The paper examines whether Performance Management System (PMS) implementation in an Indonesian local government has reduced fragmentation in its administration. A qualitative case study is used, with data collected through in-depth interviews with the key actors, and also focus group discussions. The case site is a city that is implementing PMS while, at the same time, changing its mission from business-oriented growth to be focussed on outcome measures of village empowerment. The findings show that a PMS system was not fully implemented in the organisation. Despite this imperfect implementation, shared goals concerning developmental outcomes have overcome the issue of mission fragmentation, as they focus managers’ attention on organisational and national objectives. This has also led to better cooperation between units and departments/agencies within the city and with the village community. This study offers insights pertaining to PMS implementation and its influence on public administration fragmentation in a unique context.
ADB. (2016). Towards mainstreaming and sustaining community-driven development in indonesia-understanding local initiatives and the transition from the national rural community empowerment program to the village law.
2.
AkbarR.PilcherR.PerrinB. (2012). Performance measurement in Indonesia: The case of local government. Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 262–291.
3.
ArnaboldiM.LapsleyI.SteccoliniI. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1–22.
4.
BerkeP. R.ConroyM. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development?Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–23.
5.
BoyneG. A. (1992). Local government structure and performance: Lessons for America?. Public Administration, 70, 333–357.
6.
BroadbentJ.GuthrieJ. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 129–169.
7.
BromleyP.PowellW. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.
8.
CejudoG. M.MichelC. L. (2017). Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences, 50, 745–767.
9.
ChenL. (2022). Economic development collaboration in public administration research: A systematic literature review. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(1–2), 15–28.
10.
ClarkM.StewardJ. (2003), “Handling wicked issues.” In ReynoldsJ.HendersonJ.SedenJ.CharlesworthJ.BullmanA. (Eds.), The managing care reader (pp. 273–280). Routledge.
11.
CookN.D.FruhH.LandusT. (1995). The cerebral hemispheres and neural network simulations: Design considerations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 410–423.
12.
CuganesanS.GuthrieJ.VranicV. (2014). The riskiness of public sector performance measurement: A review and research agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(3), 279–302.
13.
DörffelC.SchuhmannS. (2022). What is inclusive development? Introducing the multidimensional inclusiveness index. Social Indicators Research, 162(3), 1117–1148.
14.
FerreiraA.OtleyD. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(2009), 263–282.
15.
GausN.SultanS.BasriM. (2017). State bureaucracy in Indonesia and its reforms: An overview. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(8), 658–669.
16.
GeertzC. (1984). Culture and social change: The Indonesian case. Man, New Series, 19(4), 511–532.
17.
GoodmanC B. (2019). Local government fragmentation: What do we know?. State and Local Government Review, 51(2), 134–144.
18.
GuariniE.MoriE.ZuffadaE. (2021). New development: Embedding the SDGs in city strategic planning and management. Public Money & Management, 41(6), 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1885820
HarunH.Karen VanP.EggletonI.Van PeursemK.EggletonI. (2012). Institutionalization of accrual accounting in the Indonesian public sector. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 8(3), 257–285.
21.
HaqueM. S. (2007). Theory and practice of public administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, direction, and impacts. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1297–1326.
22.
HengelH.BuddingT.GrootT. (2014). Loosely coupled results control in Dutch municipalities. Financial Accountability and Management, 30(1), 49–74.
23.
HofstedeG. (2001). Cultural consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
24.
HsiehJ. Y.LiouK. T. (2020). Exploring the drivers and catalysts of intra-agency collaboration in the local service delivery. Chinese Public Administration Review, 11(2), 75–86.
25.
JonesP.ComfortD. (2019). Sustainable development goals and the world’s leading hotel groups. Athens Journal of Tourism, 6(1), 1–14.
26.
JurnaliT.Siti-NabihaA. K. (2015). Performance management system for local government: The Indonesian experience. Global Business Review, 16(3), 1–13.
27.
LagreidP.RykkjaL. H. (2015). Organizing for “wicked problems”–analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas: Internal security and the welfare administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(6), 475–493.
28.
MarwataM.AlamM. (2006). The interaction amongst reform drivers in governmental accounting changes. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 2(2), 144–163.
29.
McAdamR.WalkerT.HazlettS. A. (2011). An inquiry into the strategic-operational role of performance management in local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(4), 303–324.
30.
MimbaN. P. S. H.van HeldenG. J.TillemaS. (2013). The design and use of performance information in Indonesian local governments under diverging stakeholder pressures. Public Administration and Development, 33(1), 15–28.
31.
MirM.SutiyonoW. (2013). Public sector financial management reform: A case study of local government agencies in Indonesia. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 7(4), 97–117.
32.
ModellS. (2009). Institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector accounting literature: A review and assessment. Financial Accountabilty and Management, 25(2), 197–224.
33.
O’FlynnJ.BuickJ. F.BlackmanD.HalliganJ. (2011), “You win some, you lose some: experiments with joined-up government”, International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 213–220.
34.
OtleyD. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382.
35.
PermatasariP.TenriniR. H.IlmanA. S.TiltC. A.LestariD.IslamS.RahmanA. B.SamosirA. P.WardhanaI. W. (2021). The village fund program in Indonesia: Measuring the effectiveness and alignment to Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(21), 1–30.
36.
RajalaT.LaihonenH. (2022). Fragmentation and performance dialogues in public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35(2), 211–235.
37.
RajalaT.LaihonenH.KokkoP. (2021). Assessing the fragmentation of hybrids’ performance management systems. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(3), 312–335.
38.
RajalaT.LaihonenH.VakkuriJ. (2018). Shifting from output to outcome measurement in public administration-arguments revisited. In BorgonoviE.Anessi-PessinaE.BianchiC. (eds) Outcome-based performance management in the public sector. System dynamics for performance management (Vol. 2, pp. 3–23). Springer.
39.
RajianiI.JumbriI. A. (2011). A cultural ecology of new public management in Indonesia. Journal of Administrative Science, 8(1), 17–31.
40.
Siti-NabihaA. K.GeorgeR. A. (2021). Do external benchmarking mechanisms facilitate performance management in Malaysian local authorities?. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(5), 833–844.
41.
Siti-NabihaA. K.JurnaliT. (2020). Institutional work and the implementation of performance measurement and management system in a developing country. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 16(3), 447–467.
42.
SutheewasinnonP.HoqueZ.NyamoriR. O. (2016). Development of a performance management system in the Thailand public sector: Isomorphism and the role and strategies of institutional entrepreneurs. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 40, 26–44.
43.
VakkuriJ.JohansonJ.-E.RajalaT. (2021). “A Shotgun marriage? Performance management in hybridized government.” In HolzerM.BallardA. (Eds.), Public productivity and performance handbook. Routledge.
44.
van HeldenJ.UddinS. (2016). Public sector management accounting in emerging economies: A literature review. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 41, 34–62.
