Journals / İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım / 2003 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Urban performance assessment in decision process for local goverments

Yerel yönetimler için karar sürecinde şehirsel performans değerlendirmesi

Pages
69–76
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The benefits with the implementation of the method are; appropriate distribution of resources, sustainability and democratic participation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cities create a complex and dynamic form with their buildings, infrastructures, services and population.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to create a performance measurement and assessment model as a contributive tool for decision-making process for local governments and to create a model for the Istanbul Fire Brigade Organization.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The benefits with the implementation of the method are; appropriate distribution of resources, sustainability and democratic participation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Cities create a complex and dynamic form with their buildings, infrastructures, services and population. Politicians, city planners and decision-makers are faced with the problems to understand the cities. Existence of these problems though logical approaches, concepts and models imply new methods. The aim of this study is to create a performance measurement and assessment model as a contributive tool for decision-making process for local governments and to create a model for the Istanbul Fire Brigade Organization. Performance assessment process for the local governments is a term defining measuring and regular reporting of the activities of services. The key point of performance assessment is the "outcomes" of the service units instead of the physical "outputs". Performance is the outcome of the activities. Three main reasons for operating performance assessment are; 1) Accountability of the public services for citizens and elected people, 2) Motivating service providers for continuous improvement of quality and outcomes and, 3) Establishing credibility of the voters to the governments. Performance assessment is in use for efficiency and productivity. The benefits with the implementation of the method are; appropriate distribution of resources, sustainability and democratic participation.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, şehirsel karar alma sürecine yardımcı bir araç olarak yerel yönetimler tarafından kullanılabilecek bir performans ölçme ve değerlendirme modelinin çerçevesi araştırılmış ve İstanbul İtfaiye Teşkilatı performans değerlendirmesi için kullanılabilecek bir model önerisi geliştirilmiştir. Performans ölçme konusu, 1930'lu yılların başlarından itibaren, özellikle iş idaresi ve iktisat konularında yaygın olarak kullanıla gelen bir yöntemdir. Bu yöntemin yerel yönetimlerde kullanılması için teorik temeller, 1990'larm başında atılmış, ortalarında ise kullanımına başlanmıştır. Performans en genelde şekliyle, belirlenen hedeflere ulaşılıp ulaşılmadığının değerlendirilmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu yöntem yerel yönetimlerde, sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması, program ve hizmetlerin yürütülebilmesi için gereken kaynakların dağılımı yönlendirmesi ve hizmetlerden yararlananların memnuniyet düzeylerinin arttırılması amacıyla kullanılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERTEKİN, Ö., ERKUT, G. (2022). Urban performance assessment in decision process for local goverments. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 69–76. https://ajindex.com/articles/556817

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Culotta, J., Byres, J. J., (1999). Performance Measurement: A Tool for County Governments, Research Report, National Association of Counties, Washington. Dusenbury, P., Liner, B., Vinson, E., (2000).
  2. States, Citizens and Local Performance Management, Research Report, Urban Institute, Washington. Hatry, H., (2001). Performance Measurement: Getting Results, The Urban Institute Press, Washington D.C. IISD, (1999).
  3. Beyond Delusion, Science and Policy Dialogue on Designing Effective Indicators for Sustainable Development, Workshop Report, Science and Policy Dialogue, San Rafael de Heredia, Costa Rica. Nickols, F., (1977). Performance and Performance Standards, NSPI Journal, June, pp.2-5. OECD, (1997). Better Understanding Our Cities: The Role of Urban Indicators, Head of Publication Service, OECD, Paris, France. OPB, (2002). Performance Measure Guidelines: Provided to the Oregon Department of Administrative Services for the Purpose of Developing 2003-05 Budget Instructions for Oregon State Agencies, Oregon Progress Board, Oregon. Tat-Kei Ho, A., Coates, P., (2002). Citizen Participation: Legitimizing Performance Management as a Decision Tool, Government Finance Review, April, pp.8-10. UNCHS, (1999). Participatory Decision Making Indicators: Guidelines for Istanbul +5, UNCHS Press, New York.