Performance Management in Public Administration

  • Vuokko KohtamäkiEmail author
  • Åsa Olsson
Living reference work entry



Accountability: managers are held responsible for carrying out a defined set of duties or tasks, and for conforming with rules and standards applicable to their post

Goal: the result or achievement toward which effort is directed

Inputs: factors that are exogenous in the framework comprising capital and labor

Milestones: sub-objectives or stages into which a program or project is divided for monitoring and measurement of work performance

Objectives: the purpose for which information is required, stated within the context of the program, research problem, or hypotheses that gave rise to the need for information

Outputs: goods or services produced by government agencies

Outcomes: the impacts on social, economic, or other indicators arising from the delivery of outputs


The purpose of this chapter is to provide insights into the underlying principles of performance management in the field of public administration...

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


  1. de Boer H, Jongbloed B, Benneworth P, Cremonini L, Kolster R, Kottmann A, Lemmens-Krug K, Vossensteyn H (2015) Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Report for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Center for Higher Education Policy StudiesGoogle Scholar
  2. Harman K, Treadgold E (2007) Changing patterns of governance for Australian universities. High Educ Res Dev 26(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hazelkorn E (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, London. ISBN 978-1-137-44666-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hope KR (2013) Performance contracting as a performance management tool in the public sector in Kenya: lessons of learning. Teach Public Adm 31:1–14Google Scholar
  5. Jacobsen CB, Andersen LB (2014) Performance management in the public sector: does it decrease or increase innovation and performance? Int J Public Adm 37(14):1011–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meek VL, Davies D (2009) Policy dynamics in higher education and research: concepts and observations. In: Meek VL, Teichler U, Kearney ML (eds) Higher education, research and innovation: research and knowledge 2001–2009. International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel, Kassel, pp 41–84Google Scholar
  7. Pollitt C (2006) Performance management in practice: a comparative study of executive agencies. J Public Adm Res Theory 16(1):25–44. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2004) Public management reform: a comparative analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Shih-Chang H, Whittington R (2011) Agency in national innovation systems: institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Res Policy 40:526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Taylor J, Baines C (2012) Performance management in UK universities: implementing the balanced scorecard. J High Educ Policy Manag 34(2):111–124. Scholar
  11. Van de Walle S (2011) New public management: restoring the public trust through creating distrust? In: Christensen T, Lægreid P (eds) Ashgate research companion to new public management. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 309–320Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Higher Education GroupUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  3. 3.Research, Development & Innovation at L H Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and ManagementUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia