A performance management model to mitigate the problem of ambiguity in the organization of collective prevention: The case of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region

Journal title MECOSAN
Author/s Lino Cinquini, Cristina Campanale, Flavio Del Bianco, Chiara Oppi
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2021/117 Language Italian
Pages 33 P. 77-109 File size 409 KB
DOI 10.3280/MESA2021-117005
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 discusses how the implementation of a performance management system within the prevention departments of Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region can reduce some variables of organizational ambiguity. Through a qualitative-quantitative approach based on action research and surveys, the researchers participated in the creation of a system that describes the processes, activities and targets and determines the consumption of standard resources. In addition, an exploratory survey was carried out for the ex ante assessment of the potentialities of the system in terms of reducing ambiguity, thus contributing to the revision of the system before its implementation. This research has the following contributions and implications. The first contribution is highlighted with respect to the literature on ambiguity. The second contribution relates to the definition of an ex ante evaluation approach of the potentialities of a performance measurement system to mitigate ambiguity. The results have practical implications for health management, providing insights to support the development of performance measurement systems in collective prevention.

Keywords: Performance management, ambiguity, prevention, healthcare.

  1. Abernethy M.A., Stoelwinder J.U. (1995). The Role of Professional Control in the Management of Complex Organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(1): 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(94)E0017-O
  2. Allison G.T. (1983). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects?. In: Perry J.L., Kraemer K.L. (a cura di). Public management, ed., 72-92. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Arnaboldi M., Lapsley I. (2004). Modern costing innovations and legitimation: a health care study. Abacus, 40(1): 1-20.
  3. Arnaboldi M., Palermo T. (2011). Translating ambiguous reforms: Doing better next time?. Management Accounting Research, 22(1): 6-15. DOI: 10.1177/009102608701600209
  4. Baier V.E., March J.G., Saetren H. (1986). Implementation and ambiguity. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 2(3-4): 197-212. DOI: 10.1016/0281-7527(86)90016-2
  5. Bell E., Bryman A. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Bouckaert G., Halligan J. (2007). Managing performance: International comparisons. Londra: Routledge.
  7. Byrne S., Pierce B. (2018). Exploring management accountants’ role conflicts and ambiguities and how they cope with them. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 15(4): 410-436. -- https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-11-2016-0083.
  8. Calciolari S., Cantu E., Fattore G. (2011). Performance management and goal ambiguity: Managerial implications in a single payer system. Health Care Management Review, 36(2): 164-174.
  9. Campanale C., Cinquini L. (2016). Emerging pathways of colonization in healthcare from participative approaches to management accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 39: 59-74.
  10. Campedelli B., Guerrina A., Romano G., Leardini C. (2014). La performance della rete ospedaliera pubblica della regione Veneto. L’impatto delle variabili ambientali e operative sull’efficienza. Mecosan, 92: 119-142. DOI: 10.3280/MESA2014-092007
  11. Cattaneo C., Bassani G. (2017). Rilevazione del gap tra DRG price e internal cost: implicazioni di case-mix accounting. Management Control, 2: 13-31. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-002002
  12. Chiucchi M.S. (2014). Editoriale. Il gap tra teoria e prassi nel Management Accounting: il contributo della field-based research. Management Control, 3: 5-9. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2014-003001
  13. Chun Y.H., Rainey H.G. (2005). Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 529-557.
  14. Cinquini L., Campanale C., Pianezzi D., Tenucci A. (2017). Discovering and understanding performance measurement in a context of ambiguity. In: Norreklit H. (a cura di). A Philosophy of Management Accounting: A Pragmatic Constructivist Approach, 21: 188-207. London: Routledge.
  15. Cinquini L., Campanale C., Vainieri M. (2014). Measuring Efficiency in Public Health: The Case of the Final Product System. International Journal of Management Accounting Research, 4(2): 183-199.
  16. Cinquini L., Mitchell F. (2001). La qualita informativa dei sistemi di contabilita direzionale: quali metodi per valutarla?. Economia & Management, Gennaio, 1: 115-125. Cinquini L., Mitchell F. (2005). Success in management accounting: lessons from the activity-based costing/management experience. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 1(1): 63-78.
  17. Cinquini L., Vainieri M., Campanale C. (2009). La misurazione dei Dipartimenti di prevenzione: il caso del sistema dei “Prodotti finiti” nella Regione Toscana. Politiche sanitarie, 10(3): 175-184. DOI: 10.1706/454.5369
  18. Contini V., Belcari G., Nottoli G., Pirola F. (2001). I prodotti finali della prevenzione: uno strumento per il controllo di gestione nel dipartimento. Mecosan, 39: 39-61.
  19. Coombs R.W. (1987). Accounting for the control of doctors: management information systems in hospitals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(4): 389-404. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90026-2
  20. Eldenburg L., Soderstrom N., Willis V., Wu A. (2010). Behavioral changes following the collaborative development of an accounting information system. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2): 222-237.
  21. Englund H., Gerdin J., Abrahamsson G. (2013), Accounting ambiguity and structural change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(3): 423- 448. DOI: 10.1108/09513571311311883
  22. Feldman M.S. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making (Vol. 231). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  23. Grossi G., Reichard C., Ruggiero P. (2016). Appropriateness and use of performance information in the budgeting process: Some experiences from German and Italian municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3): 581-606. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2015.1137770
  24. Hartmann F.G.H. (2007). Do Accounting Performance Measures Indeed Reduce Managerial Ambiguity Under Uncertainty?. Advances in Management Accounting, 16: 159-180. DOI: 10.1108/S1474-7871201423
  25. Heinrich C.J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3): 363-393.
  26. Hood C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public Administration, 69: 3-19.
  27. Hood C. (1995). The NPM in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting Organization and Society, 20(2/3): 93-110.
  28. Huber G.P. (1991). Organizational information systems: determinants of their performance and Accountabehaviour. Management Science, 28: 135-155.
  29. Hunter D.J. (1990). Managing the cracks: management development for health care interfaces. International Journal Health Planning Management, 5(1): 7-14.
  30. Jacobs K. (2005). Hybridisation or Polarisation: Doctors and Accounting in the UK, Germany and Italy. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(2): 135-162.
  31. Jung C.S. (2011). Organizational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, measurement, and relationships. International Public Management Journal, 14(2): 193-217. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2011.589760
  32. Jung C.S. (2012a). Developing and validating new concepts and measures of program goal ambiguity in the U.S. federal government. Administration and Society, 44(6): 675-701. DOI: 10.1177/0095399711413730
  33. Jung C.S. (2012b). Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1): 209-234.
  34. Jung C.S. (2014a). Extending the theory of goal ambiguity to programs: Examining the relationship between goal ambiguity and performance. Public Administration Review, 74(2): 205-219.
  35. Jung C.S. (2014b). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4): 955-981.
  36. Jung C.S., Rainey H.G. (2011). Organizational goal characteristics and public duty motivation in US federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(1): 28-47. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X10394404
  37. Jonsson S., Lukka K. (2006). There and Back Again: Doing Interventionist Research in Management Accounting. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1: 373-397. DOI: 10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01015-7
  38. King A.W., Zeithaml C.P. (2001). Competencies and the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 75-99. DOI: 10.2307/3094255
  39. Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Bmj, 311(7000): 299-302.
  40. Lapsley I. (2009). New public management: the cruellest invention of the human spirit?. Abacus, 45(1): 1-21.
  41. Latorre V., Prenestini A., Semisa D. (2016). Il Performance Management nei Dipartimenti di Salute Mentale (DSM): proposta di un cruscotto multidi mensionale e prospettive di implementazione. Mecosan, 97: 71-89. DOI: 10.3280/MESA2016-097005
  42. Lawton A., McKevitt D., Millar M. (2000). Developments: Coping with Ambiguity: Reconciling External Legitimacy and Organizational Implementation in Performance Measurement. Public Money & Management, 20(3): 13-20. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9302.00218
  43. Lee J.W., Rainey H.G. Chun Y.H. (2010). Goal ambiguity, work complexity and work routineness in federal agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(3): 284-308. DOI: 10.1177/0275074009337620
  44. Maglione T. (2001). Una ipotesi per la definizione dei prodotti del dipartimento di prevenzione della Als BN1 in Campania. Mecosan, 37: 119-129.
  45. Malmi T. (1997). Towards explaining activity based costing failure: accounting and control in a decentralized organization. Management Accounting Research, 8(4): 459-480.
  46. March J.G. (1987). Ambiguity and accounting: The elusive link between information and decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2): 153-168. DOI: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90004-3
  47. Marra M. (2018). The ambiguities of performance-based governance reforms in Italy: Reviving the fortunes of evaluation and performance measurement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69: 173-182. -- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.006.
  48. Matland R.E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5: 145-174.
  49. Merkur S., Sassi F., McDaid D. (2013). Promoting health and preventing disease: is there an economic case?. Policy Summary, 6. World Health Organization.
  50. Modell S. (2004). Performance Measurement Myths in the Public Sector: A Research Note. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(1): 39-55.
  51. Nuti S., Cerasuolo D., D’Orio G. et al. (2019). Il sistema di valutazione della performance dei sistemi sanitari regionali 2018. Laboratorio Management e Sanita, Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna.
  52. Olejaz M., Juul Nielsen A., Rudkjobing A., Okkels Birk H., Krasnik A, Hernandez-Quevedo C. (2012). Denmark: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 14(2): 1-192.
  53. Ostergren K. (2009). Management Control Practices and Clinician Managers: The Case of the Norwegian Health Sector. Financial Accounta bility & Management, 25(2): 167-195.
  54. Pallotti F. (2007). L’attitudine manageriale dei medici tra caratteristi-che attributive e relazionali. Evidenze da un’indagine empirica. Mecosan, 63: 49-68.
  55. Pandey S.K., Rainey H.G. (2006). Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: Analyzing alternative models. International Public Management Journal, 9(2): 85-112. DOI: 10.1080/10967490600766953
  56. Pandey S.K., Wright B.E. (2006). Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager’s Role Ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4): 511-532.
  57. Perrow C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 26(6): 854-866. DOI: 10.2307/2090570
  58. Powell T.C., Lovallo D., Caringal C. (2006). Causal Ambiguity, Management Perception, and Firm Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 175-196. DOI: 10.2307/20159191
  59. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (2017). DPCM 12 gennaio 2017. Definizione e aggiornamento dei livelli essenziali di assistenza, di cui all’articolo 1, comma 7, del decreto legislativo 30 dicembre 1992, n. 502.
  60. Price J.L. (1971). The Study of Organizational Effectiveness. The Sociological Quarterly, 13(1): 3-15.
  61. Rainey H.G., Jung C.S. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1): 71-99.
  62. Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia (2014). Legge regionale 16 ottobre 2017, n. 17. Riordino dell’assetto istituzionale e organizzativo del Servizio sanitario regionale e norme in materia di programmazione sanitaria e sociosanitaria.
  63. Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia (2015). Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 2365. Piano regionale della prevenzione del Friuli-Venezia Giulia 2014-2018.
  64. Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia (2018). Legge regionale 17 dicembre 2018, n. 17. Assetto istituzionale e organizzativo del Servizio sanitario regionale.
  65. Ricci L., Lanfranchi J.B., Lemetayer F., Rotonda C., Guillemin F., Coste J., Spitz E. (2019). Qualitative methods used to generate questionnaire items: A systematic review. Qualitative health research, 29(1): 149-156.
  66. Rice T., Rosenau P., Unruh L.Y., Barnes A.J., Saltman R.B., van Ginneken E. (2013). United States of America: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 15(3): 1-431.
  67. Steccolini I. (2004). Accountability e sistemi informativi negli enti locali: dal rendiconto al bilancio sociale. Torino: Giappichelli.
  68. Thomson S., Jowett M., Evetovits T. et al. (2013). Health, health systems and economic crisis in Europe: impact and policy implications. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
  69. Vakkuri J. (2010). Struggling with ambiguity: Public managers as users of NPM‐oriented management instruments. Public Administration, 88(4): 999-1024.
  70. Vakkuri J., Meklin P. (2006). Ambiguity in performance measurement: a theoretical approach to organizational uses of performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(3): 235-250.
  71. Verbeeten F.H. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting , Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3): 427-454. DOI: 10.1108/09513570810863996
  72. Wilson J.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

  • Informazioni budgetarie e prospettive di Behavioral Management Accounting nelle aziende sanitarie pubbliche italiane Domenico Raucci, Manuela Paolini, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 2/2022 pp.117
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2022-002006

Lino Cinquini, Cristina Campanale, Flavio Del Bianco, Chiara Oppi, Un modello di performance management per mitigare il problema dell’ambiguità nell’organizzazione della prevenzione collettiva: il caso della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia in "MECOSAN" 117/2021, pp 77-109, DOI: 10.3280/MESA2021-117005