Combining Participative Action Research with an Adapted House of Quality Framework for the Stakeholder Development of Performance Indicators in Local Government

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present and examine how a Participative Action Research (PAR) process and an adapted House of Quality framework were conjoined in the successful development of Performance Indicators for cultural precincts operated by two local government administrations. The use of such a combination has not previously been identified in literature or reported on in practice. The coalescing of PAR with a House of Quality (a quality function deployment framework) in these two empirical cases helps address a methodological gap in knowledge concerning how they may complement and enrich each other in order to generate participant learning, and generate practical outcomes that can underpin continuous and locally relevant service improvement. Through the use of this combination in these cases, public administrators appeared to demonstrate genuine community consultation and, with the community representatives involved, jointly identified, critically evaluated and prioritised a diverse set of community and agency expectations in determining Performance Indicators for their cultural precincts. PAR also underpinned stakeholders’ ownership of the outcomes and refinement of the House of Quality framework. Any difficulties in using this combination in this context are also discussed. Based on the outcomes of this study, we suggest that this combination may have conceptual and practical utility and generate similar benefits in multiple performance measurement development situations in other public organisations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Adiano C, Roth AV (1994) Beyond the house of quality: dynamic QFD. Benchmark Qual Manag Technol 1(1):25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Algeo C (2014) Exploring project knowledge acquisition and exchange through action research. Proj Manag J 45(3):46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badham RJ, Sense AJ (2001) You are the rats: action research, academic forums and the reflective practice of professional bricoleurs. In proceedings of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference, July, Lyon, France

  4. Bartels KPR (2015) Communicative capacity: public encounters in participatory theory and practice. Bristol University Press, Bristol, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  5. Battaglio RP, Hall JL (2018) A fistful of data: unpacking the performance predicament. Public Adm Rev 78(5):665–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bititci US, Garengo P, Ates A, Nudurupati SS (2015) Value of maturity models in performance measurement. Int J Prod Res 53(10):3062–3085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brackertz N, Meredyth D (2009) Community consultation in Victorian local government: a case of mixing metaphors? Aust J Public Adm 68(2):152–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brusca I, Montesinos V (2016) Implementing performance reporting in local government: a cross-countries comparison. Public Perform Manag Rev 39(3):506–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brydon M, Vining AR (2016) Combining citizen participation and expert analysis: a wild, wild horses problem in British Columbia. Local Gov Stud 42(1):75–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bürkland S, Zachariassen F (2014) Developing an ERP technology: handling incompleteness of the system. Scand J Manag 30(4):409–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavalluzzo KS, Ittner CD (2004) Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government. Acc Organ Soc 29(3):243–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cepiku D, Hinna A, Scarozza D, Savignon AB (2017) Performance information use in public administration: an exploratory study of determinants and effects. J Manag Gov 21(4):963–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chao LP, Ishii K (2004) Project quality function deployment. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 21(9):938–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen-Fu Y, Tung-Jung S (2016) Service design for social innovation through participatory action research. Int J Des 10(1):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chin KS, Pun KF, Leung WM, Lau H (2001) A quality function deployment approach for improving technical library and information services: a case study. Libr Manag 22(4/5):195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen HE, McQuestin D (2019) Community engagement in Australian local governments: a closer look and strategic implications. Local Gov Stud 45(4):453–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Conduit J, Matanda MJ, Mavondo FT (2014) Balancing the act: the implications of jointly pursuing internal customer orientation and external customer orientation. J Mark Manag 30(13–14):1320–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Digehsara AA, Rezazadeh H, Soleimani M (2018) Performance evaluation of project management system based on combination of EFQM and QFD. J Project Manag 3(4):171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dollery B, Wallis J (2001) Taxonomic analysis of government failure in local government. UNE working paper series in economics. University of New England, Armidale, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dooren WV, Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge, Abingdon, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dziak M (2016) New public management (NPM). Salem Press Encyclopedia, Salem Press, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Epstein P, Wray L, Harding C (2006) Citizens as partners in performance management. PM Public Manag 88(10):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  24. Evans JR (2008) Quality and performance excellence. Thomson Higher Education, Mason, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  25. Evans GL (2009) From cultural quarters to creative clusters: creative spaces in the new city economy. In: Legner M (ed) Sustainability and development of cultural quarters: international perspectives. Institute of Urban History, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  26. Evans JR, Lindsay WM (2011) Managing for quality and performance excellence. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fernández-Díaz E, Rodríguez-Hoyos C, Calvo Salvador A, Braga Blanco G, Fernández-Olaskoaga L. Gutiérrez-Esteban P (2018) Promoting a participatory convergence in a Spanish context: an inter-university action research project using visual narrative. Educ Action Res 27(3):362–378

  28. Galera AN, Rodríguez DO, López Hernández AM (2008) Identifying barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government. Public Manag Rev 10(2):241–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goetsch DL, Davis S (2013) Quality Management for Organizational Excellence: introduction to Total quality. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, N.J

    Google Scholar 

  30. Greatbanks R, Elkin G, Manville G (2010) The use and efficacy of anecdotal performance reporting in the third sector. Int J Product Perform Manag 59(6):571–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Greiner LE (1997) Evolution and revolution as organizations grow: a company's past has clues for management that are critical to future success. Fam Bus Rev 10(4):397–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gross M, Schulte-Römer N (2019) Remaking participatory democracy through experimental design. Sci Technol Hum Values 44(4):707–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hassani M, Shahin A, Kheradmandnia M (2018) Service quality function deployment by the C-shaped QFD 3D matrix: the case of post bank services. Benchmark: Int J 25(9):3386–3405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacobs R, Goddard M (2007) How do performance indicators add up? An examination of composite indicators in public services. Publ Money Manag 27(2):103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. James O (2011) Managing citizens' expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Publ Admin: Int Quart 89(4):1419–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jin J, Ji P, Liu Y, Johnson Lim SC (2015) Translating online customer opinions into engineering characteristics in QFD: a probabilistic language analysis approach. Eng Appl Artif Intell 41:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kelleher J, McAuliffe E (2012) Developing clinical governance in a service for people with intellectual disabilities: an action research approach. Clin Govern: Int J 17(4):287–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Knowles G, Antony J, Preece D (2002) Part II: quality improvement tools and techniques for the twenty-first century: chapter 3: QFD. In: Antony J, Preece D (eds) . Understanding, Managing & Implementing Quality, Routledge, Abingdon, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kumar V, Pansari A (2016) Competitive advantage through engagement. J Mark Res 53(4):497–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee RG, Dale BG (1998) Policy deployment: an examination of the theory. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 15(5):520–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee JH, Phaal R, Lee SH (2013) An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(2):286–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Social Issues II(4):34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. MacIntosh R (2001) Practice based research: understanding the role of the academic. In proceedings of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference, July, Lyon, France

  44. McTaggart R (1997) Reading the collection. and, Guiding principles for participatory action research. In: McTaggart R (ed) Participatory action research: international contexts and consequences. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 1–44

    Google Scholar 

  45. Menser M (2018) We decide! Theories and cases in participatory. Temple University Press, Democracy

    Google Scholar 

  46. Moxham C (2009) Performance measurement: examining the applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit organisations. Int J Oper Prod Manag 29(7):740–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Norouzian-Maleki S, Bell S, Hosseini SB, Faizi M (2015) Developing and testing a framework for the assessment of neighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecol Indic 48(January):263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Obradovic V, Bjelica D, Petrovic D, Mihic M, Todorovic M (2016) Whether we are still immature to assess the environmental KPIs! Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Ltd, Panama

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pansari A, Kumar V (2017) Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. J Acad Mark Sci 45(3):294–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Paré G, Raymond L, de Guinea AO, Poba-Nzaou P, Trudel MC, Marsan J, Micheneau T (2014) Barriers to organizational adoption of EMR systems in family physician practices: a mixed-methods study in Canada. Int J Med Inform 83:548–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Parmenter D (2010) Key performance indicators: developing, implementing and using winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J

    Google Scholar 

  52. Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics, Berrett-Koehler publishers. USA, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  53. Phillips P, Louvieris P (2005) Performance measurement systems in tourism, hospitality, and leisure small medium-sized enterprises: a balanced scorecard perspective. J Travel Res 44(2):201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Politis JD (2003) QFD: the role of various leadership styles. Leadersh Org Dev J 24(4):181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Porter L, Barber A (2007) Planning the cultural quarter in Birmingham's eastside. Eur Plan Stud 15(10):1327–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Prior J, Herriman J (2010) The emergence of community strategic planning in New South Wales, Australia: influences, challenges and opportunities. Commonwealth J Local Govern 7:45–77

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pyrko I, Dörfler V, Eden C (2017) Thinking together: what makes communities of practice work? Hum Relat 70(4):389–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schulz R, Sense A, Pepper M (2018) Conceptualising a framework for effective performance measurement in cultural precinct development and operation. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77(1):35–49

  59. Taylor M, Taylor A (2014) Performance measurement in the third sector: the development of a stakeholder-focussed research agenda. Prod Plan Control 25(16):1370–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Townsend A (2013) Action research: the challenges of understanding and changing practice. Open University Press, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tucker M, Pitt M (2009) Customer performance measurement in facilities management. A strategic approach. Int J Product Perform Manag 58(5):407–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wadsworth Y (2001) The mirror, the magnifying glass, the compass and the map: facilitating participatory action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage Publications, London, pp 420–432

    Google Scholar 

  63. Walker M (2002) Customer-driven breakthroughs using QFD and policy deployment. Manag Decis 40(3):248–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Whitford AB (2008) A test of the political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information. Ration Soc 20(4):445–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yuen T, Park AN, Seifer SD, Payne-Sturges D (2015) A systematic review of community engagement in the US Environmental Protection Agency's extramural research solicitations: implications for research funders. Am J Public Health 105(12):e44–e52

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Sense.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulz, R., Sense, A. & Pepper, M. Combining Participative Action Research with an Adapted House of Quality Framework for the Stakeholder Development of Performance Indicators in Local Government. Syst Pract Action Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09534-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Participative action research
  • House of quality
  • Performance indicators
  • Local government