KAMU DENETİMİNDE PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜ VE YÜKSEK DENETİM KURUMLARI YDK İÇİN GÜÇLÜKLERİ

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 117, 39 - 55, 01.06.2020

Farouk Hemıcı

Öz

Son otuz yılda daha fazla tanınır hale gelen performans ölçümünün kamu sektörü açısından taşıdığı önem, hem akademisyenler hem de uygulayıcılar için artan bir ilginin konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Bununla birlikte akademik literatürde uygun göstergelerin KPG’ler oluşturulması, kullanılması ve yorumlanması konularında ve aynı zamanda performans ölçümünün güçlükleri ve paradoksları hakkında bitmeyen bir tartışma ve kaygı söz konusudur. İlk dönemlerdeki isteksizliklerine rağmen Yüksek Denetim Kurumları YDK’lar da kendi performanslarını ölçmenin önemini giderek fark etmektedir. Uluslararası Yüksek Denetim Kurumları Teşkilatı INTOSAI tarafından geliştirilen yeni performans ölçümü aracı yeni SAI PMF , farklılıklarına bakılmaksızın tüm YDK’lar için uygulanabilir bir performans ölçümü çerçevesi oluşturmaya yönelik ortak çabanın bir eseri olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Yakın zamana kadar bu değerlendirme, bir ülkenin kamu maliyesini yönetmeye yönelik sistemleri değerlendirmek için kullanılan araçlarla PEFA, CFAA, vb. gibi veya YDK’lar tarafından geliştirilen kabiliyet veya olgunluk modelleriyle bunların bazıları bu makalede kısaca sunulmaktadır yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın ortaya koyduğu sonuca göre göstergeler yoluyla performans ölçümü, her zaman tartışmalı bir husus olacaktır ve bu yüzden kendi başına bir amaç olarak değil, sadece karar alıcılara yardımcı olabilecek bir araç olarak kullanılması gerekmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yüksek Denetim Kurumları YDK’lar, Performans ölçümü

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN PUBLIC AUDITING AND CHALLENGES FOR SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS SAIs

Öz

Performance measurement has gained more recognition over the last three decades and presents an increasing importance in the public sector for both academicians and practitioners. However, in the academic literature there is an endless discussion and concern relating to the establishment and use of appropriate indicators KPIs , their interpretation as well as the challenges and the paradoxes of the performance measurement. Despite their initial reluctance, Supreme Audit Institutions SAIs are increasingly realizing the importance of measuring their performance too. The new tool new SAI PMF developed by the International Organization of SAIs INTOSAI is the result of a common effort to create a performance measurement framework applicable to all SAIs regardless of their differences.Until recently, this evaluation was made either by using tools used to evaluate the systems for managing a country’s public finances such as PEFA, CFAA, etc. or by capability or maturity models that have been developed by the actual SAIs, some of which are presented briefly in this paper. The study concludes that performance measurement via indicators will always be a controversial issue, so it should be used only as a tool that can help decision-makers and not as an end itself

Anahtar Kelimeler

Supreme Audit Institutions SAIs, Performance measurement, Key

Kaynakça

• Akyel, Recai and Kose, H. Omer (2013), Auditing and Governance: Importance of Citizen Participation and The Role of Supreme Audit Institutions to Enhance Democratic Governance, Journal of Yasar University 8(32), 5495-5514.
• Baimyrzaeva, Mahabat and Kose, H. Omer (2014), The Role of Supreme Audit Institutions in Improving Citizen Participation in Governance, International Public Management Review Vol. 15, Iss. 2, 77-90.
• Bouckaert, Gert and Balk, Walter (1991), Public productivity measurement: Diseases and cures, Public Productivity & Management Review, 15 (2), 229-235.
• European Court of Auditors (2014), “Measuring your performance”, Presentation of the 25th June 2014 (updated), by G. Simpson, A. Bolkart, T. Lehtinen.
• Hood, Christopher (1995), The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93-109.
• Horngren, C. T. (2004), Management Accounting: Some Comments, Journal of Management Accounting Research 16 (1): 207–211. doi:10.2308/ jmar.2004.16.1.207.
• INTOSAI (2016), Supreme Audit Institutions Performance Measurement Framework (Endorsement version), https://www.idi.no/en/idi-cpd/sai-pmf (Access date: 01.06.2020)
• INTOSAI (2019a), Supreme Audit Institutions Performance Measurement Framework Implementation Strategy 2020-2022, July.
• INTOSAI (2019b), INTOSAI P-12: The Value and Benefits of SAIs - making a difference to the lives of citizens, https://www.intosai.org/ fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_access/INT_P_11_to_P_99/ INTOSAI_P_12/INTOSAI_P_12_en.pdf (Access date: 22.05.2020)
• INTOSAI CBC (2007), Building Capacity in Supreme Audit Institutions: A Guide, INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee, DG Ref: 7509RB, National Audit Office.
• INTOSAI IDI (2012), Mapping of Tools for Assessing Performance of Supreme Audit Institutions, Volume 1 Report, 20/5/2012.
• INTOSAI IDI (2020), SAI Performance Measurement Framework, https://www. idi.no/en/idi-cpd/sai-pmf (Access date: 22.05.2020)
• Ketelaar, Anne (2007), Improving Public Sector Performance Management in Reforming Democratizers, DAIdeas, Democracy Briefs, Issue No 3, December
• Kontogeorga, Georgia (2013), Adapting Business Practices To the SAIs Environment: Towards A New Performance Measurement Framework, Journal Cour des Comptes Européenne, May, No 5. 2-4
• Otley, David (2003), Management Control and Performance Management: Whence and Whither?, British Accounting Review, 35: 309–326. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2003.08.002.
• Poister, Theodore H. (2003), Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Wiley.
• Pwc (2014), Metrics by design: A practical approach to measuring Internal Audit performance, September
• Schalock, Robert L. (2001), Outcome Based Evaluation, Kluwer Academic.
• Siverbo, S, Cäker, M. & Åkesson, J. (2019) Conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector, Public Management Review, 21: 12, 1801-1823, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1577906
• van Loocke, Eddy; Put, Vital (2011), The impact of performance audits: a review of the existing evidence in Performance Auditing Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government, edited by Londsale, J., Wilkins, P., Ling, T., Edward Elgar, UK, USA, 175-208.
• van Zyl, Albert; Ramkumar, Vivek; de Renzio, Paolo (2009), Responding to challenges in supreme audit institutions: Can legislatures and civil society help?, U4 Issue 2009: 1.
• van Thiel, Leeuw (2002), The Performance Paradox in The Public Sector, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 267-281, Sage Publications.
• UN DESA (2007), Public governance indicators: A literature review, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ST/ESA/PAD/ SER.E/100. New York, NY: United Nations.