Drivers for performance improvement originating from the Dutch drinking water benchmark

The Dutch drinking water sector has been benchmarked every 3 years since 1997, and the sector has significantly improved performance since then.Based on interviews withCEOs and financial managers of drinkingwater companies five drivers for improvement as a result of this benchmark are identified: ‘learning effect’, ‘enhanced transparency’, ‘managed competition’, ‘avoidance of negative consequences’ and ‘personal honour of director’. Different developments have caused stagnation of further improvement: the variation on the benchmarked performance indicators has decreased, participation in the benchmark became mandatory for all Dutch drinking water supply organizations, it lacks a focus on the future, and participating organizations experience high financial pressure. These developments decrease the influence of the drivers. Four possible new impulses for the benchmark are identified and their influence on the effect of the drivers is analysed. The two most promising new impulses are tomake the benchmark adaptive and to involve consumers in the process of benchmarking, both have a positive influence on the effect of almost all drivers. This study contributes to the understanding of how benchmarking leads to improvement and to the analysis of the impact of design choices, leading to well-founded decisions for re-design of the Dutch drinking water benchmark.

[1]  Hans de Bruijn,et al.  Managing Performance in the Public Sector , 2002 .

[2]  Rejuvenating a Veteran Benchmarking Scheme: Benchmarking in the Dutch Drinking Water Sector , 2010 .

[3]  Robert C. Camp,et al.  Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance , 1989 .

[4]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Organizational Publicness And Its Implications For Strategic Management , 1993 .

[5]  Enrique Cabrera,et al.  Benchmarking water services: guiding water utilities to excellence. , 2010 .

[6]  J. Blank,et al.  Beter benchmarken : van cijfers naar informatie - met een toepassing op gemeentelijk afvalbeheer , 2011 .

[7]  Stewart Lawrence,et al.  Health management performance , 1995 .

[8]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  Dissemination: Handmaiden to Evaluation Use , 2007 .

[9]  R. Marques,et al.  Designing Incentives in Local Public Utilities: An International Comparison of the Drinking Water Sector , 2007 .

[10]  Okke Braadbaart,et al.  Collaborative benchmarking, transparency and performance: Evidence from The Netherlands water supply industry , 2007 .

[11]  Adrienne Curry,et al.  Benchmarking: achieving best value in public‐sector organisations , 2003 .

[12]  Stephen P. Osborne,et al.  The New Public Governance? 1 , 2006 .

[13]  Alexander Kouzmin,et al.  Towards learning for agency effectiveness , 1999 .

[14]  Melvin M. Mark,et al.  Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation’s Influence on Attitudes and Actions , 2003 .

[15]  Alexander Kouzmin,et al.  The Commercialization of the Australian Public Sector: Competence, Elitism or Default in Management Education? , 1994 .

[16]  Sandra Tillema,et al.  In Search of a Benchmarking Theory for the Public Sector , 2005 .

[17]  K.L.H. Wynn‐Williams,et al.  Performance Assessment and Benchmarking in the Public Sector: An Example from New Zealand , 2005 .

[18]  George Alexander Boyne,et al.  What is public service improvement , 2003 .

[19]  Harlow B. Cohen.  The performance paradox , 1998 .

[20]  F Bertzbach,et al.  How to achieve and prove performance improvement - 15 years of experience in German wastewater benchmarking. , 2012, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.