DETERMINANTS OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AN INTERNATIONAL SETTING

Lourdes Torres*, Vicente Pina* and Ana Yetano** ltorres@ unizar.es; vpina@unizar.es

*University of Zaragoza Gran Vía, 2; 50005 Zaragoza (Spain) **Public University of Navarra Pamplona

ABSTRACT

The past two decades have witnessed an influx of new ideas and initiatives in the field of public management in OECD countries which have led governments to undertake major changes in the way in which the public sector is managed in order to better meet citizen needs within expenditure limits. Anglo-American, Nordic and European Continental countries have come under increasing pressure to improve their efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce their demands on taxpayers while maintaining the quality of services and the welfare state. This paper seeks to acquire a deeper understanding of how some of these new ideas have worked in practice by examining the implementation of strategic management in twenty-three pioneer local governments in Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, the USA and the UK, countries which belong to different public administration styles. The goal is to identify both the factors that affect the implementation of strategic management and the advantages brought to the organization. For this purpose, experts' views on the implementation of strategic management systems in local governments have been analyzed, applying the Delphi method. The results will allow a deeper knowledge about the ideal implementation process and the expected benefits which strategic management could entail.

����,1752'8&7,21�

The past two decades have witnessed an influx of new ideas and initiatives in the field of public management in OECD countries which have led governments to undertake major changes in the way in which the public sector is managed in order to better meet citizen needs within expenditure limits. Anglo-American, Nordic and European Continental countries have come under increasing pressure to improve their efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce their demands on taxpayers while maintaining the quality of services and the welfare state. In this process, governments become much more performance focused and performance measurement and management are now a main component of the New Public Management (NPM) doctrine (OECD 1997). These reforms seek to move the focus of budgeting, management and accountability away from inputs towards results. Managers and organisations are given flexibility in order to improve performance and are then held accountable for results measured in the form of outputs and outcomes. The provision of performance information is not an end in itself; rather, its overall objective is to better support the decision making of politicians and public servants, leading to improved performance and accountability and, ultimately, enhanced outcomes for society. According to OECD information available to managers and policy makers has both increased and improved given that 72% of OECD countries include non-financial performance data in their budget documentation and two-thirds provide reports on their performance to the public.

In recent years a substantial number of studies have explored performance measurement in the public sector (Pollitt 2005, and Smith, 1995). At present, few governments would disagree about the need to increase efficiency and to reduce deficits and debt, to improve service delivery, to increase control over programmes, to enhance accountability and to focus core public servants on policy development and performance management. However, for Torres (2004) not every country has taken the same route. In some countries leading opinion formers regard the Anglo-American

NPM model with considerable suspicion, Anglo-American postulates not� being universally regarded as a desirable model to emulate. According to Christensen and Lægreid (2001), performance management systems are embedded in a political-administrative context where decisions taken and their practical implementation stem from a complex combination of environmental factors, cultural traditions and diverse, organizationally based interests. For Pollitt (2005a), in practice, differences in polity features, cultural factors and tasks seem to produce a lot of variation in the use of performance management. Thus, public administrative arrangements are conditioned by the features of governance and the public administration style in each country, modernisation being dependent on context. The reform experiences of OECD countries have highlighted that a country’s public administration system is part of its wider governance and constitutional structures (OECD 2005). Practice within public administration styles both reflects and influences the values of governance. So, while all governments are affected by global trends, there are no overall public management recipes. History, culture and the stage of development give governments different characteristics and priorities. Differences in public administration styles are expressed in the public administration domain in areas such as strategic management. Not only are there differences among countries in individual elements, but there are also systemic differences among groups of countries with different historical heritages.

This paper seeks to acquire a deeper understanding of how some of these new ideas have worked in practice by examining the implementation of strategic management in twenty-three pioneer local governments in Australia, Canada, Spain, Sweden, the USA and the UK, countries which belong to different public administration styles. For this purpose, experts' views on the implementation of strategic management systems in local governments have been analyzed, applying the Delphi method. In the first phase, academics and professionals are interviewed and, afterwards, from their opinions, the questionnaire to be sent in the second phase to the other local governments is drawn up. Thus, the questionnaire reflects the major areas of concern in the implementation of a strategic management system. The study focuses on two aspects of the implementation of strategic management: 1) what leads a local government to carry out the implementation, and 2) which factors are expected to affect the implementation process. The results will allow a deeper knowledge about the ideal implementation process and the expected benefits which strategic management could entail.

2.- THE MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE IN THE XXI CENTURY PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS.

During the past 20 years, performance measurement has become an outstanding issue for governments all over the world. The US General Accounting Office defines SHUIRUPDQFH�PHDVXUHPHQW�as ‘the process of developing measurable indicators that can be systematically tracked to assess� progress made in achieving predetermined goals and using such indicators to assess progress in achieving these�goals’ (General Accounting Office, Apr 1998). For the Royal Statistical Society Working Party on Performance Monitoring in the Public Services1 measurable indicators, or performance indicators, for public services have been designed to assess the impact of government policies on those services or to identify well-performing or under-performing institutions and public servants. For them, the public accountability of Ministers for their stewardship of public services deserves equal recognition. Hence, government is both monitoring public services and being monitored by performance indicators.

In the USA, Canada, Australia, and the EU countries studied, interest in performance measurement can be found in different initiatives carried out at national and sub-national levels. Halachmi (2002)

1 http://www.rss.org.uk/pdf/PerformanceMonitoringReport.pdf (Downloaded January 2006)

suggests two major reasons for introducing performance measurement as a regular activity in public entities: first, to establish greater and better accountability, and second, to improve performance and productivity. For him, the review of the performance measurement literature and legislation reveals an interchangeable and indiscriminate use of the two terms -accountability and performance improvement- for explaining the expected benefits and purposes of performance measurement.

Loughlin (1994) has argued that a change in the form of administrative accountability has taken place and he sees the rise of performance management as providing the basis for new forms of accountability in terms of performance and results. In relation to local governments, the increasing requirement for accountability in terms of performance and results can be seen as a prime driver of the development of evaluative systems. Research in South America suggests that an effective planning oriented approach to performance evaluation can effectively enhance democratic accountability, supporting the thesis that democratic accountability and public administration modernisation can be achieved together if performance management is carried out effectively.

Public service organisations have been subjected to the introduction of various ‘private sector’ management techniques, whose implementation has not been exempt from criticism. Public Sector workers, politicians and commentators doubt the value of using performance targets with broader questions raised about the applicability of private sector approaches to public sector organisations. Furthermore, there is some case study evidence that suggests that private sector approaches are not bringing productivity improvements. For Jackson (???) value for money indicators tend to focus narrowly on economy and efficiency rather than focusing on the satisfaction of the broad range of stakeholders.

Integrated Performance Management

Strategic management approaches seek a causal relationship that links the final results of the organization to the processes and resources it manages. Even though, in relative terms, performance management in the public sector is still in its infancy (Wisniewski and Stewart, 2001) in most countries, pioneer initiatives have gradually been developing a global approach that seeks to combine all the managerial aspects that contribute to organizational performance. This has led to integrated performance management models produced from the experience of public entities and often based on the well-known Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model of Kaplan and Norton. In strategic management the integration occurs in two directions, vertically and horizontally. Vertical integration� means that performance measures are designed at different levels within the organization in such a way that measures and objectives at a lower organizational level are deduced from the upper level2. Signs of this alignment are present in the majority of strategic management models which seek to emulate or reproduce, in the public sector, the BSC profile in which different areas are integrated with each other from the top of the organization to its constituents (Niven, 2002). Horizontal alignment�tries to make sure that the objectives defined by the organisation allow work toflow across organizational boundaries. Performance measures are therefore customer-focused and assess the organizational capability to provide value from the customer’ s perspective. The horizontal alignment of the objectives becomes clear in the strategy map of the organization. Horizontal and vertical integration of objectives leads to the alignment of all organizational processes and resources towards the fulfilment of the strategy of the organization.

���%$&.*5281'�

2 The idea of vertical integration is based on Kaplan and Norton’ s principle that strategic objectives must be aligned throughout the constituents of the organisation (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a).

Previous research includes case studies about the implementation process (see Appleby & Clark, 1997; Hellein & Bowman, 2002; McAdam HW�DO, 2002), and surveys that analyzed the degree of diffusion and implementation of certain management techniques (see Chan, 2002, 2004; Berman HW�DO, 1994; Berman & Wang, 2000; Berman & West, 1995; Jackson & Lapsley, 2003; Lapsley & Wright, 2004; West & Berman, 1993).

Based on comparative case studies Naschold and Daley (1999a) identified and discussed several several trend –both positive and negative- observed in the experience of reform governments in various countries. They also identify conditions for lasting success of local government reforms. In a posterior article (Naschold & Daley, 1999b) show that even strategic management capabilities have not develop evenly across a broad international sample of cities, the are successful programs such as Christchurch (New Zealand) that offer important suggestion for other cities. Through two articles, Naschold and Daley (1999b, c) set out the central challenge that now face local government making the transition to strategic management and redefining the interfaces between local administration and its political, social and economic environment.

Poister and Streib (1999) carried out a survey to examine the extent to which performance measurement has become integrated into contemporary local government management. Their results show that many local governments in the United States share at that moment a strong commitment to the effective use of performance measures, though they do identify some limits to their current state of practice. In 2005 with a new survey these authors analyze the use of strategic planning and management processes in municipal governments (Poister & Streib, 2005). The results show an expansion in the use of strategic planning, and some evidence of growing sophistication as demonstrated by links to other management and decision-making activities.

Chan (2002, 2004) conducted a survey to municipal governments in the USA and Canada that show a limited use of the balanced scorecard. However, most municipals governments have developed measures to assess their organizations´ financial, customer satisfaction, operating efficiency, innovation and change and employee performance. The respondent administrators also have a good understanding of the balanced scorecard and the implementers are positive about their experience.

The need to monitor the change to avoid failures has been highlighted in different studies (see Gabris, 1989; Gabris HW�DO, 1999; Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996a, b). Previous studies show that strategic management and models such as the BSC are still exceptions in the local government environment. Thus, the analysis of the implementation of these models will improve if it is carried out with the opinion of experts.

���0(7+2'2/2*<��

The Delphi method is a systematic approach for gathering experts' opinions3. It was developed at the Rand Corporation in the early 1950s and is the most frequently used forecasting technique. Henessey and Hicks (2003) define the Delphi method as “a multiple interaction survey technique that enables anonymous, systematic refinement of expert opinion, with the aim of arriving at a combined or consensual position”. The value of the Delphi method lies in its ability to generate ideas, both those that evoke consensus and those that do not. The method comprises of a series of questionnaires sent to a pre-selected group of experts. These questionnaires are designed to elicit and develop individual responses to the problems posed and to enable the experts to refine their views as the group’ s work progresses in accordance with the assigned task. It is believed that the group will converge toward the "best" response through this consensus process. In each succeeding

3 This is a highly recommended technique to reach consensus among experts where little is known about the topic (Baruchson-Arib & Bronstein, 2002; Delbecq HW�DO, 1975; Hennessy & Hicks, 2003; Murphy HW�DO, 1998).

round, the range of responses of the panellists will presumably decrease and the median will move toward what is deemed to be the "correct" answer. Because the number of respondents is usually small, Delphi does not (and is not intended to) produce statistically significant results. So, the results provided by any panel do not predict the response of a larger population or even a different Delphi panel. They represent the synthesis of opinion of the particular group, no more, no less (Torres, 2005). Authors such as Helmer (1983) underline the fact that the Delphi method is suitable for dealing with forecasting problems for which there are no adequate models and for answering one, specific, single-dimension question.

This methodology has been widely used in the private and public sectors in different areas with a variety of modifications and interpretations (McBride HW� DO, 2003; Powell, 2003). According to McKenna (1994) and Keeney HW�DO (2000), this technique has gained popularity in a great number of disciplines. This broad spreading is due to the possibility of including experts from different geographical and knowledge areas4. The common elements of the Delphi method are an expert panel, a series of questionnaires, the search for consensus, anonymous participants5 and feedback between phases (Beretta, 1996). Typically, three rounds are carried out (Powell, 2003). More rounds can be done but it is necessary to analyze the improvement in the results, the costs and participant tiredness to see if it is worth it (Jones HW�DO, 1992; Hasson HW�DO, 2000).

In this study, the application of the Delphi method has followed these steps: 1) selection of the panel of experts –pioneer local governments- to be interviewed, 2) development of the first round of Delphi interviews, 3) analysis of the first round responses, 4) preparation of the second round of questions for interviewees, 5) analysis of the second round responses, 6) third round, and 7) the synthesis of the final results.

The experts for the first round were selected from among successful implementers of management systems. They were Barbara Emerson (Fairfax County, the United States), David Tyred (Prince William County, the United States) and Carlos Vivas (Director de Área de Promoción Económica y Hacienda, San Cugat del Valles, Spain). These professionals were interviewed in order to agree about the main areas of concern related to the implementation and benefits of strategic management systems. The results of the interviews allowed us to design the questionnaire for the next round.6.

In the second round, a sample of local governments, pioneers in the implementation of strategic management systems, were invited to participate in the Delphi study. The questionnaires were sent to 57 local governments identified as implementers of strategic management systems. The valid response rate was 40%, a good level considering the length of the questionnaire. The answers came from Brisbane, Holdfast Bay and Melbourne, in Australia, Kingston and North Bay, in Canada, Mataró, Móstoles and San Cugat del Vallés, in Spain, Austin, Charlotte, Chula Vista, Fairfax County, Maricopa, Milwaukee, Multnomah County, San Jose, Scottsdale and Tucson, in the USA, Plymouth, in the UK and Gothenburg, Tierp, Norrtälje y Luleå, in Sweden.

In the third round, we sent a new questionnaire to the second round participants with the results and comments from the previous one. We eliminated all the questions that were facts, such as the year of implementation. The rest were included, in most cases, without being modified but with

4 Akkermarns HW� DO (2003), Baruchson-Arib and Bronstein (2002), Hennessy and Hicks� (2003), Keller (2001) and Marsden HW�DO (2003) are some of the authors that applied this technique with experts from different geographical and knowledge areas. 5 The experts have allowed us to indicate their name and position, in the first phase, and the local government for which they work in the second and third phases. 6 For preparing the design of the first round questionnaire we also had the cooperation of Blue Wooldridge and Carolyn Funk at the Virginia Commonwealth University, the USA.

additional comment to seek improvements in the level of consensus. Five questions were modified, either to better process the answers or to include options suggested by the participants. Thirteen local government answers were obtained in this final round. The answers came from Holdfast Bay and Melbourne in Australia; Mataró, Móstoles and San Cugat del Valles in Spain; Austin, Charlotte, Maricopa, San Jose, Scottsdale and Tucson in the USA; and Luleå in Sweden.

These entities are small and medium sized local governments, in the context of the own countries, which share quite common features throughout countries and may generally have a more homogeneous culture than large local governments and central and regional governments.

Given that the methodological steps planned in the design of the Delphi study were not completed in the second round by all local governments , only the answers of the twelve local governments have been considered as results from the Delphi study. Brockhoff (1975) suggests that, under ideal circumstances, groups as small as four can perform well. The answers to the second round questionnaire have been statistically analyzed and the results presented in a separated column in the Appendix A.��

���$1$/<6,6�2)�5(68/76�

There is no consensus about the reason that leads local governments to implement a strategic management system or about who drives the process. Managers and politicians were the starting point in 58% and 42% of cases, respectively.

Because only twelve pioneer local governments completed the Delphi process, the results of the interviews have been analyzed separately from those of the questionnaire sent to the other units. Appendix A shows the results of the questionnaire for the full sample of 23 local governments in the third column. As can be seen, the results in the first and third columns are similar.

The results of the Delphi study collect the opinion of interviewees both about their experience in strategic management systems and what can be expected from them.

1) In the first round of interviews, the opinion of three pioneer local governments were required to identify the most relevant features of strategic management systems related to the research questions: the extent to which strategic management systems follow the BSC model, the objectives of strategic management implementation, the implementation process, and the adaptation of local government organization to the new management system.

2) A list of relevant key issues related to the implementation of strategic management systems was obtained from the responses in the first interviews. Column A of Appendix A shows the items grouped in thematic sections.

3) The preparation of the second round of interviews was carried out based on the list of Appendix A. The interviewees were asked to score each issue according to its relevance in the successful development of strategic management systems.

4) Column B of Appendix A shows the results of the second round of interviews in which pioneer local government give a value to each issue in function of their importance for the successful implementation of strategic management systems, expressing their opinion about ‘what should be’ . In questions with 0 and 1 options, if the mean value of answers was between 0.34 and 0.65 the pioneer local governments had reached a consensus about the importance or non-importance of each issue. In questions with 0 to 5 options, if the mean value of answers was between 0 and 0.34 or between 0.65 and 1, the pioneer local governments had reached a consensus about the importance or non-importance of each issue. In questions with 1 to 5 options if the mean value of answers was between 0 and 2.34 or between 3.65 and 5 the pioneer units had reached a consensus about the importance or non-importance of each issue. The answers to the second round with a mean value

between 0.34 and 0.65 or between 2.34 and 3.65, in which a consensus had not been reached, were sent to interviewees to be considered again.

5) Finally, consensus was achieved in some questions in the third round (column C of Appendix A). The issues involved in the third round could be interpreted as those whose importance and contribution to the successful implementation of strategic management systems is not clear for the pioneer local governments interviewed. The absence of consensus in the items related to the impact of implementation shows difficulties for perceiving clear management benefits.

6) The synthesis of the final results of the Delphi analysis carried out is as follows.

To what extent do strategic management systems follow the BSC model?

The Balanced Scorecard can be defined as a strategic management technique which allows the organization to focus on its strategic goals. By first establishing a mission and vision statement, the organization develops its strategy. Then the strategy is divided into different objectives, which are divided into four perspectives, customer, financial, internal process and learning and growth. Each objective will have measures, targets, and initiatives to reach it (See Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993, 1996).

The local government pioneers analyzed state that they have taken the BSC postulates, in the terms defined by Kaplan and Norton, as a benchmark for the implementation of their own strategic management systems, although adapted to their cultural and organizational characteristics and traditions. There is also agreement about the main features of the strategic management system structure. It should be based on the mission, which links strategy and the measurement system, on the link between management systems and strategy and on the division into categories close to those developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992). In most cases, these categories are adapted to local government features, such as efficiency, effectiveness, quality and outcome indicators, budget or programs-related indicators, or measures classified by strategic objectives The experts do not find it crucial that strategic management systems should follow the BSC model.

The figures of the full sample questionnaire show that almost all, 82%, apply a strategic management system based on the mission, 73% link the management system with strategy and 78% divide the indicators into different categories, which shows the influence of the Kaplan and Norton BSC model in the implementation of strategic management.

The objectives of strategic management implementation.

From the answers obtained in the first round, nine principal objectives were proposed to interviewees. These objectives represent the main advantages that local governments seek from the implementation of strategic management and summarize the main concerns of local governments nowadays, such as efficiency and effectiveness (Ammons, 2002; Andrews & Moyniham, 2002; Behn, 2003; Bernstein, 2001, Chan, 2002, 2004; Worthington, 2000), citizen satisfaction (Ammons, 1995; Rainey, 1999), accountability, (Ittner & Larcker, 1998; Poister & Streib, 1999), and the need for improving decision-making (Dusenbury HW�DO, 2001; Liner HW�DO, 2000, 2001). Cost reduction has been the objective which does not arouse much interest, given that the human factor is the main cost in the provision of local services and the implementation of strategic management techniques does not seek redundancies in the public sector. Improvement in accountability is another doubtful objective for experts in this survey���

The implementation process

Strategic management systems are voluntary in all cases except in Melbourne which has to present strategic plans. They are initiated by the politicians or managers of the area or department which is delivering the service or, sometimes, by quality departments if they exist. The most common reason for the implementation of strategic management was the experience of chief executives in other public organisations (Sant Cugat del Valles, Mataro, Mostoles, Maricopa, Lulea) or research about the model which leads the organization to adopt it (Austin, Charlotte, San Jose) Other reasons given were it fits with the organisational culture (Holdfast Bay), external mandate or to better understand the performance of the organisation (Scottsdale).

In the figures of Appendix B, 26% state they implemented strategic management because they did some research about it and liked it and another 26% because of the Chief executive’ s experience in another public entity. They are followed by ‘it was being quite useful in other local governments’ (17%) and ‘it fits well into the organization's culture’ (17%).

a) Prior situation

There is no consensus about what has been and what should be the recommended starting point for the implementation of strategic management. As can be seen in Appendix A, there is an absence of agreement about the contribution of previous experiences in organizational reform initiatives and about the usefulness of contracting advisory services and initial studies before the implementation.

b) The personnel

The answers of experts show that the role played by staff could be different in each case and there is no agreement about the role employees should play in the process. They do not consider the involvement of personnel essential for the successful implementation of strategic management. Notwithstanding, there is a strong consensus about the convenience of implementing key training programmes.

Looking at the results included in Appendix B, it can be seen that personnel has been taken into account by a little more than half of the local governments studied. 60.87% of local governments let the personnel participate to some extent, but there are also an important number of local governments, 30.78%, that did not follow a participative process.

However, almost all local governments, 82.62%, have carried out training programs abput the management system implemented in order to lower the resistance of staff and to make the implementation process easier.

c) Leadership and compromise

Leadership and the compromise of managers reflect common features of pioneer local governments in the implementation of strategic management rather than the involvement of politicians and the empowerment of employees should also be taken into account

The managers ̀ leadership seems to be crucial and the implementation of strategic management systems needs leaders who drive the change. Pioneer local governments show a low degree of rotation between managers given that the top management has changed two times or fewer during the last ten years. It can be seen in Appendix B that 73.91% highlight strong leadership and 60.78% managers' compromise as key factors for a successful implementation.

External assistant

It seems the majority of local governments had some kind of external assistance, although the usefulness of this external support is not clear. As can be seen in Appendix B, an external assistant has taken part in the implementation in 60.87% of the cases. This help has come from consultants. The percentage of the total local government budget used in the performance management system

project was less than 5% in 95.65% of local governments. These results show the affordability of strategic management systems��The adaptation of local government organization to the new management system

a) Mission and vision agreement

The participation of the organization’ s members and its main stakeholders in the development of the mission statement has been taken as a proxy for agreement on the mission. In the first round, five groups were suggested as potential stakeholders in strategic management initiatives. As can be seen in Appendix A, there was agreement on the involvement of elected officials and senior managers in the setting of mission and vision statements as well as on the non-involvement of unions, employees, governmental agencies and state auditors. Opinion is divided on the role of middle managers and citizens.

b) Organizational culture

The Delphi experts do not reach an agreement about whether the implementation of strategic management has brought about noticeable changes in the organization’ s culture (Appendix A). 52.17% of local governments report some changes in behaviour but 30% have not perceived any change (Appendix B).

c) Barriers to the implementation

The opinion of expert pioneers in the implementation of strategic management does not allow the identification of common strong barriers. From the most frequent sources of difficulties/barriers listed in the first round are “the absence of an implementation schedule”, “inadequate support/ commitment from top management” and “the lack of agreement on the organization mission and vision between different stakeholders”. The interviewees have agreed directly that they are not relevant in the process. Along with these items, “incompatibility with other organization systems” has not been considered relevant in the third round. The other items, even though they obtain higher values, do not reach consensus between the experts. “Employee resistance”, “communication between organizational levels” and “lack of resources” seems to be issues which could represent barriers to the implementation, although there is no consensus on them. All scores have a value below three, which shows that the obstacles listed have had a moderate or small effect on the strategic management implementation and adaptation process. It is noticeable that no one barrier listed has been considered a crucial threat to the process.

d) Dissemination of Local Government information.

As can be seen in Appendix C, the channels for the dissemination of information are similar in all local governments independently of public administration styles. At internal level, the ways of communication most frequently used are the Intranet, meetings and the annual report and, at external level, the Web site and the email.

At external level, the majority of local government pioneers in strategic management initiatives disclose performance information, such as strategic plans, performance reports, performance indicators and annual reports, which means that local governments also consider stakeholders as primary users of strategic management information. This behavior is quite different to that usually found in the private sector in which management information is only available to managers and is not disclosed to investors and other external users.

As can be seen in Appendix B, almost 70% of the local governments disclose their strategic plans and performance indicator reports. Specific information on the management system and the annual accounts are disclosed by 50% of the cases. Only Mostoles does not disclose any information. This

information was provided on the Internet (82.61%), by mail (73.01%) and by phone (69.57%). Only 30.43% make press releases.

The impact of the implementation

The impact of implementation refers to what can be expected from the implementation of strategic management systems. There is agreement on the low impact of strategic management in the reduction of cost in service delivery and on its positive contribution to the setting of meaningful goals in the organization, which is a key issue for the improvement of management in public entities. There is almost consensus on its positive influence on the alignment of the organization to its mission, which is also a key goal of strategic management systems. The other elements of this section deal with issues stated by NPM doctrine as the key objectives of governmental change, such as improvements in efficiency, customer satisfaction, decision-making processes, accountability or resource allocation. They have not been considered as specially reinforced by the implementation of strategic management, although some of them have scored well. The achievement of these objectives requires organizational changes that the mere implementation of strategic management does not bring about..

���',6&866,21��

One of the theories most frequently used to explain the implementation of strategic management and performance measurement in public entities is the agency theory. According to the agency theory (Bendor, Taylor and Gaalen, 1985), performance measurement is used in situations of asymmetric information and uncertainty for monitoring managers and linking them with the principal. Similarly, classical contingency theory (Thompson 1967, Johnsen 2005), states that complex organizations use performance measurement to reduce uncertainty and for legitimacy. On the other hand, institutional theory states that organizations exist in an institutional environment which defines and delimits its social reality (Scott, 1987). Given that public sector organizations are more dependent than others on legitimacy and on financial resources, the formal implementation of structures such as strategic management may be used as a sign of efficiency and good governance to respond to institutional or environmental pressure in order to secure legitimacy from constituents and resources from the institutional environment. So, public entities would adopt strategic management, BSC or other similar initiatives for different reasons including explaining performance to the principal -in local governments, are the constituents- (agency theory), reducing uncertainty and gaining legitimacy (contingency theory) and as symbol of efficiency in order to secure legitimacy and resources from the environment (institutional theory). The three theories suggest that the adoption of strategic management in local governments could take place for other reasons than effectiveness. Agency theory, contingency theory and institutional theory agree that the idea of the search for legitimacy is the driver of strategic management initiatives at local government level.

According to the OECD (2005), the following broad objectives, for which countries have adopted the formalisation of targets and performance measurement can be distinguished: managing efficiency and effectiveness, improving decision-making; and improving external transparency and accountability to parliament and the public. In our study, the highest scores have been obtained by the improvement of the objectives of efficiency and effectiveness, consumer satisfaction, decision-making and strategic planning, followed by the alignment of the organization to its mission, setting meaningful goals, improving resource allocation and improving accountability. As can be seen, there is a high degree of coincidence between the objectives stated by the OECD to encourage the implementation of strategic management systems and the objectives pointed out by the local governments. Conversely, there are not similarities between the perspectives (Appendix D) in which the mentioned objectives are divided. This shows a certain degree of rhetoric in the setting of

objectives, stating those which are ‘politically correct' given that any local governments would hardly overcome the efficiency and effectiveness or the customer satisfaction as key objectives of public entity reforms. Likewise, the results of the impact of implementation show doubts between experts about the ability of strategic management to achieving the objectives stated.

The Delphi answers show that local governments take the BSC model as a benchmark for the development of their strategic management systems, but adapted to their different cultural and organizational characteristics and traditions, which are clearly reflected in the different perspectives proposed by each local government for the achievement of the objectives. Recently, variations of the rational choice theory (Pierson, 2004, Pollitt 2005) state that earlier decisions or organizational traditions may condition current choices so that the costs of departing from previous trajectories were so high that they favour remaining on the same path ('path dependency') set in some previous period (Pollitt, 2005). So, the different features of strategic management systems implemented in the local governments studied can be explained as an adaptation of the BSC to each legal and organizational culture which determines the path of organizational reforms. �The reasons for the implementation of strategic management do not follow any institutional plan or any kind of international tendency based on NPM doctrine. Instead they seem to be based on individual initiatives such as the previous experience of chief executives, or on the intellectual attraction of the managers or the elected officials for the BSC model and so the implementation follows a top-down process encouraged by senior managers. The low degree of involvement of middle managers, employees and citizens in setting the vision and mission of the system is coherent with this approach, as is the secondary role played by politicians. The low interest of politicians in the development of performance measurements had also been detected in OECD (2005). They foundthat politicians use performance information ‘not much’ in decision making, and concluded that, for countries that have introduced these reforms, a major challenge is to change the behaviour of politicians.

Kaplan and Norton highlight the benefits of the BSC models, from the top of the organization to its constituents and the horizontal alignment� across organizational boundaries. A weak vertical integration emerges from the experts’ answers given the low participation of middle managers and employees and to some extent, politicians. Notwithstanding, what can be gathered from the perspective answers shown in Appendix C is that they have set seeking the horizontal integration of departments, programs and/or activities.

The results do not find evidence about any connection between previous experiences in management initiatives or reforms and the implementation of strategic management systems. The compatibility with entity organizational structure and the implementation in other local governments are also stated as key factors of implementation. They are reasons which can explain why strategic management can be implemented without strong involvement of politicians. Specifically, some local governments state that the model fits well into their public administration style, so it can be implemented without introducing reforms into their organization system.

The findings about organizational change show that strategic management is being overlapped to previous organizational structures, without challenging traditions and views about the organization of public entities. Furthermore, the results also support the idea of legitimacy rather than change as the main driver, perhaps to give a view of modernization through the implementation of private sector advanced management techniques.

From the background and literature review sections, better accountability or ‘new accountability’ in terms of performance and results comes out as a primary driver of strategic management initiatives, followed by improvements in performance. In fact, only accountability obtains marks over three in Appendix A, perhaps due to it could be referred to as internal as external constituents. So, it seems that accountability is a key driver in implementing performance measurement, and as such service

delivery must be a major part of the performance that is measured and managed – not just costs. The majority of local governments studied have supplemented traditional evidence of financial stewardship with strategic plans and performance information to demonstrate the scope and magnitude of their offerings.

Governmental annual reports present less clear-cut between internal and external reporting than annual reporting in firms and hence, which blurs the limits of the type of information to be included in the financial report. Public sector financial and non-financial information is prepared not only for representatives but for constituents and stakeholders as key document in the discharge of accountability. Strategic management information is adequate to be disclosed in the financial report of public entities in order to seek legitimacy and enhance citizen trust in government, and in terms of performance improvements, it may give an image of efficiency, transparency and openness.

The search for legitimacy gives coherence and allows a rational explanation for the results. The analysis of consistency between answers such as: relationship between objectives and impact forecasted, reasons and drivers which lead the implementation, managers instead of politicians leadership, low involvement of staff, absence of organizational change, low degree of agreement about barriers in the implementation and absence of agreement about why strategic management systems are implemented show that strategic management systems are implemented to some extent as formal structures overlapped with traditional organization styles, seeking symbols of transparency, openness and efficiency rather than efficiency itself in order to gain legitimacy.

���&21&/86,216�

This paper has attempted to provide an alternative perspective on strategic management experiences. The relevance of doing so in the context of the ‘new public sector’ is justified by the complex interrelationships between multiple stakeholders and the intensely political nature of decision-making in public sector organizations. In such circumstances, shifting performance management practices may seem to follow a more deterministic model of change, which management may draw on to justify change initiatives (e.g. motivating new PM practices as a ‘necessary evil’ ). The results identify the trends, the strengths and the limitations of current approaches and future challenges.

Modern theories of bureaucracies, agency theory, contingency theory, public choice theory and institutionalism theory contribute to explain the determinants of non-mandatory performance measurement in political institutions better than the search for efficiency or the development of NPM doctrine.

The introduction of strategic management in public organisations has often not resulted in expected gains of efficiency. One reason is that strategic management systems are often not integrated with the overall management of the organisation and therefore do not drive the decisions that really matter. Vertical and horizontal integration of strategic management realises alignment of structures, resources and processes and increases the probability of organisational success. However, to carry out these integrations it is necessary to undertake organizational reforms which have not been developed.

The quantity of performance information available to decision makers has substantially increased; however, the use of this information in decision making as the OECD points out is a pending issue.. It takes time to develop performance measures and indicators, and even longer to change the behaviour of key actors in the system (politicians and bureaucrats) so that they use this information and develop a performance culture adapted to their particular country. The performance movement is here to stay. The benefits of being clearer inside and outside government about purposes and results are undeniable. But to gain these benefits, governments need a long-term approach, realistic

expectations and persistence. Modernisation strategies need to be tailored to an individual country’ s context, needs and circumstances. These differences will be reflected in the starting point from which the reforms are launched, the nature of the problems faced and the most appropriate solution to apply. Other issues that depend on context include how countries deal with accountability and control in public management,

REFERENCES Ammons, D.N. (1995) “ Overcoming the Inadequacies of Peformance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of

Libraries and Leisure Services” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ, Vol. 55, Nº 1, pp. 37-46.

Ammons, D.N. (2002) “ Performance measurement and Managerial Thinking” , 3XEOLF� 3HIRUPDQFH� DQG�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ, Vol. 25, Nº 4, pp. 344-347.

Andrews, M. and Moyniham, D.P. (2002) “ Why Reforms do not always have to work for succeed. A Tale Two Managerial Competition Initiatives” , 3XEOLF�3HUIRUPDQFH�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 25, Nº 3, pp 282-297.

Appleby, A. and Clark, A. (1997) “ Quality management in local government: four case studies” , Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18, Nº2, pp. 74-85.

Behn, R. (2003) “ Why measure performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ, Vol. 23, Nº 5, pp. 586-606.

Bendor, J., Taylor, S. & Gaalen, R.V. (1985). ‘Bureaucratic experience vs. legislative authority: A model of deception and monitoring in budgeting’ , American Political Science Review 79, 1041–1060.

Beretta, R. (1996) “ A Critical Review of the Delphi Technique” ��1XUVH�5HVHDUFKHU, Vol. 3, pp. 79-89.

Berman, E.M. (1994) “ Implementing Total Quality Management in State Governments: A Survey of Recent Progress” , 6WDWH�DQG�/RFDO�*RYHUQPHQW�5HYLHZ� Vol. 26, Nº 1.

Berman, E. and Wang, X. (2000) “ Performance Measurement in U. S.: Capacity Reform” , 3XEOLF� $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ, Vol. 60, No 5, pp. 409-420

Berman, E. and West, J. P. (1995) “ Municipal Commitment to Total Quality Management: A Survey of Recent Progress” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ, Vol. 25, Nº 1, pp 57- 66.

Bernstein, D.J. (2001) “ Local Government measurement use to focus on performance and results” , (YDOXDWLRQ� DQG�3URJUDP�3ODQQLQJ, Vol. 24, Nº 1, pp. 95-101.

Brockhoff, Klaus. 1975. Evaluation: Performance of Forecasting Groups. In 7KH� 'HOSKL� 0HWKRG�� 7HFKQLTXHV� DQG�$SSOLFDWLRQV edited by Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff, 291-321. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Chan Y.L. (2002) “ The benefits of balance: the balanced scorecard is not yet embraced by Canadian municipal governments, but it could be exactly what they need” , &0$�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 76, Nº 9, pp. 48-51.

Chan Y.L. (2004) “ Performance Measurement and Adoption of Balanced Scorecards. A survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada” , 7KH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�3XEOLF�6HFWRU�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 17, No 3, pp 204-221.

Christensen, T. and P. Lægreid (eds). 2001. 1HZ� 3XEOLF� 0DQDJHPHQW�� WKH� 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ� RI� ,GHDV� DQG� 3UDFWLFH. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dusenbury, P., Liner, B. and Vinson, E. (2001) 6WDWH��&LWL]HQV�DQG�/RFDO�3HUIRUPDQFH�0DQDJHPHQW. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Gabris, G.T. (1989) “ Educationg Elected Officials in Strategic Goal Setting” 3XEOLF� 3URGXFWLYLW\� DQG�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ, Vol. 13, No 2, pp. 161-175.

Gabris, G. T.; Grenell, K.; Ihrke, D. and Kaatz, J. (1999) “ Managerial Innovations as affected by Administrative Leadership and Policy Boards” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�4XDWHUO\, Vol. 23, No 2, pp 223-250.

General Accounting Office (1998) 3HUIRUPDQFH� 0HDVXUHPHQW� DQG� (YDOXDWLRQ�� 'HILQLWLRQV� DQG� 5HODWLRQVKLSV, GAO/GGD-98-26.

Halachmi, A. Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review 25(4), 370. 2002)

Hasson, F.; Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000) “ Research Guidelines for The Delphi Survey Technique” , -RXUQDO�RI�$GYDQFHG�1XUVLQJ, Vol. 32, pp. 1008-1015.

Hellein, R. and Bowman, J.S. (2002) “ The Process of Quality Management Implementation. State Government Agencies in Florida” , 3XEOLF�3HUIRUPDQFH�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ, Vol. 26, Nº 1, pp. 75-93.

Helmer, Olaf. (1983): /RRNLQJ�)RUZDUG��$�*XLGH�WR�)XWXUHV�5HVHDUFK. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hennessy, D. and Hicks, C. (2003) “ The Ideal Attributes of Chief Nurses in Europe: a Delphi Study” , -RXUQDO� RI�$GYDQFHG�1XUVLQJ, Vol. 43, Nº5, pp. 441-448.

Hood, C. 1995. The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. $FFRXQWLQJ��2UJDQL]DWLRQV� DQG�6RFLHW\. 20, 2/3: 93-109.

Ittner C.D. and Lacker D.F. (1998) “ Innovation in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research Implications” , -RXUQDO�RI�0DQDJHPHQW�$FFRXQWLQJ�5HVHDUFK, Vol. 10, pp. 205-238.

Jackson, P. (1994), Efficient local government finance: the never ending story. In Terry, F. (Ed), 7RZDUGV�5HVWUXFWXULQJ��WKH�'LPHQVLRQV�RI�&KDQJH�LQ /RFDO�*RYHUQPHQW�(CIPFA, London).

Jackson, A. and Lapsley, I. (2003) “ The diffusion of accounting practices in the “ managerial” public sector” , 7KH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�3XEOLF�6HFWRU�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 16, Nº5, pp. 359-372.

Johnsen, A (2005): Determinants of non-mandatory performance measurement in Norwegian local government: A comparison of political, economic and sociological explanations 3DSHU� IRU� WKH� 6WXG\�*URXS�RI�3URGXFWLYLW\� DQG�4XDOLW\� LQ� WKH�3XEOLF�6HFWRU�DW�WKH�(XURSHDQ�*URXS�RI�3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ (EGPA) Conference, University of Bern, Switzerland, 31 August–3 September, 2005.

Jones, J.M.G.; Sanderson, C.F.B. and Black N.A. (1992) “ What Will Happen to the Quality of Care with fewer Junior Doctors? A Delphi Study of Consultant Physicians´ Views” , -RXUQDO�RI�WKH�5R\DO�&ROOHJH�RI�3K\VLFLDQV�/RQGRQ, Vol. 26, pp. 36-40.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) 7KH� %DODQFHG� 6FRUHFDUG�� 7UDQVODWLQJ� 6WUDWHJ\� LQWR� $FWLRQ��Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan R.S. and Norton D.P. (1992) “ The Balanced Scorecard- Measures That Drive Performance” , +DUYDUG�%XVLQHVV�5HYLHZ� Nº 1, pp. 71-79.

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1993) “ Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work” , +DUYDUG�%XVLQHVV�5HYLHZ� Nº 5, pp. 134-147.

Keeney, S.; Hasson, F. and McKenna, H.P. (2001) “ A Critical Review of the Delphi Technique as a Research Methodology for Nursing” , ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�1XUVLQJ�6WXGLHV, Vol. 38, pp. 195-200.

Lapsley, I. and Wright, E. (2004) “ The diffusion of management accounting innovations in the public sector: a research agenda” , 0DQDJHPHQW�$FFRXQWLQJ�5HVHDUFK, Vol. 15, pp. 355-374.

Liner, B., Dusenbury, P. and Vison, E. (2000) 6WDWH� $SSURDFKHV� WR� *RYHUQLQJ� IRU� 5HVXOWV� DQG� $FFRXQWDELOLW\, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Liner, B., Hatry, H., Vison, E., Allen, R., Dusenbury, P., Bryan, S. and Snell, R. (2001) 0DNLQJ�5HVXOWV�%DVHG�6WDWH�*RYHUQPHQW�:RUN. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Loughlin, M. 1994. 7KH�FRQVWLWXWLRQDO� VWDWXV� RI� ORFDO�JRYHUQPHQW, Research Report No. 3. London: Commission for Local Democracy.

McAdam, R., Reid, R. and Saulters, R. (2002) “ Sustaining Quality in the UK public Sector. Quality Measurement Frameworks” . ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�4XDOLW\�DQG�5HDOLDELOLW\�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 19, Nº 5, pp. 581-595.

McBride, A.J.; Pates, R.; Rawadan, R. and McGowan, C. (2003) “ Delphi Survey of Expert´ Opinions on Strategies Used by Community Pharmacists to Reduce over- the- counter Drug Misuse” , $GGLFWLRQ, Vol. 98, pp. 487-497.

McKenna, H.P. (1994) “ The Delphi Technique: a Worthwhile Research Approach for Nursing” , -RXUQDO�RI�$YDQFHG�1XUVLQJ��Vol. 19, pp. 1221-1225.

Naschold, F. and Daley, G. (1999, a) “ Learning form the Pionners: Modernizing Local Government. Part One” , ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�3XEOLF�0DQDJHPHQW�-RXUQDO, Vol. 2, No1, pp 25-51.

Naschold, F. and Daley, G. (1999, b) “ The Strategic Management Challenge: Modernizing Local Government. Part Two” , ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�3XEOLF�0DQDJHPHQW�-RXUQDO, Vol. 2, Nº 1, pp. 52-67.

Naschold, F. and Daley, G. (1999, c) “ The Interface Management frontier: Modernizing Local government: Part Three” , ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�3XEOLF�0DQDJHPHQW�-RXUQDO, Vol. 2, Nº 1, pp. 68-89.

Niven, P. (2002) %DODQFHG�6FRUHFDUG�6WHS�E\�6WHS��0D[LPL]LQJ�3HUIRUPDQFH�DQG�0DLQWDLQLQJ�5HVXOWV. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

OECD (1997). ,VVXHV�DQG�GHYHORSPHQWV�LQ�3XEOLF�0DQDJHPHQW��6XUYH\����������. Paris OECD.

Pierson, P. (2004) 3ROLWLFV�LQ�WLPH��KLVWRU\��LQVWLWXWLRQV�DQG�VRFLDO�DQDO\VLV, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press

Poister, T.H. and Streib, G.D. (1999) “ Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of Practice” Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, Nº 4, pp 325-335.

Poister, T.H. and Streib, G.D. (2005) “ Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ, Vol. 65, Nº 1, pp. 45- 56.

Pollitt, C 2005, Hospital Performance Indicators: How And Why Neighbours Facing Similar Problems Go Different Ways 3DSHU� WR� EH� SUHVHQWHG� WR� WKH� :RUNVKRS� RQ� 4XDOLW\� DQG� 3URGXFWLYLW\� LQ� WKH� 3XEOLF� 6HFWRU� DW� WKH� ���� European Group for Public Administration Annual Conference, Bern, Switzerland, 31August – 3 September

Powell, C. (2003) “ The Delphi Technique: Myths and Realities” , -RXUQDO�RI�$GYDQFHG�1XUVLQJ, Vol. 41, Nº4, pp. 376-382.

Rainey, H.G. (1999) “ Using Comparisons of Public and Private Organizations to Asses Innovative Attitudes among Members of Organizations” , 3XEOLF�3URGXFWLYLW\�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ, Vol. 23, Nº 2, pp. 139-149.

Scott, W. R. (1987), ‘The adolescence of Institutional Theory’ , Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 493-511.

Smith, P. (1995), “ Performance Indicators and Outcome in the Public-Sector” , Public Money and Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, Oct-Dec, pp. 13-16.

Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action. Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Torres, L. (2004) “ Trajectories in the modernization of public administration in European continental” . $XVWUDOLDQ�-RXUQDO�RI�3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ, Vol. 63, Nº 3, pp. 99-112.

Torres, L. 2005. Service charters: reshaping trust in government. the case of Spain 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�5HYLHZ Vol 65 nº6 pp.687-699

Vinzant, D.H. and Vinzant, J.C. (1996, a) “ Strategy and Organization Capacity: Finding a fit” , 3XEOLF�3URGXFWLYLW\�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ��Vol. 20, Nº 2, pp. 139-157.

Vinzant J.C. and Vinzant D. H. (1996, b) “ Strategic Management and Total Quality Management. Challenges and Choices” , 3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ�4XDWHUO\, Vol. 20, No 2, pp 201-219.

West, J. P. and Berman, E. (1993) “ Human Resources Strategies in Local Government: A Survey of Progress and Future Directions” , $PHULFDQ�5HYLHZ�RI�3XEOLF�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ, Vol. 23, Nº 3, pp 279-297.

Wisniewski, M. and Stewart, D., (2001), “ Using the statutory audit to support continuous improvement in Scottish local authorities” , ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�3XEOLF�6HFWRU�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 540-555. )

Worthington, A.C. (2000) “ Cost Effciency in Australian Local Government: A Comparative Analysis of Mathematical Programming and Econometric Approach” , )LQDQFLDO�$FFRXQWDELOLW\�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW, Vol. 16, Nº3, pp. 201-223.

$33(1',;�$��� �������� � � � ����

� ��������������� ����������� ��� ���� ��!��"�����#�#!��"���"��$���� �#!��&% ��' ' ���(�)���*�,+,-.!*�"/��"' 0

2Is the performance management system based on your organization’s mission?(Yes=1, No=0) 1�2 3 � 1�2 4�53Has the local government linked its performance management system to its strategies?(Yes=1, No=0) 1�2 5�6 1�2 5 �

4Has the local government grouped its performance measures into different categories (e.g. personnel, financial, process and customer)?(Yes=1, No=0) 1�2 4�7 1�2 5�4

5Do you consider that your organization performance management system fits in this BSC definition?(Yes=1, No=0) 1�2 8�5 1�2 6�4�7 1�2 8�6

6

� �9�������:����� � ���:�����"�9��%;�<���=�������>��?A@ ������ B����C ��%)' D��"�����E�<���F/����# �" ���F��%. !HG"' �#!*�#���) ���F�CG��"� % ��� !��"�����!��"�������#!��"���I��$���� �#!J0K� LM����G��������(�#���� ������NI�OP�����&���&�"' 'Q��O(���"!*� ����� �"��� 2R7 OS!J�#/#�"� ��� �.����� �#��� 2 ��OS��� ���������� �"��� 2�6 O�B��"� $���� ����������� �"���

A) Cost reduction 7�2 1�1 7�2 � 6 � 2 3�8 B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness

� 2 1�4 4,25 � 2 ���

C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction � 2 1�4 3,83

� 2 1 �

D ) Improvement in the decision making process 7�2 3 � 3,92 � 2 � 7

E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission 7�2 3 � 3,83 7�2 3 �

F ) Setting of meaningful goals � 2 � 5 4,25 7�2 3�8

G ) Strategic planning � 2 1�4 4,00

� 2 1�1 H ) Better resource allocation 7�2 4�7 3,83 7�2 3�8 I ) Improve accountability 7�2 6�4 7�2 6�4 7�2 4�7 ��TQU;V W&X,Y#UMW�U,ZM� � ��V [\Z]X L [ - U +,+

11Which is the scope of implementation?(all=1, part=0) 1�2 4�7 1�2 4�5 X �< ����+Q ��D����� ���

8Before implementing the performance management system was there any other system, (yes=1, no=0) 1�2 6�1 1�2 � 4

9The existence of the other system influenced the decision of whether or not to implement performance management system:1- Strongly agree, 2-Agree, 3-Undecided, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly disagree

� 2 8�5 7 � 2 4 �

12Did you make an initial analysis of the local government strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats before to implement the new model:(yes=1, no=0) 1�2 6�1 1�2 8 �

13We find the initial analysis:(1=Very useful, 2=useful, 3=Undecided, 4=Useless, 5=Very Useless � 2 � 5 � 2 � � 2 �A�

� ��� X �"� �#���#���"'

15 We have inform to all our employees how the performance management system will affect their work (1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

� 2 8�5 7�2 1�1 � 2 5�1

16The employees have participated in the design of the performance management system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 7�2 1�1 7�2 1�4 � 2 5 �

17Has everyone authority, responsibility, and resources to perform work at the best of her or his abilities?(1=Always, 2=Usually, 3=Sometimes, 4=Seldom, 5=Never)

� 2 � 6 � 2 � 5 � 2 � 7

18Has everyone in the organization ownership of his or her job?(1=Always, 2=Usually, 3=Sometimes, 4=Seldom, 5=Never)

� 2 � 5 � 2 � 1 � 2 7�6

19The local government provided training for employees in the new performance management system: (yes=1, No= 0) 1�2 5�6 1�2 4�7

20During the past 3 years, has your local government provided, arranged paid for training that help to accomplish the following tasks: (yes=1, No= 0)

A) Conduct strategic planning 1�2 6�4 1�2 8�6 B) Set performance goals 1�2 8�5 1�2 5�1 C) Develop performance measures 1�2 5�6 1�2 5 �

D) Adopt decisions based on performance information 1�2 7�7 1�2 6 �

E) Link the performance of operations to the achievement of strategic goals 1�2 ��� 1�2 8 �

Y ���#/#�#� ���# G��#�#/*-Q��!HG"� ��!H ���

21The managers exert a strong leadership to guide the changes taking place in the organization: (1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

� 2 1�4 � 2 3�8

22To what extent the top management demonstrate commitment to the new performance management system?(1 VGE, 2 GE, 3 ME, 4 SE, 5 Not)

� 2 ��� � 2 7�7 � 2 7�3

23To what extent the elected officials have support implementation of a new performance management system?(1 VGE, 2 GE, 3 ME, 4 SE, 5 Not)

� 2 6�4 � 2 3 � � 2 6�5 U ��� �"�)���"'�Q���" ��� �"���

29Did the local government use the help of any external assistance?(yes=1, No= 0) 1�2 8�5 1�2 8 �

30We found these help: (1=Very useful, 2=useful, 3=Undecided, 4=Useless, 5=Very Useless) � 2 4�4 � 2 ��� � 2 1�1

LM���#��D"� ������N�!*������$��"��/��) !*�

32The local government has specific budgetary resources for the performance management implementation:(yes=1, No= 0) 1�2 6�4 1�2 8�6

33Which percentage of the total local government budget is used in the performance management system project: (1= Between 0%- 5%, 2=Between 6%-10%, 3=Between 11%-15%, 4=Between 16% and 20%, 5=More than 21%)

� 2 1�1 1�2 3�834We elaborate a detailed plan for the implementation of the process(yes=1, No= 0) 1�2 6�4 1�2 6�3

��TQU �_^�� X�� � ��V [\Z>[I`JY�[ -,� Y�aI[RbcU L ZQW&U,ZM�J[ L a � ZdV e � ��V [\Z:��[ ��TQU:ZQU"fgW � Z � a\U�W�UMZM� +�h,+ ��UMW

14How much did each of these group participate in shaping the mission of the organization? (Grade from: 1 No participation, 2 small participation, 3 moderate participation, 4 great participation, 5 very great participation)

A) Elected officials � 2 3 � � 2 � 5

B) Senior management � 2 8�5 � 2 6�5

C) Middle management � 2 4�7 � 2 5�6 � 2 8�6

D) Front- line employees � 2 1�1 7�2 5 �

E) Unions � 2 � 5 7�2 3�8

F) Citizens 7�2 6�4 � 2 � 5 7�2 6�4 G) State government agencies

� 2 6�1 H) State Auditor

� 2 5�6 [ � �#�"�# ������ �����"'��#D#' �<D#� �

27The new Performance management system implemented has modified the behaviour of the organization’s members:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

� 2 3 � � 2 8�6

28The organization has changed its rules and procedures due to the introduction of the new system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

� 2 5�6 � 2 8�6

�M�"���< ��� �\� �������J !iG#' �#!��"��� ���) ���

40How much did each of these common obstacles hinder your implementation: (Response choices: 1= not at all 2= some extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent)

A) Employee resistance to the change. j�k ll 7�2 � 5 7�2 � 8 B) The absence of an implementation schedule mk ln � 2 � 5 C) Lack of resources. j�k o�p 7�2 1�1 7�2 ���

D) Lack of agreement in the organization mission and vision between different stakeholders j�k qAo 7�2 8�4 E) Lack of employee skills, abilities and knowledge j�k mAo 7�2 8�5 7�2 � 6 F) Inadequate support/ commitment from top management 7�2 4�7 7�2 4�8 G) Inadequate support/ commitment from elected officials

� 2 � 5 7�2 6�1 � 2 � 4 H) Lack of communication between different organization levels 7�2 1�1 7�2 1�4 7�2 1�6 I) Incompatibility with organization culture 7�2 1�3 7�2 ��� 7�2 ���

J) Incompatibility with other organization systems 7�2 6�6 7�2 4�7 7�2 6�3 K) Model complexity 7�2 7�8 7�2 ��� 7�2 5�8

L) Insufficient time to properly implement the project 7�2 7 7�2 1�3 7�2 4 ��TQU;V W&X �R- �J[\`���TQU:V W�XMY"U�W�U�ZM� � ��V [IZ

41Which results (and to what extent) have you seen from the implementation?(Response choices: 1= not at all 2= some extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent)

A) Cost reduction j�k q � 2 1�6 B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness j�k o�r 7�2 � 5 7�2 7�4 C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction j�k stn 7�2 7�8 7�2 �

D ) Improvement in the decision making process j�k lq � 2 4 � 7�2 1�1 E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission o�k rAj � 2 ��� � 2 3 F ) Setting of meaningful goals o�k um � 2 � 5 � 2 � 4 G ) Strategic planning

� 2 4 � � 2 6 � � 2 8�5 H ) Better resource allocation 7�2 � 5 � 2 3 � 7�2 7�6 I ) Improve accountability

� 2 3 � � 2 3 � � 2 3

42

Which results did you expect see in the future? A(0- you haven t́ reach it yet, 1- you expect improve it more) B(0- you haven t́ reach it yet any improvement in that objective but you expect achieve improvements in the future, 1- you have seen some improvement but you expect improve it more, 2- we have already reach our goal in this objective)

A) Cost reduction 1�2 5�1 1�2 4�7 1�2 8�1 B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness 1�2 4�1 � 2 � 5 1�2 5�6 C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction 1�2 4�1 � 2 � 4 1�2 4�6 D ) Improvement in the decision making process 1�2 4�1 � 2 7�7 1�2 4�6 E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission 1�2 4�1 � 2 ��� 1�2 4�6 F ) Setting of meaningful goals 1�2 4�1 � 2 ��� 1�2 3�1 G ) Strategic planning 1�2 4�1 � 2 6�1 1�2 4�6 H ) Better resource allocation 1�2 4�1 � 2 � 5 1�2 5�6 I ) Improve accountability 1�2 3�1 � 2 � 5 1�2 3�1 +M�"��������%MD"� �#������$��#�#/ X �� ���� � $��#%"�)���* �" �� ���) B��

38Most people in the local government feel a sense of urgency for successful implementation of the performance management system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 7�2 1�1 � 2 6�1 � 2 4�5

39The performance management system is considered the number one management improvement priority(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 7�2 6 � 2 4 � 7�2 �"�

APPENDIX B

� ��������������� �����"���)� ��� ���� ��!*�#�����#�#!*�#���"��$���� ��!��&% ��' ' ���K�����J�M+,-.!*�"/#�#' 0 W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

Is the performance management system based on your organization’s mission?(Yes=1, No=0) 0,87 0,34 86,96 13,04 0

Has the local government linked its performance management system to its strategies?(Yes=1, No=0) 0,77 0,43 73,91 21,74 4,35

Has the local government grouped its performance measures into different categories (e.g. personnel, financial, process and customer)?(Yes=1, No=0) 0,78 0,42 78,26 21,74 0

Do you consider that your organization performance management system fits in this BSC definition?(Yes=1, No=0) 0,65 0,49 65,22 34,78 0

To what extent each of the next objectives influence the decision of implementing a performance management system? (Response choices: 1= not at all 2= some extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent)

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

A) Cost reduction 2,96 1,02 4,35 34,78 26,09 30,43 4,35

B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness 4,22 0,67 0 0 13,04 52,17 34,78

C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction 4,04 0,71 0 4,35 8,7 65,22 21,74

D ) Improvement in the decision making process 4,13 0,97 0 8,7 13,04 34,78 43,48

E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission 3,91 1,12 0 17,39 13,04 30,43 39,13

F ) Setting of meaningful goals 3,96 0,88 0 4,35 26,09 39,13 30,43

G ) Strategic planning 4 1,09 4,35 4,35 17,39 34,78 39,13

H ) Better resource allocation 3,96 0,88 0 4,35 26,09 39,13 30,43

I ) Improve accountability 3,83 0,94 0 13,04 13,04 52,17 21,74

��TQU;V W�XMY"U�W�U,ZM� � ��V [\Z]X L [ - U +M+ W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � ��/�� X �#� � � Z v �yv

Which is the scope of implementation?(all=1, part=0) 0,87 0,34 86,96 13,04 0

X �) ����+d �)D����) ��� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

Before implementing the performance management system was there any other system, (yes=1, no=0) 0,48 0,51 47,83 52,17 0

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

The existence of the other system influenced the decision of whether or not to implement performance management system:1- Strongly agree, 2-Agree, 3-Undecided, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly disagree

2,82 1,03 9,09 27,27 36,36 27,27 0

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

Did you make an initial analysis of the local government strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats before to implement the new model:(yes=1, no=0) 0,61 0,50 60,87 39,13 0

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

We find the initial analysis:(1=Very useful, 2=useful, 3=Undecided, 4=Useless, 5=Very Useless 2,14 1,10 28,57 46,86 21,43 0 7,14

� ��� X �"� �#���#���"' W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

We have inform to all our employees how the performance management system will affect their work (1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

2,7 1,22 13,04 43,48 13,04 21,74 8,7

The employees have participated in the design of the performance management system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 2,74 1,21 8,7 52,17 4,35 26,09 8,7

Has everyone authority, responsibility, and resources to perform work at the best of her or his abilities?(1=Always, 2=Usually, 3=Sometimes, 4=Seldom, 5=Never) 2,43 0,59 4,35 47,83 47,83 0 0

Has everyone in the organization ownership of his or her job?(1=Always, 2=Usually, 3=Sometimes, 4=Seldom, 5=Never) 2,35 0,83 8,7 56,52 30,43 0 4,35

� � �" �# ��� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

The local government provided training for employees in the new performance management system: (yes=1, No= 0) 0,83 0,39 82,61 17,39 0

During the past 3 years, has your local government provided, arranged paid for training that help to accomplish the following tasks: (yes=1, No= 0) W ���#�

+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

A) Conduct strategic planning 0,68 0,48 65,22 30,43 4,35

B) Set performance goals 0,7 0,47 69,57 30,43 0

C) Develop performance measures 0,74 0,45 73,91 26,09 0

D) Adopt decisions based on performance information 0,57 0,51 52,17 39,13 8,7

E) Link the performance of operations to the achievement of strategic goals 0,64 0,49 60,87 34,78 4,35

Y ����/#�"� ���# G��"��/J-Q�"!iG#���"!i ��� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

The managers exert a strong leadership to guide the changes taking place in the organization: (1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 1,96 0,98 39,13 34,78 17,39 8,7 0

To what extent the top management demonstrate commitment to the new performance management system?(1= Very Great Extent, 2= Great Extent 3= Moderate Extent, 4= Small Extent, 5= Not at all)

2,39 0,89 13,04 47,83 26,09 13,04 0

To what extent the elected officials have support implementation of a new performance management system?(1= Very Great Extent, 2= Great Extent 3= Moderate Extent, 4= Small Extent, 5= Not at all)

2,57 1,12 13,04 43,48 26,09 8,7 8,7

U ��� �"�)���"'A�Q���" ��� �"��� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

Did the local government use the help of any external assistance?(yes=1, No= 0) 0,61 0,50 60,87 30,43 0

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

We found these help: (1=Very useful, 2=useful, 3=Undecided, 4=Useless, 5=Very Useless) 1,79 0,97 50 28,57 14,29 7,14 0

LM���#��D"� ������N�!J������$&�"�#/��) !�� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

The local government has specific budgetary resources for the performance management implementation:(yes=1, No= 0)

0,652174

0,486985 65,22 34,78 1

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

Which percentage of the total local government budget is used in the performance management system project: (1= Between 0%- 5%, 2=Between 6%-10%, 3=Between 11%-15%, 4=Between 16% and 20%, 5=More than 21%)

1 0 95,65 0 0 0 0

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

We elaborate a detailed plan for the implementation of the process(yes=1, No= 0) 0,59 0,50 56,52 39,13 4,35 �_^M� X���V Zda ��TQU:Y�[ -,� Y�a_[RbcU L ZdW�UMZM�J[ L a � ZQV +M� ��V [\Z:��[(��TQU;W � Z � aIUMW&U,ZM� +�h,+ ��U�W

How much did each of these group participate in shaping the mission of the organization? (Grade from: 1 No participation, 2 small participation, 3 moderate participation, 4 great participation, 5 very great participation)

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

A) Elected officials 3,83 1,11 4,35 8,7 17,39 39,13 30,43

B) Senior management 4,43 0,73 0 0 13,04 30,43 56,52

C) Middle management 3,35 1,03 4,35 13,04 39,13 30,43 13,04

D) Front- line employees 2,26 1,21 34,78 26,09 21,74 13,04 4,35

E) Unions 2,04 1,22 43,48 26,09 21,74 0 8,7

F) Citizens 2,43 1,27 30,43 21,74 30,43 8,7 8,7

[ �����"�" �����) �����#'��#D"' �<D"� � W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

The new Performance management system implemented has modified the behavior of the organization’s members:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

2,65 0,98 8,7 43,48 21,74 26,09 0

The organization has changed its rules and procedures due to the introduction of the new system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree) 2,65 1,07 13,04 39,13 17,39 30,43 0

-Q��!HG����� ?" ' � $*��%, ��% ����!����) ���&��$���� �#!�� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v hd����w Z ��w ZMx �

The budget, cost, management, and accounting systems were compatible with the performance management system: (yes=1, No=0) 0,57 0,51 56,52 43,48 0

We implement an information technology solution to manage the information of the new system(yes=1, No=0) 0,57 0,51 56,52 43,48 0 �M�"�)�) �#� �&� ���)���J !HG"' �#!*�#��� ���� ���How much did each of these common obstacles hinder your implementation: (Response choices: 1= not at all 2= some extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent)

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

A) Employee resistance to the change. 2,74 1,05 13,04 30,43 26,09 30,43 0

B) The absence of an implementation schedule 1,73 0,98 56,52 13,04 21,74 4,35 0

C) Lack of resources. 2,59 0,91 8,7 39,13 30,43 17,39 0

D) Lack of agreement in the organization mission and vision between different stakeholders 2,32 1,13 26,09 30,43 26,09 8,7 4,35

E) Lack of employee skills, abilities and knowledge 2,55 1,01 8,7 47,83 21,74 13,04 4,35

F) Inadequate support/ commitment from top management 2,14 1,21 39,13 21,74 21,74 8,7 4,35

G) Inadequate support/ commitment from elected officials 1,77 1,15 56,52 17,39 13,04 4,35 4,35

H) Lack of communication between different organization levels 2,95 0,86 0 30,43 39,13 17,39 4,35

I) Incompatibility with organization culture 2,59 1,26 21,74 30,43 13,04 26,09 4,35

J) Incompatibility with other organization systems 2,41 1,05 17,39 43,48 13,04 21,74 0

K) Model complexity 2,24 1 21,74 39,13 17,39 13,04 0

L) Insufficient time to properly implement the project 2,2 1,28 34,78 21,74 13,04 13,04 4,35

+,�#��������%MD"� �#������$��"��/ X �� ���� � $��#%������* �" �� ���) B�� W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

Most people in the local government feel a sense of urgency for successful implementation of the performance management system:(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

2,87 1,06 4,35 43,48 17,39 30,43 4,35

The performance management system is considered the number one management improvement priority(1=Strong Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided, 4=Disagree, 5=Strong Disagree)

3,22 1,04 0 30,43 30,43 26,09 13,04

��TQU;V W�X �R- �H[\`&��TQU;V W&X,Y#UMW�UMZM� � ��V [\Z

Which results (and to what extent) have you seen from the implementation?(Response choices: 1= not at all 2= some extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent)

W ���#�+M� /�v^M��B#v � � 7 � 6

A) Cost reduction 1,95 1,07 43,48 17,39 21,74 8,7 0

B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness 2,62 1,07 13,04 34,78 17,39 26,09 0

C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction 2,8 0,83 4,35 26,09 39,13 17,39 0

D ) Improvement in the decision making process 3 1,08 8,7 17,39 30,43 26,09 4,35

E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission 3,25 1,21 8,7 13,04 26,09 26,09 13,04

F ) Setting of meaningful goals 3,52 1,03 4,35 8,7 26,09 39,13 13,04

G ) Strategic planning 3,33 1,15 8,7 13,04 17,39 43,48 8,7

H ) Better resource allocation 2,65 1,23 21,74 17,39 17,39 30,43 0

I ) Improve accountability 3,1 1,07 8,7 13,04 30,43 30,43 4,35

Which results did you expect see in the future? (0- you haven´t reach it yet, 1- you expect improve it more) W ���#�

+M� ��/�v^M��B 1 � ZMx �

A) Cost reduction 0,6 0,5 34,78 52,17 13,04

B) Improvement in efficiency and effectiveness 0,75 0,44 21,74 65,22 13,04

C) Improvement in Customer satisfaction 0,85 0,37 13,04 73,91 13,04

D ) Improvement in the decision making process 0,85 0,37 13,04 73,91 13,04

E ) Alignment of the organization to its mission 0,85 0,37 13,04 73,91 13,04

F ) Setting of meaningful goals 0,9 0,51 8,7 78,26 13,04

G ) Strategic planning 0,85 0,37 13,04 73,91 13,04

H ) Better resource allocation 0,79 0,42 17,39 65,22 17,39

I ) Improve accountability 0,95 0,23 4,35 78,26 17,39

APPENDIX C

$XVWUDOLD� 6SDLQ� 8QLWHG�6WDWHV� 6ZHGHQ�

Hol

dfas

t Bay

Mel

bour

ne

San

Cug

at d

el

Val

les

Mat

aro

Mos

tole

s

Aus

tin

Cha

rlotte

Mar

icop

a

San

Jos

e

Sco

ttsda

le

Tucs

on

Lule

å

Intranet 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 10

Internet 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Brown bag Meetings

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Meetings 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 E-mail 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 Annual Reports 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 8 News Letters 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 Special Performance Reports

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 5

z{ |}~ �� � � } {� } � �� { �� � �� �z{ ��~ { � � ��

Other Network of Area Leaders

Strategic Plans 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 Performance Reports

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 8

Performance Indicators

1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8

Annual Reports 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 8 Model Information 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7

z{ | }~ �� � � } {� } � � � { �� � � � ��� � �~ { � � ��

Other Performance indicators in

Budget

Web Page 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10 Press Releases 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

� } � � � { � � �� �� � � � } � � �~ ��� �� �{ � � �z{ | }~ �� � � } { Soliciting by mail or phone

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 10

Other In person

and attending council

meetings

public audiences

APPENDIX D

�� � ��� � �� �� � ��

�� � �  ¡ � �� �  � �¢   ¡  �

H

oldf

ast B

ay

Mel

bour

ne

San

Cug

at d

el

Val

les

Mat

aro

Mos

tole

s

Aus

tin

Cha

rlot

te

Mar

icop

a

San

Jose

Scot

tsda

le

Tuc

son

Lul

eå

£¤ � � �� � �¤ � 34.073 61.670 70.514 116.698 204.463 672.011 584.658 3.200.000 898.349 217.989 507.658 45.036

¥  � � ¤ ¦§¨ � �  ¨   � �� � �¤ � 2001 2000 2002 2000 2004 1994 1996 1998 1998 1996 1994 2001

©ª« � ¨ � �  ¨   � � Organizational Culture

External Mandate

Chief Exe.

Experience

Chief Exe. Experience

Chief Exe. Experience

Research and

Adoption

Research and

Adoption

Chief Exe. Experience

Research and

Adoption

Understand our

organisation

Not specify

Chief Exe. Experience

©ª ¤ ¡  ¬ � ¡  ¡ Managers Managers political appointies

political appointies

political appointies

Managers political appointies

political appointies

Managers Managers Managers Managers

£   � ��  ¬ � �­   � Economic,

environmental and

social

customer, financial health, internal process, growth

and learning

profesionalization, focused on results, quality

Budgetary items

activities of the

departments

Serve the customer,

run the business, manage

resources and

develop employee

s

quality, cost cycle

time customer satisfactio

n*

by department

program categories

personnel, development, customer,

private sector and

society