Building a Performance Measure Tool for City of Lacombe

(1)

Building a Performance Measure Tool for the City of Lacombe

Brenda Vaughan, MACD candidate

School of Public Administration

University of Victoria

July 30, 2018

Project Client:

Michael Minchin, Chief Financial Officer

City of Lacombe

Supervisor: Dr. Thea Vakil

School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Member: Dr. Kimberly Speers

School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Chair: Dr. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly

(2)

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Municipal governments face tightening resources alongside increased demands for services and scrutiny from community stakeholders. They seek to have the trust and confidence of their citizens through providing competent leadership and resource allocation for service levels. Communication and collaboration between municipal councils, administrations and citizens relative to stakeholder expectations and organizational capacity is one method of bridging these competing ideas. An ability to generate evidence-based measures that reflects organizational performance relative to strategic goals and their impact can foster such relationships. There is not a uniform or standardized tool or approach for municipal governments to employ in order to achieve this capacity. Gaining this functionality has become a goal for the City of Lacombe. The purpose of this project is to answer the following questions.

1. Which performance indicators will support innovative service adjustments, inform elected officials decision making and support accountability reporting to the public? 2. Which performance measures will be able to track the progress of advancement of City of

Lacombe strategic goals over time? Background

Municipal governments operate as unique public service bodies in close proximity to their citizens, offering variable types and levels of services across jurisdictions. They operate in a complex environment characterized by political commitments and resource allocations for services delivered by administrative and operational arms of the organization. Ensuring clear alignment between higher-level objectives and lower level activities is required to support the achievement of strategic goals through operational activities.

City of Lacombe is a small city with a population nearing 13,000 residents, located midway between Calgary and Edmonton in the province of Alberta. Recent Councils and administrators have considered the introduction of an accountability measures mechanism to clearly report on the government’s performance in the execution of its services. The goal is to serve internal and external audiences as well as drive innovations to services as warranted.

In 2015, the City of Lacombe engaged a UVIC Master’s degree student to investigate the use of strategic planning tools and business plans as a mechanism to establish connectivity between Council strategic goals and operational activities. The study generated a business plan template supported by a three-year business planning cycle. Full implementation of this process relied upon the future development of performance indicators, which became the purpose of this research project.

(3)

2 Literature Review

The literature review focused on published research concentrated on the utility of performance indicators for municipal government, Explorations were based on three practical applications and purposes. The first was to understand its suitability to track the degree of attainment of higher-level municipal strategic goals. The second was to examine performance indicators efficacy to generate accountability reporting based on multiple stakeholder’s points of view. The third objective was to determine performance indicators applicability to drive innovations using a continuous improvement practice. Information pertinent to Canadian context was limited. Findings based on Australian, European United Kingdom and United States municipal experience were more readily available. Performance measures is well rooted in financial and private sectors posting a history dating six decades ago. The literature review scans were limited to the prior 25-year time to reflect the time when the practice merged into public service sector.

Published literature confirms that performance indicators are suited to municipal governments for evaluating the achievement of organisational objectives and accountability. Research also bears out that evidence-based performance indicator information will advance trust among stakeholders through transparent communications that reflect actual progress made on service commitments. Research also points to particular organization attributes that parallel the successful implementation performance measures, which included; participatory leadership, formal mandates, adequate resources, expertise, and political will. Performance measures shows strong applicability for municipal governments; however, it is a complex initiative to implement and requires significant buy in across organizational levels to generate meaningful data.

Methodology

This study used a qualitative inquiry approach to garner information from two groups of

participants. Questions explored the use of performance indicators within municipal government settings. Two participant groups were selected using purposeful sampling methods. Group one participants were nine individuals representing eight municipalities currently using performance indicators. Group two participants were 17 employees of the client organization who will commence working with indicators. Group one interviews were telephone based, lasting an average of 36 minutes each. Respondents answered 18 open-ended questions based on topic areas in the research questions. Group two interviews occurred in person, each lasting an average of 35 minutes based on 10 questions. All interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed. Hand written notes were taken during group two interviews. Transcriptions of data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Findings

Findings confirm that performance indicators are useful to municipal governments to support innovative service adjustments support council’s decision-making and track the degree to which strategic objectives are met. While possible actual use within municipal governments is

(4)

3

draws on financial and human resources, organizational and political vulnerability based on transparent communication on missed targets. Transparency managed well can contribute to accountability and positive relationships among stakeholders.

In respect of these findings, three themes relative to the conditions known to support productive use of performance indicators in municipal governments emerged. They are organizational readiness, organizational capacity and attributes found in robust indicators. Organizational readiness is high when internal policy, process and practice formally recognizes a continuous improvement model based on precise measures. The formal interconnection of higher and lower level organization objectives establishes a continuity of expectation shared by multiple

stakeholders. Political buy in is extremely important. Organizational capacity exists when skillsets and expertise and adequate resourcing is in place. Robust performance indicators clearly illustrate the targets or metrics required to meet stated objectives, provide the mechanism to analyse progress and direct organization strategies to meet the expected goal.

Discussion

Integration of findings stemming from this project with those found in published literature revealed a number of insights related to the adoption of performance indicators by a local

government. Critical arguments centered on preplanning and preparation, inclusive development strategies and well-developed implementation strategies. Preplanning of policy, objectives, and resources inclusive of all stakeholders fosters organizational readiness. The act of preparation addresses stakeholder concerns about being able to perform this work, but also sets the

parameters of expectations for all stakeholders. It also creates the structure needed to guide the process from start to finish and derive the evidence needed to inform service innovation.

Advanced design can also reduce or protect against bias or influences and thereby manage risks associated with complex environments the involve multiple stakeholders. Conforming to all of these critical learnings is considered ideal circumstances that are positively correlated with robust practice. Findings recognized that ideal circumstances are difficult to attain, which

requires awareness and the development of strategies to mitigate potential problems found in less developed practices.

Recommendations

Recommendations were presented in the form of an implementation strategy aimed to prepare the City of Lacombe to implement a performance measures practice and to select performance indicators. Nine short term recommendations followed by one medium and long-term

recommendations were presented meet the overall objective within the next five years. Most steps are designated short-term actions as the overall point of the recommendations is to lay the groundwork for the City to implement a performance measures practice. A medium-term implementation action related to the second phase of implementation following the successful conclusion of phase one. One long term implementation action was the maintenance of the continuous improvement committee beyond this project to maintain internal peer support for the practice.

(5)

4

Building A Performance Measures Culture

Primary steps included: allocation of resources to lead the project, assembling of a continuous improvement committee, training for skills development, creation of policy, integrations of all organizational level objectives and a core services inventory.

Developing Performance Indicator Catalogue

A framework of elements found in performance indicators known to drive service innovations was developed to facilitate the selection of useful indicators. Elements included indicators that measure effectiveness and efficiency, provided targets within timelines, align with eternal audits and or benchmarking initiatives, use clear language representative of all stakeholder perspectives and serve internal and external audiences as needed.

Public Accountability Reporting

Preplanning for report design, reporting formats and frequency protects continuity of data collection and analysis, ensuring complete dissemination among stakeholders. Considerations for implementation included: defined purpose, audience, platform, graphic legends, internal or eternal facing, frequency of release.

Implementation Pilot

The final recommendation is for a phased approach to implementation, based on a pilot project. The pilot project would select two to three indicators representing all core service areas and organizational levels. On full cycle of data collection, analysis, reporting and service innovation would span one year. Based on the successful conclusion of this pilot, additional performance indicators would be implemented.

Conclusion

The City of Lacombe’s objective to introduce a performance measures practice as a means to demonstrate internal and external accountability is positively supported by the findings of this study. Insights and knowledge from the study, defines the conditions under which this initiative will meet with success. The implementation plan serves to build the organizational capacity and foster stakeholder support based on an inclusive approach to develop the initiative.

(6)

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the City of Lacombe administration for sponsoring this project and cooperating in its completion. Deep appreciation is extended to all of the municipal employees who gave so freely of their time and knowledge to contribute to this study.

My supervisor, Dr. Thea Vakil gave freely of her wise and kind support at every step of the way. I am grateful for her guidance.

The greatest debt of gratitude to my husband Lantry whose unwavering trademark kindness, sense of humor and tireless patience were always at the ready. There really are no words.

(7)

6

INTRODUCTION

Governments have recently faced increased demand for accountability from multiple stakeholders, due in part to shrinking fiscal resources and rising expectations for public services. (Pollanen, 2005, pp. 4-5). Municipal governments experience heightened scrutiny and complexity, based on proximity to residents and the degree of influence that municipal services exert on stakeholders’ quality of life (Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 326; Pollanen, 2005, p. 5). Stakeholders expect governments to generate information allowing individual stakeholders to determine the value of the services received and to have confidence in tax dollar expenditures (Kloot & Martin, 2000, p. 232). Larger municipalities may utilize performance measurement; however, it is uncommon in midsize and small jurisdictions (Pollanen, 2005, p. 5). Alberta municipalities are not required to use performance measurement. Consequently, there is no standardized performance measurement framework available to help establish this practice.

Historically, municipal governments have evaluated internal matters, such as individual performance or distinct processes, rather than the outcomes resulting from those efforts (Kloot & Martin, 2000, p. 233). Measuring outcomes requires a more elaborate practice that can measure the extent to which planned service outcomes were achieved across time. Evaluations would also illustrate how public policy and purpose were served. Organizational features deemed necessary to support this level of evaluation include evaluation policy, frameworks and technical processes that endorse publication of the results (deLancer & Julnes, 2010, p. 695). These attributes are uncommon in smaller jurisdictions (Pollanen, 2005, p. 5). The client for this project is the City of Lacombe (City). In comparison to other cities in Alberta, is a small municipality with a population of 12,728 citizens. (City of Lacombe, 2014). Traditionally, organizational objectives captured through department business plans were separate from Council’s strategic plan. In 2015, the City engaged an UVic master’s student to investigate the role and implications of strategic planning for small municipalities. The study, entitled Strategic Plan Implementation, by Jennifer Dolecki (UVicSpace, 2016) found that strategic plans could support complexities in municipal government and could connect organizational level strategic objectives to the activities carried out across departments. It also confirmed that strategic plans could guide organizations in preferred directions and support evaluation processes. Finally, the study explained that these objectives will only be realized when the strategic planning process is accompanied by an implementation plan. As a result, the City adopted a new business plan template and a three-year implementation strategy. To operationalise the strategic planning process, the study recommended that the City develop 5-8 high-level organizational

performance indicators. The City seeks to develop these indicators based on recommendations provided through this project.

This project will analyze promising practices and published research to support the development of performance indicators for the City. Indicators will be based on the services delivered through the Community Services, Corporate Services and Operations and Planning departments.

This research questions under investigation are:

 Which performance indicators will support innovative service adjustments, inform elected officials decision making and support accountability reporting to the public?

 Which performance measures will be able to track the progress of advancement of City of Lacombe strategic goals over time?

(12)

11

Seven chapters follow this introduction. Chapter 2 provides detail on the background of the client organization related to structure, mandate and services and the earlier work that this project will build upon. Chapter 3 provides an overview of complexities, considerations and obstacles facing local governments using performance indicators as identified in relevant literature. Chapter 4 describes the qualitative methodological approach to the research, which consists of structured interviews and jurisdictional scan and stakeholder strategies. Thematic content analysis utilizing the Framework approach will identify themes, organize and interpret the data stemming from stakeholder interviews and other municipalities. Chapter 5 presents the promising practices and pitfalls offered by interviewees, and the key elements and rationale to support the selection of useful performance indicators. Chapter 6 discusses the integration of the data analysis findings with those from the literature review including strengths, weaknesses and implications for the City. Chapter 7 offers recommendations for action supported by the research for the City’s consideration. Chapter 8 completes the report.

(13)

12

BACKGROUND

This chapter provides the context for this project. An overview of performance measurement is presented and concepts specific to local governments are highlighted. Recommendations stemming from earlier research that prompted this project are discussed. This section examines pertinent organizational mandates, structures and regulatory frameworks that guide municipal operations.

Performance measurement

Performance measurement is an iterative, organizational management process used to track the degree to which program or policy objectives are achieved as intended (McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, pp. 1-7). The process requires that organizational strategic planning objectives, program and policy design, and service implementation be fully integrated through the identification of causal links between

organizational activities. Typically, a review of the consequences flowing from specific services is compared against intended attributions and outcomes. The findings guide adjustments to services intended to strengthen the alignment between organizational objectives, service outcomes and the needs or demands of the end user. Performance measurement fosters transparency, responds to changing internal and external factors, triggers informed service innovations and provides relevant information suited to varied audiences (Behn, 2001, p. 6; McDavid. Huse & Hawthorne, 2013, pp. 5-6).

Performance measurement for Municipal Government

Performance measurement frameworks are applicable to public service organizations, including local government. A performance measurement process creates a connection between the organizational objectives set by elected officials and the citizens served. Studies note that performance measure practice in local governments is uncommon, sporadic or not sustained, and that Canadian jurisdictions lag behind the United States, United Kingdom and Australia (Hildebrand & McDavid, 2011, p. 47; Pollanen, 2005, p. 18). Performance measure practice in Canadian municipalities is largely a voluntary pursuit focused on internal organizational process rather than external reporting of outcomes.

Municipal governments are complex organizations that offer extensive and broadly reaching services to a highly diverse stakeholder group. Varying types of services common to municipalities do not necessarily lend themselves to tracking a direct cause and effect with certainty (Hildebrand & McDavid, 2011, pp. 42-45). Organizational revenue sources are limited to tightly regulated revenue streams. Property taxes, user fees and fines are the predominant sources of revenue which must be balanced against ratepayers’ willingness and capacity to pay. Grants issued by senior levels of government are subject to frequent unexpected changes affecting eligible expenditures and levels. Financial resources are primarily directed to employee wages to secure the required technical skills needed for municipal operations. These skill sets rarely include performance measurement expertise, particularly in smaller jurisdictions. A political environment further heightens operational intricacies. Elected officials’ appetite for publication of organizational shortcomings is often limited.

Despite these limitations, many organizational conditions support performance measurement practice. Sustained performance measurement occurs when a limited number of reliable, traceable, and

demonstrable performance indicators are selected in collaboration with the stakeholders utilizing the measures information (Rodriguez, 2006 et al, pp. 374-375; Van Dooren, 2011, p. 430). Durable practice exists in organizations that cultivate a shared understanding of performance measurement and

(14)

13

demonstrate strong dedicated leadership at senior levels (Behn, 2003, p. 587; Choo, 1996, p. 337; Maitlis & Christiansen, 2014, p.78).

The Client

The City of Lacombe is a municipal corporation subject to the Alberta Municipal Government Act, which stipulates mandatory requirements for municipal operations. The Act outlines good governance, land use, property assessment and how councils may engage with citizens (Alberta Municipal Affairs, 2017). Compulsory reporting is limited to financial performance.

The City is a member of two advocacy organizations. Alberta Urban Municipalities of Alberta represents the collective interests of Alberta municipalities to provincial and federal governments (Alberta Urban Municipalities of Alberta n.d.). The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represents municipal and citizen interests on a national level to inform relevant public policy (Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, 2017). Both organizations provide performance measure guidelines aimed at the management of tangible capital assets.

Lacombe City Council published six strategic pillars in the 2013-2017 Strategic Plan. Three pillars reference an objective to increase accountability and transparency through intentional collaboration with citizens and service innovation (City of Lacombe, 2017). Specifically, the plan introduced a strategic planning framework suitable to shift the organisational focus towards a continuous improvement strategy (City of Lacombe, 2017, p. 4). The model allows achievement of organisational goals to be tracked and measured to improve municipal services based on the results of the analysis.

In 2015, the City co-sponsored a study that culminated with the creation of a 7-step strategic planning implementation process (Dolecki, 2015, p. 46). Step sequencing is as follows: strategic plans, department business plans, budget preparation and adoption, finalization of business plans, business plan

implementation, report on business plan outcomes and annual reporting of outcomes. Business plan activities, budgets and service implementation are reviewed annually; however, the process spans a three-year cycle to ensure that review findings are reflected in future business plans and budgets. This process is based on logic model principles where service level inputs and selected indicators of performance are linked to pre- planned outcomes. The logic model instrument supports the desired iterative analytical process, as it illustrates the intended linkages between municipal services, measurement criteria and the objectives set out by City Council.

The City has begun to lay the groundwork needed to start the use of performance measurement as part of its overall organizational management process. Next steps require the development of performance indicators in cooperation with operational staff. This is important to the City as it seeks to increase accountability and transparency in the face of heightened scrutiny from taxpaying citizens, coupled with a desire to demonstrate the efficiency, effectiveness and value of municipal services.

(15)

14

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review consulted published research pertaining to local governments’ use of performance indicators for the purposes of measuring strategic goal achievements to reinforce accountability reporting. Journal articles, books and technical working papers were reviewed. Largely, the review focused on best practices that have bearing on the development of performance indicators. Specific inquiries targeted examples of municipal performance indicators and their use, as well as organizational criteria conducive to the design and application of performance indicators. Explorations focused upon the role of

performance indicators relative to service innovation, resource allocation and tracking of strategic goals. The review pursued research on performance measurement frameworks in local government to provide a historical and methodological context.

Research revealed a limited supply of information relevant to performance indicators in Canadian municipalities. Three explorations of utilization rates of performance measurement in Canadian municipalities were located. An expanded search revealed a more extensive body of research in local government jurisdictions of Australia, Europe, United Kingdom and the United States. This provided a broader body of research about the applicability of performance measurement, the use of performance indicators and service innovations in a local authority context.

Searches for established universal performance indicator matrices specific to municipal governments received a low response. Performance indicator indices vary greatly across jurisdictions, revealing no one standardised approach. Further exploration revealed a larger body of work citing determinants or criterion of performance indicators associated with successful design of performance indicators in local

governments or the public-sector organisations. Comparative reviews of municipalities using performance indicators provided insight as to recent Canadian and American municipal usage patterns. Fewer articles were located related to performance indicators and service innovation.

The topic of performance measurement yielded many published articles. Studies dating back six decades focused on performance measurement in the context of financial accountability and information

technology, where the practice began. Secondary scans limited research to a 25-year timeframe to retain a relatively recent historical account of the model as it merged into the public sector as a mechanism for accountability.

The literature review findings are organized by topic. Local government context, organisational structure and mandates are described as they link to a practice of accountability to stakeholders. The review provides a brief overview of performance measurement in general, and its functionality for local governments. Discussions about performance indicators’ utility for evaluation and measurement is followed by central underpinnings found to support the comprehensive design of performance indicators.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Blackman, (1998, p. 59) and Kluvers (2003, p. 69) state that a local government’s relationship with stakeholders is complex; Wheatley, 1999 (p. 20) suggests that complexity is born of the ever-changing, nonlinear emergent dynamics produced through the interplay between system components. System information garnered from multiple sources flows freely throughout organizational units, forming a basis for change or adaptation (Wheatley, 1999, pp. 14-15). This dynamic requires a specific creative

(16)

15

invite emergence of ideas, and constructively explore conflicting views (Kluvers, 2003, pp. 67-69; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p. 351; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 5; Patton, 2002, pp. 59-60, & 124).

Local governments’ services exert tangible and intangible effects on stakeholders, such as service levels, expenditures and municipal tax rates in the first case and broader, less obvious impacts on quality of life in the second case (Kloot & Martin, 2000, p. 233; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p. 349; Pollanen, 2005, p. 5; Yang & Holzer, 2006, p. 118). The context is dynamic, featuring restricted revenue streams coupled with growing and changing citizen demands for decidedly effective use of limited public resources (Ho, 2012, p. 3; Kluvers, 2003, p. 58-59). Accordingly, local governments require evaluative practices not only suited to measure quality of services, but also to foster effective stewardship and a degree of government responsiveness to citizen demands (Kloot & Martin, 2000, p. 241; Pollanen, 2005, p. 5). Comprehensive measurement of public services depends upon the use of models that employ principles originating in program evaluation and performance measurement discipline (Kluvers, 2003, p. 67; Jackson, 2005, p. 23; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 5). The argument rests upon the integration of complex measures such as internal and external points of view, technical, rational, political elements and process, as well as outcomes (Jackson, 2005, pp. 23-24; McDavid et al, p. 3).

Local Government Accountability

Yang and Holzer (2006, p. 114) and Chan (2004, p. 204) state that local governments seek the confidence and trust of their citizenry as an indicator of accountability. Trust increases when evaluations clearly measure the degree to which strategic objectives are accomplished, as well as the process used to deliver the services (deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 23; Yang and Holzer, 2006, pp. 115-116). Citizens who

participate in evaluating services and establishing contextually relevant standards of measures become more familiar with organizational potential and limitations, contributing to greater understanding and higher levels of trust (Ho, 2012, p. 22; Yang & Holzer, 2006, pp. 119-120). Broad stakeholder group involvement also guards against political bias, preserving the integrity of evaluation measures (Bird, 2005, p. 23). Regular reporting of service outcomes and organizational responsiveness reduces

uncertainty, another factor associated with high levels of stakeholder trust (Halachmi & Holzer, 2010, pp. 386-389; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 5; Yang & Holzer, 2006, pp. 115).

Earning and sustaining public trust is an intricate endeavor that is vulnerable to stakeholder subjective opinion and varying levels of familiarity with government capacity (Halchmi & Holzer, 2010, pp. 385-386). Blackman (1998, p. 57) argues that multiple sectors combine as networks that heavily influence public sector outcomes in expected and unexpected ways. It is important to trust levels that these interconnections or interdependencies receive full and obvious consideration when devising reporting formats (Jackson, 2005, pp. 25-29). Kluver (2003, p. 58) asserts that the public sector must serve three distinct accountability relationships: that between politicians and citizens, politicians and technical staff, citizens and technical staff. Yang and Holzer (2006, pp. 117-118) include institutions, other levels of governments and political performance. Jackson (2005, pp. 34-35) and Solesbury, (2001, p. 9) identify the need to manage power imbalances that naturally emerge as the result of three positions: the policy maker or agenda setter, the policy initiator and the policy recipient. Conflict occurs as public-sector agendas focus upon broader societal goals, while political and citizen stakeholder aspirations are driven by self-interest (Behn, 2002, pp. 16-18; Thomas, 2006, p. 3). The resulting tension requires collaboration to the point that competing interests merge to develop mutually agreed upon pathway towards collective

(17)

16

priorities (Kluvers, pp. 62 & 67). Maintenance of productive relationships is contingent upon reporting mechanisms that reflect this diversity, sustain stakeholder interest, and champion broader community interests that somewhat reflect stakeholder sentiment (Benn, 2002, p. 10; Bovaird, 2006, pp. 9-11: Ho, 2007, p. 1160; Jackson, 2005, pp. 25-26; Pollanen, 2005, p. 6; Propper & Wilson, 2003, p. 251). A pluralist approach develops shared understanding and fosters trust, through the synthesis of competing demands (McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S653). This process effectively draws organizational

stakeholders closer together for the purposes of shared accountability (McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S654).

Evidence based information outperforms fragmented or anecdotal information in terms of veracity and usefulness to advise strategic decisions aimed to advance organizational objectives (Blackman, 1998, pp. 58 & 69). Blackman, (1998, p. 59) likens this to gathering organizational wisdom generated via multiple feedback loops as a means to maintain the adaptability of complex or chaotic organizational structures. Intelligence relies upon the interrelationship between service outputs and outcome processes to reveal shifting patterns of response to changing environmental factors across all organizational levels, ultimately providing evidence highly useful to guide strategic decisions aimed at organizational improvement. (Blackman, 1998; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorne, 2013, pp. 5-8; Thomas, 2006, p. 3). The best evidence comes from pre-planned evaluation and performance measurement processes that exhibit clarity of purpose, are visible, regularly employed and widely reported upon (Chan & Gao, 2009, p. S53; Jackson, 2005, pp. 35-36; McDavid et al, 2013, p. 5). Research states that optimal evaluation and analysis of human service program impacts occurs when evidence accompanies professional judgment (Chan & Gao, 2009, p. 53; deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 233; McDavid et al, 2013, p. 37).

Performance Indicators

Tichelar (1998, pp. 29-30) asserts that selection of performance indicators and the purpose of public services should be the first determination when developing outcome measures frameworks. Indicators of performance are imperfect predictors, but essential to a performance measurement framework as a mechanism to track trends, set targets or evaluate effectiveness (Bird, 2005, pp. 6-7; Jackson, 2005, p. 6). Performance indicators broadly identify dimensions and interconnections between activities and strategic goals, and define the data required to measure process and outputs (Bird, 2005, p. 5; Jackson, 2005, p. 27). Performance indicators track the changes that occur within a defined service dimension over a distinct period to gauge and describe change based on a quantified metric (Bird, 2005, pp. 3-5; McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S653; Jackson, 2005, pp. 2, 4-26).

Designing Performance Indicators

Selection of a few compelling descriptors that recognize political, administrative and citizen perspectives are imperative to sound data collection, analysis, learning and meaningful performance measurement reporting (Ammons, 1995, p. 38; Behn, 2003, p. 599; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 15). Tichelar (1998, pp. 30-31), Ammons (1995, p. 39) and Bird, (2005, p. 23) state that robust indicators establish logical ties between organizational strategy and their attendant outcomes, resonate with multiple stakeholders and capture collective stakeholder interest, which ultimately inspires confidence. Bird (2003, pp. 2-3) asserts that indicators serve three purposes: evaluation of government as a steward of public resources, program effectiveness and policy design. The overall effectiveness of performance measurement processes depend upon the quality of performance indicators.

(18)

17

The research concurs that indicators of performance must be precise enough to reflect unique

organizational objectives, but broad enough to balance multiple stakeholder purposes and expectations (Tichelar, 1998, p. 30). While a uniform approach is unavailable, too many or too few performance indicators undermine favorable results (Propper & Wilson, 2000, p. 252). There is general agreement among researches that the quality and usefulness of indicators is best served when all stakeholders are involved in their creation, when front line and external stakeholder perspectives are evident and sufficient resources are allocated to the process (De Bruijn, 2002a, p. 587; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorne, 2013, p. 15; Tichelar, 1998, p. 31; Jackson, p. 26).

Research findings offer general agreement that performance indicators for public sector should focus on both quantitative and qualitative measures, beyond simple metrics to capture the intangible impacts of services related to quality of life or community (Jackson, 2005, p. 27; Kluvers, 2003, p. 67; McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S65). This requires a shift from measures relevant to efficiency and economy alone to additionally include measures that deal with the parameters of effectiveness and quality (McDavid, Huse & Hawthorne, 2013, p. 5; Tichelar, 1998, p. 34).

Performance Indicators and Strategic Goals

Moynihan & Pandey, (2010, p. 854) found that comprehensive use of performance indicators increases when measures are integrated with larger organizational measurement processes such as strategic plans. Ammons & Rivenbark (2008, p. 306) assert that performance indicators have more meaning when aligned with higher-level measures endorsed by senior officials and leadership, which increases usability of performance measurement. Measures that clearly reflect and align with strategic plans ensure stakeholders’ ability to perform as required to accomplish goals and integrate clarity of purpose

throughout the organization, fostering transparency, trust and confidence (Behn, 2003, pp. 588-589; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 272). Performance indicators for local government that clearly connect expectations established in strategic plans, organisational efficiency and effectiveness objectives and public expectations protect against unintended negative behaviors (Boyne, 2002, pp. 19-21). Consistency of practice and accuracy of measurement of targets meaningful to the organization is reliant upon strong alignment between well-defined primary objectives of service and performance indicators (Jackson, 2005, pp. 9-10). Performance indicators for local governments must align within standards and time periods established by regulatory bodies outside their purview, in order to fully serve the strategic goals of the organization (Bird, 2005, pp. 6-10; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p. 350).

Performance Indicators and Service Innovation

Existing research about innovation in local government states that it is possible on one hand but unlikely on another (Hartley, 2005, pp. 28 & 32). Innovation in government is unusual, difficult to track and represents treacherous territory, as outcome results are often intangible relative to process change, or focused on building future organizational capability, all benefits that are not immediately visible to stakeholders (Hartley, 2005, pp. 31-33). Innovation thrives in network-based contexts with disseminated power that fosters on-the-ground changes based on performance measurement feedback (pp. 30).

Development of indicators for innovation must consider resource cost benefit analysis and assessment of the degree of public value they may create (Bird, 2005, p. 21; Hartley, 2005, p. 32).

Blackman (1998. pp. 58-59) asserts that stakeholder innovation reduces when pre-established performance indicators are inflexible and imposed, as prevailing system feedback is overlooked in

(19)

18

deference to the compulsory performance indicators framework. Narrowly focused policy, regulations and standard operating protocols can encourage stakeholders to stick with known routines, the tried and true or engender tunnel vision to the point of organizational inertia, rather than incent change based on performance measurement results (Blackman, 1998, pp. 58-59: Halachmi, 2011, pp. 29-30; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p. 356).

Innovation occurs when multiple performance indicators track impacts that result at various phases of policy implementation, through a comparison of intended outcomes with actual outcomes (Chan & Gao, 2005. p. S51-S53; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 278). Performance indicator measures must thoroughly define the tracking dimensions of the characteristics under study, must distill multiple points of view and cite specific data points and frequency of measurement (Jackson, 2005, p. 26). Usability of data for innovation increases when performance indicators establish primary objectives, are practical, consistent over time, conform to established industry standards where relevant and are regularly refreshed (Bird, 2005, pp. 6-8; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 272). Performance indicators connect all forms of measurements and stakeholder relationships in play, strengthening the level of integration between organizational need, best practice and stakeholder input (Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p.351; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 269).

Individuals charged with responsibility to use the performance indicators and those subject to evaluation based on the data analysis, must be actively involved in the creation of, and familiar with, established rules and expectations in the organization (deBruijn, 2002, pp. 587-589; Jackson, 2005, p. 34). This is a means to increase performance indicators’ legitimacy among stakeholders and to reduce organizational resistance to the process (Thomas, 2006, p. 27). Language and practice that allows for multiple definitions and for competing values to coexist within performance indicators is necessary to manage the dynamism found in complex organizations (van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 272). Organizational tolerance for the use of professional judgement in concert with technical knowledge is vital to the practice of

organizational learning (David, Huse & Hawthorn, pp. 5-6). This acceptance ensures that organisational improvements occur in the first place and secondly, are based upon accurate use of quality data (van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 269). Key selection strategies for performance indicators include: naming a few indicators for each dimension that are bounded, timely, comprehensive; point to reasonable efforts, reasonable periods of time and reasonable assurance that those charged to meet objectives are capable of the work (Behn, 2003, p. 593; Jackson, 2005, p. 27; Thomas, 2007, p. 6).

Performance Indicators in a Political Context

Political contexts create opportunity or barriers to organizational learning, depending on the level of integration that political agendas have with larger organizational structures and processes (Dekker & Hansen, 2004, pp. 221-225; Ho, 2007, pp. 1159-1161). Negative impacts are reduced when performance indicators adequately reflect measures for political context and connect them to organizational learning, versus a goal of avoiding controversy (Dekker & Hansen, 2004, p. 226). Politicians and administrative professionals may view the use of stakeholder feedback as undermining political representation and professional or technical standards, creating resistance to its use (Blackman, 1998, pp. 57-60).

Vulnerability associated with expectations held by partisan interest groups, future election outcomes and the length of time required to develop meaningful data and improvements may create resistance to this process (deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 225; deWaal, 2007, p. 4). Election results may be the prime measurement of interest to elected officials, making political buy-in remote, relegating the usability of

(20)

19

performance measures to symbolism and reducing the odds for organizational improvements (Halachmi, 2011, pp. 31-32). Conversely, Ho (2007, p. 1160) and Dekker & Hansen (2004, p. 218) maintain that performance indicators developed using participatory approaches can produce information useful to setting political agendas based on citizen demand, can strengthen trust and relationships, and can bring concentrated attention to matters, thus triggering immediacy at political levels.

Performance Indicators and Attribution

Interconnectivity between a spectrum of government services and an intensely diverse stakeholder group makes it improbable that causality of change can be traced to one specific service output (de Lancer Julnes, 2006, p. 229; Halachmi, 2011, p. 36). Linear linkages based on conditions known to internal and external stakeholders alone are unlikely to provide a full account of all possible influences on outcomes. Additionally, the timing between service provision and impact can be lengthy, making it difficult to establish direct cause and effect relationships (deBruijn, 2002, pp. 579). Kravchuk & Schack (1993, p. 356) state that performance indicator results represent a beginning of analysis that warrants deeper inquiry, prior to establishing causality relationships. A lack of direct attribution or definitive causality may reduce confidence in the findings. Strategies to offset this concern include a systematic gathering of evidence deemed as reasonably sound by stakeholders, and agreement that analysis will be based on performance measurement and evaluation evidence in concert with sound professional and technical judgment (de Lancer Julnes, 2006, p. 232; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, pp. 23-24).

Broadening Performance Indicators to include democratic process

Boyne (2002, p. 18) conducted a study to assess the quality and progression of performance indicators developed in England and Wales between 1993- 2001. The study concluded that the quality of

performance indicators has improved. Noted enhancements include a fuller account of organizational performance and democratic process. The study cautions that perfection in number and types of

performance indicators reflective of over-all stakeholder points of view, and absolute attribution between services and outcomes is impossible (Boyne, 2002, pp. 23-24).

Public sector performance indicators must extend beyond traditional accountability measures of efficiency, effectiveness and economy to include broader outcomes based on internal and external satisfaction, democratic process, government responsiveness and the participatory process (Boyne, 2002, pp. 18-20). Boyne’s central thesis is that public sector indicators of success must measure alignment between citizen need and services offered and the fairness or proficiency of service allocation (Boyne, 2002, p. 18). Democratic outcomes gauge opportunities for citizens’ participation in democratic process but also clarify the true cost of democracy, allowing for appropriate levels of resource allocations required for democratic process (Boyne, 2002, p. 19). Jackson, (2005, p. 22) states that the organization adopting performance measures becomes both the watched and the watcher, meaning that any benefits and costs accrue to all stakeholders, which supports principles representative of democracy.

Performance indicators and participatory approach

The literature reflects that performance indicators’ durability and usability intensifies when broad stakeholder groups participate in their creation (Bird, 2005, p. 9; Jackson, 2005, pp. 25-27; Kravchuk & Schack, 1996, p. 349). Consensus about performance indicators among stakeholders provides protection against bias, power imbalances and the establishment of unattainable ideals, all conditions known to diminish the integrity of evaluation data (Thomas, 2006, p. 27).). Additionally, a pluralistic approach

(21)

20

establishes positive relationships among stakeholders, as it outlines reciprocal obligations for all

stakeholders, role clarity for internal and external stakeholders and precision of the desired performance targets (Jackson, 2005, pp. 27-29).

Performance Measurement

The primary intent of performance measurement is to foster favorable change throughout multiple levels of an organization, based on real-time information that reflects how an organization is doing relative to achieving its intended strategic goals (Behn, 2003, p. 588, Bernstein, 2000, p. 97-98; Chan & Gao, 2009, p. S53). Historically, the framework is rooted in a linear logical relationship where purposeful

connections are assumed between inputs (resources), specific activities (services), defined measures (indicators) and service impact (outcomes) to illustrate an envisioned impact (deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 222; Patton, 2002, p. 163). Its primary objective is to clearly link execution with strategy and graphically illustrate measurable outcomes and resulting changes attributed to organizational activities (McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S654; Patton, 2002, p. 163).

Moreover, merging evaluation and performance theory generates balanced evidence for the purposes of measuring effectiveness and efficiency, which offers a more fulsome result which lends legitimacy to the findings, which in turn inspire stakeholder confidence (McAdam & Saulters, 2000, p. S655; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorne, 2013, pp. 37-39). This complementarity reveals more in-depth and broader service impacts, which helps to manage or diminish stakeholder bias that may exist when only one form of measurement is used (deLancer Julnes, 2006, pp. 230-231). Technical staff, government managers, elected officials and citizens benefit from performance measurement, as it generates rich data based on shared understandings across time and multiple stakeholder groups (Ammons, 1995, p. 41; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 6).

Performance measurement can help to manage complex organizations, as the findings perform an advisory role to other organizational measurement processes versus a lead role in organisational

decisions, an important function when working with multiple stakeholder views (Blackman, 1998, p. 59; deBruijn, 2002, p. 586; deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 227; Pollanen, 2005, pp. 5-7). Thomas (2006, p. 2) declares that that performance measurement is imperfect as a final word, but highly useful to focus inquiry and discussion, alongside other measurement mechanisms, in the name of improving services. Performance measurement in Local Government

While performance measurement practice is not new, its use within the public sector is fresh and evolving, which creates opportunity for either innovation or missteps to occur, ultimately affecting the overall effectiveness of accountability measurements (Bernstein, 2000, p.100; Tichelar, 1998, p. 29). Research findings conclude that advanced organizational functionality and capacity is necessary to the successful adoption and implementation of performance measurement and the realization of its beneficial impacts (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008, p. 204; deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 227). Recognition that

performance measurement processes require a blending of technical, rational, cultural and political factors is crucial to sustained meaningful practice, as is the integration of multiple contrasting ideologies and expectations into mutually acceptable goals (deLancer Julnes, 2006, p. 225). Fundamental attributes include an accommodating mindset, participatory leadership, cooperatively created measurement frameworks, transparency about the intended use of information, widely published results and

(22)

well-21

defined expectations about service innovation driven by measures analysis (Behn, 2002, pp. 8-9; McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn, 2013, p. 4).

Participatory Leadership

In theory, the inclusion of multiple stakeholder points of view would steer away from top-down hierarchical organizational structures often found in government (Halachmi & Holzer, 2010, p. 384; Thomas, 2006, p. 3). Hierarchical structures lack network-based connections with stakeholders, preventing access to important points of view deemed essential to the successful design of service expectations, further compromising measurement of service achievement against service expectations (Chan & Gao, 2009, pp. S52- S53). Distrustful environments may lead to sabotage of measures to preserve self-interest over organizational goals using tactics such as gaming (Jackson, 2005, p. 30), performance paradox (van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002, p. 272) and perverse behaviour (DeBruijn, 2002a, and p. 585). Collaborative leadership strategies intentionally and actively seek ongoing input from internal and external stakeholders, preserving the diversity of input central to the plausibility that performance measurement occurs at all, and secondly that relevant useful information is produced (Behn, 2002. pp. 9 & 19; Moynihan & Ingraham, 2004, pp. 441 & 443). Highly useful performance measurements have both utility and topical relevance for administration, elected officials and citizens based on mutually agreed upon strategic goals, indicators of change and outcomes (Ammons, 1995, pp. 42-44: Behn, 2002, pp. 9-12). Performance measurement developed in isolation of organizational feedback and stakeholder input are unlikely to generate data richness sufficient to trigger organizational learning (Halachmi, 2011, p. 36; deBruijn, 2002, p. 588). Jackson, (2005, p. 35) determined that participatory leadership styles that cultivate no-blame environments is vital to the design principles necessary to the development of

performance indicators that will sustain performance measurement processes. Cooperatively Created Performance Measurement Frameworks

Cooperative approaches to the development of performance measurement require that all stakeholder groups are included in the process, which for local government includes operational employees, administrative managers, elected officials and citizens (Ho, 2012, pp. 18-20). Defining performance measurement, evaluation policy and stakeholder obligations using an inclusive approach galvanizes and sustains a competent performance measurement practice that empowers citizens and increases civic engagement in decision making processes (Chan & Gao, 2009, pp. S53-54; Ho, 2012, p. 18). Involving the primary stakeholder’s cements citizen democratic rights, clarifies stakeholder roles, builds contextual relevance, empowers individual groups, enhances its proficiency and mitigates power imbalances (Ammons, 1995, pp. 30-31; deLancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001, pp. 403-406; Ho, 2007, p. 1161). Poister and Streib (1999, p. 330) studied 243 municipalities using performance measurement and found that three percent of the cities reported ongoing meaningful citizen engagement when developing measures. The lapse was attributed to an absence of measures aimed to evaluate democratic process within the overall accountability framework measure (Ho, 2007, p. 1166; Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 330: Yang & Holzer, 2006, p. 123).

Service Innovations

Innovation driven by performance measurement is underdeveloped in local governments, occurs sporadically and is largely unintentional, which is attributed to a lack of an objective which measures organizational learning within strategic plans (Kloot & Martin, 2000, p .246). A lack of tolerance for this iterative learning, low stakeholder empowerment and skill and workload pressure also contribute to this

(23)

22

noted absence (Kloot & Martin, 2000, pp. 243-244; Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 330). Suitable

organizational culture offers political leadership, combined with an acceptance for learning through trying and a tolerance for potential chaos, controversy and reputational risk linked to negative outcomes

(Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008, p. 307; Behn, 2002, p. 8). Stretching organizational expectation to accommodate a continuous improvement mindset requires less rigid application of performance measurement rooted in compliance alone and a shift to flexibility, appropriate delegation of decision authority and accepted use of professional judgment (Behn, 2002, pp. 9-10; Thomas, 2006, p. 3).

Performance measurement is described as a shift from a staid environment focused on adherence to avoid risk to one of dynamic creativity that encourages positive change and willingness to manage risk (Dekker & Hansen, 2004, p. 212; Halachmi, 2011, pp. 30-32).

Learning organizations set out to identify problems or successes as insights to guide strategic managerial decisions, to empower and engage stakeholders and to clarify organizational purpose and goals (Jackson, 2005, p. 35). The purpose of the practice is continuous improvement of quality and service impacts, based on demonstrated organizational experience and knowledge (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008, pp. 305-307; Cho, 1996, pp. 337-339). Research is conclusive in that enablement or cessation of an iterative practice relies on full integration, support throughout organizational levels, and particularly, buy in from elected officials (Cho, 1996, p. 340; Dekker & Hansen, 2004, p. 218; deLancer, Julnes & Holzer, 2001, p. 694; McDavid & Hawthorn, 2011, p. 28; Propper & Wilson, 2003, p. 252). Kravchuk and Schack (1996, p. 350) state that only when performance measurement data is combined with professional judgement will the complexity driven by internal and external influences be appropriately managed for the purposes of organizational learning.

Performance Measurement in Local Governments

Some studies referencing Canadian practice in comparison with other countries concluded that overall practice in Canadian municipalities lags when compared to the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, (Chan, 2004, p. 210: Pollanen, 2005, pp. 7-9). As organizational size increases so too does the use of information by elected officials; however, political use is limited to confirmation of goal

achievement rather than service innovations or setting political agendas (Chan, 2004, p. 212; Fischer, 2007, p. 57; Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 330). A study based on American municipal governments serving populations exceeding 25,000, revealed a 40% utilization of performance measurement information to inform decision-making (Poister & Streib, 1999, p. 330).

Based on a random sample, (Chan, 2004, p. 210) explored 451 American and 467 Canadian municipalities to gauge actual use of performance measurement, in a balanced scorecard format. Canadian municipalities (52) provided a lower response compared to American jurisdictions (132) and revealed that Canadian use of performance measurement was also lower, and particularly so on the use of data to inform and drive service innovations (Chan, 2004, p. 212). A rationale cited for this result is that performance measurement practice in Canada is newer, and there is a higher proliferation of smaller Canadian municipalities, which are associated with reduced levels of resourcing fundamental to performance measurement (Chan, 2004, p. 208).

Based on 334 responses out of 895 surveys, the use of performance measurement in Canadian

jurisdictions is low, and is based on voluntary pursuits of administrators focused on workload outputs and efficiency, rather than service outcomes and effectiveness measures (Pollanen, 2005, pp. 11-15). In the

(24)

23

absence of mandatory regulatory requirements for broader measures, municipalities rely on existing industry-based efficiency measures, such as specification for engineering and road construction, despite the apparent usefulness of qualitative measures for public service (Pollanen, 2005, p. 12, 15-16). Finally, the use of performance measurement information was limited to internal purposes, with external

accountability reported as unusual (p. 18).

In British Columbia, a study assessed the degree to which 32 small- to medium-sized Canadian

municipalities implemented mandated Community Charter performance measurement and the extent that performance data was utilized (Fischer, 2007, pp. 35-36). Findings indicate its use is highly dependent upon organizational resources, resulting in a wide span of practice ranging from minimum mandated requirements to a more sophisticated practice using multiple or broader measures (Fischer, 2007, pp. 35-36). Comprehensive use was higher in larger centers although not consistent across locations, and depth of practice was greater at administrative levels, minor at political levels and the less apparent for external stakeholder use (Fischer, 2007, pp. 35-37). Overall reporting on strategic plan advancements were low (Fischer, 2007, p. 36). Large municipalities were the most active in terms of citizen engagement in the process (Fischer, 2007, p. 37).

Summary

This literature review explored published research about the use of performance measurement and performance indicators in the context of Canadian local government. Research examined the prevalence of use and the ways in which performance measurement data is used. Findings that highlighted

advantages and disadvantages, strategies for success and frameworks helpful to create performance indicators were of interest. The goal was to learn promising practices known to support the creation of performance indicators for use in a municipal government setting.

Local governments are unique entities that operate in complex environments characterized by political agendas, technical expertise and public interest. Consequently, they are subject to highly diverse demands that originate from multiple stakeholder points of view. Research noted that local governments and stakeholders share a mutual desire for accountability based on transparency and trust. Explorations showed that performance measurement, integrated into operational culture, is an evaluative model suited to complex situations, as it can augment other evaluation methods, can represent various goals and stakeholder views and can generate credible information.

Performance indicators are guides used to monitor particular aspects of overarching service objectives or outcomes. Depictions of qualitative and quantitative targets are tracked to demonstrate the extent to which change occurs in relation to service inputs and outcome achievement. Robust indicators are those that reflect locality and are created collaboratively with stakeholders. This ensures broad representation of stakeholder expectations and produces data useful to trigger innovation through service adjustments and to identify trends over time.

Local determination and development of performance indicators captures unique qualities of local governments, increases indicator relevancy and the likelihood of usability. Research is conclusive that quality performance indicators are dependent upon participatory or pluralist approaches, connectedness between internal and external stakeholder objectives and integration of organisational mandates at all

(25)

24

levels. The accommodation of diverse views ensures that performance indicators adequately reflect the entire organization. This feature is essential to genuine organizational learning taking place.

Research about performance measurement in Canadian municipal government is limited; however, existing literature describes its use in Canada as largely voluntary, relatively new, immature and sporadic. Studies about the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and Europe found more pervasive, sophisticated practices supported by regulatory requirements. One commonality was that the use of performance measurement results was limited to internal stakeholder use, excluding the practice of engaging external stakeholders.

The literature showed that performance measurement is valuable in a local government context as it expands evaluation beyond measures tracking efficiency to richer measures, thereby illustrating levels of effectiveness and the subsequent impact to stakeholders’ quality of life. Additionally, stewardship of public resources, governance and democratic process can be subjects of measures, as a performance measurement approach can assess multiple dimensions. Performance measurement is a positive method useful for public engagement in collaborative, cooperative appraisal of government objectives and the degree of achievement.

(26)

25

METHODOLOGY

This chapter identifies the epistemological foundations guiding the selected research methodology. A description of the qualitative research strategies, thematic content data analysis and an overview of project limitations is provided. Research methods include a jurisdictional scan and interviews of two participant groups. The rationale for this multi-method model is to gather multiple viewpoints from subjects to develop deeper insights into the complexities experienced with municipal performance

indicator indices, which is central to the research questions (Creswell, 1999, pp. 463-467; Creswell, 2009, p. 4; Paton, 2002. p. 255; Wahyuni, 2012, p. 75).

Methodology and Methods

A constructionist epistemological philosophy encourages consideration of stakeholder viewpoints to ensure that final constructed meanings underpinning the performance indicator instrument fully reflect organizational and stakeholder motivations and contexts (Creswell, 2009, p. 8; Patton, 2002, p. 98; Wayhuni, 2012, p.70). Research also confirms increased legitimacy, relevancy and productivity in cases where performance indicator indices incorporate input from the stakeholder groups expected to use them for service and performance assessment purposes (deBruijn, 2002, pp. 587-589; Jackson, 2005, p. 34). Additionally, this approach supports qualitative inquiry and the collection of participant input in phases to continually compare and deepen the final analysis, particularly so when creating an instrument to be used for strategic purposes (Creswell, 2009, pp. 210-212; Ritchie & Spencer, 1999, p. 2).

Methods included a jurisdictional scan and interviews with two participant groups. The jurisdictional scan of other municipal governments using performance indicators provided a baseline of current practice. Interviews of individuals from each jurisdiction sought to gain insights based on their experience with indicators relative to the four reporting purposes identified in the research questions. This feedback informed promising practical approaches to assist in the development of municipal services performance indicators. This feedback inspired the interview guide questions for group two participants from the client organization.

The purpose of the inquiry with group two was to gain an understanding of employee stakeholder

capacity, expectation and knowledge of performance indicators. A series of open-ended questions focused discussion on the subject of inquiry, but also allowed participants to introduce and pursue emergent ideas related to the subject. Findings from this group will be incorporated with overall study findings to inform final report recommendations.

Sample

Purposeful sampling method is applicable to qualitative studies that involve smaller samples and seek thoughtful narratives critical to the phenomena under study for the purposes of meeting the overall research deliverables (Creswell, 2009, p. 217; Patton, 2002, pp. 230 & 243-244). Participant selection was based on their direct experience with municipal government services and use of performance indicators, criteria that provided both depth of practical knowledge and insight on the subject. The study recruited two participant groups. Group one participants are employees of external municipalities experienced with municipal performance indicators. Individuals responsible for

Building a Performance Measure Tool for City of Lacombe

Building a Performance Measure Tool for the City of Lacombe

Brenda Vaughan, MACD candidate

School of Public Administration

University of Victoria

July 30, 2018

Project Client:

Michael Minchin, Chief Financial Officer

City of Lacombe

Supervisor: Dr. Thea Vakil

School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Member: Dr. Kimberly Speers

School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Chair: Dr. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Performance measurement

Performance measurement for Municipal Government

The Client

LITERATURE REVIEW

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Performance Indicators

Performance Measurement

Summary

METHODOLOGY

Methodology and Methods

Sample