Resultados de la encuesta aplicada al personal docente de la ESPOCH

This part of the literature study first addresses performance measurement and pos- sible perverse effects of performance measurement. Subsequently, three development methods for performance indicators are discussed and a number of key issues in the development of performance measurement systems are addressed.

The purpose of performance measurement and performance indicators is to provide information/feedback on past performance and determine if objectives and strategic targets are met (Moullin, 2007). Furthermore, it can provide an indication of future performance. Subsequently, this knowledge can be used to manage organizations and adjust strategies. Neely defined performance measurement as “the process of quan- tifying the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions” (Neely, 2002). Moulin defined performance measurement as “evaluating how well organisations are managed and the value they deliver for customers and other stakeholders” (Moullin, 2007). The first def- inition is rather abstract compared to the second definition, which relates past perform- ance strictly to the management of organizations and delivered value to customers and other stakeholders. Multiple definitions on (key) performance indicators can be found in literature:

• A performance indicator is a variable indicating the effectiveness and/or effi- ciency of a part or whole of the process or system against a given norm or plan (Fortuin, 1988).

• A performance indicator is a measure used to provide information about the per- formance of the process or product and the degree to which its objectives are achieved, whilst a key performance indicator (KPI) can be defined as being a mea- sure of a factor critical to success” (Haponava and AlJibouri, 2010).

• A performance indicator is a quantitative representation of an aspect of a system or environment that can be used to measure and trace performance (Vrolijket al., 2003).

• Key performance indicators reflect a set of measures on those aspects of organ- izational performance that are the most critical for the organization. Whereas Key Result Indicators (KRIs) measure the performance of the past, provide KPI’s

CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE STUDY

information you what to do to increase performance dramatically (Parmenter, 2010).

Reflecting on the above standing definitions one can state that a performance in- dicator provides information on, or an indication of past performance. Furthermore, the definition of Parmenter is not in line with the other definitions as he states that a performance indicator providing information on what to do to increase performance instead of providing information on past performance.

Perverse effects of performance measurement The information past performance ob- tained from performance indicators and performance measurement in general can be used in a number of ways, for example: 1) to compare with pre-set targets (Fortuin, 1988), 2) to provide a ground for discussing and comparison with related results (Vrolijk et al., 2003; Perrin, 1998), 3) to manage internal processes in the organization (Haponava and AlJibouri, 2010), and 4) to avoid intuitive decision making (Haponava and AlJi- bouri, 2010). According to de Bruijn, the four most cited functions of performance mea- surement, in increasing order of impact are: 1) providing transparency, 2) encourage learning, 3) enabling possibilities for control measures and 4) judgement based on per- formance measurement (de Bruijn, 2006). De Bruijn indicates that the amount of impact should be balanced. If the impact of performance measurement is too small, there will be insufficient stimulation for improvement. An impact that is too large on the other hand, will lead to perverse effects of performance measurement. Possible perverse ef- fects of performance measurement, especially in the public sector, can (de Bruijn, 2006):

• lead to strategic behaviour, also known as gaming of the numbers,

• dispel the professional habitus in which decisions are made based on professional judgement,

• block ambitions as a result of creaming and cherry picking,

• conceal the real delivered performance by over aggregation of information and the hardness of numbers, and

• block innovation through the focus on optimisation of existing processes an min- imisation of throughput (de Bruijn, 2006; Perrin, 1998).

To balance the amount of impact of the KPI IFP it is recommended to use its results to provide transparency and encourage learning based on the results of the measure- ment, which act as a ground for discussion. The result of the KPI can probably also be used to check if the 2.5 percent ambition of the national government is achieved for RWS, although the results are mostly the effect on how the KPI measures the spendings on IFP and the results of a single measurement are therefore less relevant. Moreover, the target should be set based on the results of a reference measurement, which currently is not the case. The results on the relative spending of IFP over a number of years on the other hand, can provide an indication of the use and importance of IFP within RWS.

According to de Bruijn, possible perverse effects can be further reduced using three design principles for performance measurement: Interaction, variety and dynamics (de Bruijn, 2006). Interaction between the management and other employees is essen- tial for the creation of support and acceptance of performance measurement systems. This interaction provides the possibility to make a balanced trade-off made between the values of managers and the values of employees.Varietyin performance indicators is necessary to incorporate the multiplicity and complexity of goals and trade-offs of made by employees. Furthermore, the performance indicators need to develop over time to incorporate new insights. The last design principle isdynamics, which assumes that performance measurement should be a mix of product and process oriented per- formance measures that takes the dynamics of the profession into account.