Suchergebnisse

PAPER POINTS OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING A UTILIZATION ORIENTED DESIGN FOR EVALUATING POLICY AND DIFFERENT TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN AN OVERALL CONCERN WITH THE USE OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF AVAILABLE HUMAN RESOURCES.

PurposeThis paper has two purposes. The first is to help elected officials address the issue of public accountability for crises and improve productivity and risk management in the process by outsourcing some traditional government functions to civil society based organizations that can do a better job. The second is to mobilize researchers to explore the implications of the shift from "governing" to "governance" for risk management and the development of risk culture.Design/methodology/approachAfter exploring some case studies, the paper examines some leading resources on the shift from "governing" to "governance". The paper goes on to present an alternative approach for managing public risks.FindingsIn order to improve the management of public risks, and given the financial constraints faced by most governments, there is a need for a deliberate effort to entice civil society based organizations to help government identify and alert the public to possible risks. In other words, civil society based organizations that make claims for public resources in the name of good governance should, as necessary, play the role of a watchdog when it comes to public safety and guarding of the public interest in that regard.Practical implicationsUse of market forces and non‐governmental entities to replace government agencies and regulations that cannot assure the public safety because they are difficult to implement, expensive or likely to be compromised due to various forms of corruption and politics.Originality/valueThe paper advocates substitution of "management by exception" by a "management by risk" approach and the fostering of an administrative culture that is more mindful of the need to recognize and address possible risks. Such an approach, the paper claims, is a more promising approach than an increase in government regulation.

Résumé Plusieurs publications font l'apologie de la mesure du rendement et de l'établissement de rapports sur le rendement, des outils qu'elles considèrent comme des concepts de gestion qui permettent aux administrateurs et aux représentants élus de faire face aux problèmes de productivité et d'imputabilité. Dans cet article, nous contestons cette affirmation générale pour deux raisons. D'abord, parce que le coût des analyses du rendement est toujours significatif tandis que les avantages sont souvent incertains. Ensuite, à cause des éventuels problèmes qui se posent lorsque la mesure du rendement est utilisée à deux fins différentes et potentiellement opposées : l'imputabilité par opposition à la productivité. Nous concluons que bien que la mesure du rendement puisse s'avérer utile, son utilisation doit être encouragée mais pas prescrite par des organes extérieurs. Dans cet article, nous soutenons que les analyses du rendement peuvent être mieux introduites et mieux utilisées si l'on a conscience de deux éléments : premièrement, ce qui peut mal se passer lorsqu'on établit un rapport sur le rendement et deuxièmement, que d'autres changements correspondants peuvent s'avérer nécessaires, au sein et en dehors des organismes gouvernementaux, si l'on souhaite obtenir des rapports sur le rendement qui soient utiles.

Performance measurement and reporting are promoted in various publications as a management concept that can help administrators and elected officials address the issues of productivity and accountability. This article challenges this general assertion for two reasons. First, because the cost of performance score cards is always significant while the benefits, in many instances, may be only tentative. Second, because of possible problems that result when measuring performance is used for two different and potentially competing functions: accountability versus productivity. The article concludes that while performance measurement has a potential, its use should be encouraged but not mandated by external bodies. The article asserts that a more prudent introduction and use of performance score cards may result from better understanding of two things: first, what can go wrong when compiling performance reports; and, second, that there might be a need for other corresponding changes, within and outside government agencies, in order to facilitate meaningful performance reports.

Why should business decision-makers study government performance data? The international collection of articles in this symposium illustrates the type of issues and data that managers should consider in making business decisions.