Performance measurement: Examining the applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit organisations

Purpose – Nonprofit performance measurement is receiving increasing academic and practitioner attention, but the design of nonprofit measurement systems has received limited consideration. This is in contrast to the well‐established body of knowledge that focuses on performance measurement in private and public sector organisations. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this body of knowledge can be used to inform the design of nonprofit performance measurement systems. Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach was taken to examine the performance measurement practices used in six nonprofit organisations and their associated funders and regulators. A total of 24 managers from 18 organisations took part in the study. Findings – The study found underdeveloped and resource intensive performance measurement systems in the majority of organisations that were examined. The performance measurement literature from the private and public sectors advocates the development of relevant, balanced, integrated, strategic and improvement‐oriented performance measurement systems; concepts that have received limited consideration in the nonprofit literature. This research found that performance measurement system design principles developed for the private and public sectors were applicable to the nonprofit sector. Research limitations/implications – Whilst a range of stakeholders was included in the research, further work is required to validate the applicability of the findings to the diverse nonprofit sector. Nevertheless, given the dearth of operations management focused research on nonprofit performance measurement systems this study makes a useful contribution. Practical implications – The study presents empirical evidence of the myriad criteria and processes that are used to measure nonprofit performance. The paper shows that current measurement practice is detracting from the performance of nonprofit organisations. Originality/value – Despite the perceived uniqueness of the nonprofit sector, this paper shows that learning from the private and public sectors can be used to inform good practice in nonprofits. As relatively little research has been done in this area, the findings make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge.

[1]  Hans de Bruijn,et al.  A PLEA FOR DIALOGUE DRIVEN PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: EVIDENCE FROM THE DUTCH PUBLIC SECTOR , 2006 .

[2]  Zoe J. Radnor,et al.  Performance management in the public sector: fact or fiction? , 2004 .

[3]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations: A Handbook for Leaders , 1992 .

[4]  George A. Boyne,et al.  Public and Private Management: What's the Difference? , 2002 .

[5]  S. Morris.  Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Some Lessons from History , 2000 .

[6]  Rhys William Andrews,et al.  External Constraints on Local Service Standards: The Case of Comprehensive Performance Assessment in English Local Government , 2005 .

[7]  Kepa Mendibil,et al.  Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises , 2005 .

[8]  M. Stone,et al.  Acting in the Public Interest? Another Look at Research on Nonprofit Governance , 2007 .

[9]  Christopher A. Voss,et al.  Case research in operations management , 2002 .

[10]  Malcolm Macpherson,et al.  Performance measurement in not‐for‐profit and public‐sector organisations , 2001 .

[11]  Andy Neely,et al.  A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems , 2002 .

[12]  Simon A. Andrew,et al.  Introduction: Understanding the Relationships Between Nonprofit Organizations and Local Governments , 2006 .

[13]  John Wilson.  Comprehensive Performance Assessment—Springboard or Dead-Weight? , 2004 .

[14]  J. Glynn,et al.  Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review , 1996 .

[15]  Raymond Dart,et al.  Being “Business-Like” in a Nonprofit Organization: A Grounded and Inductive Typology , 2004 .

[16]  C. Pollitt.  Is the Emperor In His Underwear? , 2000 .

[17]  Richard Hoefer,et al.  Accountability in Action?: Program Evaluation in Nonprofit Human Service Agencies , 2000 .

[18]  Marc Wouters,et al.  The role of existing measures in developing and implementing performance measurement systems , 2005 .

[19]  Antti Lönnqvist,et al.  Measurement of Intangible Success Factors: Case Studies on the Design, Implementation and Use of Measures , 2004 .

[20]  R. Paton,et al.  Managing and measuring social enterprises , 2003 .

[21]  A. Neely,et al.  Business performance measurement: Measuring performance: The operations perspective , 2002 .

[22]  T. J. Brignall,et al.  An Institutional Perspective on Performance Measurement and Management in the 'New Public Sector' , 2000 .

[23]  Mik Wisniewski,et al.  Performance measurement for stakeholders: the case of Scottish local authorities , 2004 .

[24]  Peter Green,et al.  Explaining continuity and change in the transition from Compulsory Competitive Tendering to Best Value for sport and recreation management , 2002 .

[25]  A. Neely,et al.  Measuring performance in a changing business environment , 2003 .

[26]  Åge Johnsen,et al.  What Does 25 Years of Experience Tell Us About the State of Performance Measurement in Public Policy and Management? , 2005 .

[27]  Andra Gumbus,et al.  A Three Year Journey to Organizational and Financial Health Using the Balanced Scorecard: A Case Study at a Yale New Haven Health System Hospital , 2003 .

[28]  K. McLaughlin.  Towards a 'modernized' voluntary and community sector? , 2004 .

[29]  David Campbell,et al.  Outcomes Assessment and the Paradox of Nonprofit Accountability , 2002 .

[30]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2004 .

[31]  Y. L. Chan,et al.  Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards , 2004 .

[32]  Umit S. Bititci,et al.  Dynamics of performance measurement systems , 2000, APMS.

[33]  Graham T Allison,et al.  Public and private management : are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? , 1988 .

[34]  A. Neely.  The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? , 1999 .

[35]  D. Larcker,et al.  Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. , 2003, Harvard business review.

[36]  Carol Propper,et al.  The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector , 2003 .

[37]  Umit Bititci,et al.  Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide , 1997 .

[38]  Andy Neely,et al.  Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems , 2000 .

[39]  R. Johnston,et al.  Performance Measurement in Service Businesses , 1992 .

[40]  J. Stewart,et al.  Management in the public domain , 1988 .

[41]  Zoe J. Radnor,et al.  Learning to Improve: Approaches to Improving Local Government Services , 2005 .

[42]  V. Subramaniam,et al.  « Public » and « Private » Administration , 1964 .

[43]  M. E. Kuwaiti.  Performance measurement process: definition and ownership , 2004 .

[44]  Jacob Eskildsen,et al.  Private versus public sector excellence , 2004 .

[45]  M. Lipsky,et al.  Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the Welfare State , 1989 .

[46]  Neil Carter,et al.  LEARNING TO MEASURE PERFORMANCE: THE USE OF INDICATORS IN ORGANIZATIONS , 1991 .

[47]  Robert Johnston,et al.  Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping strategies , 2008 .

[48]  Arthur Midwinter,et al.  Developing performance indicators for local government: The Scottish experience , 1994 .

[49]  Andy Neely,et al.  Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process‐based approach , 2000 .

[50]  J. Harrow,et al.  Comparing Thistles and Roses: The Application of Governmental–Voluntary Sector Relations Theory to Scotland and England , 2005 .

[51]  Andi Smart,et al.  Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems , 2001 .

[52]  Kathryn E. Newcomer,et al.  Measuring Government Performance , 2007 .

[53]  T. Bovaird,et al.  Performance management and accountability in complex public programmes , 1995 .

[54]  Kelvin F. Cross,et al.  The “SMART” way to define and sustain success , 1988 .

[55]  Claire Moxham,et al.  The impact of performance measurement in the voluntary sector: Identification of contextual and processual factors , 2007 .

[56]  Linda S. Lotto.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[57]  William C. Little.  Charities ready to play with the big boys but say 'let's be fair'. , 2005, The Health service journal.

[58]  Pietro Micheli,et al.  Performance measurement frameworks in public and non-profit sectors , 2005 .

[59]  Gerhard Speckbacher,et al.  The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations , 2003 .

[60]  Theodore H. Poister,et al.  Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations , 2003 .

[61]  Ben. Cairns,et al.  Improving performance? The adoption and implementation of quality systems in U.K. nonprofits , 2005 .

[62]  Mike,et al.  The Performance Prism , 2004 .

[63]  C. Hood.  A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .

[64]  C. Pollitt.  BEYOND THE MANAGERIAL MODEL: THE CASE FOR BROADENING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC SERVICES , 1986 .

[65]  A. Neely,et al.  The performance prism in practice , 2001 .

[66]  Rodney McAdam,et al.  Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multiple stakeholder complexity , 2005 .

[67]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[68]  Umit Bititci,et al.  Dynamics of performance measurement systems , 2000 .

[69]  Steve Mason,et al.  Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system , 2007 .