An outcome-based dynamic performance management approach to collaborative governance in crime control: insights from Malaysia

  • John Antony XavierEmail author
  • Carmine Bianchi


The paper analyzes Malaysia’s experience in crime control. It offers insights on how a whole-of-government perspective, underpinned by a dynamic outcome-based performance management system, or DPM, supports governments in bringing about progress in crime reduction. Although not exhaustive of all factors contributing to crime control, the paper argues that DPM can make collaboration in designing and implementing policies for crime control more effective, by enabling policy-makers frame causal links between strategic resources, performance drivers and outcomes. The feedback-loops underlying the crime-control system’s behavior should be governed in a way that enables policy-makers to build up a substantial and consistent endowment of strategic resources to affect sustainable outcomes. The deployment of these resources should help achieve—by affecting performance drivers, outputs, and intermediate outcomes—the ultimate outcome in crime control, namely, public perception of safety. The DPM approach applied to collaborative governance in crime control also suggests that policy-makers should build up and deploy strategic resources (most of which are intangible), such as political and administrative commitment, citizen participation, span of accountability, leadership, transparency, and trust. The mode of implementation can also influence success in crime control. Accordingly, a blend of top-down and bottom-up implementation and a culture of collaboration should also expedite crime reduction.


Dynamic performance management Community outcomes Crime control Malaysia Performance management and delivery unit Collaborative governance 



  1. Alford, J., Hartley, J., Yates, S., & Hughes, O. (2016). Into the Purple Zone: Deconstructing the politics/administration distinction, American Review of Public Administration, 1–17 (online first publication, 24 March).Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2012). Escaping capability traps through problem-driven iterative adaptation. Center for Global Development Working Paper 299, June 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2018.
  3. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, M. (2007). Instruction to deliver: Tony Blair, the public services and the challenge of achieving targets. London: Politico’s Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Behn, R. D. (2014). The performance potential. Washington, D.C: Brookings.Google Scholar
  6. Beyer, L. (1991). The logic and the possibilities of ‘wholistic’ community policing. In J. Vernon & S. McKillop (Eds.), The police and the community (pp. 89–106). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bianchi, C. (2010). Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through system dynamics modeling: From an ‘external’ to an ‘internal’ perspective. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 27, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchi, C. (2016). Dynamic performance management. Zurich: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bianchi, C., Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2017). Applying a dynamic performance management framework to wicked issues: How coproduction helps to transform young people’s services in Surrey County Council, UK. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(10), 833–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bianchi, C., & Peters, B. G. (2018). Measuring coordination and coherence: Assessing performance across the public sector. In E. Borgonovi, E. Anessi-Pessina, & C. Bianchi (Eds.), Outcome-based performance management in the public sector. Zurich: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. (2014). Performance management in local government: The application of system dynamics to promote data use. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bianchi, C., & Williams, D. W. (2015). Applying system dynamics modeling to foster a cause-and-effect perspective in dealing with behavioral distortions associated with a city’s performance measurement programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 8(3), 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bianchi, C., & Xavier, J. (2016). The design and execution of performance management systems at state level: A comparative analysis of Italy and Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration. Scholar
  14. Blumstein, A. (2002). Crime modeling. Operations Research, 50(1), 16–24. Scholar
  15. Borgonovi, E., Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. (2019). Pursuing community resilience through outcome-based public policies: Challenges and opportunities for the design of performance management systems. Public Organization Review, 19, 153–158. Scholar
  16. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance., International Comparisons London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 2007, 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bovaird, T., & Loffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bryson, J. M., Berry, F. S., & Yang, K. (2010). The state of public strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clarke, A., & Fuller, M. (2011). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(Supplement 1), 85–101. Scholar
  22. Crosby, B., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davison, N. (2016). The whole-of-government reforms in New Zealand. London: Institute for Government.Google Scholar
  24. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department (EPU). (2018). 2017 national transformation programme annual report. Putrajaya: Government Printers.Google Scholar
  26. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ganapathy, N. (2000). Conceptualising community policing, crime prevention and criminology: A Singapore perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2). Retrieved May 17, 2018, from
  29. Ghaffarzadegan, N., Lyneis, J., & Richardson, G. P. (2011). How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 22–44.Google Scholar
  30. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing. A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 234–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haron, S. H., Roosli, R., & Kamal, E. M. (2012). Crime prevention and community safety in Malaysia from territorial functioning perspectives: An updated review. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(3), 42.Google Scholar
  32. Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘Culture of Now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41, 232–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Homel, P. (2005). A short history of crime prevention in Australia. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47(2), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Homel, R., & Homel, P. (2012). Implementing crime prevention: Good governance and a science of implementation. In C. Brandon, W. Farrington, & D. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 423–445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ishak, S. (2016). Perceptions of people on police efficiency and crime prevention in urban areas in Malaysia. Economics World, 4(5), 243–248. Scholar
  37. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Boston: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2017). Blue ocean shift. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  39. Mac Donald, R., & Mojtahedzadeh, M. (2015). Criminal justice simulation model (CJSIM): Technology and the flow of criminals in the criminal justice system, system dynamics conference proceedings.
  40. Mayhew, P., & Reilly, J. (2007). Community safety: Findings from the New Zealand crime & safety survey 2006. New Zealand Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand (ISBN 978-0-478-29043-8). Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
  41. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newsome, I. (2008). Using system dynamics to model the impact of policing activity on performance. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(2), 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osborne, S. (2010). The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. PEMANDU (2014). 2013 Annual Report. Putrajaya: PEMANDU. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from
  45. PEMANDU (2015). 2014 National Transformation Programme Annual Report. Putrajaya: PEMANDU. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from
  46. PEMANDU (2017). 2016 National Transformation Programme Annual Report. Putrajaya: PEMANDU. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from
  47. Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of coordination. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  48. Plessis, A., & Louw, A. (2005). Crime and crime prevention in South Africa: 10 years after. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47(2), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ramadass, S., Sambasivan, M., & Xavier, J. A. (2018). Collaboration outcomes in a public sector: Impact of governance, leadership, interdependence and relational capital. Journal of Management and Governance. Scholar
  50. Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), 621–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanger, M. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68, S70–S85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SNPC (2015). Singapore National Crime Prevention Council. (2014). Singapore National Crime Prevention Council Annual Report 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from
  53. Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Department of Justice (2014). FY 2014 performance budget congressional submission. Retrieved January 18, 2016, from
  55. Van Dijk, J. (2008). The world of crime: Breaking the silence on problems of security, justice and development across the world. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Vignieri, V. (2018). Framing the sources of image of a local area through outcome-based dynamic performance management. Public Organization Review, 19(2), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. von Hirsch, A., Garland, D., & Wakefield, Al (Eds.). (2000). Ethical and social perspectives on situational crime prevention. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Wheat, D. I., & Bardach, E. (2017). Disappointing outcomes: Can implementation modeling help? System Dynamics for Performance Management Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector. Scholar
  59. Wolstenholme, E. (1999). Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: The evolving balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society. Scholar
  60. Xavier, J. A. (2014). A diagnostic approach to performance management: The case of the performance management and delivery unit of Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration. Taylor and Francis. Published online: 06 Nov 2014.
  61. Xavier, J. A., Siddiquee, N. A., & Mohamed, M. Z. (2016). The government transformation programme of Malaysia: A successful approach to public service reform. Public Money & Management, 36(2), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Putra Business SchoolSerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Political SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations