Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government
Page 12
strategy. Specifi
fically we outline the rationale for introducing performance
monitoring technologies in public central administrations (ministries), the
use the central government made of the system and the ways in which cen-
tral public administrations responded to such compulsory performance
monitoring system.
The chapter is structured as follows. The next section provides the
theoretical framework for performance and e-government in the public
sector, whereas the third introduces the Italian answer to the EU request
in terms of e-government implementation over the last four years. The
fourth section provides an analysis of the Brunetta reform content that
represents the starting point of a new path for performance measurement
through e-government in Italy, whereas the fi
fifth section measures the
fi
first implementation results. The last section draws some conclusions.
2 THE
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Despite the massive research on how to measure performance, to imple-
ment and use performance measurement systems, and to compare perfor-
mance, there remains a surprising lack of clarity on the core notion of
“performance” itself.
Performance measurement is set around the idea that each public orga-
nization formulates its own envisaged performance by defi nin
fi
g specifi c
fi per-
formance indicators which are used to steer and control activities with the
aim to get strategic goals (De Bruijn, 2002). Hatry defi ne
fi
s performance
measurement as the “measurement on a regular basis of the results (out-
come) and effi
fficiency of services or programs” (1999, p. 3). Bouckaert and
Halligan (2008) consider performance as “not a unitary concept . . . [which]
must be viewed as a set of information about achievements of varying sig-
nifi
ficance to diff
fferent stakeholders.” This brings to the question of what are
defi
fined as “achievements.” Achievements may be viewed as a synonym for
results, which is the most typical view taken by many practitioners from the
performance measurement movement.
An alternative route for a defi
finition of performance may be to use classi-
fi c
fi ation or typology systems to understand diff
fferent types of performance.
In fact, the notion of multidimensional performance is widely accepted both
in terms of span (i.e., its horizontal expansion of the results dimension) and
depth (i.e., its micro, meso, and macro vertical dimensions) (Bouckaert &
Halligan, 2008, pp. 14–34). Typically, in terms of span the classification of
62 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
performance into diff
fferent categories such as inputs, process, outputs, and
outcomes is the most important distinction made in the fi
field, but there are a
considerable number of variants (for example, see Hatry, 1999; Anthony &
Young, 2003; Poister, 2003). From these elementary performance compo-
nents, two main concepts are created: effi
ci
ffi ency, as the ability to minimize
inputs given a certain level of outputs or maximize outputs given a certain
amount of inputs, and eff
ffectiveness, as the ability to achieve the goals or
standards provided.
Performance can also be defi
fined at diff
fferent levels in a governmental
system. It may be defi
fined at the organizational level or the bureaucratic
system. Even at the organizational level, one may view performance from
the standpoint of the bureaucracy or the political level. Alternatively, per-
formance may be defi
fined as the individual employee level which is perhaps
more typical in the human relations management fi
field (Talbot et al., 2005).
This would be the case of individual performance appraisals. From an
external perspective, the focus on the diff
fferent dimension of performance
is driven by the different stakeholders’ interests.
Both the administrative and managerial sciences agree on the need
to understand performance measurement, and thus the core notion of
“performance” in the public sector in a dynamic or evolving context
(Pollitt et al., 2007; De Bruijn, 2002). Thus, the challenge is to move in
handling this dynamism. Pollitt (2007) posits that several factors may
infl
fluence the change in a performance measurement system over time.
One factor is the linkage between the performance measurement system
and managerial or political activities. In explaining how and why the
performance concept is volatile in the public sector, we can use the “per-
formance regime” concept by Talbot and co-authors (Talbot et al., 2005;
Talbot, 2006). They suggest that a multitude of actors, such as govern-
ment departments, ministries, legislatures, audit, inspection, judicial,
and regulatory bodies may be involved in defi
fining the context within
which a government may be engaged in developing and adopting a per-
formance measurement system, thus in shaping the prevailing idea of
performance that has to be accomplished.
Like any other program of government, performance measurement
does not work by itself (Miller & Rose, 1990), but it requires “technolo-
gies” if it is to be made operable. Technologies are devices for inter-
vening (Hacking, 1983), and they include notation, computation and
calculation, procedures of examination and assessment, etc. Today they
can be identifi
fied with information technologies (IT). More specifi call
fi
y,
during the last 10 years web-based applications have given raise to what
has been labeled as e-government. E-government has acted as the funda-
mental IT tool in public sector reform strategies (Reddick, 2010) and has
proved to provide more efficient and eff
ffective public services (Biancucci et
al., 2001; Palvia & Sharma, 2007), transparency (Cho and Byung-Dae,
Bridging E-Government and Performance 63
2004) and interaction between government and its stakeholders (Palvia
& Sharma, 2007).
The concepts presented above give raise to three dimensions that
appear to be important when e-government applied to performance man-
agement is studied. These three dimensions shape the concept of e-per-
formance (i.e., the set of dimensions of analysis that are to be considered
when implementing e-government solutions for performance manage-
ment). The fi
first dimension deals with the “performance regime” and,
more generally, the different stakeholders’ interests’ ideas and refers to
the nature of the accountability relationship that represents the source
of the “account giving” of a public organization in a broader system.
The accountability literature has focused on the classifying the diffe
r-
ent types of frameworks in place by governments to control and pro-
vide justifi
fication for government actions. Romzek and Dubnick (1987;
1991) have conceptualized four types of accountability mechanisms,
depending on the source of agency control—internal or external—and
the degree of control over agency actions—high or low. When the rela-
tionship between the accountor and the accountee is hierarchical within
the same organization and the degree of control—in terms both of range
and depth of actions—is high, a bureaucratic accountability mechanism
is in place. Legal systems are used as an accountability mechanism
which is external but the level of control remains high. The professional
accountability approach is used for specifi
fic reasons, usually associated
with the degree of complexity or diffi
fficulty of a specifi c
fi activity, public
offi
fficials can rely upon experts of a specific fi
field only who are hired to
study specifi
fic problems (i.e., internal source of control). Finally, political
accountability refers to the relationship between constituents and repre-
sentatives, the latter being responsive to constituents, given their policy
priorities and programmatic needs.
Figure 6.1 Types of accountability systems. Source: adaptation from Romzek and
Dubnick (1987, p. 229).
64 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
Considering again the “performance regime” concept and the idea that
the concept of performance is shaped dynamically by a multitude of per-
spective by stakeholders discussed above, the second dimension of e-perfor-
mance concerns the level of government and types of external stakeholders
involved. For example, diff
fferent levels of government (i.e., state and local
governments) may interact with the federal or central government to shape
IT system deployment, or a government website may be developed involv-
ing groups of such users as entrepreneurs, educators, and teenagers.
The third dimension derives from the diff e
ff rent dimensions in terms of span
of performance and concerns the types of performance for which e-govern-
ment is intended to accomplish. IT offer
ff s diff eren
ff
t services or information to
citizens, other governments, contractors or internal managers. E-government
information could include items such as how the government is structured,
how laws are passed and other basic government information. Overall, e-gov-
ernment strategies may prevail one of the two main dimensions of perfor-
mance, either effi
c
ffi iency or eff ec
ff tiveness (Hammers Specht, 2000; Worral,
Remenyi, & Money, 2000; Heeks, 2001; Hammers Specht & Hoff, 2005).
3 TRANSFORMATION OF E-GOVERNMENT
IN ITALY OVER TIME
Over the past several decades, there has been a significant evolution of the
adoption and use of information technology systems in the public sector
and the main attention of the European countries have been focused on
e-government. E-government is typically defi
fined as providing government
services via the Internet or other technologies to citizens and businesses
(Chen & Gant 2001). It is about using the tools and systems made possible
by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to provide better
public services to citizens and businesses (Hood & Margetts, 2007).
In Europe, the idea of a European Information Society was introduced
by the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 (European Commission,
1993). Stimulated by increased global competition, at the end of the 1990s
the Commission launched a new initiative entitled eEurope: An Information
Society for All (
l European Commission, 1999). In 2000, the European Com-
mission launched the eEurope initiative aimed to realize the potential benefits fi
of better access for all citizens to the new services of the information age
(European Commission, 2000). The present eEurope initiative, launched in
2010, is labeled Information Society and eGovernment. Within such docu-
ment, the EU’s main policy strategies in the e-government fi el
fi d are explained
in the e-government Action Plan 2011– 2015, designed to help governments to meet demands concerning the services they provide to citizens and businesses. It supports the transition from current e-government to a new gen-
eration of open, fl ex
fl ible and collaborative seamless e-government services at
local, regional, national and European levels that will empower citizens and
businesses (E-government factsheet European Union, Ed. 3.0).
Bridging E-Government and Performance 65
If e-government services are to provide significant added value to citizens
and business, then it is crucial that diff
fferent government bodies, both within
a country and in different EU Member States, are able to share information
easily and co-operate in serving citizens. Moreover each country adapts the
European strategies to its particular context. In the next section, the Italian
choices in terms of e-government strategies over time are presented.
The Italian seven strategic objectives about e-government strategy were
identifi
fied before the Brunetta reform. The policies were prevailingly ori-
ented to growth the productivity, to reduce the administrative burden and
to enhance public services (E-government factsheet Italy, Ed. 11.0).
During October 2009, the Italian Government approved the legislative
decree n.150 implementing the Law n.15 of 4 March 2009 on civil service
reform and for the effi
fficiency and transparency of public administration
(parr. 4–5). The reform gives more emphasis on performance measurement,
while in the past management control was central. The legalistic tradition
Italian public administration, focused on the control of inputs more than
on evaluation of outputs, has made it quite diffi
fficult for the past 30 years
to enact reforms based on the theories of new public management (NPM).
NPM focuses on citizen as taxpayer and on various indicators of perfor-
mance, hence on controlling outputs, in order to introduce management
mechanisms patterned after the private sector and directed to effi
ci
ffi ency.
The immediate objectives of the Brunetta reform on e-government are
improving the organization of work, progressively raising the quality of
government services to the public, and boosting both labor and total factor
productivity in all sectors of the public administration (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 Italy’s E-Government Main Policy Strategies after Brunetta Reform
Strategy
Description
1.
A reinforced selection mechanism for economic and career incentives,
with a view to reward the most worthy and skilled employees, encour-
aging commitment and deterring malpractices.
2.
A performance assessment system that help Public Administrati
ons
reorganizes their activities according to set targets and to an overall
enhancement requirement. ‘Customer satisfaction’, transparency and
merit rewarding are the milestones of such a system.
3.
Collective bargaining provisions will be aligned with those regulating
the private sector. upplementary bargaining and additional remunera-
tion will be conditional on the real attainment of planned results and
management savings.
4.
Increased importance will be given to managers, entrusted with concrete
tools and subject to economic sanctions in case of failure to comply
with their obligations.
5.
Disciplinary proceedings have been simplifi ed and a catalogue of par
fi
-
ticularly severe infractions leading to dismissal has been put in place.
Source: E-government factsheet Italy 14.0.
66 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
As to the timing, in March 2009 the Parliament delegated the govern-
ment for the public sector reform to deliver a decree with the reform.
In October 2009, the Brunetta reform Decree was issued; by the end of
the same year the National Authority for Assessment, Transparency and
Integrity (namely Civit) took over. In July 2010 performance measure-
ment principles and in November 2010 Performance plan, transparency
and individual performance measurement principles were issued by Civit.
The reform is completely operative since January 2011.
4 THE BRUNETTA REFORM
The topic of performance measurement and e-government came to prom-
inence in Italy following the approval of the Brunetta reform (from the
name of the Ministry of Public Administration) with Law n. 15/2009
and the subsequent Legislative Decree 150/2009. The reform is aimed at
fostering public sector productivity and represents the starting point of a
new path for performance measurement through e-government.
The reform in fact uses e-government solutions in order to manage
and measure public administration performances, so it is shaped on the
concept of e-performance and its three dimension. The fi
first dimension
deals with the nature of the accountability relationship and the principle
underlying the reform is “Transparency.” It is understood as the total
accessibility of all information about the organization, management
trends, the use of resources for the pursuit of institutional functions and