IT Helps the Italian Army to Implement a Performance Management System

  • Armando Suppa
  • Alessandro Zardini
  • Salvatore Alessandro Sarcià
Conference paper


Over the last years, Italian public administrations have been involved in a long-term reform process with the aim of “reinventing” the public sector in accordance with new public management principles. The Italian Army, along with other public organizations, has been engaged in the implementation of a performance management system as stated by Italian law 150/2009. Information Technology (IT) has played an invaluable role during this process. The Italian Army is still developing a business intelligence tool to support its strategic activities. This article investigates on how Italian Army strategies can contribute to the success of implementing an effective performance management systems.


Business Intelligence Financial Planning Performance Management System Business Intelligence Solution Military Hierarchy 
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.


  1. 1.
    Hood, C. (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons’. Public Administration, 69 (1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capano, G. (2003). Administrative Traditions and Policy Change: When Policy Paradigms Matter. The Case of Italian Administrative Reform during the 1990s’. Public Administration, 81(4) 781–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouckaert, G. and Van Dooren, W. (2009). Performance Measurement and Management in public sector organizations. In Public Management and Governance, 2d ed. editor by Bovaiard T. and Loffler, E., Routledge New York, 151–164.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Paolo, A. (2007). l’introduzione del New Public Management e della Balanced Scorecard nel processo di riforma dell’Amministrazione pubblica italiana, Economia Pubblica, 3–4, 156–179.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance, international comparison. Routledge New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarcia’, S. A. (2010). Is GQM+Strategies Really applicable as is to non-software Development Domains?, IEEE/ESEM, Bolzano, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eccles, R. (1991). The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Business Review, January–February, 131–137.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brignall, T.J., and Ballantine, J.A. (1996). Performance measurement in service businesses revisited. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7 (1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan, R.S., and Norton D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard –measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Micheli, P. and Neely, A. (2010). Performance measurement in the UK’s public sector: searching for the golden thread. Public Administration Review, 70(4), pp. 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance 3, 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: the Anglo-American experience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkinson, A. A. and Mc Crindell, J. Q., (1997). Strategic performance measurement in government, CMA Magazine, 71(3), 20–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavalluzzo, K. S., and Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence From Government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(2), pp. 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diefenbach, T. (2009). New Public Management in Public Sector Organizations: The Dark Sides Of Managerialistic ‘Enlightenment’. Public Administration 87(4), 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J. (2005). New Public Management is Dead‐Long live Digital‐Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gualmini, E. (2008). Restructuring the Weberian bureaucracy: comparing managerial reforms in Europe and the United States. Public Administration, 86(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulmann, S. (2010). New Public Management for the Classical Continental European Administration: modernization at the local level in Germany, France and Italy. Public Administration 88 (4), 1116–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Avison, D. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (2003). Bringing social and organisational issues into information systems development: the story of multiview, in Socio-technical and human cognition elements of information systems. IGI Publishing: Hershey, USA. 5–21.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Army Report, (2009). Rivista Militare, Roma.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ministero della Difesa (2005). Nota aggiuntiva allo stato di previsione per la difesa per l’anno 2005. website
  24. 24.
    Ministero della Difesa (2011). Nota aggiuntiva allo stato di previsione per la difesa per l’anno 2005. website
  25. 25.
    T. DeMarco (1986). Controlling Software Projects: Management, Measurement, and Estimates. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armando Suppa
    • 1
  • Alessandro Zardini
    • 1
  • Salvatore Alessandro Sarcià
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia AziendaleUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemi e ProduzioneUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations