Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
analysis of terms and definitions Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference 2014
Lena Maria Wrrlein, University of Hamburg Barbara Scheck, University of Hamburg
1
Introduction Performance management has recently gained importance in the steering bodies of nonprofit organizations (NPOs), largely due to changing contextual factors. These are, e.g. the emergence of efficiency principle in the competition for subsidies (Greiling, 2009), more contracts being based on performance agreements than general sponsorships, and an increased demand for proof of efficiency and effectiveness instead of a proof of proper assignment of funds (Greiling, 2009; Meyer & Simsa, 2013; Zimmer et al., 2013) 1 . NPOs are today more than ever under pressure to allocate financial resources efficiently and to communicate their effective performance and their impact to the public (Greiling, 2009). Additionally, tracking performance is key to the entire performance management process resulting in positive effects on the quality of work (e.g. Gill, 2010; Phineo gAG, 2013). At the same time, funders are particularly interested in results, keeping an eye on whether performance is assessed at all (Dawson, 2010; Gill, 2010; Grimes, 2010). Furthermore, performance management has taken on greater significance in both consulting and research. In various policy areas, there is an increasing demand for evaluations, such as in labour market or development policy, social services, and universities (Toepel & Tissen, 2000). Several handbooks, toolboxes, and guidelines for practitioners have been published on how to conduct evaluations, induce performance measurement, or align management with outcome (Asian Development Bank, 2013; Batliwala & Pittman, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2012; DeGEval, 2010; Impact Plus Team, 2010; The Urban Institute, 2006; Wainwright, 2003). In academic literature, measuring performance and results has been the focus of considerable attention. Some authors point out the advantages and disadvantages of performance measurement (Bell-Rose, 2004; Berman, 2006; Campbell, 2002; Ebrahim, 2003; Gill, 2010; McEwen et al., 2010; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Osborne et al., 1995; Poister et al., 2013; Waal & Kourtit, 2013), its methods of assessment (Greatbanks et al., 2010; Greiling, 2010) and its constraints (Bell-Rose, 2004; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; Mutter, 1998; Osborne et al., 1995; Tuan, 2008). Other authors focus on impact-oriented reporting, especially in social businesses and social entrepreneurship (Achleitner et al., 2013; Grimes, 2010; Jger, 2010; Leppert, 2013; Roder, 2011). Additionally, several papers address application of performance measurement or performance management on a case study basis (Barman, 2007; Dawson, 2010; Lehner, 2011; McEwen et al., 2010). However, there is no academic article in the context of performance management that gives a holistic overview of current definitions of terms and shows that central terms are currently used in contradictory ways. These different definitions are troublesome, since a clear and common understanding of central terms and definitions is crucial for various reasons: Firstly, for general credibility and relevance of the topic (e.g. Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Reed & Luffman, 1986; Short et al., 2009; Short et al., 2008); Secondly, conceptual clarity is important to practitioners for the strategic development process within their organizations (Gill, 2010), it improves communication along the team members and enables them to cooperate and indeed assess the data they need for improving their performance. Furthermore, organizations need clear-cut definitions and equal terms also for their external communication towards funders. This helps them to communicate the true value of their actions and thereby contribute to prevent the image of the third sector 2 as a pure expense-factor (Bouri, 2011; Roder, 2011); Thirdly, academics need definitional clarity to enable a better communication, discussion and common understanding, in pursuance of a further successful development of the field (Pfeffer, 1993). Fourthly, if academic discussion and professional practice share the same definitions and terms, it enables an exchange of academic discussion and professional practice and possible learnings (e.g. Freimann, 1994; Kieler, 1994). 2
To bridge this gap, we elaborate on the definition of terms being used currently in in both academic and practitioners literature. We show that there are great differences in defining terms along the project cycle of performance management and reveal several strands in academic literature. By discussing and analysing the very basics of terms, we chop our way through the undergrowth of highly diverse terms. Thereby we contribute to a better understanding of performance management for academics, practitioners and we add to lay the foundation for the concept to reach legitimacy. Furthermore, we provide a normative approach and take up position as to how performance management should be understood in the third sector. This position we outlay is guided by literature of development cooperation and therein its driving force, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), abbreviated with the acronym OECD/DAC 3 . Performance management and impact assessment has a long tradition within the field of development cooperation. The reasons why we choose the concept of OECD/DAC are the following: First, OECD/DAC already aims at unifying terms and definitions in the field of development cooperation (OECD/DAC, 2002). The field of development cooperation is not immune to terminological confusions, due to the fact that people from different linguistic backgrounds work together and definitions are coloured by () faux amis, ambivalence and ambiguity (OECD/DAC, 2002). 4
Therefore, since its foundation in the sixties, OECD/DAC is pursuing the objective of clarifying concepts, terms and definitions in development cooperation. Second, the terms of OECD/DAC are already being used vastly, due to its large number of members. The committee comprises 30 representatives from OECD member countries and multilateral development agencies, probably representing the largest existing international understanding of the terms and definitions in question (OECD/DAC, 2002). 5
The paper is organized as follows. First we explain how we identified the most relevant literature with respect to definitions of terms, and analyse it quantitatively. As a second step, we assess this literature qualitatively: Along the project cycle of performance management, we move from step to step and have a closer look on those steps which show most contradictions. First we determine clear definitions, taken from the concept of OECD/DAC and then refer to authors who vary from this definition and/or use other terms synonymously. Finally we conclude by summarizing the findings, referring to contributions and limitations of this study, and identifying areas for further research. Methodology To gain an understanding of the state of performance management in current third sector`s literature, we first identified and reviewed academic journals for detecting keywords for a further literature survey. It was relevant to scan the articles content, citations in the text, reference lists and endnotes for getting hold of further relevant articles, handbooks and practitioners literature. It revealed that books and compilations cannot be excluded from the analysis when dedicating a paper to fundamental research on definitions and technical terms. Hence, our assessment involved not only peer-reviewed articles but also books and edited volumes. We therefore searched in the following three databanks: First, the online catalogue of German National Library of Economics and Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, named ECONIS, which contains 5.02 million title records covering the fields business studies, economics and also holds practice-oriented economic literature constituting the worlds largest databases for economics (ZBW, 2014); Second, the largest academic library in Hamburg, the Hamburg State and University Library Carl von Ossietzky having 3.5 million 3
books and 6,900 journals respectively 56,200 electronic journals (Stabi, 2014); Third, the database Business Source Complete on the EBSCO Host, which is the superior database for business, management and economics, beyond other disciplines (EBSCO, 2014). In the first step of reviewing literature manually, we identified the following key words: performance management, performance measurement, impact assessment, impact measurement, and evaluation. In order to ensure that titles were relevant to our research project which focuses on the third sector, we added as further search terms NPO, nonprofit, third sector or also development cooperation. In the mentioned databases we searched for records explicitly with these keywords without any time restriction. The encountered titles were organized and sampled according to the following filters: duplications of authors and articles, any language other than German or English and relevance to the study subject: First, articles taken into account had to have a broader or more general scope of interest, that means articles which concentrated, e.g. on the role of specific stakeholders in driving nonprofit performance measurement were not considered. Second, considered articles had to present explicitly or at least implicitly a definition for the terms used. Quantitative analysis of data Applying this procedure gave us a total of 45 relevant titles. The sample encompassed books, compilations, peer-reviewed articles, working papers, internet documents, practitioners guides and one diploma thesis. These titles were contributed by different authors with three exceptions: two titles from Bono (2006; 2010); two reports from OECD/DAC (2000; 2002); two contributions from Proeller, one report (Proeller, 2007) and one joint article (Proeller & Siegel, 2009); This broad spectrum of literature, both the different types of publication and the various authors contributing to the topic performance management entails great heterogeneity in a, to the outside, homogenous sample. Summing up, these 45 titles offer a wide spectrum of 42 different authors or publishers and an ample range of terminologies and definitions to be discussed. The titles range from the first one published in 1995 until the last one in 2014. The analysis therefore encompasses a time frame of nearly twenty years. Furthermore, we analysed the sample according to the language: 27 titles out of 45 were written in English, 18 in German. We sorted the sample due to their types of publications and summarized the results under the umbrella terms practitioner guide and/or academic literature. Titles which were published and distributed by associations, foundations, consultancies or organizations, which presumably direct their work to practitioners, were categorized as practitioner guide. Published and peer-reviewed articles, scientific working papers, books (monographs or compilations) directed primarily to academics were classified as academic literature. Records which could be directed to both groups are termed as both practitioner guide and academic literature. Table 1 to 3 gives an overview of the sample, sorted by academic literature (Table 1), practitioner guide (Table 2) and both (Table 3).
4
Table 1: Academic records Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) Dawson 2010 A case study of impact measurement in a third sector umbrella organisation Article International Journal of Productivity and
Business, Management and Accounting English de Waal et al. 2011 The impact of performance management on the results of a non-profit organization Article International Journal of Productivity and
Business, Management and Accounting English Ebrahim and Rangan 2010 The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance Working paper Harvard Business School Business English Fojcik 2007 Erfolgsnachweis von Non-Financials bei Social Entrepreneurs: Mglichkeiten und Grenzen Diploma thesis Hamburg Business German Glynn and Murphy 2006 Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review Article International Journal of Public Sector Management Social Sciences English Greatbanks et al. 2010 The use and efficacy of anecdotal performance reporting in the third sector Article International Journal of Productivity and
Business, Management and Accounting English Greiling 2009 Performance measurement in Nonprofit- Organisationen Monograph Gabler NPO-Management English Grimes 2010 Strategic sensemaking within funding relationships: The effects of performance measurement on
Article Entrepreneurship Theory and Praxis Economics, Econometrics and
English Jger 2010 Managing social businesses: Mission, governance, strategy, and accountability Monograph Palgrave Macmillan Business, Management English Jann and Wegrich 2003 Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: Der Policy Cycle Compilation Oldenbourg Policy literature German Kettiger and Schwander 2011 Wirkungsorientierung in der Sozialen Arbeit: Mglichkeiten und Grenzen Compilation Nomos Public management/NPO
German Lehner 2011 Wirkungsorientierung: eine sterreichische Perspektive Compilation Nomos Public Management/NPO
German Moynihan 2008 The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform Monograph Georgetown University Press Public Management English 5
Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) Osborne et al. 1995 Performance management and accountability in complex public programmes Article Financial Accountability and Management Financial Accountability, Accounting, and Financial Management English Poister et al. 2013 Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit
Article Public Administration Review Business, Management and Accounting English Proeller and Siegel 2009 Performance management in der deutschen Verwaltung - eine explorative Einschtzung Article dms der moderne staat Public Policy, Law and Management German Roder 2011 Reporting im Social Entrepreneurship: Konzeption einer externen Unternehmensberichterstattung fr
Monograph Wiesbaden Business, Management and Accounting German Rossi et al. 1999 Evaluation: A systematic approach Monograph Sage Publications Public Management/NPO
English Schober et al. 2013 Evaluation und Wirkungsmessung Compilation Schffer-Poeschel NPO-Management German Stockmann 2006 Evaluation und Qualittsentwicklung: Eine Grundlage fr wirkungsorientiertes
Monograph Waxmann Development Cooperation German Uebelhart 2011 Das Social-Impact-Modell (SIM): vom sozialen Problem zur Wirkung Compilation Nomos Public Management/NPO
German
Table 2: Practitioner reports Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) Batliwala and Pittman 2010 Capturing change in womens realities: A critical overview of current monitoring & evaluation frameworks and approaches Report Association for Womens Rights in Development (AWID) NPO-Management, Development Cooperation English Bertelsmann Stiftung 2008 Engagement mit Wirkung: Warum Transparenz Report Bertelsmann Stiftung Business, NPO- German 6
Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) ber die Wirkungen gemeinntziger Aktivitten wichtig ist Management Cabinet Office 2012 A guide to Social Return on Investment Report Cabinet office Public Management/NPO literature English Clark et al. 2004 Double Bottom Line project report: Assessing social impact in Double Bottom Line ventures Report The Rockefeller Foundation Business, Management English Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH 2011 On the use of results chains in natural resource governance: Basic concepts and exemplary applications to the extractive industries Report GIZ Development Cooperation English Gohl 2000 Prfen und lernen: praxisorientierte Handreichung zur Wirkungsbeobachtung und Evaluation Report VENRO NPO-Management, Development Cooperation German KGSt 2013 Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung Internet KGSt Public Management/NPO literature German Kurz and Kubek 2013 Kursbuch Wirkung. Das Praxishandbuch fr alle, die Gutes noch besser tun wollen Report Phineo gAG NPO-Management German OECD/DAC 2000 Results based management in the development co- operation agencies: A review of experience Report OECD Development Cooperation English OECD/DAC 2002 Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Evaluation and aid effectiveness Series No. 6 Report OECD Development Cooperation English Proeller 2007 Strategische Steuerung fr den Staat: Internationale Anstze im Vergleich Report Bertelsmann Stiftung Public Policy, Public Management German Schrder and Kettiger 2001 Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung in der sozialen Arbeit: Ergebnisse einer internationalen Recherche Report Bundesministerium fr Familie, Senioren, Public Management/NPO German 7
Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) in den USA, den Niederlanden und der Schweiz Frauen und Jugend literature Strategic Policy and Performance Branch (SPPB) 2014 Results-based management tools at CIDA: A how-to guide - Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) Internet SPPB Development Cooperation English The Social Reporting Initiative (SRI) e.V. in print Social Reporting Standard (SRS): Leitfaden zur wirkungsorientierten Berichterstattung Report SRI NPO-Management German The Urban Institute 2006 Building a common framework to measure nonprofit performance Report The Urban Institute NPO-Management English Tuan 2008 Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: Insights into eight integrated cost approaches Report Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation NPO-Management English United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2000 Results based management: Concepts and methodology Report UNDP Development cooperation English Wainwright 2003 Measuring impact: A guide to resources Report NCVO Publications NPO-Management English
Table 3: Records directed at academics and practitioners Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) Becker and Vanclay 2006 The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances Compilation Elgar NPO-Management, Development Cooperation English Bell-Rose 2004 Using performance metrics to assess impact Compilation Jossey-Bass NPO-Management English 8
Authors Year Title Type of publication Published in or by Subject area of publication Language (German/English) Berman 2006 Performance and productivity in public and nonprofit organizations Monograph M.E. Sharpe Public Management/NPO literature English Bono 2006 NPO-Controlling: Professionelle Steuerung sozialer Dienstleistungen Monograph Schffer-Poeschel Public Management/NPO literature German Bono 2010 Performance management in NPOs: Steuerung im Dienste sozialer Ziele Monograph Nomos Public Management/NPO literature German Hornsby 2012 The Good Analyst: Impact measurement & analysis in the social-purpose universe Monograph Investing for good Public Management/NPO literature English
9
Qualitative analysis In the following, a detailed overview of current terms and definitions in these 45 encountered titles of academic literature and professional practice is given. First, we will present the structuring model, the project cycle of performance management, including its inherent steps, namely clarifying objectives, developing results-chains and indicators, collecting and analysing data and learning from and reporting on performance and results. In the literature, this cycle is the central format for presenting the different elements of the umbrella term performance management and their interrelation. Although different authors regroup some steps differently to the four steps presented here, they all agree on the same content (Bono, 2010; GIZ, 2011; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; Osborne et al., 1995; Proeller, 2007; Schober et al., 2013; SRI e.V., in print; The Urban Institute, 2006; Wainwright, 2003). Then, we focus on the term performance management itself and the steps 2 and 3 of the project cycle, which happen to display the most contradicting terminologies. We analyse the sample of 45 titles qualitatively by first presenting the terms and definitions by OECD/DAC and then we refer to authors who deviate from this definition and/or use other terms synonymously. We begin by addressing performance management, an umbrella term for a combination of assessment, documentation of outcome, and reaction on the assessed outcome (Moynihan, 2008; OECD/DAC, 2000; Waal et al., 2011). Performance management is a framework concept for NPOs that intend to adjust their performance to outcomes. In this framework, NPOs steer their projects by applying four steps, as illustrated by the project cycle in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Project cycle of performance management; source: own illustration combining (GIZ, 2011; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; SRI e.V., in print)
First, NPOs conduct a needs assessment, in which they determine the specific societal problem, explain the consequences for target groups, their living environment and the society as a whole, and the dimension of the problem. On the basis of these informations, the objectives of the project are developed. The objectives should be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bounded 10
(SMART). Second, a conceptual framework needs to be elaborated explaining how the NPO is planning to achieve the objectives, called results-chains. This framework establishes a link between financial resources invested and planned impacts, via outputs and outcomes. Then, indicators are developed to measure the progress of the project and the results 6 . The actual target to be accomplished within a given time-frame is also dependent on the baseline, i.e. the initial situation, before the project started. Depending on the indicator it is necessary to conduct a baseline study. Third, NPOs collect data on the actual progress of the project (monitoring), complemented by evaluations and analyse them. In the fourth and last step of this performance management cycle, they use the assessed data for both internal and external reporting processes (accountability) and for the intra-organizational learning process, that is, if the actual results do not coincide with the planned goals, activities may need to be adapted. The findings should stimulate discussion in the management body of an organization about the chosen strategy and are a trigger for reflection on lessons learned. Additionally performance management helps to motivate staff and to ensure that resources are used appropriately (GIZ, 2011; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; SRI e.V., in print) 7 . These four steps are not understood as linear but rather as a continuous development, in which steps might to some extent proceed simultaneously, therefore the boundaries of the different steps are rather arbitrary. Authors vary defining the steps of the project cycle and provide somewhat narrower and broader definitions but most of them share the content of the described four phases (Bono, 2010; GIZ, 2011; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; Osborne et al., 1995; Proeller, 2007; Schober et al., 2013; SRI e.V., in print; The Urban Institute, 2006; Wainwright, 2003). Accordingly, some authors use different terms for performance management. Development cooperation literature uses mainly the term results-based management (OECD/DAC, 2002; SPPB, 2014; UNDP, 2000), whereas Proeller & Siegel (2009) for example, use the term outcome orientation to sum up an organizations orientation toward all the implied steps of performance management (Proeller & Siegel, 2009). Having begun with performance management as the umbrella term for the steps in adjusting an NPOs performance to outcome and impact, we will now examine steps 2 and 3 of the project cycle more closely and outlay fundamental controversies as to the definitions used. In step 2, results-chains are developed that illustrate the link between inputs and impacts, as shown in Figure 2. Results-chains are sometimes called logical framework, logic model or simply logframe (GIZ, 2011; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; The Urban Institute, 2006; Tuan, 2008). The following definitions within the context of results-chains are all guided by the definitions from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD (OECD/DAC, 2000), which are widely adopted, not only in development cooperation and practical guidelines, but also in academic literature (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2008; Glynn & Murphy, 1996; Hornsby, 2012; Rossi et al., 1999; Stockmann, 2006). Figure 2: Result-chain; source: e.g. GIZ, 2011; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000;
The term inputs subsumes staff, time, equipment, and all types of resources, especially financial resources. Using these resources, a NPO launches activities that lead to immediate consequences or results of those activities, called outputs. These outputs create short- and medium-term changes in the lives of the target group and coincide with the project goal or objective (outcome), which can still be causally and quantitatively attributed to the project. Impacts are long-term changes that can occur during the lifetime of one project and/or after the project. They go beyond the target group and
11
therefore can be viewed as a change in society as a whole. Impact as such can be positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. (OECD/DAC, 2002). A projects contribution up to this level cannot be attributed causally but rather plausibly (OECD/DAC, 2000). Following this definition of impact provided by OECD/DAC, we diverge from several authors (Bono, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2012; Clark et al., 2004) who define impact as () the portion of the total outcome that happened as a result of the activity of the venture, above and beyond what would have happened anyway (Clark et al., 2004). This interpretation is favoured by the Social Return on Investment Network. We consider this definition non-applicable in practice. Besides having to overcome the widely discussed obstacle in assessing the outcome, NPOs would then also need to subtract the results that would have occurred anyway in the absence of the project and the societal change attributed to another organizations effort. Several authors refer to the challenges involved in this approach (Bell-Rose, 2004; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; Mutter, 1998). They state that, firstly, there is a missing causality from what the organization does (output) to the observable outcome and, secondly, impact and outcome are influenced by these external factors due to the fact that the project is always exposed to external factors and never acts in laboratory conditions. Thirdly, medium- term and long-term changes (outcome and impact) need time to find complete expression and changes are noticeable only after a few years, e.g. in the education sector. Some authors define impact and outcome as the same thing (Osborne et al., 1995) or define impact as an umbrella term: () every change resulting from an activity () (Wainwright, 2003). Therefore, impact would then include all levels that the OECD separates from another: outputs, outcomes, and impacts (including unintended or negative effects). Inconsistencies can also be found in the use of the terms output and outcome. Gohl (2000) blurs the distinction between the terms output and outcome, and defines outcome as a product of the NPO. Stockmann (2006) criticizes this in stating that products of an organization cannot be the outcome, as, for example, drunks are never a product of a brewery, but rather a possible outcome. There are two blocs that deviate from the sequence of terms the OECD/DAC stipulates. There seems to be a tendency within German, Swiss, and Austrian NPO and public management literature (Bono, 2006, 2010; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; KGST, 2013; Lehner, 2011; Schrder & Kettiger, 2001; Uebelhart, 2011) to generally interchange impact and outcome and to refer to outcome as the level at which societal change is assessed and define impact as the change achieved at the level of target groups. These authors insert between the levels output and impact another level, effect, which refers to direct, objectively visible effectiveness (Bono, 2006; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; KGST, 2013; Lehner, 2011; Schrder & Kettiger, 2001; Uebelhart, 2011). Also, within policy literature (Jann, 1981; Jann & Wegrich, 2003; Schneider & Janning, 2006), there is a tendency to interchange terms: impact is the change in behaviour of the target group, and outcome refers to changes within society, to the solution of a problem, and to non-intended results. For an overview of the different terms as we define them, following the OECD/DAC in comparison to public management and NPO and policy literature, see Table 4.
12
Table 4: Overview of terms used along results-chains; source: own compilation Field of research Terms Definition Source Development cooperation Output Products, capital goods, and services that result from a development intervention; Output may also include changes resulting from the intervention that are relevant to achievement of outcomes.
OECD/DAC (2002); Bertelsmann Stiftung (2008); Glynn & Murphy (1996); Hornsby (2012); Rossi et al. (1999); Stockmann (2006); UNDP, 2000 Outcome Likely or achieved short- and medium-term effects (changes in the lives of the target group) of an interventions outputs.
Impact Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. They go beyond the target group and can be viewed as a change in society as a whole.
Public management/NPO literature (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) Output Services provided by the public administration or other service providers.
Impact Change achieved at the level of target groups (their subjective impression).
Outcome Indirect effects of provided services on society and/or environment as a whole. 13
Field of research Terms Definition Source
Policy literature Output Interventions or services from the state aimed at changing the behaviour of stakeholders (distribution of resources, public contracts, provision of infrastructure).
Jann (1981); Jann & Wegrich (2003); Schneider & Janning (2006) Impact Change in behaviour of target groups (intended change in behaviour, adaptation strategy, resistance).
Outcome Changes within society (achievement of intended results, solution to problem, unintended results).
14
Step 3 of the project cycle entails assessing data on output, outcome and impact, based on the linear logic model and comparing actual performance to ideal or planned performance. As data assessment per se is based on the preceding actions of step 1 (clarifying objectives) and step 2 (developing results-chains and indicators), OECD/DAC summarizes this step 3, collecting and analysing data, together with step 1 and step 2 under the term: performance measurement. OECD defines performance measurement as () the process an organization follows to objectively measure how well its stated objectives are being met () [and] () involves several phases, e.g. articulating and agreeing on objectives, selecting indicators and setting targets, monitoring performance (collecting data on results), and analysing those results vis--vis targets. (OECD/DAC, 2000). To assess this performance, both quantitative and qualitative methods can be applied (Greatbanks et al., 2010; Grimes, 2010). Additionally, in academic and practitioner literature, there are several terms used synonymously to performance measurement, for example (social) impact assessment, impact measurement, social performance assessment, social outcome measurement, and various other combinations (Fojcik, 2007; Roder, 2011). Some authors, though, do not follow the performance measurement definition of OECD/DAC and neither do they see impact assessment as a synonym to performance measurement. Dawson (2010), for example, sees impact assessment as covering () the results of both performance measurement and performance management systems and therefore as an umbrella term for measurement and management. In the paragraph where she traces the definition for the term impact assessment, she cites Wainwright (2003) saying Impact assessment is defined as all change from an activity, project or organisation. Nevertheless, Dawson disregards that this is how Wainwright defines impact, while Wainwright is silent on the term impact assessment. In accordance with Dawson (2010), Jger (2010), citing Vanclay in Becker & Vanclay (2006), states that social impact assessment is the () process of analysing and managing the intended and unintended consequences of planned interventions on people so as to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment. This is contradictory to our view, as we see performance management as the umbrella term and performance measurement as one step toward adjusting performance to impact (OECD/DAC, 2000; OECD/DAC, 2002), and social impact assessment as a synonym to performance measurement. In contradiction to Vanclays view, his co-author Becker in their joint book Becker & Vanclay (2006) maintains a different view of social impact assessment. Social impact assessment is () the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems () (Becker & Vanclay, 2006). In his view, social impact assessment does not include performance management in contrast to his co-author Becker, nor does he include the processes of step 1 until 3 of the management cycle as OECD/DAC does. Therefore he only comprehends measuring the outcome and impact under the term social impact assessment. Greiling (2009) is explicitly in disagreement with using both terms performance measurement and performance management, and prefers two slight variations of the term performance measurement. When she addresses measurement, she refers to information-oriented performance measurement, whereas when Greiling addresses management of project direction, she refers to steering-oriented performance measurement (performance management). This listing of various authors shows that the understanding of what is to be comprehended by performance measurement varies vastly from the definition of OECD/DAC. In addition to that, 15
academic and practitioners` literature in the context of development cooperation, splits up the term performance measurement into the terms monitoring and evaluation (e.g. Batliwala & Pittman, 2010; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; OECD/DAC, 2000; Stockmann, 2006). Monitoring implies the continuous collection, via indicators, of data concerning the performance of an NPO; this informs management about the achievement of milestones, and whether they were reached within a given time frame and within the planned financial scope (OECD/DAC, 2002; Schober et al., 2013; Stockmann, 2006). It also observes possible negative external influences and unintended results that might bias achievement of an organizations project goals (Stockmann, 2006). Monitoring is therefore rather a descriptive activity that establishes a process of development, whereas evaluation questions and examines hypotheses about causality from an organizations activity to a societal change 8 . Evaluations therefore are generally one-time activities that analyse systematically and objectively a project from one organization in view of a specific question (OECD/DAC, 2002; Schober et al., 2013; Stockmann, 2006). Often, these evaluations meet high scientific standards and are costly and time-consuming (Stockmann, 2006). In contradiction to the definitions and terms used by development cooperation literature, some studies, such as Bell-Rose (2004) and Wainwright (2003), use the term evaluation synonymously to performance measurement or impact assessment. Nonetheless, we follow the notion of Berman (2006) and Schober et al. (2013) in defining performance measurement (impact assessment) as historically tracing back to the roots of evaluation in the 1960s and 1970s; however, it is not the same as evaluation. The term performance measurement originates in the 1970s in the United States of America, when efforts were made to find more timely and affordable methods than detailed evaluations (Berman, 2006). The definition of performance measurement at that time was what we now call monitoring, whereas, as described above, performance measurement is today used more broadly and can be seen as an umbrella term for evaluation and monitoring (Batliwala & Pittman, 2010; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; OECD/DAC, 2000; Poister et al., 2013; Stockmann, 2006). However, Schober et al. (2013) and Buschor (1994) still use performance measurement synonymously to the term monitoring. Table 5 gives an overview of terms and definitions of various authors discussed in this chapter, in comparison to our view based upon OECD/DAC.
16
Table 5: Overview of current terms and definitions; source: own compilation Term Category Definition Authors performance management an umbrella term for a combination of assessment, documentation of outcome, and reaction to the assessed outcome Moynihan, 2008; OECD/DAC, 2000; Waal et al., 2011 Synonymous use performance management is also named results-based management OECD/DAC, 2002; SPPB, 2014; UNDP, 2000 performance management is also referred to as outcome-orientation Proeller & Siegel, 2009 performance management is named steering-oriented performance measurement Greiling, 2009
results-chains illustrate the link between inputs and impacts GIZ, 2011; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; The Urban Institute, 2006; Tuan, 2008; UNDP, 2000 Synonymous use results-chains are sometimes called logical framework, logic model or simply logframe GIZ, 2011; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; Kurz & Kubek, 2013; OECD/DAC, 2000; The Urban Institute, 2006; Tuan, 2008 impact Impacts are long-term changes that can occur during the lifetime of one project and/or after the project. They go beyond the target group and therefore can be viewed as a change in society as a whole. Impact as such can be positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended OECD/DAC, 2002; UNDP, 2000 Different definition
the portion of the total outcome that happened as a result of the activity of the venture, above and beyond what would have happened anyway Bono, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2012; Clark et al., 2004 define impact as the change achieved at the level of target groups and refer to outcome as the level at which societal change is assessed Bono, 2006, 2010; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; KGST, 2013; Lehner, 2011; Schrder & Kettiger, 2001; Uebelhart, 2011; Jann & Wegrich, 2003 define impact and outcome as the same thing Osborne et al., 1995 Superordinate concept impact includes all levels that the OECD separates from other outputs, outcomes, and unintended or negative effects Wainwright, 2003 outcome Outcomes are short- and medium-term changes in the lives of the target group and coincide with the project goal or objective OECD/DAC, 2000; OECD/DAC, 2002; Stockmann, 2006; UNDP, 2000 Different definition defines outcome as a product Gohl, 2000 refer to outcome as the level at which societal change is assessed and define impact as the change achieved at the level of target groups Bono, 2006, 2010; Kettiger & Schwander, 2011; KGST, 2013; Lehner, 2011; Schrder & Kettiger, 2001; Uebelhart, 2011; Jann & Wegrich, 2003 17
Subordinate concept add another level between output and impact (change at the level of the target group), named effect Bono (2006; 2010); Kettiger & Schwander (2011); KGST, 2013 (2013); Lehner (2011); Schrder & Kettiger (2001); Uebelhart (2011) performance measurement is the process an organization follows to objectively measure how well its stated objectives are being met () [and] () involves several phases, e.g. articulating and agreeing on objectives, selecting indicators and setting targets, monitoring performance (collecting data on results), and analysing those results vis--vis targets. OECD/DAC, 2000; OECD/DAC, 2002 Synonymous use performance measurement is also named information-oriented performance measurement Greiling, 2009 performance measurement is also reffered to as evaluation Bell-Rose (2004); Wainwright (2003) performance measurement is also named monitoring Schober et al. (2013); Buschor (1994)
synonymously to performance measurement, for example (social) impact assessment, impact measurement, social performance assessment, social outcome measurement, and various other combinations Fojcik, 2007; Roder, 2011 different definition for impact assessment impact assessment as an umbrella term for measurement and management Dawson (2010); Jger (2010); Vanclay in Becker & Vanclay (2006) social impact assessment does not include monitoring the progress of a project nor does it include performance management but soley measuring the outcome and impact Becker in Becker & Vanclay (2006) Superordinate concept performance measurement is split up into the terms monitoring and evaluation Batliwala & Pittman, 2010; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010; OECD/DAC, 2000; Poister et al., 2013; Stockmann, 2006 18
Conclusion In our study we reviewed the literature on performance management in the context of the third sector with regard to terms and definitions used. We searched in three databases for academic and practitioners literature for this topic and identified 45 relevant titles, which define explicitly or implicitly the relevant terms and are written either in English or in German. These records dispose of a great heterogeneity due to their broad spectrum of types of publications and the large amount of different authors or publishers. In order to structure the qualitative analysis, we used the project cycle which is the central format for displaying the different steps involved in performance management. Along the different steps of this model, we revealed and discussed definitional and terminological differences and similarities of 42 different authors or publishers. We provided a definition of the individual terms guided by OECD/DAC before we presented deviating opinions. We found that there are tremendous inconsistencies regarding terms and definitions used, starting with the umbrella term performance management itself and its inherent step 2, developing results- chains and indicators, and step 3, collecting and analyzing data. While there are authors who use other terms synonymously to the OECD/DAC ones, there are several other authors who either blur the lines between definitions or interchange terms or even use the same term with a different meaning. Furthermore, we revealed different strands in academic literature, wherever it arose from the discussion. To the authors best knowledge, this paper provides a unique overview of current terms and definitions used in both research and professional practice. It contributes to provide more clarity for practitioners and academics by highlighting inconsistencies, confusions or similarities (Bouri, 2011; Gill, 2010; Roder, 2011; Pfeffer, 1993). For performance management to progress, there needs to be a common understanding and terminological and definitional conclusiveness between practitioners and academics (e.g. Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Short et al., 2008). Therefore we add to lay the foundation for the concept to reach legitimacy by highlighting terminologies and definitions published by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD as an answer to the question of how performance management should be understood in the third sector. The reasons for alluding to this terminology are the following: Firstly, OECD/DAC leads the discussion about unification of terms and definitions in the professional practice, mainly within the field of development cooperation. Secondly, due to its large number of members, the organizations definitions and terms are being used widely already; With this paper, we aim at the delegation of the widely spread concept of performance management of OECD/DAC in development cooperation to the NPO sector and thereby at a more unified usage of third sector performance concepts in future research and practice. By comparing terms and definitions of different authors to OECD/DAC, we privileged this particular concept of performance management and promote it as a common framework on how performance management should be understood in the third sector. This represents a wide-spread and internationally acknowledged concept but privileges a certain understanding of terms and the choice might raise objections. Furthermore, the data collection method relies much on finding the right keywords. In the flood of different and contradicting terms, it was challenging to identify the 19
suitable keywords and one might criticize the selection or the applied filters. Finally, we scanned exclusively German and English literature. The results might change slightly when analysing literature in another language. Given the long tradition of performance management in the sector, further empirical research could aim at identifying concepts and best practices within development cooperation, suitable for a transfer to national NPO context. For example, qualitative studies could be conducted with managers of NPOs and organizations of development cooperation regarding the use of performance management for learning, adjusting and decision-making, thus fostering a more effective and transparent third sector. NOTES 20
REFERENCES Achleitner, A.-K., Lutz, E., Mayer, J. & Spiess-Knafl, W. (2013). Disentangling Gut Feeling: Assessing the Integrity of Social Entrepreneurs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 93124. Asian Development Bank (2013). Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Retrieved 17 January 2014, from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/guidelines- pper-pso.pdf. Barman, E. (2007). What is the Bottom Line for Nonprofit Organizations? A History of Measurement in the British Voluntary Sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(2), 10115. Batliwala, S. & Pittman, A. (2010). Capturing Change in Womens Realities: A Critical Overview of Current Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks and Approaches, from http://brookeackerly.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/Batliwala-2010.pdf. Becker, H. A. & Vanclay, F. (2006). The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Elgar. Bell-Rose, S. (2004). Using performance metrics to assess impact. In S. M. Oster, C. W. Massarsky & S. L. Beinhacker (Eds.), Generating and sustaining nonprofit earned income: A guide to successful enterprise strategies, 1st edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 26980. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, et al.: Doubleday. Berman, E. M. (2006). Performance and productivity in public and nonprofit organizations (2nd ed.). Armonk, et al.: M.E. Sharpe. Bertelsmann Stiftung (2008). Engagement mit Wirkung: Warum Transparenz ber die Wirkungen gemeinntziger Aktivitten wichtig ist. Retrieved 20 January 2014, from http://www.bertelsmann- stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_27153_27154_2.pdf. Bono, M. L. (2006). NPO Controlling: Professionelle Steuerung sozialer Dienstleistungen. Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel. Bono, M. L. (2010). Performance-Management in NPOs: Steuerung im Dienste sozialer Ziele (1st ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Bouri, A. (2011). How Standards Emerge: The Role of Investor Leadership in Realizing the Potential of IRIS. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(3), 11731. Bundesministerium fr wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) (2006). Evaluierungskriterien fr die deutsche bilaterale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit: Eine Orientierung fr Evaluierungen des BMZ und der Durchfhrungsorganisationen. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/erfolg_und_kontrolle/evaluierungskriterien.pdf. Buschor, E. (1994). Von der Kameralistik zur Kosten- und Leistungsrechnung. In K. Morath & E. Buschor (Eds.), Wirtschaftlichkeit der ffentlichen Verwaltung: Reformkonzepte, Reformpraxis. Bad Homburg: Frankfurter Institut fr Wirtschaftspolitische Forschung, pp. 2539. Cabinet Office (2012). A guide to Social Return on Investment. Retrieved 20 January 2014, from http://www.socialevaluator.eu/ip/uploads/tblDownload/SROI%20Guide.pdf. Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes Assessment Outcome Assessment and the Paradox of Nonprofit Accountability. NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, 12(3), 24359.
Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D. & Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Retrieved 20 January 2014, from http://www.riseproject.org/DBL_Methods_Catalog.pdf. Dawson, A. (2010). A case study of impact measurement in a third sector umbrella organisation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(6), 51933. DeGEval- Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Evaluation (2010). Verfahren der Wirkungsanalyse: Ein Handbuch fr die entwicklungspolitische Praxis. In D. Oberndrfer, T. Hanf & H. Weiland (Eds.), Freiburger Beitrge zu Entwicklung und Politik. Freiburg i. Br. Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2011). On the use of results chains in natural resource governance: Basic concepts and exemplary applications to the extractive industries. Retrieved 28 August 2013, from http://www.giz.de/static/themen_umleitung/index.html. DeutscheZentralbibliothek fr Wirtschaftswissenschaften (ZBW) (2014). German National Library of Economics - Facts and figures. Retrieved 28 January 2014, from http://www.zbw.eu/e_about_us/e_library_profile/e_facts_figures.htm. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 81329. Ebrahim, A. & Rangan, V. (2010). The Limits of Nonprofit Impact: A Contingency Framework for Measuring Social Performance. Harvard Business School, Boston10-099. EBSCO (2014). Business Source Complete | Business Magazines and Journals | EBSCO. Retrieved 28 January 2014, from http://www.ebscohost.com/academic/business-source-complete. Etzioni, A. (1973). The Third Sector and Domestic Missions. Public Administration Review, 33(4), 31423. Fojcik, T. (2007). Erfolgsnachweis von Non-Financials bei Social Entrepreneurs: Mglichkeiten und Grenzen. Hamburg. Freimann, J. (1994). Das Theorie-Praxis-Dilemma der Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Wissenschaftssoziologische berlegungen zu einem besonderen Verhltnis. In W. F. Fischer-Winkelmann (Ed.), Das Theorie- Praxis-Problem der Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Tagung der Kommission Wissenschaftstheorie. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 725. Gill, S. J. (2010). Developing a learning culture in nonprofit organizations. Los Angeles: SAGE. Glynn, J.J. & Murphy, M.P. (1996). Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(5/6), 12537. Gohl, E. (2000). Prfen und lernen: praxisorientierte Handreichung zur Wirkungsbeobachtung und Evaluation. Greatbanks, R., Elkin, G. & Manville, G. (2010). The use and efficacy of anecdotal performance reporting in the third sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(6), 57185. Greiling, D. (2009). Performance measurement in Nonprofit-Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Greiling, D. (2010). Balanced scorecard implementation in German non-profit organisations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(6), 53454. Greiling, D. & Halachmi, A. (2013). Accountability and Organizational Learning in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 380406. Grimes, M. (2010). Strategic Sensemaking Within Funding Relationships: The Effects of Performance Measurement on Organizational Identity in the Social Sector. ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE, 34(4), 76383. Hornsby, A. (2012). The Good Analyst: Impact Measurement & Analysis in the Social-Purpose Universe. London.
Impact Plus Team (2010). Tiny Tools: Measuring change in communities and groups. Retrieved 30 June 2013, from http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/NGO_Ideas_Tiny_tools-Handout[1].pdf. Jger, U. (2010). Managing social businesses: Mission, governance, strategy, and accountability. Houndsmill, et al.: Palgrave Macmillan. Jann, W. (1981): Kategorien der Policy-Forschung, Speyerer Arbeitshefte Nr. 37, Speyer. Jann, W. & Wegrich, K. (2003). Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: Der Policy Cycle. In K. Schubert & N. Bandelow (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse. Mnchen: Oldenbourg, pp. 71104. Kettiger, D. & Schwander, M. (2011). Wirkungsorientierung in der Sozialen Arbeit - Mglichkeiten und Grenzen. In A. Fritze (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Berlin: Nomos, pp. 11433. Kieler, O. (1994). Betriebswirtschaftslehre-eine Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Praxis. In W. F. Fischer- Winkelmann (Ed.), Das Theorie-Praxis-Problem der Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Tagung der Kommission Wissenschaftstheorie. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 5573. KGST-Kommunale Gemeinschaftsstelle fr Verwaltungsmanagement (2013). Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung. Retrieved 6 August 2013, from http://www.kgst.de/themenfelder/organisationsmanagement/strategisches- management/wirkungsorientierte-steuerung.dot. Kurz, B. & Kubek, D. (2013). Kursbuch Wirkung: Das Praxishandbuch fr Alle, die Gutes noch besser tun wollen (1st ed.). Berlin. Lehner, M. (2011). Wirkungsorientierung: eine sterreichische Perspektive. In A. Fritze (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Berlin: Nomos, pp. 33646. Leppert, T. (2013). Social Entrepreneurship in Deutschland: Einflussfaktoren auf den Grndungsprozess von Social Entrepreneurs (1st ed.). Hamburg: Kovac. McEwen, J., Shoesmith, M. & Allen, R. (2010). Embedding outcomes recording in Barnardo's performance management approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(6), 58698. Meyer, M. & Simsa, R. (2013). Entwicklungsperspektiven des Nonprofit-Sektors. In R. Simsa, M. Meyer & C. Badelt (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management, 5th edn. Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel, pp. 50918. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, et al.: Georgetown University Press. Mutter, T. (1998). Aussagefhigere Erfolgskontrolle durch verbesserte Methoden. In S. Brne (Ed.), Erfolgskontrolle in der entwicklungspolitischen Zusammenarbeit. Hamburg: Dt. bersee-Inst., pp. 13251. Najam, A. (1996). Understanding the third sector: Revisiting the prince, the merchant, and the citizen. NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, 7(2), 20319. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2000). Results Based Management in the Development Co-operation agencies: a review of experience. Retrieved 13 January 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/31950681.pdf. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2002). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results based Management. Evaluation and Aid Effectiveness Series No. 6. Retrieved 13 January 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/development/peer-reviews/2754804.pdf.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume. Osborne, S.P., Bovaird, T., Martin, S., Tricker, M. & Waterston, P. (1995). Performance management and accountability in complex public programmes. Financial Accountability and Management, 11(1), 19 37. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science // Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599620 // 599. Phineo gAG (2013). Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung in Non-Profit-Organisationen. Retrieved 30 June 2013, from http://www.phineo.org/fileadmin/phineo/2_Publikationen/Studie_Wirkungsorientierung/Studie_ Wirkungsorientierte_Steuerung_in_NPOs.pdf. Poister, T.H., Pasha, O.Q. & Edwards, L.H. (2013). Does Performance Management Lead to Better Outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. Public Transit Industry. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 625 36. Proeller, I. (2007). Strategische Steuerung fr den Staat: Internationale Anstze im Vergleich. Retrieved 13 January 2014, from https://www.oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at/verwaltungsinnovation/internationales/EUPAN_strategische_ steuerung_2.pdf?3tnoz6. Proeller, I. & Siegel, J. (2009). Performance Management in der deutschen Verwaltung - eine explorative Einschtzung. dms der moderne staat Zeitschrift fr Public Policy, Recht und Management(2), 45574. Reed, R. & Luffman, G.A. (1986). Diversification: The growing confusion. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 2935. Roder, B. (2011). Reporting im Social Entrepreneurship: Konzeption einer externen Unternehmensberichterstattung fr soziale Unternehmer (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E. & Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Schillemans, T., van Twist, M. & Vanhommerig, I. (2013). Innovations in Accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 40735. Schneider, V. & Janning, F. (2006). Politikfeldanalyse: Akteure, Diskurse und Netzwerke in der ffentlichen Politik (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften. Schober, C., Rauscher, O. & Millner, R. (2013). Evaluation und Wirkungsmessung. In R. Simsa, M. Meyer & C. Badelt (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management, 5th edn. Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel, pp. 45170. Schrder, J. & Kettiger, D. (2001). Wirkungsorientierte steuerung in der sozialen Arbeit: Ergebnisse einer internationalen Recherche in den USA, den Niederlanden und der Schweiz Schriftenreihe 229. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Broschuerenstelle/Pdf- Anlagen/PRM-23998-SR-Band-229. Short, J.C., Moss, T.W. & Lumpkin, G.T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 16194. Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. & Ketchen, D.J. (2008). Research on Organizational Configurations: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6), 105379.
Social Reporting Initiative (SRI) e.V. in print. Social Reporting Standard (SRS): Leitfaden zur wirkungsorientierten Berichterstattung. Staats- und Universittsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky (2014). Bestand. Stockmann, R. (2006). Evaluation und Qualittsentwicklung: Eine Grundlage fr wirkungsorientiertes Qualittsmanagement. Mnster, New York, et al.: Waxmann. Strategic Policy and Performance Branch (SPPB) (2014). Results-Based Management Tools at CIDA: A How- to Guide - Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD). Retrieved 15 January 2014, from http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/nat-92213444-n2h. The Urban Institute (2006). Building a common framework to measure nonprofit performance. Retrieved 13 January 2014, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411404_Nonprofit_Performance.pdf. Toepel, K. & Tissen, G. (2000). Stand und Perspektiven der Evaluation in Deutschland Eine Einfhrung. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 69(3), 34749. Tuan, M. (2008). Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: Insights into eight integrated cost approaches. Retrieved 13 January 2014, from https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/wwl- report-measuring-estimating-social-value-creation.pdf. Uebelhart, B. (2011). Das Social-Impact-Modell (SIM): vom sozialen Problem zur Wirkung. In A. Fritze (Ed.), Management und Systementwicklung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Berlin: Nomos, pp. 289312. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2000). Results Based Management: Concepts and Methodology. Retrieved 15 January 2014, from http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/RBMConceptsMethodgyjuly2002.pdf. Waal, A.d., Goedegebuure, R. & Geradts, P. (2011). The impact of performance management on the results of a non-profit organization. The international journal of productivity and performance management IJPPM, 60(8), 77896. Waal, A.d. & Kourtit, K. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(5), 44673. Wainwright, S. (2003). Measuring Impact: A Guide to Resources. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/measuringImpact20012003.pdf. Zimmer, A., Priller, E. & Anheier, H.K. (2013). Der Nonprofit-Sektor in Deutschland. In R. Simsa, M. Meyer & C. Badelt (Eds.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management, 5th edn. Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel, pp. 1536. ZiviZ (2011). Zivilgesellschaft in Zahlen: Abschlussbericht Modul 1. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://www.ziviz.info/fileadmin/download/zivilgesellschaft_in_zahlen_abschlussbericht_modul_1.pdf .
1 Further contextual factors are: declining public subsidies, intensification of competition (Greiling, 2009) and the fact that more funds are provided by the EU (EU-Commission or structural fund), which increases obligations on accountability (Greiling, 2009). 2 In this paper, the term third sector is being used as a synonym to nonprofit sector understood as a sector between state and market. For further discussion on these terms, see Etzioni, 1973; Najam, 1996; Roder, 2011; Zimmer et al., 2013; ZiviZ, 2011.
3 When we refer to literature of development cooperation, we base our arguments on the source of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), abbreviated with the acronym OECD/DAC. 4 Therefore it might be the case that individual authors in the field of development cooperation differ from the OECD/DAC terms; however OECD has a wide appeal due to its large number of members (OECD/DAC, 2002). 5 The working party of OECD/DAC, which elaborated these terms and definitions () consists of 30 representatives from OECD member countries and multilateral development agencies (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, J apan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, UN Development Programme, International Monetary Fund) (OECD/DAC, 2002). 6 These indicators should also follow the SMART- criterias. 7 For more information towards how accountability mechanisms are related and how they depend on each other, see the symposium on "Accountability and Organizational Learning" in Public Performance & Management Review (PPMR), Vol. 36, No. 3 (2013) and therein especially the articles from Greiling & Halachmi (2013) and Schillemans et al. (2013). 8 There are different types of evaluations. An evaluation can be conducted to analyse different perspectives on an organizations activity, the organizations relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, or sustainability of the activity (BMZ, 2006; Schober et al., 2013; Stockmann, 2006).