The Balanced Scorecard Card in public sector organization: A case study of the Singapore Police Force Essay
Performance management plays an important role in ensuring the that organisation’s growth is in line with the strategic objectives. It helps to identify any deviations in the growth of the company. Therefore, there is a critical need to develop a system of performance measurement and management that ensures the organisation’s strategies for its objectives and goals are executed efficiently and effectively.
The objective of this research is to identify a performance management model based on Balanced Score Card that can be used effectively within a public organisation. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the model, this is applied on a public organisation – Singapore Police Force.
In the following research, the performance management model Balanced Scorecard is analyzed using the Singapore Police Force as a case study. The research looked at the applicability of the current models and tools such as Balance Score Card in public organisations. The research further looked at the specific aspects that are different in case of Singapore Police Force that need to be taken into consideration while designing a performance management system in Singapore Police Force.
The study shows that the Balanced Scorecard is an effective model for implementing in public sector organization such as the police. The research identified various factors such as culture, political factors, type of employees and other factors influence the success of performance monitoring model.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Antony Branson for his academic assistance in completing this research. I would also like to thank Mr. Malik A.Huwany, Head of Benchmarking and Improving section for providing critical information using the memorandum of understanding signed between Dubai police and Singapore police for sharing knowledge and best practices.
This research specifically looks at the applicability of performance management models for public organisations through a case study of Singapore Police Force. There has been limited work on applying tools such as Balanced Score Card in public organisations and more so in Police Force. This research provides an evaluation of the applicability and identifies the various factors that needs to be considered while applying it in such environments.
Having spend extensive period of time working for Dubai Police, the researcher has been interested in studying the different aspects of performance management. This led to an interest in understanding how these can be applied in such companies and how the public companies can take advantage of the principles applied in private companies.
Understanding the theory and practical application of performance measurement and management 42
– Assessment and analysis of the performance methodologies, by using a case study of the Singapore Police Force. 44
– Analysis of the Balanced Score Card system.. 46
– Examine the implication that the balance scorecard performance management system will have upon police organisations, by reference to the Singapore Police force. 47
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 52
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Background and Rationale
Performance management, in any organisation, is the key to the level of success that it achieves in the present, the basis upon which continued success and achievement of objectives is founded, and the potential for failure is avoided. Therefore, there is a critical need to develop a system of performance measurement and management that ensures the organisation’s strategies for its objectives and goals are executed efficiently and effectively. Such a system should encompass all key strategic organisational elements, provide the measures and the requirements needed to fulfil these strategies and identify the current status of these. It may also be possible to align these with a compatible incentive scheme. Performance results can be discussed with all personnel, including managers and employees, in a manner that motivates them to play an active part in the achievement of the definitive organisational goal, namely, its overall success.
Over the years, there have been a number of different performance measurement and management models developed and numerous studies on the subject, most of which approach the issue using the current theories on performance management which is largely based on private organisations. Performance management can be defined as follows:
“…a systematic process for improving organizational performance by developing the performance of individuals and teams. It is a means of getting better results from the organization, teams and individuals by understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards and competence requirements.” (Armstrong 2006).
Performance measurement can be defined as “value delivered to shareholders” or “meeting requirements in the domains of financial results, operations, performance for the customer, and learning and innovation…” or “meeting the requirements of diverse stakeholder groups and gauge performance by stakeholders’ appraisals of the firm’s performance.” (Meyer, 2002)
It is clear from these definitions that performance measurement and management are collaborative phenomenon, which are both strategic and tactical in nature and need to be sustained to achieve organizational success. The aim is to develop a high-performance culture in individuals, and encourage them to assume responsibility for continuous improvement of business processes. While the specificity of performance measurement and management is to a certain extent simple, that of aligning individual objectives to organizational objectives by upholding corporate values (Armstrong 2006), the application of the same is more complex. The majority of theories attempt to find answers to the questions “what and how performance should be measured?” (Neely et al, 2002) with mixed results. Lynch and Cross (1991) and Waggoner et al (1999) point out the importance of dynamism in a performance measurement system, by evolving processes, measures and measurement systems constantly, to adapt to business environment (Dixon et al, 1990).
However, the literature review (chapter 3) of performance measurement and management clearly identifies there is a gap, in theories and applications, for developing a dynamic framework that suits different organizations. As a result, management practitioners, over the years, have adopted the strategy to assess the challenges and gaps in their performance measurement and management system by evaluating performance systems that have the least deficiencies. One such system, the most studied model, is the Balanced Scorecard Approach, developed by Kaplan and Norton (1996). Since its inception, this model has become one of the most widely used in both – the corporate and public organisational environments. This is due to the realization that there is gap in the then existing financial performance measurement systems which concentrate on organizational bottom-line and override intangible factors such as innovation, research and development (R&D) and customer satisfaction etc. (Kennerly et al, 2002). During the 1990s, a revolution of performance measurement occurred, in which practitioners, consultants and academic communities replaced the traditional cost-based measurement systems with objective and environment-based systems (Kennerly et al, 2002). The BSC is one of the most successful models that emerged from this period that provides a framework for translating organization mission and strategy into performance measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). It has four scorecards, namely: financial, customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth, as indicators for the firm. However, the constituent parts of an organisation’s success will differ, dependent upon the structure and purpose of the operations. In the case of a commercial organization, the key factors and objectives being the drivers profitability and shareholder’s wealth is its measure for success. With a public body or organisation, the main drivers are different. Success, in such organisations, is measured by the effective and efficient response to a range of different stakeholders. In this case, success will be measured by the response of the government and public, to the strategies implemented. In terms of financial factors, the success of their performance will be driven and measured by the budget restraints that are placed upon them by the funding stakeholder, which is normally the national government. This distinction raises a problem for the performance measurement managers. The difficulty they are faced with is ‘if they intend to utilise the BSC system, what adaptations are needed to ensure that it is effectively applied to their particular type of organisation’.
Rationale for the study
To investigate the above theoretical perspectives and find out how the BSC adapts to modern organizations, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has been used as a public sector case study. The Singapore Police is a force of approximately 39, 000 officers,
§ 13000 full-time staff
§ 1200 Special Constabulary Officers
§ 25,000 Officers under national service
Based on a military style of structure, the force has two distinct operational structures: one that controls the staff and the other the line functions. There are twenty-eight departments or units within these functions.
The reason this organisation has been chosen is because, with the complexity of its recruitment policy and organisational structure, it provides a challenging model for study in relation to performance measurement efficiency and management. In particular, the mixture of force and civilian personnel, together, with the diverse functions, serves as an ideal test for effectiveness of the implementation of the Balanced Score Card management model.
Furthermore, the researcher has noted that history of performance measurement systems suggests that such systems need to reflect the context and objectives of the organization in question. Consequently, a performance measurement system needs to fulfil the requirements of the organization, including factors that affect the measurement system over time and the process for managing the organization’s measurement system for continuous improvement (Neely and Kennerly 2003). The SPF is an ideal case study for testing performance measurement and management effectiveness because it is among those organizations that have evolved continuously, despite being public sector organizations. Efficacy of a performance measurement and management system depends on its adaptation to environment change, which the SPF seems to provide for BSC implementation.
The researcher considers that there is a need for delving into the public sector performance management arena, due to the fact that, today, public organizations are subjected to significant stakeholder scrutiny. There is a great emphasis on people management to provide an effective workforce, secure efficient work systems and to deliver economic prosperity. Leading public organizations are realizing the benefits of adopting private sector strategies, processes and management techniques, to achieve success in securing public satisfaction. Efficiency gains within national and local government can improve public satisfaction, which translates to national progress. Consequently, in choosing to study the implementation of BSC in a public organization, the researcher aspires to open new avenues for public administration and management perspectives.
Aims and Objectives
The authors of the BSC system, Kaplan and Norton, originally focused their research on the private sector organisations. This research investigates BSC usage within the public sector. Therefore, the aim of this dissertation is to examine the implementation of the Balanced Score Card performance management framework within a public organisation. To evaluate the success of this system when other factors are added to the equation, the author has sought to use as a case study – a public organisation that has to contend with a high-profile image and is subject to different political and cultural drivers than those experienced in the Western community. The Singapore Police Force organisation chosen for this study fulfils all of these criteria.
The overall aim of this research is…
‘to assess the effectiveness of the Balanced Score Card approach to performance management within a police organisation.’
The objectives of the dissertation are:
· To provide an understanding of the theory and practical application of performance measurement and management.
· To provide an analysis of the Balanced Score Card system.
· To provide an overview of the current organisational structure of modern Police forces and the stakeholders to whom they have a responsibility.
· To examine the implication that the balance scorecard performance management system will have upon Police organisations, by reference to the Singapore Police Force.
· To provide an assessment and analysis of the performance methodologies, again, by using a case study of the Singapore Police Force.
· To provide, where appropriate, recommendations for improvements to the current performance management system operated with Police organisations.
The motivation behind this dissertation is that it will provide an increased level of knowledge relating to the operational pressures that are attached with high-profile public organisations, such as the Police Force. In particular, it will increase the understanding of the performance pressures that affect these organisations, and the management systems and indicators their management implements in order to monitor that performance. Furthermore, due to the fact that the Singapore Police Force has two distinct personnel cultures – one being force members and the other civilian staff – it will enable an analysis and study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation of the Balanced Score Card model within a multi-cultural environment.
By choosing to examine an organisation based in Singapore, the dissertation will assist in furthering the understanding of ‘how political and cultural factors, in different nations, can affect the needs and requirements of various stakeholders, to whom Police organisations are accountable to,’ together with the influence that this has on their aims and objectives.
In addition, this dissertation will apply the experience that the researcher has gained while working as an officer in the Dubai Police Force for fourteen years, during which he has occupied a number of positions including, Manager of Quality Control Department and Manager of Process Management Department, enabling the transfer of theoretical knowledge into a practical environment. As a result, the completed dissertation will enhance learning development, whilst, at the same time, provide a vehicle to improve the ability to engage in the intricate issues related to performance measurement and management. It will also provide valuable experience in the use of research and comprehensive analytical skills, to evaluate complex issues with a view to providing logical and well thought out solutions.
As a research project, the completed dissertation will add valuable input, in relation to performance measurement and management practitioners, particularly with regard to its usage and effectiveness in public organisations, particularly in the areas of efficient and effective management of change within public organisations, as well as provide input in response to the organisation’s stakeholders’ requirements.
Although the research discusses other aspects of performance management, the researcher is aware that the dissertation focuses on the Balanced Score Card system, which is only one method among numerous tools for performance measurement and management. Researchers particularly interested in the areas of performance measurement and management may find this research project limited in furthering their knowledge. Similarly, this dissertation is limited to the investigation of BSC implementation in public sector Police organizations, which is different from typical private sector business organizations as the objectives and operation modes are different. For these reasons, academicians or studier of the BSC system may find this dissertation limited in scope, to comprehensively understand the dimensions of BSC benefits or shortfalls. To this effect, the researcher is of the view that they may utilize this research as a step for furthering their projects.
For performance measurement and management practitioners, this research shall prove enumerative to the extent of public sector organization, whereas the scope of BSC is wider than mere for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. It is a system that comprehensively addresses various aspects of performance management. Consequently, practitioners working in human resource capacity or strategic implementers may find this research limited in furthering their knowledge in BSC implementation other than police organizations.
Despite these limitations, the researcher hopes that readers will find the outcome of the dissertation a valuable experience, regardless of their background, in understanding the scope of BSC system implementation.
To comprehensively study the topic, the dissertation is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 is an Introduction to the topic, laying out the background as to the reasons for choosing the BSC, and then for SPF for its implementation. It outlines the objectives, scope and limitation of the dissertation.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the case study of SPF, outlining its organizational structure and role in the Singapore social control system.
Chapter 3 undertakes a Literature Review. It explores literature related to performance measurement and management, the nature of public sector organizations and, in particular, how police organizations implement performance measurement and management.
Chapter 4 briefs the reader as to the Methodology adopted for the dissertation, outlining the various methods available and the rationale for choosing the case study method.
Chapter 5 analyses data collected and applies it to the case study. It also outlines the research findings.
Chapter 6 interprets the results of the analysis, and provides recommendations for BSC implementation in a public sector Police organization.
CHAPTER 2 CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
Singapore Police Force – Organizational Background
The Singapore Police Force is built on the premise of “A force for the nation”. Its headquarters are located in New Phoenix Park in Novena, near the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since the organization is part of the Ministry, it is the aim of the SPF to ensure security, survival and success of its people. In addition, it aims to become one of the inspirational forces in the world. The SPF is based on the philosophy of being united with the community, instead of working separately as a public sector organization. In this context, the SPF makes itself accountable for the dissemination of crime and disorder, and threats to the security of the public, based on the mission “to uphold the law, maintain order and keep the peace in the Republic of Singapore.” (SPF Website 2007) To support its mission, the organization persevere four core values:
Courage We are willing to risk our lives, if necessary, in order to safeguard our society. We also have the moral courage to seek and speak the truth, and to set wrongs right
Loyalty We are loyal to the nation, to the Home Team, to the SPF community, and to our own beliefs and ideals.
Integrity We never forsake our ethics in order to attain our objectives. Our actions are guided by our principle, not expediency.
Fairness We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of their race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts. We also apply the same standard to the members of the SPF. (SPF Website, 2007)
The SPF not only upholds its core values, but also Corporate Societal Responsibility (CSR). The policy outlines how the SPF is accountable to its stakeholders, as evidence from its Policy Statement on Societal Responsibility (SPF Website, 2007):
“We are an organisation that is responsible to the society we operate in. We embark on initiatives and activities that are beneficial to the society, and community, and those that are in line with community and nationalistic goals, through leveraging on our resources, strength and capabilities.” (SPF Website, 2007)
Thus, the SPF is not merely a police organization carrying out policing activities, but it aims to go beyond its mission by taking initiatives in building a healthy, safe and secure community. This it achieves through organizational development, community programmes, promotion of healthy lifestyle and environmental protection. To ensure that these policies are ingrained in its people, the SPF CSR policy embeds them into their day-to-day activities, to build a positive corporate image for the SPF entities, strengthen its relationship with the community and to leverage its resources, to create even more manpower for the future. (SPF Website, 2007)
The SPF’s efficiency is the result of the reorganization of the Department for Admin and Manpower, to become the Manpower Department in 1993. The Manpower Department is responsible for dealing with all human resource management for the SPF. The Department has diverse roles and functions, including providing all major HR functions. Thus, activities like setting “terms of conditions for service, postings, promotion, career development, performance management and talent grooming”, as well as recruitment, disciplinary actions, providing planning, psychological expertise and promoting esprit de corps among officers are common to support its mission and vision (SPF Website, 2007).
As of March 2006, the SPF has manpower strength of approximately 13000 full-time officers, out of which eight thousand are regular officers, 1200 are civilian officers and four thousand are full-time Police National Servicemen. In addition to these, there are around 24000 Police National Servicemen and 1200 Volunteer Special Constabulary to uphold the safety and security of their homeland (SPF Website, 2007).
Over the years, the SPF has evolved dramatically to keep up with the demand for quality service to its stakeholders, namely the Singaporean public and foreign agencies, with which it has diplomatic ties. It is through the continuous quality control efforts of the Manpower Department that the SPF has been able to provide service in line with its Public Service 21 (PS21) and Service Improvement Unit requirements, formed in 1995. The requirements include getting feedback from the public and coordinating with SPF to respond to their needs. To sustain the high-quality standard of service, the SPF is maintained by a budget, which comprises of Other Operating Expenditure and Expenditure on Manpower (See Appendix 2) (SPF Website, 2007).
The SPF evolution has increased its service delivery quality dramatically, which rival any Western country’s Police Force. This is evident from the service pledge targets it upholds, which include: responding to emergency call “999” within 10 seconds, arriving at locations within 15 minutes for urgent and within 30 minutes for non-urgent incidents, responding to letters from the public within 5 working days, updating crime victims on preliminary case status within 7 working days, and attending customers at service counters within 15 minutes, along with continuously monitored standards of service. Although these service pledge targets are high, the SPF, in reality, has always exceeded expectations. This is evident from the results of performance for the years 2004-2005 (SPF Website, 2007).
Despite its comprehensive program for efficient service delivery, the SPF faces the challenge of increasing crime rates. The crime statistics for 2005 indicate there has been a rise in crime rates, along with high number of arrests, which has risen to a 20-year record. These statistics indicates that, even though the SPF is an efficient organization, it needs to gear up even more in performance to compete with its changing environment.
The SPF is a dynamic organization supported by various departments. The operational departments include Administration & Finance, Manpower, Operations, Planning and Organization, Service Development and Inspectorate, Public Affairs and Security Industry Regulatory Department. Apart from these, there are departments that have unique functions such as custodial, intelligence, logistics, national service, technology and criminal investigation etc., and divisions of Police services for various purposes and areas (SPF Website, 2007)
The three core departments of interest to this dissertation are the Manpower Department, Operations, and Planning and Organization. These departments form the operational end of the SPF, and are responsible for its performance outcomes. The Manpower Department, as mentioned earlier, is responsible for the HR functions, in terms of recruiting, developing and assigning people to their respective divisions and service categories. The Manpower Department’s mission is:
“To optimise the utilisation of manpower resource by recruiting the right quantity and right calibre of officers, developing them to their fullest potential, and motivating them to perform at their highest level via maintaining the highest level of morale and discipline, so that manpower resource provides the best support to effective execution of the SPF mission.” (SPF Website, 2007)
Clearly, the Department’s mission is to enhance its manpower’s efficiency and effectiveness in delivering security and other related services. The mission is aligned with the Department’s vision, which is to become the leading department working for its stakeholders by treating its people with the utmost value. In addition, the Department also envisions becoming the choice employer, by creating a caring and supportive work environment, and enhancing their workforce potential and skills. The Department has been able to engage in performance-based strategies for sustaining its people due to its comparatively small workforce (SPF Website, 2007).
On the other hand, the Operations Department is the staff authority in areas like operations, community involvement, and licensing of the Force. The Department is divided into seven divisions, each serving different activities. The mission of the Operations Department is to achieve world-class standards in Police operations by working in collaboration with the community. Its functions include monitoring daily operations, providing guidance to line units, developing and exploring policing skills, knowledge and equipment for its workforce, strengthening community partnership, as well as devising contingency plans for operational readiness. Thus, it is the centre of communication and operations for the SPF (SPF, Website 2007).
The Planning and Organization Department, on the other hand, has more diverse functions. It has been created with the view to build the business and organizational capacities of the SPF, in terms of strategy development and planning. Its activities include constant monitoring and renewal of policies relevant to the need of the public; establishing strategies for implementation congruent with the standard of service required by the community; and synergising the other departments to create dynamism in SPF. Thus, the Planning and Organization Department is responsible for translating strategic plans into action plans for its line units including assigning tasks, allocating resources, and reviewing and monitoring needs, changes and performance. At the national level, the Department is also responsible for ensuring the SPF works in collaboration with foreign agencies, in accordance with national polices for strategic partnerships. The principles and practices that the Department adopts are based on learning and development of interdependent units within the SPF. These also serve as the foundation for the organization’s performance.
Source: Neely 2002
Organizational leadership can be understood by the span of control, as indicated in figure above. The head of the organization is the Commissioner, backed by the Deputy Commissioner, Director (Special Duties) and Chief-of-Staff. The following departments are broadly categorized into staff departments and line units. Line units include those divisions mentioned earlier, while the staff departments include administrative and functional departments. Although the Planning and Organization Department ensure that individuals within SPF learn about interdependence of units, yet it is clear from the organizational structure that units and departments are clearly separate in their roles and functions.
Organizational Structure: Singapore Police Force
Source: Singapore Police Force Website
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review for this dissertation concentrates on four key areas. These are:-
1) Theory relating to performance measurement and management.
2) The Balanced Score Card model.
3) Application of the Balanced Score Card model to public organisations.
4) Performance management within public organisations, such as the Police.
1) Ttheory relating to performance measurement and management
There are a number of studies and books that have been written regarding the theory of performance measurement and management. However, this literature review will focus on specific authors in the analysis of this aspect.
Performance, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as:
“The action of performing or something performed… The carrying out of a command, duty, purpose, promise etc.; execution, discharge, fulfilment… The accomplishment, execution, carrying out, working out of anything ordered or undertaken; the doing of any action or work; working, action…The observable or measurable behaviour of a person or animal in a particular, usu. experimental, situation…”
Meyer (2002) defines performance measure as “value delivered to shareholders” or “meeting requirements in the domains of financial results, operations, performance for the customer, and learning and innovation…” or “meeting the requirements of diverse stakeholder groups and gauging performance by stakeholders’ appraisals of the firm’s performance.” (Meyer, 2002)
In its definitive context, performance management can be defined as “a process which contributes to the effective management of individuals and teams in order to achieve high levels of organisational performance. As such, it establishes shared understanding about what is to be achieved and an approach to leading and developing people which will ensure that it is achieved” (Armstrong etal, 2004).
In the above context, performance measurement refers to the measure of performance, given the constraints of the organization and its environment, by including strategic goals, and integrated links of the business, including people, individuals and teams management. Depending on the organizational structure and dynamism, performance management models differ greatly (Cannell, 2004). To enumerate on the above definitions, the following literature on performance measurement and management demonstrates why they differ from author to author:
In the collection of studies collected together within his book on the subject, Andy Neely (2002), an understanding of the function and theory concerning performance measurement is discussed in depth, and it also provides insight into the various frameworks and methods that have been developed to use in the management process. For example, David Otley (qt. Neely 2002), in his segment, points out performance measurement from an accountant perspective draws on different roles and functions of the organization. It is a financial tool for management, as well as for the overall business performance. Otley also believes that a performance measurement system is the means for motivation and control. He points out that performance management is the result of financial management, which is focussed on “acquisition of financial resources” and the utilization of assets for gaining profitability. The tool “pyramid of ratios” explains the importance of financial ratios in reflecting organizational performance. According to Otley (2002), ratios provide the executives and management of the organization with a clear picture of how resources are being utilized, to determine the financial status. Cash flows reflect the short-term activities, while capital return mirrors the long-term profitability of the organization. In this regard, elements from the balance sheet, such as assets, capital raised, debts and investments, are clearly important for determining the organization’s performance. Performance measurement and management, in this financial model, is narrow and tends to focus on financial functions and performance of financial resources. Furthermore, the objective of the accounting performance measure is to satisfy shareholders, and business performance is measured by the organization’s profitability or level of debts (Otley, 2002).
Similarly, Clark (qt. Neely, 2002) reviews performance measurement from the marketing perspective and points out that the productivity of an organization depends on the development of a system that serves the purpose of “marketing orientation, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and brand equity.” The diverse nature of performance measurement indicates that it requires the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, and not a mere focus on human resource management. Indeed, Neely (1999), in his article, notes that researches of other authors indicate that the value of business performance measurement is clearly indicated by its correlation between customer satisfaction and financial performance. They have noted that parameters of financial performance and improvements in companies often have to include factors such as operating profit, return on capital and improvement in economic value added, which are often derived from non-financial performance.
Eccles’ (1991) article titled “The performance measurement manifesto” offers a different perspective. In that, the author asserts that financial measures are limited because they cannot answer questions of “changing nature of work; increasing competition; specific improvement initiatives; national and international awards; changing organizational roles; changing external demands; and the power of information technology” (qt. Neely, 1999). The constituents of accounting systems, such as allocation of overheads of direct labour, product costs, as well as automation process, have changed the nature of work environment, thereby making the financial performance measurement system redundant. Increasing competition, in a global business world, has also increased the value of customer satisfaction, as seen in most service-oriented organization that makes the single perspective of marketing performance measurement narrow. Standards and quality improvement initiatives, such as TQM and lean production etc., have become pervasive reasons for taking into account of process control as a measure for performance outcome. Furthermore, policies for organizational improvement, organizational control, information generation, standardization, human resource management, quality assurance, maintenance and improvement, and measure for future development often implicate that business performance measurement needs to be dynamic and should not focus on a single perspective. Issues relating to changing customer demands and the changing global trading environment only put more pressure on organizations to develop performance measurement systems that extend to both, internal and external demands.
These themes are also reflected in the works of Michael Armstrong (2006), Kaplan and Norton (1996), and Niven (2006). The works of all of these authors reveal how measuring and managing performance is not a single task for the organisation. Their studies show that, in order to achieve maximum and efficient organisational performance, each area of the business requires to be measured individually and, at the same time, assessed in terms of its harmonisation with other areas and functions of the organisation. In their preface, Kaplan and Norton (1996) identify these areas as “financial, customer [external], internal and, innovation and learning.” Although this is expanded upon in other authors’ works, these are considered to be key functions. All of the studies agree that the objective of performance management is to provide the answers to several key organisational questions:-
· What has happened in the organisation?
· How has it performed?
· What changes need to be made?
· What present or future changes might affect the current performance?
· How will these changes be implemented?
In addition, as is knowledgeably identified with the research by Michael Armstrong (2006), performance measurement and management is not a static and isolated task. There is a need for continual monitoring and adaptation, as these studies will show. Adaptation in this sense is seen to mean the need to redesign areas of the strategy that are not, or have ceased to work, and altering the strategy as a reaction to external changes that might be brought about by altering external stakeholders’ perceptions or needs, or changing regulatory positions. Armstrong (2006) also writes that, to get better performance results from the organization, teams and individuals need to be taken into account. They need to be included in the building of organizational framework of planned goals, standards and/or competence requirements, and develop an understanding of what is to be achieved. The basic premise is to establish a high performance culture within entities of the organization to take responsibility for business process improvement. They need to be encouraged to own up to their skills and contributions through effective leadership. Thus, Armstrong (2006) writes, “performance management is about aligning individual objectives to organizational objectives and ensuring that individuals uphold corporate core values.” They need to be encouraged to participate in performance management programs to develop their capacity to meet or exceed expectations, their own as well as the organization’s. Moreover, performance management systems ensure that they guide the people to improve their potential for the improvement of the organizational performance.
However, Meyer (2002) points out that performance measurement differs with size and complexity of organizations. A small firm, thus, would have less operating resources, activities and products to measure, while a large firm would include a complex financial breakdown of overheads, functions and economic measures. The differences in the complexity of the organization makes the choice of a performance measurement and management system difficult, given the consideration for organizational objectives, functions, structures, and stakeholder values. As a result, performance measures should be based on their purposes, such as whether to motivate and compensate to determine how well the organization performed, and on the type of measures laid out by its stakeholders, namely, valuation of capital markets, financial measures, non-financial measures, and cost measures etc.
Apart from organizational complexity, Amaratunga, Baldry and Sarshar (2001) are of the view that performance measurement is a key factor for measuring success in strategy implementation. Modern organizations, with their multi levels and multi units businesses, measure performance in relation to objectives identified in the planning process. Therefore, performance measure, in this context, is financial performance of individual units, measured against planned objectives, in that it touches almost all relevant aspects of organizations, by setting quality, productivity improvement, customer requirements, and efficient resource utilization standards and processes.
Recognizing the need for performance measurement and management systems, however, is not a solution per se as scholars (notably Cross and Lynch, 1989; Fisher, 1992; Maskell, 1991; Eccles, 1991) have noted organizational dissatisfaction with traditional performance systems. They are of the view that implementation does not holistically provide the required financial or non-financial measures for appraisal. There is a need for a performance management strategy to effectively address the above-mentioned objectives. In this context, performance management can be described as “a process of assessing progress towards achieving pre-determined goals… for effective position change in organizational cultures, systems and processes, by helping to set agreed performance goals, allocation and prioritizing resources, informing managers to either confirm or change current policy or directions to meet those goals, and sharing results of performance in pursuing goals.” (Amaratunga et al, 2001). In this context, the performance management system is used for translating organizational vision into measurable outcomes; providing tools for assessment, management and improvement; shifting from perspective, auditing, compliance into tangible outcomes; measuring quality of organizational activities like quality, cost, speed, customer service, and employee alignment, motivation and skills.
It is within this context that Kaplan and Norton’s (1996) Balanced Score Card came into existence. It is a performance management system that identifies critical success factors for improving organizational processes and develops performance measures in terms of customer, financial, learning and growth, and internal business process. In essence, the BSC is a balanced approach for efficient and effective movement, achievement and resource allocation, which makes it one of the most popular among academicians and practitioners.
2) The Balanced Score Card model
As discussed in the previous section, it is widely accepted that performance measurement rarely develops around single issues, and the work of Kaplan and Nolan (1996), together with others, confirms this. They also describe the basis for a measuring strategy, which is required for the four main areas and ways these can be incorporated into the overall strategic objectives of the organisation.
Using the analogy of an aircraft pilot in their introduction to the subject, Kaplan and Norton (1996) explain how an organisation, like the pilot, needs to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of performance from a number of areas, in order to ensure that it is able to be driven to achieve its goals and objectives, reacting successfully to any changes that might occur. Within Kaplan and Norton’s research, the two sides of the Balanced Score Card process is identified and examined in depth. One is the development and execution of the performance management strategy itself, designing the appropriate procedures, and the other relates to developing the leadership and teamwork culture to ensure that the business management and employees implement the strategy successfully.
In a later research, Kaplan and Norton (2000) extend the BSC process to include the use of strategy maps, which they felt assist in the creation of value-added processes and further explain how the intangible assets, such as human resources and knowledge management can be incorporated within performance management to improve the efficiency of the management and monitoring process.
Additionally, as it adds to the examination of the prime instigators of performance within any organisation, namely the employees and managers, Phillips et al (2004) study of the human resource scorecard also focuses on the same dimensions. When looking at the management and performance of human resources, Phillips et al view it from the aspect of the return that the investment, in these resources, provides for the organisation, correctly identifying that, whether it is in monetary or service terms, all organisations, irrespective of their structure or purpose, are seeking this objective. Working on a step-by-step basis, their study addresses the issue from outlining the needs for scorecard performance measurement and returns on investment strategy, through the planning and development stages, data collection and processing, to the implementation and monitoring stages. In addition, it addresses the issues of monitoring the gathered data and the process of evaluation. The primary aim of Phillips et al (2004) research is the conversion of this information into a monetary value. Whilst this is primarily targeted at the commercial sector, it applies equally to public organisations insofar, as human resources in this sector are usually required to work within predefined budgets, or provide an accurate evaluation in any requests made for additional funding.
The Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan and Norton (1996)
Kaplan and Norton’s BSC model has evolved over the years. Initially, it had been intended for short-term operational control linked with long-term vision and strategy of business, taking into accounts of the customer, financial, internal business processes, and innovation and learning factors. The instigators of the BSC are of the view that these factors are critical for performance of the organization. From the customer perspective, it is critical for an organization to provide quality goods and services to effectively achieve the mission of satisfying customers. In a public organization, this is different as it means achieving the stakeholder interests, and the mission may not be commercial in nature as compared to private sector entities. Similarly, internal business processes involve mechanisms that drive the organization to meet customer expectations. The measure of this perspective may include management judgement and competencies that affect corporate objectives. Regarding innovation and learning perspectives, Kaplan and Norton (1992) state that customers are affected by the organization’s ability to continuously improve its existing products and processes. Employees need to demonstrate the ability to view and resolve complex issues in their operational activities and bring about improvement through quality knowledge. Kaplan and Norton feel that financial performance measures, as indicated by the traditional performance measurement and management model, cannot be negated from performance management and implementation as they contribute to the bottom-line outcome. Financial performance is linked with operations, as well as efficient resource allocation, to generate and achieve targets. Kaplan and Norton (1996) point out that the BSC requires the organization to balance these perspectives through shared communication and incentives, focus on work, allocation of resources and setting of targets, in order to maximize on performance. Lastly, the learning process is the focus of the BSC as it outlines the way management can set expectations and performance by laying the foundation for individuals to contribute towards the organization’s vision and mission (qt. Amaratunga et al, 2001).
BSC model enables management of an organization to transform its vision into an action plan. This can be developed as follows:
1. Defining the vision to ensure performance measures are developed congruent with each of the perspectives
2. Develop strategy with critical success factors clearly outlined to transform into operational activities.
3. Determine CSFs to lay path for progress and achievement.
4. Develop measures and, cause and effect relationships to enable management to monitor individual and team performance.
5. Complete the action plan and communicate it to individuals who are responsible for carrying it out (qt. Amaratunga et al, 2001).
Thus, the BSC “brings together, in a single report, many of the disparate elements of the competitive agenda e.g. becoming customer orientated, shortening response time, improving quality, emphasising team-work, reducing new product launch times and managing for the long term.” (Kaplan and Norton 1992) Yet, the authors themselves point out that the BSC is not without its disadvantages. The BSC merely offers a sample template for organizations to mould according to their need, but does not definitely outline the process for strategic implementation, since indicators may differ from firm to firm based on their corporate strategy.
A host of critics have pointed out a number of shortfalls within the BSC, which makes its implementation not a guaranteed success. Allen (1995), for example, points out that balancing a scorecard does not necessarily translate into individual potential or quality of input. Others like Winstanley and Stuart-Smith (1996) and Meyer (2002) point out that the BSC has been overall effective in providing a model for synthesizing elements that affect performance management. However, traditional managerialists critique it as limited for operationalization, and in achieving organizational objectives, considering factors like firm size, age, culture, bias and such non-financial measures. Radical critics are of the view that the BSC makes it difficult to exercise power and control as the boundary of control is being regulated by performance indicators. This mode of control is akin to Police state control as it is documented and supervised according to the set measures (Winstanley et al, 1996).
On the other hand, Meyer (2002) is of the view that measures of performance management often take into account of factors, which are uncorrelated, for gauging performance. The measures differ in their context and are not aligned with the business’ direction. Moreover, because they are different from each other, even the efficient BSC cannot put them together to focus on one dimension. Consequently, when the time comes for compensation and rewarding people’s performance, management makes the grave mistake of measuring their output with each other, when each of the individuals work and operate in different capacity within the same organization. For example, managers who tend to compare employee A, who works in customer services, with employee B, who works in the finance department, cannot expect to make an informed decision regarding their performances as both work in different capacities for different aspects of the organizational performance. Instead, Meyer (2002) recommends a performance measurement system that meets requirements such as parsimony, predictive ability, pervasiveness, stability, and applicability to compensation. Meyer suggests that a system he identifies as activity-based performance analysis (ABPA) can help towards a resolution of this issue. Meyer (2002) proposes management of organizations to find a performance chain (See Appendix 7) which would help identify the true measures of performance. In this performance chain, the organization charts its business units, functional units and work groups within its business and functional units. It needs to outline the activities that take place and the stakeholders it is accountable to. The performance chain helps differentiate the units and its activities, and, thereby, charts the measures for appraisal in terms of cost incurred and revenue generation.
Despite these critiques, it must be noted that the BSC is not a traditional, or even modern, performance measurement model. Instead, it is a model based on a generation of strategic measures and monitoring their outcomes, whether financial or non-financial.
3) Application of the Balanced Score Cardmodel to public organisations
Challenges raised by the technology age pressurize governments across the globe to harness committed and dedicated staff to respond effectively to local needs. It has become critical for the government, whether local or national, to ensure human resources are sustained, to achieve community goals and address the issues they face, such as population growth, diversity and migration, drug abuse, anti-social behaviour, and social exclusion etc. The rising expectations of stakeholders imply the need for a ready-to-deploy workforce (Lucas et al 2007). Excellence in service deliverance, especially in public sector organizations, means to:
• “have an input into job plans
• have an opportunity to show their initiative
• get feedback on their performance
• believe their manager listens to their ideas
• have a say in management decisions
• have the opportunity to let the authority know how they feel about things that affect them and their work
• feel their authority keeps them well-informed
• believe that the reasons for change are well communicated and that change is well managed”
(Source: The impact of motivation on organisational success, IDeA, 2004)
Thus, high-performing organizations need to be active, not just in its processes, but ingrain performance expectations in its individual, team, service corporate or community (See Appendix 8). Effective performance management requires a systematic decision and communication framework to address aims, objectives, priorities and targets; plans for improving; means of assessing performance measures; and information for reporting the same. Public sector organizations place performance management as a critical tool for achieving local and national agenda, apart from goals of efficient utilization of resources, value for money service to the community, motivating and managing staff, identifying and rectifying poor performance, and increasing public satisfaction (IDeA 2007).
To demonstrate, McDavid and Hawthorn (2005) outlines a performance management cycle, which includes planning, implementation and evaluation processes for managing organizations to achieve their vision and mission. According to the author, there are five stages of an effective strategy for implementing performance management programs in a public sector organization, which include strategic planning, program and policy design, implementation and evaluation (McDavid and Hawthorn 2005) (See Appendix 9).
Consequently, implementation of a performance measurement system is needed to be analyzed carefully before it can be adopted. A number of research studies indicate that public sector organizations differ in their frameworks, which results in problems and difficulties in adopting performance measurement models imported from private sectors (Micheli and Kennerley 2005). Furthermore, public sector management also differs from profit making commercial organizations, in the sense that they have a wider scope in management techniques, approach and accountability, which makes it difficult to implement private sector performance measurement models. However, over the years, public sector organizations have transformed their approaches and frameworks so much that they are distorting the general conception of public sector organizations. Gooijer (2000) is of the view that public sector organizations are learning the importance of knowledge management and performance framework parallel with public needs and performance measurement systems congruent to organizational goals. These views are also reflected by Neely et al (2001). The emergence of new public management has motivated political leaders and national leaders to pursue performance management systems that serve the purpose of aligning performance measures with business strategy. In this context, Kaplan (2001) is of the view that, to apply the BSC, public sector organizations need to draw insights from private sector organizations, for effective implementation of the same. The author suggests that a number of modifications and reorganization needs to take place to expand the definition of customers, as well as change its organizational focus in order to implement the BSC aligned with their vision and mission. Kaplan (2001) points out that public sector organizations’ performance measures include cost, as well as efficiency and effectiveness in service provision. It needs to focus on customer satisfaction to succeed in achieving its objectives. Furthermore, the service environment of the public sector organization makes definition of customer perspective complex, as they are accountable to a host of customers, users, and stakeholders (qt. Greatbanks et al, 2007).
Researches of Niven (2003) and De Bruijn (2006) have also been studied in relation to the application of performance measurement, management and the BSC model within the public sector. Both of these researches identify that public organisations not only have different determinates for performance objectives, but also a number of restrictions that commercial organisations do not attract. Niven (2003) recommends establishment of strong organizational foundation before implementing BSC. In addition, before any steps are taken for implementation, the use of SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat) analysis is necessary for addressing any shortfall, along with conducting a stakeholders analysis, clearly mapping relationships these represent to the organization. These include potential boundaries, both physical and geographical, within which they are required to operate, interact closely with other public organisations, and address problems that can arise due to the historical base of the organisational culture. Both studies provide examples of the best practice methods of handling these conflicts, which include the importance of a structured training strategy, as well as the need for creating a tiered Balanced Score Card system, operational from the top to bottom of the organisation’s structure. In addition, there is an emphasis on communication with, and feedback from, the various stakeholders, including the fund providers, managers and members of the public or consumers.
Furthermore, Lawrie and Cobbold (2004) add that public sector organizations do not follow the rigid definitions of the four perspectives required by the BSC, due to the difference in application. The non-financial aspects of performance for public sector organizations differ in their categories, as well as objectives and activities. To implement the BSC in a public organization, the perspectives are modified and segregated into destination statements and strategic activities.
4) Performance management within public organisations, such as the police
Performance management within public organizations differs greatly, even though the sector has evolved considerably over the past few decades, into a “new public management” era. Performance management is driven by efficiency, efficacy and accountability. It is focussed on economy and efficiency for cost saving, as well as operational control to achieve desired objectives (Chang 2007). Furthermore, Johnsen (2001) offers the view that public management is more complex, therefore, its performance management criteria is based on generic management forms with varying frameworks, to serve its agency and political functions. Public sector organizations’ structures are developed to monitor implementation of decisions, financial planning, auditing and performance measurement. Much of research indicates that public sector organizations’ management is formulated explicitly to address the purpose it has been designed to address. Consequently, instruments for monitoring and controlling it also need to be versatile and legitimate. Performance management must be congruent with the organization’s value chains, as well as reflect continuity of service provision. In addition to versatility, public sector organizations’ structures are based on political systems, whereby the public chooses to elect a certain system to represent them. As a result, public organizations are often strived with political strategies, rather than business strategies. These organizations are governed by multiple principals, with emphasis on different aspects of performance, which makes it difficult to determine indicators for measurement and management (Johnsen, 2001).
According to Yue Ma’s (1997) study, Police systems in the world are based on a fragmented model, centralized model or integrated model. Regardless of the difference in characteristics among Police systems, the organizations are categorized according to the level of authority and accountability. For example, the Police systems structure in the US, Canada, Netherlands and Switzerland is based on fragmented model in which the police organization is extremely localized, and they are accountable to the local authorities. In countries like France, Italy, Finland, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden, the Police system is more centralized, whereby the control and monitor activities are under the central government. Alternatively, in countries like the UK, Germany, Australia and Japan, the Police system is integrated. The organizations share the responsibility of both, the central and local authorities (Yue, 1997).
Given these views in mind, Chan’s (1997) study concentrates, in the main, on the culture of Police organisations, concentrating particularly upon the duality of attitudes, both exhibited by and towards the Police, particularly with the modern multicultural make-up of society. It focuses on examining the fixed and historical determinates within the existing organisational culture and ways to address the issue of change. In respect of change, the study examines the needs for developing a different culture and structure for the organisation, and revising its community operations. Furthermore, it advocates methods by which relationships with other stakeholders, such as the media, can be improved. M. L. Dantzker (1998) studies culture of policing organisations from the basis that both – the present and modern – have influenced their development. The author also provides an analytical approach to being able to adapt to the needs and requirements of the future. Dantzker (1998) has attempted to combine the theoretical studies to a practical implementation, and has included a number of assessments from current and ex-members of a number of Police Forces. Similarly, Bruce Berg (1999), in the third chapter of his book, concentrates on discussing how modern Police Forces and organisations have evolved. However, Berg also provides a more in-depth analysis of the various functions and operations that are involved, including such factors as community policing, crime and investigation, scientific work, and interrogation and interview procedures.
Police departments, thus, over the eras, have evolved significantly, with focus on strategic policing of the community and problem solving. Performance measurement systems are based on response times, clearance rates and number of arrests, according to Braga and Moore (2003). They are of the view that evaluation of Police efforts are focused on how the organization addresses community needs and problems, with emphasis of accountability placed on officers, managers and executives. By entrusting ownership of “assets” and performance outcomes, executives and managers become independent in the management of their units. The Police Chief can drive the performance levels and shift its overall strategy to a higher level, depending on the political influence on his unit. Alternatively, the Police Chief becomes dependent on his/her troops so countervailing pressures are strong to motivate individual members to align themselves to the objectives, values and vision of the unit. Leading through motivation, this way, induces members to work towards the cause of the public, rather than against them.
However, this is not to say that Police values are not in conflict with public values. According to Moore (1990), Police values differ from public in terms of medical and social emergencies. Police judge the degree of victimization or required care according to a different barometer, whereas citizens of the community may view it differently. For this reason, it is imperative to align public values with those of the Police themselves. Performance measurement systems, therefore, need to be enduring in constituency, as well as the standards of the public. Therefore, effective performance measurement values need to incorporate the follow, as Moore suggests (2002):
– “reducing crime and victimization
– calling offenders to account
– reducing fear/enhancing individual security
– ensuring civility in public spaces
– Efficient and fair use of public resources
– using force and authority economically and fairly
– providing quality services/maintaining customer satisfaction” (qt. Braga and Moore 2003)
Moreover, in terms of performance measurement, indicators can be defined by analyzing the daily activities. Braga and Moore (2003) offer the following system for effective performance management system design:
1. Develop internal system of performance measurement aligned with external reporting systems, with drivers for change, authorization and reportage in place.
2. Determine the guiding behaviour aligned with internal structure, and tie it with consequences for managers and troop members.
3. Establish frequent feedback measures for management and decision purposes.
4. Develop transparency in reporting systems to monitor managers, peers and superiors’ accountability and behaviours.
5. Devise a system of measurement that restricts liability on managers.
Since the ultimate result of an efficient and effective measurement system is dependent on policing, crime reduction and security activities, Police management should develop performance measurement systems with emphasis on the same outcome measures.
This chapter looked at various literatures of performance monitoring. Although there are different interpretations and definitions, performance monitoring is aimed at aligning the strategic objectives of the organisation to the individual goals as well as the performance of the firm. The Balance Score Card provides important information such as performance of the organisation, changes required, future changes and the effectiveness of implementation. This Use of Balanced Score Card in public companies differ from that of the private firms due to the difference in the approach, goals and style of working. The management also differs in the scope in management techniques, approach and accountability. There is a need for public organisations to modify and adapt the BSC according to their characteristics.
The accountability of police force is increasing. Also the police values differ from other organisations. The metrics of performance measurement in case of police force should include aspects such as reducing crime, calling offenders to account, enhancing individual security etc.
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research, according to Gliner and Morgan (2000), is “a systematic method of gaining new information or a way to answer questions”. It is a systematic investigation of a matter of public interest, which may or may not be debatable in its constituent. Organizational research is about inquiring about the organizational effectiveness and efficiency within the bounded dimensions assumed by the organizations. Considering many factors are interdependent in organizations, it is commonplace to assume that organizational research is the study of interdependent entities, their treatment of the causal connections and outcomes of interventions. Depending on the nature of the study, different approaches are taken and methods adopted to wield the desired outcomes. The following are some of the approaches considered, evaluated and chosen for this research.
Positivist vs. constructivist paradigms
Before data collection comes into play, a research paradigm needs to be set to qualify the research objectives. ‘Paradigm’ is a term coined by Thomas Kuhn, who defined it as the beliefs that members of the scientific community share (Gliner and Morgan 2000). Alternatively, it can be defined as “a systematic set of beliefs, together with their accompanying methods….” (Gliner, 2000). Thus, in research context, it is a way of thinking about how the research should be conducted. It is not the methodology per se, but a philosophy that guides the researcher in formulating the research questions. In this regard, there are two paradigms in the study of social and health sciences (Gliner et al, 2000):
One is the positivist approach in which the researcher plans out prior to the study. The plan includes details of data to be collected, participants, procedure for collection, treatment of groups or the measures for the data collection. This type of approach is experimental in nature, and usually entails quantitative frameworks for data collection. (Loughborough, 1995). Furthermore, it is assumed that the nature of reality is that it is fragmented and independent of variables and processes, and can be studied independently (Gliner et al, 2000). McDavid and Hawthorn (2005) write of the positivist paradigm as a rational approach to quantitative research, in which the researcher “see the world in a different way” and self-contained within the relative theoretical structure. According to Kuhn (1962), a paradigm is incommensurable, and adherence to one paradigm does not necessarily translate to different paradigms or communicate the experience therein. For this reason, if a researcher chooses a positivist paradigm, then he/she would be limited to the views or evaluation outcomes resulting from the same paradigm, limiting its scope in interpreting other perspectives.
This research may also involve a qualitative framework, which is also known as the constructivist approach. Often, in a constructivist approach, guidelines are in place before the research is carried out. These guidelines are set beforehand, even though they come into play after the research begins (Loughborough, 1995). Gliner and Morgan (2000) further state that the constructivist approach is based on multiple realities that can only be studied holistically to predict the outcomes and understand them. In McDavid and Hawthorn (2005), Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln (2001) point out how the constructivist approach is fundamental, in its assumptions about the human nature, in interpreting foundational reality. According to them, the constructivist approach is fundamentally different because it does not mix and match paradigms to evaluate research propositions. Instead, constructivist experts are of the view that paradigms need to be debated and submerged in practical settings before interpreting their implications or outcomes. Thus, the notion of positivist or constructivist paradigms depends on the perceptual and theoretical structure the researcher wants to pursue.
Quantitative vs. qualitative research
A great many researches are conducted based on the quantitative research method. This model involves a research process that is scientific in nature and uses methods and variables that are quantifiable. The systematic approach involves collection of data and analysis of their relation, in a formulated research design with minimal inputs. The construction of the research design is delineated from dynamic and volatile elements like behaviour and social sciences. This type of study is limited in the sense that it emphasizes on factor variables, whereas, in reality, some facets of life require interpretive theory and knowledge. Loughborough (1995) is of the view that quantitative research involves hypothesis testing, and testing of results irrespective of the knowledge concerned with the issue under discussion. The hypothesis testing process involves systematic measurement of the variables such as organization size, people, and resources etc. Furthermore, Loughborough (1995) also writes that the factor of causality is measured by translating the hypothesis into implicit or explicit statements of cause and effect, so as to quantify the results. Thus, quantitative research is technical in nature and so are its solutions to problems. As a result, this often compromises research effectiveness if it involves social science disciplines like anthropology or sociology, which involve dimensions of human behaviours.
Qualitative research involves solutions to problems that are linked with philosophical assumptions, and does not limit the scope of solutions to one assumption (McDavid et al, 2005). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) categorize qualitative research as objective and define it as follows:
“Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world… qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.” (Denzin et al, 2005).
In the above context, qualitative research stresses on social construct of natural reality, and takes into account of relationships and situational constraints. For this reason, qualitative research is often used for analyzing causal relationships that cannot be quantified by variables or processes. Furthermore, a qualitative approach is often used for evaluation as it encompasses interviews, focus groups, narrative data, field notes from observations and such documentation. The sample size is small and it can be interpreted from multiple perspectives. This is opposed to quantitative methods, which require large sample sizes and statistical procedures for evaluating patterns of variables (McDavid et al, 2005).
Case Study Research
Within the qualitative paradigm is the case study research method, which is often used in business studies. Although, case studies may also be quantitative in nature, for the purpose of this dissertation, the researcher shall categorize it as qualitative.
A case study is the study of organizational constituents such as activities, processes, units, or the over all organizational operations (Cyert et al, 1956; Loughborough, 1995). Similarly, a case study does not imply on more cases but may include research focus on two or more situations, such as organizational strategy and structure. It may involve two or more organizations as it allows the researcher to compare objectively, to reach to the results.
Alternatively, a case study method is effective for the study of the internal environment of business because it comprises of detailed data collection of the organization under study; provides frame of reference for the researcher and reader for interpreting events, as well as allows them to trace the development of the situation or problem through process inference. By using the case study as a model, the researcher is able to derive and examine policy effectiveness and effects of implementation in every-day activities (Mohr, 1982; Patton, 1987; Loughborough, 1995). Furthermore, a case study is useful in providing the researcher an understanding of the organizational functions that may not be visible through fleeting investigation or theoretical process.
Yet, despite these aspects, a case study research also has its drawbacks. According to Burgelman (1985), a case study provides new insight to not-yet-documented management processes in complex organizations. Therefore, the insights may or may not be useful in building theory. Given this view, experts are of the view that results from case studies may not be generalized to apply to other organizations. Knowledge from the research outcome of a case study is enumerative for generating theory and exploratory study (Cohen et al, 1972; Loughborough, 1995), but may not be used as the basis for generalization. In fact, case study method is useful for testing theories, according to Pinfield (1986) (Loughborough, 1995). It helps researcher to confirm theories, thereby saving the time for investing resources for replicating research studies on the same premise. This is because since the case study uses variables that are verifiable in laboratory studies, other researchers may find the results of one or two case studies relevant for furthering their own projects.
Given these factors, the researcher is of the view that the case study method is ideal for conducting a theoretical test of the balance scorecard system. Not only the case study research approach provides dimensions for niche research of the SPF, but it also provides sufficient information about the organization for testing the theory. The information would be enough for the researcher to carry out testing processes of the BSC system through theoretical application. The results of the research shall provide the researcher with information to analyze and contend with the theoretical basis of the BSC system applied in a public sector organization.
Furthermore, the Singapore Police Force has been chosen for this case study because, whilst the country is based upon a similar political structure to the UK, there are historical differences in the way this has developed. As a result, the historical evolution of the organisational culture within its Police organisation will have been influenced. In addition, the structure of the force, both, in terms of its national conscription for policing members and the military style division between policing and other functions, provides a complex base for the study of the process of performance measuring and management. In addition, these complexities create an environment for assessing the values and drawbacks of implementation of the Balanced Score Card method of performance management comprehensive.
Research method rationale
Research method consideration depends on the construct and credibility of the evaluation process. In the study of performance measurement, the underlying key construct is cause and effect linkage, based on the performance measurement system BSC. Evaluation is dependent on how the factors, process and stakeholders, involved in the performance measurement system, are affected by administrative factors and management techniques. Furthermore, performance measurement and management evaluation is focussed on efficiency and effectiveness, which are of the utmost concerns for the stakeholders such as the agency executives, officials and legislatures (Hatry 1999 qt. McDavid and Hawthorn 2005). For these reasons, the researcher is of the view that the objectives of the research are more attune to the implementation process, whereby the actual measurement is not required, but rather the linkage needs to be determined of the cause and effect of the observed outcomes. For this purpose, the constructivist approach has been chosen as the basis for evaluating and rationalizing the outcomes of this dissertation. As discussed earlier, the choice of a constructivist approach for rationalizing the research objectives is based on the premise that performance measurement is a studied topic, especially the BSC, which has been studied by numerous scholars. The researcher’s approach would be to enumerate on one perspective “more”, that is, the application of BSC in a public sector Police organization. Furthermore, the constructivist approach is based on the fundamental assumption of human nature to interpret data or information, which is ideal for the study of the BSC.
Similarly, the researcher is of the view that performance measurement and management system is adopted by organizations to provide stakeholders with information on how consistent the system is (or not) in providing the required outcomes and meeting expectations. Performance measurement and management system, therefore, is based on variables that comprise of targets or benchmarks, which are, at times, not measurable in terms of quantitative outcomes. Activities, such as policies, motivation level, improvement factors and such elements, are subjective and cannot be quantised with statistical figures. Consequently, research outcomes need to be conceptualized and qualitative to distinguish their value to the readers. A qualitative method of study would be ideal for acquiring the required research outcome, whether or not the BSC is suited for public sector organizations.
The choice of using a case study is also inherent in the fact that it provides a manageable dimension for researching a comprehensive topic such as performance measurement and management. A case study research would provide the required frameworks for application of BSC, without compromising results, had it been carried out through extensive quantitative research surveys or the like. It is an efficient method for testing the theory of BSC in public sector organizations, without wasting resources on elongated research process.
In research of this nature, it is normal to use the approach of gathering data from primary, as well as secondary, research. Logistical difficulties may inhibit the former, particularly in terms of questionnaires and survey, and their results. Time restraints and the geographical location of the organisation being used with my case study, the Singapore Police Force, limit the potential for acquisition of primary data. Nevertheless, it is the author’s intention to attempt to secure some primary data through the memorandum of understanding signed with Dubai Police, for sharing knowledge and best practices between the two organizations, by virtue of attempting to use the mode of electronic communication with senior management members of the Singapore Police force.
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In civilized society, the process of social control is complex when examined from the policing point of view. Not only people in society expect social control authority like the police force to eliminate deviant behaviours but also implement measures for informal controls involving sanctions, preservation of civil liberty along with perseverance of norms and rules. Consequently, the law today is not merely a formal control system but also a social control unit that operates within constraints and political systems (Berg, 1999).
Balancing social control and the formal system is difficult. Moreover, it is difficult to recruit, select, train and retain officers with traits like intelligence, empathy, dependability, honesty and common sense to sustain such social control and formal legal system. Even more difficult is perhaps to establish frameworks that would sustain these traits fitting with performance determinants to predict the efficiency and efficacy of the organization responsible for governing safety, security and deterrence of crime (Sanders, 2003). As a result, police organizations today are becoming more complex and dynamic so that the pressure to hire an efficient workforce is becoming highly challenging. Instead, experts are recommending organizations including public organizations like the police to improve processes and to develop frameworks for performance measure that would advocate formation of plans around which activities are organized. These should include derivation of CSFs, process mapping, identification of processes for improvement, process redesign, and measure of performance (Greasley, 2004).
In theory, developing a performance management framework is relatively easy. Experts and practitioners recommend
– The use of community objectives,
– Delegation priorities and development of departmental strategies to manage individual units,
– Linking objectives with budgets,
– Development of human resources and incorporation of an appraisal system into performance management framework,
– Development of a scoring system for assessment,
– Integration of monitoring determinates to gauge performance such as indicators and,
– Develop a coordinated framework so that all the elements of performance management become linked with organizational vision and mission (“Performance management, measurement and information” IDeA 2007). However, in reality, implementation of performance management is difficult as indicated by the findings of the above study, which are discussed as follows:
Understanding the theory and practical application of performance measurement and management
Research from the literature review indicates that performance measurement and management concepts differ greatly depending on the organizational size, structure, process of management and communication, span of control, and planning process and implementation strategy (Meyer, 2002; Armstrong et al, 2004). Performance measurement may involve strategic goals, and how it affects people within the organization (Cannell, 2004). Moreover, it is concerned with how organizations determine which factors are critical success factors, which may not be based on analysis of its internal framework and external linkage with the stakeholders (Neely, 2002; Eccles, 1991). Since different organizations have different stakeholders to account to and perceive different factors for measuring success, its performance measurement system also differ in the same context. This is why various organizations tend to develop different measurement determinants congruent with the need of their stakeholders, such as customer satisfaction, market orientation, brand or loyalty etc. as opposed to the requirement to focus on resource efficiency alone.
The choice of a performance measurement system is also dependent on what values are upheld by the organization. Factors as operating profit, return on capital and improvement in economic value may be important for organizations that deal in tangible products whereas service oriented organizations will hold non-financial parameters more importantly as determinants. For example Kaplan and Norton (1996) identify financial, customer, internal and, innovation and learning as perspectives important for measuring performance.
Similarly, Armstrong (2006) points to the fact that performance measurement and management model used by an organization is not static, and cannot be separated from other departments, teams, strategies or organizational goals. An effective performance management program is one in which the goals of the organization are met. Meyer (2002) adds that it also depends on the complexity of the organization such as the level of operating resources required, activities carried out and products/services delivered to the stakeholders. The organization can only measure its performance outcomes based on the quality, standards, customer requirements and efficient utilization of resources. Consequently, performance measurement and management strategy is effective when it addresses these aspects of the organization and these must be congruent with the organizational goals and objectives.
Based on these findings, the researcher is of the view that for any organization to be effective in its approach and choice of performance measurement and management model, it must clearly analyze its internal as well as external structure for determining the measures that it would want to monitor. For example, the SPF as a comparatively smaller organization when compared to other public sector organization focuses on communication, interdependence of units, stakeholder priority and meeting targets. These are no doubt achievable goals. It also focuses on upholding community values, which is reflected in the organization’s core values. Performance outcome therefore rest on achievement of these goals and objectives instead of in areas of finance or learning. Hence, when performance measurement and management theories are applied to real life situation one observes that there often lacks certain criteria, which make the model, void for implementation as has been observed in the case of SPF.
– Assessment and analysis of the performance methodologies, by using a case study of the Singapore Police Force
The choice of performance management method or model depends on the perceived output that the organization aims to achieve. According to Quah (1982) police productivity is “the ratio of the output of the police to a given input such as manpower, man-hours, equipment or expenditure.” Furthermore, productivity is identified with five functions of the police namely crime deterrence, maintenance of community security, arresting those responsible for crimes, community duties such as enforcement of traffic law and emergency response, and providing service in a courteous and honest manner (Quah, 1982). SPF over the years has been able to achieve its police functions based on this output measure. At the same time, the SPF has been adapting to its environment, which inevitably affect its performance output as has been observed by statistical indicators mentioned in Chapter 2. Crime rates have increased despite the SPF’s claims of successful target achievements. The organization has been able to harness its functional productivity factors such as response time, deterrence, security and maintenance of community duties. However, where performance output in the theoretical sense is concerned with regard to manpower and man-hours, the resources incurred to the organization is considerably high. This is because the SPF has been focussing on productivity functions rather than on indicators, which affect its bottom-line. Quah identifies police indicators that can be used to measure productivity as follows:
“1. The productivity of the individual police officer.
2. The productivity of the police units such as shifts, teams or divisions.
3. The productivity of specialized police units such as Traffic Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Tactical Team and Police Task Force.
4. The productivity of the SPF as a whole” (Quah, 1982)
Earlier, the organizational structure and communication framework of the SPF indicate that its performance is gauged by police productivity functions while police productivity indicators are still being considered varyingly by different units and divisions. Productivity functions differ from productivity indicators, and clearly, the former cannot be used for the purpose of performance measurement or management alone. As discussed earlier, performance measurement need to take into account of internal indicators such as productivity, operational resource utilization, planning, delivery of service as well as achieving customer satisfaction, financial objectives, innovation and so on.
Police functions such as arrests, crime reduction and security cannot be used as indicators alone as they are achievable when the unit increases its manpower, which in turn increases expenditure level. The key to efficient performance management system is to achieve higher level of outcome with minimum resource level used as indicated by Eccles (1991). Eccles asserts the need to assert financial measures along with the nature of work, specific activities, as well as constituents of the accounting system such as labour, product/service cost and automation processes. Achieving customer satisfaction has high value because it directly influences the output level of the organization. The SPF over the years have altered its strategies and included these dimensions, which makes it an ideal case for the adoption of modern performance management system. Similarly, indicators like internal organizational processes, innovation and learning and financial are particularly important too. One cannot negate the importance of performance measures like human resources management, quality assurance, maintenance and improvement as well. The SPF in this context has been narrow in its definition of productivity measures and indicators. Particularly in the areas of innovation, internal organizational processes and quality as it has been busy focussing on the bottom-line outcome. The SPF although is gradually gearing up to meet these requirements as it adapts to its environment change and policing requirements by its stakeholders. By adopting learning and knowledge culture within the organization, the SPF is clearly attuned with the need of the twenty first century policing. Yet, as a public sector organization, these programs are slow to materialize, as they are dependent on government funding.
Given these findings, the researcher is of the view that performance measurement and management method choice depend on the individual organization’s framework as well as ability to effectively utilize resources to address factors that it lacks.
– Analysis of the Balanced Score Card system
The balance scorecard studied in Chapter 3 shows that it is a performance measurement and management model that has been widely debated, discussed, analyzed and adopted by major corporations in the private sector the world over. Although its originators Kaplan and Norton (1996) has projected the model for private sector organizations, the pressure for developing the BSC for public sector organization has proliferated new avenues for research. Kaplan and Norton’s (1996) model is based on identification of performance indicators such as value added processes, human resources, and knowledge management. It emphasizes on the examination of organization from outside and inside through a step-by-step process to design procedures for developing leadership and teamwork culture within the organization before adopting the BSC (Phillips et al, 2004).
The BSC system furthermore seeks to address issues of performance measurement, return on investment strategy, planning and development through complex analysis of indicators. At the same time it also include aspects of evaluation such as organizational interaction factors such as customers, stakeholders and employees interests, and how it reflect with the organization’s mission and vision. Kaplan and Norton’s BSC model has evolved to include strategic and operational perspectives as well. The essence of the BSC implementation process lay in its developed framework for transforming vision into action based on the following:
1. Defining the vision to ensure performance measures are developed congruent with each of the perspectives
2. Develop strategy with critical success factors clearly outlined transform into operational activities.
3. Determine CSFs to lay path for progress and achievement.
4. Develop measures and, cause and effect relationships to enable management to monitor individual and team performance.
5. Complete the action plan and communicate it with individuals who are responsible for carrying it out (Amaratunga et al, 2001).
Furthermore, the BSC is considered to be one of the performance management models that are comprehensive in its approach in dealing with long term and short-term indicators by continuously evolving according to organizational needs. It helps executives and upper management to develop strategies based on organizational human resources, and leads them towards organizational goals.
Limitations of BSC
Despite these positive aspects, the BSC has been much criticized. Critics are of the view that the BSC despite its boasts as an efficient performance measurement and management model, it is lacking in some aspects. According to Allen (1995) the BSC does not measure individual quality or input. Others (Winstanley and Stuart-Smith 1996; Meyer 2002) criticize it for its ineffectiveness in synthesizing organizational factors that affect performance level. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the BSC may be a functional performance measurement model but it cannot be used for the purpose of operations and achievement of organizational objectives since it does not address issues that affect firms, other than the operational factors, such as age, culture, bias and non-financial indicators. Consequently, when it comes to implementation in organizations that are highly influenced by external factors and stakeholders, the BSC is limited in its scope.
Not only this, Meyer (2002) a great critic in performance management points to the fact that it differs in its approach and evaluation of output factors related to individual performance. Thus, if a police officer working in a different department is being evaluated for his/her performance, he/she cannot be compared with another officer in a different division. Differences in work activities, roles, position and contribution to the organization also has differing effects on performance output and inevitably on performance measurements. For these reasons, the researcher is of the view that the BSC is limited when used in a dynamic environment where indicators, functions and individual roles differ within the organization.
Need to adapt BSC for public organisations
Performance management within a public organization differ greatly from its private counterpart due to the organizational dynamics as well as framework. Private sector organizations are profit seeking, and base their objectives on achieving this bottom-line profitability. Its stakeholders are clear-cut: its customers and shareholders. However, in a public sector organization the role and responsibility of the individuals differ greatly depending on the nature of the stakeholders, values, indicators, and political orientation. Thus according to Chang (2007) performance measurement in public organizations is focussed on cost efficiency while Johnsen (2001) believes it is the agency and political functions along with internal organizational structure indicators such as decisions, financial planning, auditing and performance management. Johnsen also believes it is relevant to include the organization’s value chain, stakeholders and business strategies as performance indicators. It is these factors that make the difference in performance measurement and management in public and private sector organizations.
– Examine the implication that the balance scorecard performance management system will have upon police organisations, by reference to the Singapore Police force
Public sector organization such as the SPF differs more from private and other public sector organization in term of organizational model, characteristics, accountability and responsibility. It is also affected by the make-up of the society such as culture, ethnicity, political system, bias, and orientation as well as political orientation. The different factors that needs to be considered while designing a performance management system in SPF are:
Multi- cultural Environment
SPF, which is based in Singapore, a country that is ruled by multiethnic groups and culture, will find it difficult to adopt a standard performance management system. Instead, it needs to take into account of the various relationships it has with its internal and external stakeholders such as staff, executives, management, citizens, politicians and the community at large. Its values should reflect the values of the stakeholders, while its organizational objectives should serve the purpose of community policing and providing security to its people.
The SPF, from its vision statement, can be understood as an organization that has values related to comprehensive and wide range of stakeholders’ perspectives. Its vision not only reflects the public’s need but it also includes values that are cherished by any lawful community. The generic approaches to upholding value as well as identifying accountability make it easy for SPF to develop and implement its strategy for monitoring organizational performance.
Yet at the same time as Moore (1990) states, often police values are in conflict with public values since citizens of community may view the urgency and seriousness of a crime differently than those at the police division. When establishing values for performance measurement, this is a critical aspect that needs to be dealt with carefully. Values should be developed, and reflect those of the community, and those working within the police department should incorporate it within their work framework. Braga and Moore (2003) suggest the inclusion of a system of internal performance measurement system aligned with drivers for change.
To begin with, it can be observed that the SPF identifies its values congruent with those of its citizen’s values and principles. From its mission and core values statements, one can relate to the empathetic nature of the SPF force in securing its nation’s approval. The inclusion of courage, loyalty, integrity and fairness elements in the organizational values addresses the issue of multiethnic as well as religion and race, which often conflict with each other when dealing with crime and arrests. However, its values also reflect the national goals and objectives, which make it too generic for effective implementation of the choice performance measurement and management model. When dealing with BSC, experts are of the view that organizational values and core principles should be unique so that they help the management to separate indicators for measurement purposes.
Furthermore, when carrying out policing activities, it is necessary for every member of its force to understand the importance of building a healthy and safe environment through their unique efforts and contribution. Building core values on a generic framework does not ease in the process of establishing performance determinates.
In addition, the fact that the SPF is divided into functional divisions and departments makes it liable to certain management pitfalls. Each of these departments as discussed in Chapter 2 show that they follow individual missions and visions. While the BSC does not require centralization, the researcher is of the view that a public sector organization need to at least have some form or structure of centralization so that inter-dependent factors can be interlinked accordingly. As it is, in a public sector organization like the police, it is accountable to a host of interdependent departments, councils and units, there should be certain benchmarks and standardized frameworks upon which the BSC can be based, its determinants can be established and implemented for performance measurement.
Financial Aspect and Accounting Non-Financial Aspects
From the financial perspective, the SPF’s financial status is largely dependent on the government as it is its chief source of funding. Any change in political agenda, policies or government would likely affect the SPF’s financial status. Similarly, as a public organization the SPF’s customers are its stakeholders. There is no commercial transaction involved here. Instead, the members of SPF are involved in activities that are at times not rewarding at all. Activities like policing the community, providing safety and security, and solving community problem etc. are intangible. They cannot be measured by numerical figures. The BSC is ideal for measuring such non-financial indicators as its perspectives are based on the same yet it can translate the non-tangibility of the determinants to tangible determinants.
The SPF has a comprehensive learning program to train its personnel from top to bottom so as to enhance the level of performance of its people. To promote the spirit of learning, the SPF has developed training calendar to empower its personnel to respond to environmental change as well as social change. It also has complex process management frameworks, which it calls tactics. The aim of these tactics is to influence operational procedures to improve performance. Furthermore, as the BSC emphasizes on reporting and monitoring, the SPF also employs a comprehensive channel for reviewing individual, peers and superior performance and expectations to help develop the culture of transparency and fairness.
They also suggest including guide for behaviours and culture; feedback; reporting system for monitoring efficiency and effectiveness of plans; and liability restriction system so that individual police officers realize their contribution towards the organization unit/division’s success in meeting goals, budgets and stakeholder’s expectations. The BSC is one such performance measurement and management system that addresses internal and external drivers; it takes into account of organizational values, goals, mission and vision; it includes financial aspects as well as stakeholder’s expectations in the form of customer satisfaction.
The BSC as discussed earlier is one of the most studied and used models in the private sector but it have only been recently that it has been considered for implementation within public sector organization. In this context, the researcher is of the view that the SPF dynamics and framework can easily incorporate the BSC, a model that proposes organizational requirements based on some of the above criteria.
The BSC performance measurement and management model also require organizations to define the perspectives financial, customer satisfaction, innovation and learning, and internal business processes before developing strategies for implementing it. Factors like learning, innovation, processes may be incorporated within the organization through motivation and encouragement of employees, and may not require extensive financial support yet it would help enhance the organization’s performance level.
However, at the core of the SPF’s focus is their stakeholder, which may include employees, citizens, government officials, partners or external players. One of the requirements of the BSC is to develop an efficient communication network, which the SPF has done with its communication policy developed for communicating policies, goals, commitment and responsibility. Thus, implementing the BSC within the SPF may not prove to be as difficult as one perceive it to be.
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The overall aim of this research is…
‘to assess the effectiveness of the Balanced Score Card approach to performance management within a police organisation.’
The objectives of the dissertation are:
· To provide an understanding of the theory and practical application of performance measurement and management.
The research looked at the various theories and literatures regarding performance management and Balanced Score Card to identify the models and tools that can be applied. It was found that several studies have been already done in this area and the success of performance management models and tools were proven.
· To provide an analysis of the Balanced Score Cardsystem.
The research looked at the specific aspects of applying Balanced Score Card system. This formed the basis for evaluating the applicability in the public organisation. It was found that there are various aspects of balance score card system that need to be considered while applying and it needs to be adapted and aligned to each organisation and its goals.
· To provide an overview of the current organisational structure of modern Police forces and the stakeholders to whom they have a responsibility.
It was found that the police organisation have different set of values, objectives and organisational structure that can affect the implementation of any performance management system.
· To examine the implication that the balance scorecard performance management system will have upon Police organisations, by reference to the Singapore Police Force.
It was found that Singapore Police Force has several aspects such as multi-cultural environment, values upheld by the organisations, employee relations that affect the implementation of a performance management system in Singapore Police Force.
· To provide an assessment and analysis of the performance methodologies, again, by using a case study of the Singapore Police Force.
The research looked closely at the functioning and the characteristics of Singapore Police Force. It identified several factors that affect the performance management system. This is taken as basis of the recommendations.
· To provide, where appropriate, recommendations for improvements to the current performance management system operated with Police organisation. Several recommendations were drawn out of the research. This is provided in the section below.
At the beginning of the dissertation, the researcher has posed the question how effective and efficient is the implementation of performance measurement and management model, especially the BSC model within a public organization? How difficult it is, and what adaptations organizations need to incorporate before it can benefit from such a performance management model? The research findings as discussed in the previous chapter answer these questions are outlined as follows:
1. Performance measurement and management theories differ greatly from its application as the majority of performance measurement and management theories are based on functions of management and processes such as planning, organization, span of control and strategies whereas in reality organizations tend to adapt these functions depending on the its structure, performance and resources. Theoretical frameworks focus on developing organizational structure based on analysis of stakeholders, customers, budget and success factors as performance indicators. While these factors are required by the organization to perform efficiently, there are a host of others, which also affect its bottom-line outcome especially in a public sector organization such as the SPF where issues of culture, bias, political orientation, and type of stakeholders matter in the delivery of service to the “customers”.
2. To test this rationale, the researcher analyzes the Singapore Police Force, which is a public sector organization and based in Singapore. Information regarding the organization indicates that the SPF is an efficient organization operating on productivity functions and has been able to achieve its functional targets for the past few decades. Although it has become a favourite organization for its people, from the management point of view the SPF can do with some improvements. Analysis of the organization indicates that despite tremendous achievement in meeting productivity functional targets such as crime deterrence, arrests, safety and security of the community, the SPF have not been able to curb the number of rising crime rates. For this reason, the researcher is of the view that it needs to improve on its performance measurement and management methodology by focussing on individual performance to achieve bottom-line productivity of the whole organization. By adopting an efficient performance management system with clear indicators of performance outcome defined and implemented it would be able to pursue modern public organizational expectations such as quality improvements, customer satisfaction, financial constraints and innovation. One such performance management system is the BSC.
3. The balance scorecard system is a comparatively efficient and effective performance measurement and management model instigated by Kaplan and Norton (1992). The BSC system has been proven ideal for private sector organizations; however, for public sector, organizations need to revisit the BSC for efficient and effective implementation. Some of the aspects that need to be focussed on are identification of performance indicators, accountability, identification of stakeholder expectations, and political orientation, which are setbacks for the BSC when applied to a public sector organization. When applied to SPF, it can be observed that the BSC is an effective system for addressing the needs of performance measurement for the organization. It addresses core values as well as performance criteria and expectations apart from the above-mentioned setbacks. Even so, the BSC can be said to be a dynamic performance measurement and management model as it is flexible enough to incorporate additional performance factors yet at the same time it is rigid in guidance so that it helps SPF to identify its weaknesses, rectify them and adopt new approaches to management and performance. Consequently, the result is an efficient organization, even though the said organization is a public one.
4. Lastly, the author is of the view that the BSC is an effective performance management approach but it is not the only one for the public sector organization. Considering the new type of public sector organization, implementation of any kind of performance management model is feasible provided that it is flexible enough to incorporate dynamics other than those adopted by private sector organizations. The BSC has proven an ideal model because it considers business units, divisions and departments separately which reflect the organizational framework of the SPF. Similarly, the BSC also takes into account of the indicators that are different from financial ones, which helps its adopter to identify with (such as stakeholders, agency, political orientation and so on).
The key limitations of this research can be summarised as follows:
§ The research focuses on the Balanced Score Cardsystem, which is only one method among numerous tools for performance measurement and management. Hence this research project limited in the analysis of all the tools and its applicability for SPF.
§ This research is limited to the investigation of BSC implementation in public sector Police organizations. Hence it is limited in scope, to comprehensively understand the dimensions of BSC benefits or shortfalls.
§ For performance measurement and management practitioners, this research shall prove enumerative to the extent of public sector organization, whereas the scope of BSC is wider than mere for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Consequently, practitioners working in human resource capacity or strategic implementers may find this research limited in furthering their knowledge in BSC implementation other than police organizations.
Given the above studies, the researcher recommends the following to public sector organizations that plans to adopt the Balanced Scorecard as a performance management system:
1. Clearly define critical success factors, performance indicators, functional indicators and productivity indicators.
2. Analyze the organizational structure, framework, dynamics and expectations before adopting any performance management model.
3. Before the adoption of the BSC, organizations need to understand the need to alter and adapt the Scorecard to serve its own organizational model.
4. Before adopting the BSC, reflect upon different approaches to performance measurement and management that best suit your organization.
5. Consider factors that are non-financial as well as financial when analyzing your own organization for managing performance.
Balance Score Card is a highly effective management tool which can be adapted to any type of organisation such as police force. The effectiveness would depend on how closely it aligns with the organisational characteristics.
Allen, D. (1995), “Observable stances”, Management Accounting, Vol. 73 pp.20-2
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2001) Process improvement through performance measurement: the Balanced Score Card methodology. Work Study, Volume 50 . Number 5 pp. 179±188
Armstrong, M. (2006) Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines. Kogan Page Ltd.
Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (2004) Managing Performance: Performance management in action. 2nd Edition Kogan Page Ltd.
Assiri, A. et al (2006) How to profit from the Balanced Score Card: An implementation roadmap, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 937-95
Berg, B. L. (1999) Policing in Modern Society. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Braga, A. A. and Moore, M. H (2003) Measuring and improving police performance: the lessons of Compstat and its progeny. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 439.
Burgelman, R.A. (1985), Managing the new venture division: research findings and implications for strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 39-54
Cannell, M. (2004) “Performance management: an overview” Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. Online accessed on 22 July 2007 from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/perfmangmt/general/perfman.htm?IsSrchRes=1
Chan, J. B. L (1997) Changing Police Culture: Policing in a multicultural society. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Chang, L. (2007) The NHS performance assessment framework as a Balanced Score Cardapproach: limitations and implications, International Journal of Public Sector Management Volume 20 Number 2 pp. 101-117
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P. (1972), A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-25.
Cross, K. and Lynch, R. (1989), Accounting for competitive performance, Journal of Cost Management, Spring, pp. 20-8.
Cyert, R.M., Simon, H.A., and Trow, D.B. (1956), Observation of a business decision, Journal of Business, vol. 29, pp. 237-48
Dantzker, M. L (1998) Police Organisation and Management. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Massachusetts, US.
De Bruijn, H. (2006) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. 2nd ed. Routledge. London, UK.
Dixon, J. R. et al (1990) The new performance challenge – measuring operations for world-class competition, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 131-7.
Fisher, J. (1992), Use of non-financial performance measures, Journal of Cost Management, Spring, pp. 310-38.
Gautreau, A. and Kleiner, B. H. (2001) Recent Trends in Performance Measurement Systems: The Balanced Scorecard Approach. Management Research News. Volume 24 Number 3/4.
Gliner, J.A. and Morgan, G. A. (2000), Research Methods in Applied Settings: An Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gooijer, J. (2000), Designing a knowledge management performance framework, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.303-10.
Greasley, A. (2004) Process improvement within a HR division at a UK police force, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 230-24
Greatbanks, R. and Tapp, D. (2007) The impact of Balanced Score Cards in a public sector environment, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume 27 Number 8 pp. 846-873
IDeA (2004) The impact of motivation on organisational success, IDeA, 2004.
Improvement and Development Agency (2007) Performance management, measurement and information. Improvement and Development Agency, A report on three events for local authorities organised as part of the joint IDeA/Audit Commission project.
Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government (2007) A manager’s guide to performance management. 2nd Edition. The performance, management, measurement and information project. Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government.
Johnsen, A. (2001) Balanced scorecard: theoretical perspectives and public management implications, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16/6 pp. 319±330
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The Balanced Score Card ± measures that drive performance Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 171-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), The Balanced Score Card, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Using Balanced Score Card as a strategic management system, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan R. S and Norton, D. P (2000). The Strategy-focused Organisation: How Balanced Score Card companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press. US.
Kaplan, R.S. (2001), Strategic performance measurement and management in non-profit organizations, Non-profit Management and Leadership, Vol. 11 No.3, pp.353-70.
Lawrie, G. and Cobbold, I. (2004) Third-generation Balanced Score Card: evolution of an effective strategic control tool, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 611-623
Letza, S. R. (1996) The design and implementation of the balanced business scorecard Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Volume 2 Number 3 pp. 54-76
Loughborough, A. (1995) Research Methods and Organization Studies. University, Bryman; Routledge.
Lucas I. et al (2007) Faster, Fitter More Flexible: Chief Executives Developing Councils for the Future People and Improvement. Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government.
Lynch, R.L and Cross, K. F. (1991) Measure Up – The essential guide to measuring business performance. Mandarin, London.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure Up ± The Essential Guide to Measuring Business Performance, Mandarin, London.
Maskell, B.H. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for American Companies, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
McDavid, J. C. and Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2005) Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. Sage Publications.
Meyer, M. W. (2002) Rethinking performance measurement: beyond the Balanced Score Card. Cambridge University Press.
Mohr, L.B. (1982), Explaining Organizational Behavior: The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. H. (1990) “Police leadership: the impossible dream?” in Hargrove, E. and Glidewell, J. (eds) Impossible Jobs in Public Management, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, pp. 73.
Moore, M. H. (2002) Recognizing Value in Policing, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC.
Neely, A. (1999) The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-228,
Neely, A. (2002) (ed). Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Neely, A. and Kennerly, M. (2002) A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp.1222-1245.
Neely, A. and Kennerly, M. (2003) Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 213-229
Neely, A., Adams, C., Crowe, P. (2001), The performance prism in practice, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No.2, pp.6-12.
Niven, P. R. (2003) Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofits Agencies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Niven P.R(2006). Balanced scorecard step by step maximizing performance and maintaining results. Harvard business press. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471078727/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8448399-3514511#reader-link
Otley, D. “Measuring performance: The accounting perspective” in Neely, A. (2002) (ed). Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Patton, M.Q. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Phillips, Jack J., Stone, Ron D and Phillips, Patricia Pulliam (2004). The Human Resource Scorecard: Measuring the Return on Investment. Butterworth-Heinemann. Massachusetts, US.
Pinfield, L.T. (1986), A field evaluation of perspectives on organizational decision making, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 365-88.
Quah, J. S.T. (1982) Productivity in the Singapore Police Force: Some Suggestions for Improvement, Asian Journal of Public Administration.
Sanders, B.A. (2003) Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 313
Singapore Police Force Official Website www.spf.gov.sg
“Singapore Police Force” Online accessed on 22 July 2007 from: http://app.ps21.gov.sg/data/newps21/subpages/24/1384/Singapore%20Police%20Force.pdf
Waggoner, D.B. et al (1999) The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60-61, pp. 53-60.
Winstanley, D. and Stuart-Smith, K. (1996) Policing performance: the ethics of performance management. Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 66-84.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yue, Ma (1997) The Police Law 1995: organization, functions, powers and accountability of the Chinese police, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 113-135.
Source: Singapore Police Force Website
Source: Singapore Police Force Website
Source: Singapore Police Force Website
Source: Neely 2002
The Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan and Norton (1996)
The BSC: A system of strategic implementation
Performance Chain of a Firm
Source: Meyer 2002
Characteristics of high-performing organizations
Source: HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office’s Devolved Decision Making Review 2007