(Mayne and Zapico-Goni, 1999: 11) Nutley and Osborne (1994: 121) () (performance appraisal) () (performance monitoring) () (performance ex-post evalua

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "(Mayne and Zapico-Goni, 1999: 11) Nutley and Osborne (1994: 121) () (performance appraisal) () (performance monitoring) () (performance ex-post evalua"

侵勘酆
7 years ago
Views:

1 89

2 (Mayne and Zapico-Goni, 1999: 11) Nutley and Osborne (1994: 121) () (performance appraisal) () (performance monitoring) () (performance ex-post evaluation) () (performance indicators) () (performance management) 00 ( 94, 5, 19, 90

3 A3 ) Peter F. Drucker (MBO) (Drucker, 1995) ( 88) ( ) ( 82:14-16) (goal congruence) 91

4 (performance measurement criteria) (incentives) ( 91) Eccles (1991) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 88) R. Kaplan (balanced score card, BSC) Kaplan BSC (EVA) (CRM) (VC) (MIS) ( 91) ( 91: 6) () () 92

5 () () (supply chain) (build-to-order, BTO) Kaplan and Norton (1992) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Kaplan and Norton (1993) (process reengineering) (total quality) (employee empowerment) 93

6 Kaplan and Norton (1996) () () () () (strategic learning) 94

7 Kaplan and Norton (2001) (stakeholder) key performance indication KPI (HEW, 1969:07; MacRae, 1986: 132) (TQM) input output

8 (KPI) ( ) 96

9 () /

10 98 mission statement (Social Capital Theory) ( ) ( 82) administrative performance efficiency economy administrative productivity (OECD,1995)

11 (89) ( ( ) ( ) (55) Tankersley (2000: 288-9) (1). (2). (3). (4). (5). (1). (2). 99

12 (3). (4). (5). ( Boyle, Lemaire, and Rist, 1999) Gianakis and McCue (1997: 257-8) (1) (2) (3) (TQM) Dunn (1981) (effectiveness) (efficiency) ( adequacy) ( equity) responsiveness) ( appropriateness) (84) (90) W. Dunn (1981) Saaty (1980) (Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP) Nutt and Backoff (1992) 100

13 (relevance tree) (82) (90: 36) 101

14 (Franklin, Cawley, and O Sullivan-Kachel, 1998) (Rivenbark, 2000: 22-3) Wholey (1999) Rossi, et. al. (1999: 85) (criteria or standards) ( ) ( 88166) (Martin and Kettner, 1996) Wang (2002) 102

15 () ( 89) INTA ( ) 9. ( ) 10. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 103

16 () a. / b. / c. d. e. / () a. / b. c. d. () a. b. c. d. e. () a. b. c. d. e. f. () a. b. c. / d. / e. f. () a. / b. c. d. e. f ( ) ( ) / Edvinsson and Malone (1997) ( ) (90) 104

17 (90) (90)

18 2004 ( ) () a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. () a. b. c. d. e. f. () a. b. c. d. e f. () a. b. c. d. e. f. + g. ( )h. ( ) () a. b. c. d. e. f. g. () a. b. c. d. e. f. () a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. () a. b. c. d. e. f. 106

19 ( A13 ) (94) GDP

20 108 80% 60% ( 9013) ( ) 50%

21 (National Performance Review, NPR) (Government Performance and Result Act of 1993, GPRA) 109

22 110 / / / / /

23 X W i i i W i =

24 7.7-1 (PSI>100) (91) (BSC) (performance measurement) Dobelstein(1990: 97-98) (Donald, et. al., 1992: 89-93) (aggregate measures) ( 83403) 112

25 () ( )

26 ( ) ( ) Z Z (Key Performance Indication, KPI) ( 8327) (+) (-) (-) (-) (-) / () (-) / () (-) (+) () (+) () () (-) (+) () () (-) 114

27 65 ( ) () (+) (-) (+) (-) (-) (-) (+) (+) (+) + (+) (+) / (-) + (+) - (+) (-) - km 2 (+) (+) - (+) (+) - (-) (-) (+) (-) (-) () 115

28 ( )*

29 ( )*

30 118

31 ( )*

32 ( )*

33 121

34 122

36 Ho and Coates (2004) (Urban Institute) (the International City/County Management Association) (GASB) (the Governmental 124

37 Finance Officers Association) O toole and Stipak (2002) 1990 ( 90)Feller (2002) Williams (2004) ( 91: 66) Julnes and Holzer (2001: 703) Ho and Coates (2004) (the Model of Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment) Coplin, Merget, and Bourdeaux (2002: 704) (89) 125

38 126

39 (88) I Golembiewski (91) (94) ( ) (88) Leif Edvinsson and Michael S. Malone (84) () (91) (90) (89) 55 (90) 127

40 128 (91) (Harvard Business Review: Measuring Corporate Performance) (93) (94) (89) (91) (82) (90) (94) KPI / (90) (93) (93) (82) (91) (91) (89)

41 Boyle, R., D. Lemaire, and R. Rist. (1999). Introduction: Building Evaluation Capacity. in Building Effective Evaluation Capacity: Lessons from Practice. R. Boyle and D. Lemaire (eds). NJ: Transaction. Coplin, W., A. Merget, and C. Bourdeaux. (2002). The Professional Researcher as Change-Agent in the Government-Performance Movement. Public Administration Review, 62(6): Dobelstein, A. W. (1990). Social Welfare: Policy and Analysis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Donald, E., K. Wedel, andm. Rodwell (1992). Evaluating Social Programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Drucker, P. (1995). (Harvard Business Review: Measuring Corporate Performance) Dunn, W. (1981). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Eccles, R. (1991). (Harvard Business Review: Measuring Corporate Performance) Feller, I. (2002). Performance Measurement Redux. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4): Franklin, A. L., M. M. Cawley, and P. O Sullivan-Kachel (1998). Renovations and Innovations in Program Evaluation: The Arizona Experience and its Potential for More Widespread Applicability. Public Performance & Management Review, 22(1): Gianakis G. and C. McCue. (1997) Local Government Capacity Building through Performance Measurement. in Handbook of Local Government Administration, J. Gargan (ed.). NY: Marcel Dekker. HEW(U.S. Repartment of Health, Education, and Welfare) (1969). Toward a Social 129

42 Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ho, A. and P. Coates (2004). Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: the Initial Iowa Experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3): Julnes, P. and M. Holzer (2001). Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organization: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6): Kaplan, R. and D. Norton. (1992). (Harvard Business Review: Measuring Corporate Performance) (1993). (Harvard Business Review: Measuring Corporate Performance) (1996). The Balanced Scorecard- Translating Strategy into Action. Mass: Harvard Business School (2001). The Strategy-Focused organization. Mass: Harvard Business School. MacRae, Jr. D. (1986). Democratic Information Systems: Policy Indicators and Public Statistics. in Policy Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts, and Methods. W. Dunn (eds.). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Martin L. and P. Kettner (1996). Measuring the Performance of Human Service Programs. CA: Sage. Mayne, J. and E. Zapico-Goni (1999). Effective Performance Monitoring: A Necessary Condition for Public Sector Reform. in Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience. Mayne J. and Zapico-Goni (eds). NJ: Transaction. Nutley S. and S. Osbornes (1994). Public Sector Management Handbook: A Practical Guide. NY: Pearson Professional Education. OECD, (1995). Budgeting for Results: Perspectives on Public Expenditure 130

43 Management. Paris: OECD. O toole D. and B. Stipak. (2002). Productivity Trends in Local Government Budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4): Rivenbark, W. C. (2000). The Role of Capital Cost in Performance Measurement and Benchmarking. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(1): Rossi, P., H. Freeman, and M. Lipset (1999). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6 th edition CA: Sage. Tankersley, W. (2000). The Impact of External Control Arrangements on Organizational Performance. Administration & Society, pp Thiel, S. and F. Leeuw. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3): Wang, X. (2002). Assessing Performance Measurement Impact: A Study of U.S. Local Governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1): Wholey, J. S. (1999). Foreword. in Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector. J. Mayne and E. Zapico-Goni (eds). NJ: Transaction. Williams, D. W. (2004). Evolution of Performance Measurement until Administration & Society, 36(2):

44 The Performance Appraisal for Four County or Municipal Governments in TaoChuMiao Area, Taiwan Edward K. Hwang Abstract As the core element of TQM, performance appraisal has to collect and analyze the service outputs. The main critic to governments is their focusing only on inputs but ignoring outputs. Since the goal of governmental reengineering is to construct the new governments with the entrepreneurial spirit, administrative outputs rather than inputs must be assessed as the appraisal model for governmental performance. Therefore, the objective of this research is to examine theories of performance assessment and to compare the administrative performance of TaoChuMiao 4 county or municipal governments by their service outputs as a comparative study. Local governments must adopt performance assessment as an incentive to executive administrative reform. Key words: performance appraisal (assessment), performance indicator, local government 132

具有多个输入特别是多个输出的部门或单位 ( 称为决策单元 Decision Making Unit 简称 DMU) 间的相对有效 8 性 C2R 模型是 DEA 的个模型也是 DEA 的基础和重要模型假设有 n 个决策单元 DMUj( j = 1 2 3 n) 每个 DMU 有 m

具有多个输入特别是多个输出的部门或单位 ( 称为决策单元 Decision Making Unit 简称 DMU) 间的相对有效 8 性 C2R 模型是 DEA 的个模型也是 DEA 的基础和重要模型假设有 n 个决策单元 DMUj( j = 1 2 3 n) 每个 DMU 有 m 基于 DEA 模型的我国政府社会管理职能绩效评价研究以 30 个省 ( 直辖市自治区 ) 为统计样本的实证分析 * 李超显摘要政府社会管理职能绩效评价是政府管理中的一个重点和难点问题本文采用数据包络分析模型对中 30 国 30 个省( 直辖市自治区) 的政府社会管理职能绩效进行时空差异分析和实证评价研究发现个省( 直辖市自治区) 的政府社会管理职能绩效具有空间差异性雁行形态和区域梯度性