NEDEN PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜ? FARKLI AMAÇLAR FARKLI ÖLÇÜMLER GEREKTİRİR

Year 2011, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 215 - 263, 01.04.2011

Robert D Behn Aysun Seyrekbasan

Abstract

Performans ölçümü, başlı başına bir amaç değildir. O halde kamu yöneticileri neden performans ölçmelidir? Çünkü kamu yöneticileri bu yolla, kendine has sekiz idari amaca ulaşmaya yardımcı bazı ölçüler bulabilirler. Kamu yöneticileri idari stratejilerinin bir parçası olarak, performans ölçümlerini; değerlendirme, denetim, bütçe idaresi, motivasyon, destekleme, kutlama, öğrenme ve geliştirme amaçlarını gerçekleştirmek için kullanabilirler.

References

• Ammons, David N. 1995. Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services. Public Administration Review 55(1): 37-47.
• Ammons, David N., Charles Coe, and Michael Lombardo. 2001. PerformanceComparison Projects in Local Government: Participants' Perspectives. Public Administration Review 61(1):100-10.
• Anthony, Robert N. 1988. The Management Control Function. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Anthony, Robert N., and Vijay Govindarajan. 1998. Management Control Systems. 9th ed. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Anthony, Robert, and David W. Young. 1999. Management Control in Nonprofit Organizations. 6th ed. Burr Ridge, IL:McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Baron, Jonathan, and John C. Hershey. 1988. Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4): 569-79.
• Behn, Robert D. 1991. Leadership Counts: Lessons for Public Managers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 1992. Management and the Neutrino: The Search for Meaningful Metaphors. Public Administration Review 52(5): 409-19.
• 1996. The Futile Search for the One Best Way. Governing, July, 82.
• 1997a. The Money-Back Guarantee. Governing, September,74.
• 1997b. Linking Measurement to Motivation: A Challenge for Education. In Improving Educational Performance: Local and Systemic Reforms, Advances in Educational Administration 5, edited by Paul W Thurston and James G. Ward, 15-58. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• 1999. Do Goals Help Create Innovative Organizations? In Public Management Reform and Innovation: Research, Theory, and Application, edited by H. George Frederickson and Jocelyn M. Johnston, 70-88. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
• 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Blodgett, Terrell, and Gerald Newfarmer. 1996. Performance Measurement: (Arguably) The Hottest Topic in Government Today. Public Management, January, 6.
• Boone, Harry. 1996. Proving Government Works. State Government News, May, 10-12.
• Bruns, William J. 1993. Responsibility Centers and Performance Measurement. Note 9-193-101. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
• Coe, Charles. 1999. Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovemment Efforts. Public Administration Review 59(2): 110-23.
• Duncan, W. Jack. 1989. Great Ideas in Management: Lessons from the Founders and Foundations of Managerial Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Feynman, Richard. 1965. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hatry, Harry P. 1999a. Mini-Symposium on Intergovernmental Comparative Perfonnance Data. Public Administration Review 59(2): 101-4.
• 1999b. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
• Hatry, Harry P., James R. Fountain, Jr., Jonathan M. Sullivan. 1990. Overview.
• In Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come, edited by Harry P. Hatry, James R. Fountain, Jr., Jonathan M. Sullivan, and Lorraine Kremer, 1-49. Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting and Standards Board.
• Hatry, Harry P., James R. Fountain, Jr., Jonathan M. Sullivan, and Lorraine Kremer. 1990.
• Service Efforts arjd Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come.
• Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting and Standards Board.
• Hawkins, Scott A., and Reid Hastie. 1990. Hindsight: Biased judgements of Past Events after the Outcomes are Known. Psychological Bulletin 107(3): 311-27.
• Hershey, John C, and Jonathan Baron. 1992. Judgment by Outcomes: When Is It Justified? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53(1): 89-93.
• Holt, Craig L. 1995-96. Performance Based Budgeting: Can It Really Be Done? The Public Manager 24(4): 19-21.
• Ingraham, Patricia W., and Amy E. Kneedler. 2000. Dissecting the Black Box: Toward a Model and Measures of Govemment Management Performance. In Advancing Public Management: New Developments in Theory, Methods, and Practice, edited by Jeffrey L. Brudney, Laurence J. OToole, Jr., and Hal G. Rainey, 235-52. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Ingraham, Patricia W., and Amy Kneedler Donahue. 2000. Dissecting the Black Box Revisited: Characterizing Govemment Management Capacity. In Governance and Performance: New Perspectives, edited by Carolyn J. Heinrich and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., 292-318. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Intemational City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1999. Comparative Performance Measurement: FY1998 Data Report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
• Jordon, Meagan M., and Merl M. Hackbart. 1999. Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance 19(1): 68-88.
• Joyce, Philip G. 1996. Appraising Budget Appraisal: Can You Take Politics Out of Budgeting. Public Budgeting and Finance 16(4): 21-25.
• 1997. Using Performance Measures for Budgeting: A New Beat, or Is It the Same Old Tune? In Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs, New Directions for Evaluation 75, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer, 45-61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review 70( 1): 71 -91.
• Karmen, Andrew. 2000. New York Murder Mystery: The True Story behind the Crime Crash in the 1990s. New York: New York University Press.
• Kerr, Steve. 1975. On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal 18(4): 769-83.
• Kettl, Donald F. 1997. The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16(3): 446- 62.
• Klein, Rick. 2002. Registry Chief Quits to Run for State Treasurer. Boston Globe, January 10, B5.
• Kopczynski, Mary, and Michael Lombardo. 1999. Comparative Performance Measurement: Insights and Lessons Leamed from a Consortium Effort. Public Administration Review 59(2): 124-34.
• Kouzmin, Alexander, Elke Loffler, Helmut Klages, and Nada Korac-Kakabadse. 1999. Benchmarking and Performance Measurement in Public Sectors. International Journal of Public Sector Management 12(2): 121-44.
• Kravchuk, Robert S., and Ronald W. Schack. 1996. Designing Effective Performance Measurement Systems under the Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56(4): 348-58.
• Landau, Martin, and Russell Stout, Jr. 1979. To Manage Is Not to Control: Or the Folly of Type II Errors. Public Administration Review 39(2): 148-56.
• Lehan, Edward Anthony. 1996. Budget Appraisal-The Next Step in the Quest for Better Budgeting? Public Budgeting and Finance 16(4): 3-20.
• Levin, Martin A., and Mary Bryna Sanger. 1994. Making Government Work: How Entrepreneurial Executives Turn Bright Ideas into Real Results. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Lipshitz, Raanan. 1989. Either a Medal or a Corporal: The Effects of Success and Failure on the Evaluation of Decision Making and Decision Makers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44(3): 380-95.
• Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham. 1984. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 1998. The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review 58(1): 66-73.
• Budgeters'Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches. Public Administration Review 61(1): 54-64.
• Messadie, Gerald. 1991. Great Scientific Discoveries. New York: Chambers.
• National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). 1994. Toward Useful Performance Measurement: Lessons Leamed from Initial Pilot Performance Plans
• Prepared under the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: NAPA.
• 1999. Using Performance Data to Improve Government Effectiveness. Washington, DC: NAPA.
• Neves, Carole M.P, James F Wolf, and Bill B. Benton. 1986. The Use of Management Indicators in Monitoring the Performance of Human Service Agencies.
• In Performance and Credibility: Developing Excellence in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, edited by Joseph S. Wholey, Mark A. Abramson, and Christopher Bellavita, 129-48. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• Newcomer, Kathryn E. 1997. Using Performance Measures to Improve Programs. In Using Peiformance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs, New Directions for Evaluation 75, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer, 5-13. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Osbome, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Osbome, David, and Peter Plastrik. 2000. The Reinventor's Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Overman, E. Sam, and Donna T. Loraine. 1994. Information forControl: Another Management Proverb? Public Administration Review 54(2): 193-96.
• Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
• Peters, Tom, and Nancy Austin. 1985. A Passion for Excelience: The Leadership Difference. New York: Random House. Petroski, Henry. 1985. To Engineer is Human: The Roie of Failurein Successful Design. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance Measurement in Municipal Govemment: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-35.
• Rivenbark, William C, and Paula K. Few. 2000. Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 1998-99: Performance and Cost Data. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, North Carolina Local Govemment Performance Measurement Project.
• Rosenthal, Burton. 1975. Lead Poisoning (A) and (B). Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Govemment.
• Silverman, Eli B. 2001. NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston, MA: Northeastem University Press.
• Sitkin, Sim B. 1992. Leaming through Failure: The Strategy of Small Losses. Research in Organizational Behavior 14:231-66.
• Smith, Kimberly J., and Wanda A. Wallace. 1995. Incentive Effects of Service Efforts and Accomplishments Performance Measures: A Need for Experimentation. International Journal of Public Administration 18(2/3): 383-407.
• Sparrow, Malcolm K. 2000. The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems, and Managing Compliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Standage, Tom. 2000. The Neptune File: A Story of Astronomical Rivalry and the Pioneers of Planet Hunting. New York: Walker Publishing.
• Theurer, Jim. 1998. Seven Pitfalls to Avoid When Establishing Performance Measures. Public Management 8(7): 21-24.
• Thompson, Fred. 1994. Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting: Fiscal Administration and the New Public Management. Public Budgeting and Finance 15(3): 90-105.
• Thompson, Fred, and Carol K. Johansen. 1999. Implementing Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting. In Public Management Reform and Innovation: Research, Theory, and Application, edited by H. George Frederickson and Jocelyn M. Johnston, 189-205.
• Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
• Wholey, Joseph S. 1997. Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results. In Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectiveson Theory, Practice and Methods, New Directions for Evaluation 76, edited by Debra J. Rog and Deborah Foumier, 95-105. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Wholey, Joseph S., and Harry P Hatry. 1992. The Case for Performance Monitoring. Public Administration Review 52(6):604-10.
• Wholey, Joseph S., and Kathryn E. Newcomer. 1997. Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results. In Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs, New Directions for Evaluation 75, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer, 91-98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Williams, Frank P. Ill, Marilyn D. McShane, and Dale Sechrest. 1994. Barriers to Effective Performance Review: The Seduction of Raw Data. Public Administration Review 54(6): 537- 42.