Performance measurement systems in Universities: A critical review of the Italian System

This research focuses on the development of performance measurement systems (PMS) in universities and discusses a possible move toward international harmonization. To this end, the case of Italy is examined. In particular, the new regulation issued by the national Agency (ANVUR) is examined and compared with the guidelines provided by the IPSASB, in the aim of shedding light on the gap between the Italian guidelines and the approach proposed at international level by the IPSASB. IPSASB guidelines represent a good reference for a harmonized PMS across EU member-States. Results evidence that the Italian guidelines fall short of the approach followed on the international scene, reducing international comparability and transparency.

[1]  Peter C Smith,et al.  On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector , 1995 .

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

[3]  Marc Holzer,et al.  The Performance–Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement , 2006 .

[4]  I. Sanderson,et al.  Performance Management, Evaluation and Learning in ‘Modern’ Local Government , 2001 .

[5]  I. Lapsley,et al.  Foreword: Transforming Universities: The Uncertain, Erratic Path , 2004 .

[6]  Tatiana Sotirakou,et al.  Utilizing performance measurement to modernize the Greek public sector , 2006 .

[7]  Tomi J. Kallio,et al.  Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation , 2014 .

[8]  Suresh Cuganesan,et al.  The Riskiness of Public Sector Performance Measurement: A Review and Research Agenda , 2014 .

[9]  Célio A. A. Sousa,et al.  Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations , 2010 .

[10]  Sven Modell,et al.  Goals versus institutions: the development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector , 2003 .

[11]  Jane Broadbent,et al.  Performance management systems: A conceptual model , 2009 .

[12]  Robert D. Behn,et al.  Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures , 2003 .

[13]  I. Brusca,et al.  Performance Measurement in Italian and Spanish Local Governments: Comparative Policy Analysis , 2017 .

[14]  Irvine Lapsley,et al.  The NPM Agenda: Back to the Future , 2008 .

[15]  Wouter Van Dooren,et al.  Performance Information in the Public Sector , 2008 .

[16]  Maria Barrados,et al.  Improving Program Results Through the Use of Predictive Operational Performance Indicators , 2013 .

[17]  E. Nito,et al.  Dealing with knowledge in the Italian public universities , 2013 .

[18]  F. V. Schaik.  Materiality in government auditing , 2010 .

[19]  J. Christopher,et al.  Tensions Arising from Imposing NPM in Australian Public Universities: A Management Perspective , 2015 .

[20]  John Martin,et al.  Strategic performance management: A balanced approach to performance management issues in local government , 2000 .

[21]  F. King Alexander,et al.  The Changing Face of Accountability , 2000 .

[22]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Performance Management in the Public Sector , 2015 .

[23]  G. Bouckaert,et al.  Public productivity measurement: diseases and cures , 1991 .

[24]  William C. Rivenbark,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Performance Management Systems , 2012 .

[25]  P. Julnes,et al.  Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation , 2001 .

[26]  I. Brusca,et al.  The harmonization of government financial information systems: the role of the IPSASs , 2007 .

[27]  R. Scapens,et al.  Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems , 2012 .

[28]  Dorothea Greiling.  Performance measurement in the public sector: the German experience , 2005 .

[29]  William C. Rivenbark,et al.  Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project , 2008 .

[30]  Tomi J. Kallio,et al.  Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities , 2016 .

[31]  C. Hood.  The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme , 1995 .

[32]  Chuen Tse Kuah,et al.  Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis , 2011, WCIT.

[33]  S. van Thiel,et al.  The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector , 2002 .

[34]  David Otley,et al.  The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis , 2009 .

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

[36]  Michela Arnaboldi,et al.  Constructing performance measurement in the public sector , 2010 .

[37]  L. Torres,et al.  PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN SPANISH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. A CROSS-CASE COMPARISON STUDY , 2011 .

[38]  J. C. Higgins,et al.  Performance measurement in universities , 1989 .

[39]  Jarmo Vakkuri,et al.  The life-cycle approach to performance management: Implications for public management and evaluation , 2012 .

[40]  Christopher D. Ittner,et al.  Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government , 2004 .

[41]  C. S. Jones,et al.  POWER, POLITICS AND THE JARRATT PROPOSALS FOR ACCOUNTING IN BRITISH UNIVERSITIES , 1991 .

[42]  Steven Van de Walle,et al.  Performance information in the public sector: how it is used , 2008 .

[43]  Christopher Pollitt,et al.  The logics of performance management , 2013 .

[44]  Karl-Heinz Leitner,et al.  Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities , 2004 .

[45]  Natalia Aversano,et al.  Advancing Performance Measurement: Italian Local Government vis-à-vis the IPSASB Project , 2015 .