Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Review of Administrative Sciences
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halachmi, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Performance measurement: test the water before you dive in

Arie Halachmi

Zhongshan University (China) and Tennessee State University (USA)

Performance measurement and reporting are promoted in various publications as a management concept that can help administrators and elected officials address the issues of productivity and accountability. This article challenges this general assertion for two reasons. First, because the cost of performance score cards is always significant while the benefits, in many instances, may be only tentative. Second, because of possible problems that result when measuring performance is used for two different and potentially competing functions: accountability versus productivity. The article concludes that while performance measurement has a potential, its use should be encouraged but not mandated by external bodies. The article asserts that a more prudent introduction and use of performance score cards may result from better understanding of two things: first, what can go wrong when compiling performance reports; and, second, that there might be a need for other corresponding changes, within and outside government agencies, in order to facilitate meaningful performance reports.

International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 71, No. 2, 255-266 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0020852305053884
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementHome page
F. L. K. Ohemeng
Constraints in the Implementation of Performance Management Systems in Developing Countries: The Ghanaian Case
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, April 1, 2009; 9(1): 109 - 132.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Review of Administrative SciencesHome page
J. L. Zafra-Gomez, A. M. Lopez-Hernandez, and A. Hernandez-Bastida
Evaluating financial performance in local government: maximizing the benchmarking value
International Review of Administrative Sciences, March 1, 2009; 75(1): 151 - 167.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Review of Administrative SciencesHome page
J. Askim
How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience
International Review of Administrative Sciences, September 1, 2007; 73(3): 453 - 472.
[Abstract] [PDF]