The big lie about transparency: How to implement performance management in government successfully

Governments have been implementing performance management since the late 80s. So why should IBM devote attention to this topic? Isn't there already enough focus on output and performance measurement? Isn't government transparent already, and aren't government products and services already being delivered effectively and efficiently?

Well, our recent survey of senior government officials across Europe, points out that this is not the case: Only 10 percent of performance management and transformation-like programs have been implemented successfully. Everybody talks about the need for the performance of public services to be more transparent, but nobody really likes it...except the public.

How does performance management relate to public value?

Based on our experience in government consulting, we have discovered a number of major hurdles to overcome when implementing performance management to increase public value. Public value is defined as: The value experienced by citizens and other government stakeholders of the public services provided and the degree of efficiency with which the government bodies are managed. Performance management is seen as a key instrument to help ensure the deliverables of the government bodies are more transparent, to link performance to the (political) goals, and to endorse accountability for desired results and promises.

Why is it so difficult to implement?

Performance management implementation seems often a very hard and painful process. Based on our consulting experience, we have discovered a number of major hurdles to overcome before it begins to pay off, and before clients/citizens experience enhanced public value.

To read the complete study, download the PDF file at the top of this page.