The user perspective is an important contextual factor for Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). This article provides examples from performance audits in Norway and explores why the user perspective has become important in performance audit practices. It shows that user satisfaction can be employed as a key performance indicator of effectiveness of public services. It addresses the following questions: (a) How does performance auditing relate to the evaluation field? (b) Why is the user perspective important? (c) How can the user perspective add value in performance audits? And finally, (d) How can the user perspective in performance auditing be applied to improve public services? At the end, the article identifies some challenges and opportunities that evolve from applying a user perspective.
Agency for Public Management & eGovernment. (2010). Innbyggerundersøkelsen: Inntrykk av å bo i kommunen og i Norge[National citizen survey: Perceptions about living in Norway]. (DIFI report 2010:01). Oslo: Author.
2.
Alm AndreassenT. (2007). Når brukerne ikke blir tatt på alvor [When the opinions of welfare users are not taken seriously]. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 10, 3–14.
3.
AronsonJ. (1993). Giving consumers a say in policy development: Influencing policy or just being heard?Canadian Public Policy, 19, 367–378.
4.
BarnesM. (1999). Users as citizens: Collective action and the local governance of welfare. Social Policy & Administration, 33, 73–90.
5.
BarzelayM. (1996). Performance auditing and the new public management: Changing roles and strategies of central audit institutions. In OECD (ed.) Performance auditing and the modernisation of government (pp. 15–56). Paris: OECD.
6.
BerghT. (1983). Forord [Preface]. In T. Bergh (Ed.), Deltakerdemokratiet. Teori og praksis [Participatory democracy: Theory and practice] (pp. 7–12). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
7.
BernsteinD. J.WhitsettM. D.MohanR. (2002). Addressing sponsor and stakeholder needs in the evaluation authorizing environment: Trends and implications. New Directions for Evaluation, 2002, 89–99.
8.
BirchA. H. (2001). Concepts and theories of modern democracy (2nd ed.). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BlumeL.VoigtS. (2007). Supreme audit institutions: Supremely superfluous? A cross country assessment. ICER Working Paper Series, 3/2007. Retrieved September 7, 2010, fromhttp://www.icer.it/docs/wp2007/ICERwp03-07.pdf
10.
BrooksR. A. (1996). Blending two cultures: State legislative auditing and evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1996, 15–28.
11.
ChelimskyE. (1985). Comparing and contrasting auditing and evaluation: Some notes on their relationship. Evaluation Review, 9, 483–503.
12.
ChelimskyE. (1996). Auditing and evaluation: Whither the relationship?New Directions for Evaluation, 1996, 61–67.
13.
ChristensenT.EgebergM.LarsenH. O.LægreidP.RonessP. G. (2002). Forvaltning og politikk [Governance and politics]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
14.
DahlR. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
15.
DyeK. M.StapenhurstR. (1998). Pillars of integrity: The importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. Washington, DC: The Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. Retrieved September 7, 2010, fromhttp://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/18120/pillars.pdf
16.
GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2007). Government auditing standards. July 2007 revision. GAO-07-731G. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07731g.pdf
17.
GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2009). Program evaluation: A variety of rigorous methods can help identify effective interventions. GAO-10-30. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1030.pdf
HeadB. (2009). Evidence-based policy: Principles and requirements. In Strengthening evidence based policy in the Australian federation, Volume 1: Proceedings, roundtable proceedings (pp. 13–26). Canberra: Productivity Commission. Retrieved September 21, 2010, fromhttp://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/96208/03-chapter2.pdf
20.
INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions). (2004). Standards and guidelines for performance auditing based on INTOSAI’s auditing standards and practical experience. ISSAI 3000. Vienna: INTOSAI General Secretariat. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://www.issai.org/media(879,1033)/ISSAI_3000_E.pdf
21.
INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions). (2010a). Performance audit guidelines – Key principles. ISSAI 3100. Vienna: Author. Retrieved March 14, 2011, fromhttp://www.issai.org/media(871,1033)/ISSAI_3100_E.pdf
JonasR. K. (1999). Against the whim: State legislatures’ use of program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1996, 3–10.
25.
KlausenJ. E.SweetingD. (2003). Legitimacy, citizen participation, and community involvement in governance. Presented at the Conference on Democratic Network Governance, May 22–23, 2003, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 22, 2009, fromhttp://www.ruc.dk/upload/application/pdf/f51d6748/Jan_Erling_Klausen.pdf
26.
LeeuwF. L. (1996). Auditing and evaluation: Bridging a gap, worlds to meet?New Directions for Evaluation, 1996, 51–60.
27.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
28.
LingT. (2007). New wine in old bottles? When audit, accountability and evaluation meet. In Bemelmans-VidecM. -L.LonsdaleJ.PerrinB. (Eds.), Making accountability work: Dilemmas for evaluation and for audit (pp. 127–142). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
MohanR.TikooM.CapelaS.BernsteinD. J. (2006). Increasing evaluation use among policymakers through performance measurement. New Directions for Evaluation, 2006, 89–97.
35.
Morra-ImasL. G.RistR. C. (2009). The road to results: Designing and conducting effective development evaluation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
PollittC. (1999). The changing context. In PollittC.GirreX.LonsdaleJ.MulR.SummaH.WaernessM. (Eds.), Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 30–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
PollittC.SummaH. (1996). Performance audit and evaluation: Similar tools, different relationships?New Directions for Evaluation, 1996, 29–50.
43.
PollittC.SummaH. (1999). Performance audit and public management reform. In PollittC.GirreX.LonsdaleJ.MulR.SummaH.WaernessM. (Eds.), Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 1–10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
SloanN. (1996). The objectives and performance measurement of performance audit. In OECD (ed.) Performance auditing and the modernisation of government (pp. 139–148). Paris: OECD.
45.
SummaH. (1999). Definitions and frameworks. In PollittC.GirreX.LonsdaleJ.MulR.SummaH.WaernessM. (Eds.), Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 11–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
VanLandinghamG. R. (2006). A voice crying in the wilderness: Legislative oversight agencies’ efforts to achieve utilization. New Directions for Evaluation, 2006, 25–39.
54.
VanLandinghamG. R. (2011). Escaping the dusty shelf: Legislative evaluation offices’ efforts to promote utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 85–97.
