This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Feller, I. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Performance Measurement Redux

American Association for the Advancement of Science and Pennsylvania State University, 2217 Earth & Engineering Sciences, University Park, PA 16802, USA, iqf{at}psu.edu

Recent developments in the United States in the use of performance measurement in science policy and higher education are used to comment further on the Perrin-Bernstein-Winstondebate about the effective use and misuse of performance measurement. Particular attention is given to the influence of political/organizational factors and the production processes of agencies on how performance measures are constructed and used. The analysis points to further limitations in the use of performance measurement. In both cases, long-gestating, probabilistic linkages between outputs and outcomes limit the usefulness of mainstream indicators as a measure of current agency performance and as a guide to major, discontinuous resource allocation decisions. Conspicuously absent from many performance measurement undertakings are provisions for evaluating the impact of the undertakings themselves. An updated account of the status of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicates that the Act has not had the impacts predicted for it.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 23, No. 4, 435-452 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400202300405


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Benjamin Evaluator's Role in Accountability Relationships: Measurement Technician, Capacity Builder or Risk Manager? Evaluation, July 1, 2008; 14(3): 323 - 343. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. B. Nielsen and N. Ejler Improving Performance?: Exploring the Complementarities between Evaluation and Performance Management Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 171 - 192. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Mayne Challenges and Lessons in Implementing Results-Based Management Evaluation, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 87 - 109. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Lehtonen Deliberative Democracy, Participation, and OECD Peer Reviews of Environmental Policies American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2006; 27(2): 185 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Molas-Gallart and A. Davies Toward Theory-Led Evaluation: The Experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2006; 27(1): 64 - 82. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Lehtonen OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme: Accountability (f)or Learning? Evaluation, April 1, 2005; 11(2): 169 - 188. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Sutherland Creating a Culture of Data Use for Continuous Improvement: A Case Study of an Edison Project School American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 2004; 25(3): 277 - 293. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. P. Voytek, K. L. Lellock, and M. A. Schmit Developing Performance Metrics for Science and Technology Programs: The Case of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Economic Development Quarterly, May 1, 2004; 18(2): 174 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. M. Mark From the Editor American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2003; 24(2): 133 - 136. [PDF]