Performance-based funding and resource allocation systems. An empirical analysis in Italian Universities

Journal title MANAGEMENT CONTROL
Author/s Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/1 Language Italian
Pages 22 P. 113-134 File size 299 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2017-001006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This article presents the results of an empirical research aimed to investigate the relationship between performance-based funding (PBF) systems and resource allocation systems within public sector organizations. This research is focused on the mechanisms for allocation of new faculty positions in Italian public universities, which are characterized by an increasing relevance of PBF over the last years. This context allows us to assess both the coherence between universities’ performance measurement systems and the PBF system and the awareness of its effects. Results show, with few exceptions, a high degree of maturity in the design of universities performance measurement systems. These systems have been primarily designed to be consistent with universities’ organizational context and strategies so avoiding a simplistic transposition of performance indicators drawn from the PBF system.

Keywords: Higher education, public universities, performance measurement systems, performance-based funding, resource allocation.

  1. Amigoni F. (1979), I sistemi di controllo direzionale. Criteri di progettazione e di impiego. Milano, Giuffrè.
  2. Arcari A.M. (2003), Il controllo di gestione negli atenei, Milano, Egea.
  3. Arcari A.M. (2006), L’impatto della riforma del sistema universitario italiano sui sistemi di gestione degli atenei, in Mazza C., Quattrone P., Riccaboni A., a cura di, L’università in cambiamento fra mercato e tradizione, Bologna, il Mulino.
  4. Azzone G., Campedelli B., Cantele S., a cura di (2011), La progettazione del sistema di programmazione e controllo negli atenei, in Azzone G., Campedelli B., Varasio E., a cura di, Il sistema di programmazione e controllo negli atenei, Bologna, il Mulino.
  5. Banfi A., Viesti G. (2015), “Meriti” e “bisogni” nel finanziamento del sistema universitario italiano, Working Papers RES 03/2015, Palermo, Fondazione RES.
  6. Bouckaert G., Halligan J. (2008), Managing Performance: International Comparisons, Routledge.
  7. Bouckaert G., Van Dooren W., Halligan J. (2010), Performance Management in the Public Sector, Routledge.
  8. Bower J.L. (1970), Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of Corporate Planning and Investment. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School.
  9. Bower J.L., Clark, G. (2005), From Resource Allocation to Strategy. UK, Oxford University Press.
  10. Broglia A., Mion G., Vinco C. (2011), Controllo e valutazione nelle università statali tra continuità e riforma, Roma, Quaderni Monografici Rirea.
  11. Burgelman R.A. (1983), Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study, Management Science, 29, 12, pp. 1349-1364.
  12. Burke J.C. (2002), Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance, Albany, NY, Rockefeller Institute Press.
  13. Burke J.C. (2005), The three corners of the accountability triangle: Serving all, submitting to none, in Burke J.C. editor, Achieving Accountability in Higher Education, San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass.
  14. Burke J.C., Modarresi S. (2000), To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders, The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 4, pp. 432-453. DOI: 10.2307/2649147
  15. Burke J.C., Serban, A.M. (1997), Performance Funding and Budgeting for Public Higher Education: Current Status and Future Prospects, Albany, NY, Rockefeller Institute of Government.
  16. Cantele S., Martini M., Campedelli B. (2012), Gli atenei italiani e gli strumenti di pianifiaczione e controllo: a che punto siamo?, Management Control, 1, pp. 55-83. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2012-001004
  17. Cinquini L., Miolo Vitali P. (2000), Le informazioni economico-finanziarie nel nuovo contesto universitario italiano: i risultati di una ricerca sulla contabilità direzionale, Azienda Pubblica, 5, pp. 563-583.
  18. Collini P., Frigotto M.L. (2013), Management Control Systems for exploration? A paradox and a challenge for research, Management Control, 1, pp. 27-44. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2015-001003
  19. Cosenz F. (2011), Sistemi di governo e di valutazione della performance per l’azienda «università», Milano, Giuffrè.
  20. Cosenz F. (2015), Una proposta metodologica di rappresentazione della performance accademica in chiave sistemica: l’applicazione del Dynamic Performance Management al governo delle università, Azienda Pubblica, 4, pp. 395-411.
  21. Cuccurullo C. (2003), La valutazione della ricerca: un possibile modello nazionale, in Carla A., Cosciotti T., Mosconi G., a cura di, La ricerca universitaria: esperienze, modelli, proposte, Roma, Fondazione CRUI.
  22. Cugini A. (2007), La misurazione delle performance negli atenei. Logiche, metodi, esperienze, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  23. Cugini A., Pilonato S. (2007), La misurazione della performance degli atenei: evidenze dalle pubblicazioni italiane dell’ultimo decennio, Azienda Pubblica, 2, pp. 217-241.
  24. De Bruijn H. (2002), Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15, 7 , pp. 578-594. DOI: 10.1108/09513550210448607
  25. Dearden J. (1971), What’s wrong with your financial control system, European Business, Summer, pp. 27-35.
  26. Dougherty K.J., Reddy V. (2013), Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms, what are the impacts ?, Ashe Higher Education Report, 39, 2, pp. 1-134.
  27. Eisenhardt K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, pp. 532-550. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
  28. Fici L. (2001), Il controllo di gestione negli atenei. Dalla valutazione al governo aziendale, Milano, Franco Angeli.
  29. Garlatti A. (1996), Bilancio e controllo economico nelle università degli studi, Milano, Egea.
  30. Govindarajan V., Fisher J. (1990), Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance, Academy of Management, 33, 2, pp. 259-285. DOI: 10.2307/256325
  31. Geuna A., Martin B.R. (2003), University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison, Minerva, 41, pp. 277-304.
  32. Harnisch T. (2011), Performance Based Funding: A Re-emerging Strategy in Public Higher Education Financing, Higher Education Policy Brief, Washington DC, American Association of State Colleges.
  33. Huber G.F. (1991), Organizational learning: The contributing process and the literatures, Organization Science, 2, 1, pp. 88-115.
  34. Jones D.P. (2012), Performance Funding: From Idea to Action, Washington, DC, Complete College America.
  35. Jongbloed B. (2001), Performance based funding in higher education: An international review, Working paper, 35, Monash University-ACER, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training.
  36. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 58, 1, pp. 686-705.
  37. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (2001), The strategy-focused organization, Strategy and Leadership, 29, 3, pp. 41-42.
  38. Lawson R., Stratton W., Hatch T. (2003), The benefits of a scorecard system, CMA Management, 77, 4, pp. 24-26.
  39. Layzel D.T. (1999), Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: past, present, and future, Research in Higher Education, 40, 2, pp. 233-246. DOI: 10.1023/A:1018790815103
  40. Liefner I. (2003), Funding, resource allocation and performance in Higher Education, Higher Education, 49, pp. 469-489. DOI: 10.1023/A:1027381906977
  41. Lucianelli G. (2006), Il comportamento strategico delle università nelle logiche dell’autonomia, Roma, Rirea.
  42. Lynch R.L., Cross K.F. (1991), Measure Up!: Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement, USA, Blackwell.
  43. Massy W.F., editor (1996), Resource Allocation in Higher Education, University of Michigan Press.
  44. Mazza C., Quattrone, P., Riccaboni A. (2006), L’università in cambiamento fra mercato e tradizione, Bologna, il Mulino.
  45. Miolo Vitali P. a cura di (2001), Sistemi di misurazione economico-finanziaria nelle università italiane: problemi e prospettive, Padova, Cedam.
  46. MIUR (2010), Sistemi di indicatori per la misura dell’efficienza della formazione, Comitato nazionale per la valutazione del sistema universitario, Roma.
  47. Modell S. (2001), Performance measurement and institutional processes: a study of managerial responses to public sector reform, Management Accounting Research, 12, pp. 437-464.
  48. Modugno G., Tivan M., Ventin G., Ranking Higher Education to boost competition: Toward entrepreneurial universities or new form of centralism? The case of Italy, Trieste, Edizioni Università di Trieste.
  49. Neely A. (2005), The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 12, pp. 1264-1277. DOI: 10.1108/01443570510633648
  50. Neely A., Gregory M. and Platts K. (2005), Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 12, pp. 1228-1263.
  51. Osborne D., Gaebler T. (1992), Reinventing Government, Penguin, Reading.
  52. Osborne D., Plastrik P. (2000), The Reinventors Filedbook: Tools for Transforming your Government, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
  53. Ouchi W. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms, Management Science, 25, 9, pp. 833-848.
  54. Paranjiape B., Rossiter M., Pantano V. (2006), Performance measurement systems: successes, failures and future – a review, Measuring Business Excellence, 10, 3, pp. 4-14. DOI: 10.1108/13683040610685748
  55. Pidd M. (2005), Perversity in public service performance measurement, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54, 5/6, pp. 482-493. DOI: 10.1108/17410400510604601
  56. Rebora G. (2003), La valutazione degli atenei: alla ricerca della qualità, Azienda Pubblica, 5/6, pp. 411-437.
  57. Rossi P. (2015), Il punto organico, una storia italiana, RT, A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation, 3, 1. DOI: 10.13130/2282-5398/4603.
  58. Simons R. (1990), The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new perspectives, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 1-2, pp. 127-143. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(90)90018-P
  59. Simons R. (2000), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy, Prentice Hall.
  60. Strassoldo M. (2001), L’azienda università. Le sfide del cambiamento, Torino, ISEDI.
  61. Turri M. (2002), Le esperienze di valutazione nelle università italiane: un’analisi critica, in Minelli E., Rebora G., Turri M. (2002), Il valore dell’università. La valutazione della didattica, della ricerca, dei servizi negli atenei, Milano, Guerini e Associati.
  62. Turri M. (2003), Lo stato dell’arte, limiti ed evoluzioni nella valutazione a livello di sistema e di singolo ateneo, Azienda Pubblica, 5/6, pp. 439-462.
  63. Waggoner B., Neely A.D., Kennerley M.P. (1999), The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems: An interdisciplinary review, International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, pp. 53-60.

Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini, Performance-based funding e sistemi di allocazione delle risorse ai dipartimenti: prime evidenze nelle università italiane in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 1/2017, pp 113-134, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-001006