Performance measurement systems in public service networks. The what, who, and how of control

• Date: 01 May 2018
• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Author: Michela Arnaboldi,Deborah Agostino
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12147

Received: 3 December 2015 Revised: 18 August 2016 Accepted: 12 September 2016

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12147

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Performance measurement systems in public

service networks. The what, who, and

how of control

Deborah Agostino Michela Arnaboldi

Departmentof Management, Economics and

IndustrialEngineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via

Lambruschini4b, Milano, 20156, Italy

Correspondence

DeborahAgostino, Department of Manage-

ment,Economics and Industrial Engineering,

Politecnicodi Milano, Via Lambruschini 4b,

Milano20156, Italy.

Email:deborah.agostino@polimi.it

Abstract

This study exploresthe concept of a network Performance Measure-

ment System (PMS) and how it helps in terms of what is being con-

trolled in the network, which exerts control and how this control is

achieved.In analyzing PMSs, the distinction was made between their

hierarchical and their socializing components. An exploratory case

study was carried out on a public service network in charge of a local

public transport. Findings from the case study are used to reach a

preliminary conceptualization whereby network PMSs are systems

consisting of three main building blocks activated on demand by

threemain network actors and where there is coexistence and blend-

ing between hierarchical and socializing practices.

KEYWORDS

hierarchical, network control, performance measurement, public

networks, socializing

1INTRODUCTION

This study aims to understand how a Performance Measurement System (PMS) used for controlling a public network is

structured. The control of public networks is a complex activity involvinga number of difficulties (Agranoff & McGuire,

2001; Dekker, 2004; Kenis & Provan,2006; Milward & Provan, 2003; Schillemans & Busuioc, 2015). The first prob-

lem concerns the conflicting objectives that come into play between network actors and between the actors and the

whole network (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). The second problem is linked to the lack of a clear line of accountabil-

ity, since there is no clear distinction between the principal and the agent (Schillemans & Busuioc, 2015) creating

difficulties in respect of identifying specific responsibilities within the network (Acar, Guo, & Yang,2008). The third

problem is concerned with how actions are coordinated, an exercise necessary to orchestrate network actions and

deliver the network output (Agostino & Arnaboldi, 2015; Milward & Provan, 2003; Moynihan, 2009), which is, at the

same time, far from being straightforward because of the many interdependencies among network actors (Mandell &

Keast, 2007).

Financial Acc & Man. 2018;34:103–116. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam c

2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 103