SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2013 / Sayı: 165

Discussion on the means-ends consistency of performance management and performance based budgeting system

Performans yönetiminin amaç-araç uyumu tartışması ve performans esaslı bütçeleme sistemi

HÜSEYİN GÜÇLÜ ÇİÇEK
ELİF AYŞE ŞAHİN İPEK
Pages
80–96
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)

For this purpose, revising the strategic planning model for the activation of strategic plans, performance measurement and performance based budgeting system; giving due importance to performance assessment; benefiting from alternative budgeting techniques such as scenario approach and from cost accounting; incorporating think tanks into budgeting process; and founding a technical commission within the Parliament are proposed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the study, the service efficiencies of the fundamental means of performance management, which are strategic plan, performance measurement and performance based budgeting system, are examined by keeping the contradiction between the ends of performance management –the provision of accountability and performance enhancement– in view.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In practice, it is observed that performance management means focus on the provision of accountability, but it could not serve to the enhancement of performance that is the final objective of performance management.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For this purpose, revising the strategic planning model for the activation of strategic plans, performance measurement and performance based budgeting system; giving due importance to performance assessment; benefiting from alternative budgeting techniques such as scenario approach and from cost accounting; incorporating think tanks into budgeting process; and founding a technical commission within the Parliament are proposed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the study, the service efficiencies of the fundamental means of performance management, which are strategic plan, performance measurement and performance based budgeting system, are examined by keeping the contradiction between the ends of performance management –the provision of accountability and performance enhancement– in view. In practice, it is observed that performance management means focus on the provision of accountability, but it could not serve to the enhancement of performance that is the final objective of performance management. For this purpose, revising the strategic planning model for the activation of strategic plans, performance measurement and performance based budgeting system; giving due importance to performance assessment; benefiting from alternative budgeting techniques such as scenario approach and from cost accounting; incorporating think tanks into budgeting process; and founding a technical commission within the Parliament are proposed.

Özet

Bu çalışmada performans yönetiminin temel araçları olan stratejik plan, performans ölçümü, performans esaslı bütçeleme sisteminin performans yönetimine hizmet etme etkinliği, performans yönetiminin amaçları -hesap verebilirliğin sağlanması ve performansın geliştirilmesi- arasındaki çelişki göz önüne alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Uygulamada performans yönetim araçlarının hesap verebilirliğin sağlanmasına odaklandığı; ancak performans yönetiminin nihai amacı olan performansın geliştirilmesine hizmet edemediği görülmektedir. Bu amaçla stratejik plan, performans ölçümü ve performans esaslı bütçeleme sisteminin etkinleştirilmesi için stratejik planlama modelinin gözden geçirilmesi, performans değerlendirmesine gereken önemin verilmesi, senaryo yaklaşımı gibi alternatif bütçeleme tekniklerinden ve maliyet muhasebesinden faydalanılması, bütçeleme sürecine düşünce kuruluşlarının dahil edilmesi, parlamento bünyesinde teknik bir komisyonun kurulması önerilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİÇEK, H. G., İPEK, E. A. Ş. (2013). Discussion on the means-ends consistency of performance management and performance based budgeting system. Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 165, 80–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/78996

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Akal, Z. (1992), İşletmelerde Performans Ölçüm ve Denetimi Çok Yönlü Performans Göstergeleri, MPM Yayınları No: 473, Ankara.
  2. Ammons, D.N. (2002), “Performance Measurement and Managerial Thinking”, Public Performance and Management Review, June, 25(4), 244-47.
  3. Aydın, M.D. ve Aksoy, S. (2007), “Kamu Kesiminde Stratejik Planlama ve Çalışanlara Yansıtılması: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Örneği”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(1), 293-322.
  4. Behn, R. (2003), “Why Measure of Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures”, Public Administration Review, September-October, 43(5), 586-606.
  5. Bordeaux, C. (2006), Legislative Influences on Performance-Based Budgeting Reform, Georgia State University Fiscal Research Center, FRC Report, No: 128, May. Caiden, N. (2010), “Challenges Confronting Contemporary Public Budgeting: Restrospectives/Prospective from Allen Shick”, Public Administration Review, 70(2), 203-210.
  6. Cope, G.H. (1987), “Local Government Budgeting and Productivity: Friends or Foes?” Public Productivity Review, Spring, 10(3), 45-57.
  7. Çevik, H.H. (2007), “Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarında Performans Yönetimi”, içinde: Sağlık Sektöründe Performans Yönetimi, (ed.) H. Ateş vd., Aktüel Yayınları,
  8. Ankara.
  9. Çevik, H.H. vd. (2008), Kamu Kurumlarında Performans Yönetimi, Seçkin Yayınları,
  10. Ankara.
  11. Dutton, J.E. ve Duncan, R. (1987), “The Influence of the Strategic Planning Process on Strategic Change”, Strategic Management Journal, 8, 108-16.
  12. Falay, N. (1979), Planlama-Programlama-Bütçeleme Sistemi ve Türk Program Bütçe Modeli, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayını: 2532, İstanbul Gomes, P.S., Mendes, S.M. ve Carvallo, J.B. (2007), “Use of Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: The Case of the Police Service”, 11th Biennial CIGAR Conference, 14-15 de Junho, Coimbra, Portugal. Halachmi, A. (2002), “Performance Measurement: A Look at Some Possible Dysfunctions”, Work Study, 51(5), 230-39.
  13. Halachmi, A. (2005a), “Performance Measurement: Test the Water Before You Dive in”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 255-66.
  14. Halachmi, A. (2005b), “Performance Measurement is Only Way of Managing Performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(7), 502-6.
  15. Hatry, H.P. (1972), “Issues in Productivity Measurement for Local Governments”, Public Administration Review, November-December, 32(6), 776-84.
  16. Hatry, H.P. (2002), “Performance Measurement Fashions and Fallacies”, Public Performance and Management Review, June, 25(4), 352-58.