Responsive Evaluation and Performance Management
Overcoming the Downsides of Policy Objectives and Performance Indicators
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12567757 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter van der Knaap (0000-0003-4258-5310, Netherlands Court of Audit, The Hague, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 278-293 |
| Publication date | 2006-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Evaluation (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1356-3890 • E-ISSN: 1461-7153 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1356389006069135 |
| OpenAlex | W2129248492 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 15 |
Worldwide, governments are under increasing pressure to deliver results. There is general recognition of the importance of performance measurement and a results-oriented focus for effective public management. The shift from inputs to outputs and outcomes is accompanied by an increased use of performance indicators and policy targets. Critics point to the negative effects of static forms of performance-measuring and governance: simplification, resistance to change and a strategic use of indicators. They stress the need for an approach to governance that respects and is responsive to diversity and dynamism. Such an approach to public policy should recognize the importance of stakeholders’ opinions and motives and, hence, dialogue. Herein, policy evaluation can help by systematically questioning the validity of policy goals and performance indicators. Based upon recent experiences with results-oriented budgeting in the Netherlands, this article outlines a possible approach to a responsive, ‘verifying’ policy evaluation. Against the background of the traditional functions of evaluation in results-oriented management (assessing efficiency and effectiveness), the paradoxical nature of performance indicators is considered: on the one hand they are ‘frozen ambitions’, yet on the other they must facilitate dialogue and learning. Building on these attributes, a dynamic perspective on evaluation is put forward. In this, using information and insights from stakeholders, policy evaluation should explicitly question the validity of the policy objectives and performance indicators without compromising their value and significance altogether. In this way, the evaluator may fulfil the ambition of the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy evaluation: to help to raise the quality of dialogue and decision-making between stakeholders
Argumentative · Business · Corporate governance · Dynamism · Economics · Management · Management science · Performance indicator · Performance Management · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Process management · Public policy · Quality (philosophy · Computer Science · Disaster Management and Resilience · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Public Policy and Administration Research · Artificial Intelligence · Marketing
Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory
Responsive Evaluation in the Interference Zone Between System and Lifeworld
Evaluation Paradoxes
New local cultural policy evaluation methods in the Netherlands
Bringing accountability up to date with the realities of public sector management in the 21st century
Think Positively! And Make a Difference Through Evaluation
Urban water security indicators
Future-oriented impact assessment
Sense and complexity
Maximizing conservation evaluation utilization
Positive evaluation and learning
Impact evaluation with process tracing
Speaking truth to power
Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process
Standards-Based & Responsive Evaluation
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
Reframing Policy Discourse
Fourth-Generation Evaluation
Evaluation in Multi-Actor Policy Processes
Developing Critical Evaluation
Theory-Based Evaluation and Learning
Performance Management and Policy Evaluation in the Netherlands
Performance Measurement
Policy Evaluation and Learning
Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity
The Risk Game and the Blame Game
| Citations per year | 0.8 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2011 - 2025 (15) |
| Highly cited | No |