Abstract
Management literature has emphasized the importance of performance measurement systems (PMS) that are consistent with the organization’s context and strategy. However, little attention has been paid to factors that explain the design of PMS not adequately reflecting an organization’s business model. We use the case of Italian universities to highlight how performance-based funding impacts resource allocation systems of faculty positions to academic departments. The findings show a variety of PMS in use. Differences across systems arise from different strategies and priorities. We have limited evidence that the systems’ features can explain the disparities in research performance and funding, which suggest that part of the explanation may reside in the size of the organization or in the power of academic disciplines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To maintain anonymity, the university names have been replaced by letters.
References
Amigoni, F. (1992). Planning management control systems. In C. Emmanuel, D. Otley, & K. Merchant (Eds.), Readings in accounting for management control, part one (pp. 174–185). London: Chapman & Hall.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 470–489.
Berry, A., Coad, A., Harris, E., Otley, D., & Stringer, C. (2009). Emerging themes in management control: A review of recent literature. The British Accounting Review, 41(1), 2–20.
Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the British health care sector. Public Administration, 84, 517–538.
Bouckaert, G., & Balk, W. (1991). Public productivity measurement; diseases and cures. Public Productivity and Management Review, 15, 229–235.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London: Routledge.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
Bower, J. L., & Gilbert, C. (2005). From resource allocation to strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the “New Public Sector”. Management Accounting Research, 11, 281–306.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1364.
Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The three corners of the accountability triangle: Serving all submitting to none. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education (pp. 296–324). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432–453.
Burke, J. C., & Serban, A. M. (1997). Performance funding and budgeting for public higher education: Current status and future prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Chenhall, R. (2007). Theorising contingencies in management control research. In C. S. Chapman, A. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (pp. 163–206). Oxford: Elsevier.
De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578–594.
Dearden, J. (1971). What’s wrong with your financial control system (pp. 27–35). Paris: European Business.
Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms, what are the impacts?. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dougherty, K.J., & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In T. Bailey & V.S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51–86). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Ferreira, A., Otley, D. (2010). Design and use of management control systems: An analysis of the interaction between design misfit and intensity of use, Working paper, Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London: CIPFA.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organisational design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Govindarajan, V., & Fisher, J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 259–285.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.
Harnisch, T. (2011). Performance based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Higher Education Policy Brief. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges.
Huber, G. F. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Jacobs, K., Marcon, G., & Witt, D. (2004). Cost and performance information for doctors: An international comparison. Management Accounting Research, 15(3), 337–354.
Jones, D. P. (2012). Performance funding: From idea to action. Washington, DC: Complete College America.
Jongbloed, B. (2001). Performance based funding in higher education: an international review, Working paper no. 35, Monash University, ACER, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 58(1), 686–705.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Strategy and Leadership, 29(3), 41–42.
Lawson, R., Stratton, W., & Hatch, T. (2003). The benefits of a scorecard system. CMA Management, 77(4), 24–26.
Layzel, D. T. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233–246.
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469–489.
Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure up!: Yardsticks for continuos improvement. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., & Reily, R. R. (2003). Beyond the balance scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 187–204.
Massy, W. F. (Ed.). (1996). Resource allocation in higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McDonnel, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
Moynihan, D. P. (2009). Through a glass, darkly. Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.
Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Moynihan, D., & Ingraham, P. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use. Administration and Society, 36(4), 427–453.
Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.
Otley, D. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 413–428.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. New York: Penguin Books.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventors filedbook: Tools for transforming your government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organisational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.
Paranjiape, B., Rossiter, M., & Pantano, V. (2006). Performance measurement systems: Successes, failures and future—a review. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 4–14.
Pidd, M. (2005). Perversity in public service performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 482–493.
Simons, R. (1992). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives. In C. Emmanuel, D. Otley, & K. Merchant (Eds.), Readings in accounting for management control (pp. 622–645). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277–310.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tosi, H. R., Jr., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10, 9–26.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London: Routledge.
Wagoner, B., Neely, A. D., & Kennerley, M. P. (1999). The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Production Economics, 60–61(3), 53–60.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Francesconi, A., Guarini, E. (2018). Performance-Based Funding and Internal Resource Allocation: The Case of Italian Universities. In: Borgonovi, E., Anessi-Pessina, E., Bianchi, C. (eds) Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector. System Dynamics for Performance Management, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57018-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57018-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57017-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57018-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)