Exploring the Balancing Concept in the Design of a Performance Measurement System for Waste Water Treatment in the Netherlands

  • G. Jan van Helden
  • Remco J. Admiraal
Chapter

Abstract

Water boards in the Netherlands recently completed a sector-wide performance measurement and evaluation project for waste water treatment. The project is supposed to achieve two goals. First, it should strengthen the accountability of water boards to their main stakeholders, such as taxpayers and governmental policy makers. Water boards are (partly) regional monopolies, and they are legally able to raise taxes for funding their activities. Therefore, they wish to show that they deliver value for money. Second, the project is supposed to identify relationships between various performance indicators, in order to provide information to enable individual water boards to improve their performance.

Keywords

Waste Water Treatment Performance Indicator Customer Satisfaction Waste Water Treatment Plant Performance Measurement System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen Consulting and VEWIN (1997), Water in zicht; benchmarking in de drinkwatersector. Rijswijk: VEWIN.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur Andersen Business ConsultingNertis and Unie van Waterschappen (2001), Zuiver afvalwater; bedrijfsvergelijking zuiveringsbeheer 1999; summary: Pure waste water, benchmark waste water treatment 1999. Den Haag.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A.A., J.H. Waterhouse and R.B. Wells (1997), A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement, Sloan Management Review, Spring, 25–37.Google Scholar
  4. Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: the Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance. Milwaukee: Quality Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dijkstra, L. (1997), An Empirical Interpretation of the EFQM Framework, The European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6: 1, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eccles, R.G. (1991), The Performance Measurement Manifesto, Harvard Business Review, 69:1, 131–137. Emmanuel, C., D. Otley and K. Merchant (1990), Accounting for Management Control. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, M.J. and J.-F. Manzoni (1997), De Balanced Scorecard and Tableau de Bord; Translating Strategy into Action, Management Accounting, August, 28–36.Google Scholar
  8. Ezzamel, M. (1992), Business Unit and Divisional Performance Measurement. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Heemst, W.R. van, and Dekking, J.W.C. (1995), Waterschappen en hun bedrijfsvoering; naar een zo doelmatig mogelijke besteding van gemeenschapsgeld, Beleidsanalyse, 95: 1, 5–13.Google Scholar
  10. Helden, G.J. and P.E. Kamminga (1996), De Balanced Scorecard in non-profitorganisaties, Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfsadministratie, 100: 1196, 406–413.Google Scholar
  11. Helden, G.J. van (1998), A Review of the Policy and Management Instruments Project for Municipalities in the Netherlands, Financial Accountability and Management, 14: 2, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hood, C. (1995), The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20: 2 /3, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), Innovations in Performance Measurement; Trends and Research Implications, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205–238.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, H.T. and R.S. Kaplan (1987), Relevance Lost: the Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan (1998), Innovation Action Research: Creating New Management Theory and Practice, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 89–118.Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The Balanced Scorecard–Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, 70: 1, 71–79.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), The Balanced Scorecard; Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy, California Management Review, 4: Fall, 53–79.Google Scholar
  19. Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1995), Measure up: How to Measure Corporate Performance. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Nprreklit, H. (2000), The Balance on the Balanced Scorecard-a Critical Analysis of Some of its Assumptions, Management Accounting Research, 11: 1, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pollit, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000), Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Seghezzi, H.D. (2000), Quality Trends in the New Millennium; the Impact of the New ISO Standards and the Revised EFQM Excellence Model, European Quality, 7: 2, 4–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Jan van Helden
  • Remco J. Admiraal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations