works Performance Measures on the Cost-Effectiveness of Service Delivery

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References