The performance measurement systems in universities. Critical considerations on the Italian system

Author/s Natalia Aversano, Francesca Manes Rossi, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/1
Language Italian Pages 22 P. 15-36 File size 458 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2017-001002
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.

Performance Measurement Systems have long since been adopted by universities. They have been developed in part as a result of reforms introduced by the wave of the New Public Management, but also as consequence of the harmonization process of the education systems which have affected many countries, particularly in Europe. This paper provides an overview of the Performance Measurement Systems adopted in most European countries and introduces a critical analysis of the Italian system, focusing on the three main university missions that require evaluation. These are: research, teaching activities and transfer of technology, all of which are affected by the administrative activity. Through a documentary analysis, particular attention is given to the guidelines issued recently in Italy by the National Agency for the Evaluation of the University System and Research (ANVUR). From a critical analysis of the systems currently adopted in Italy, taking into account also the systems in other countries, the need to view university performance in a more holistic manner emerges. This would lead towards an integrated assessment of the three main missions that each university is required to accomplish.

Keywords: Performance Measurement Systems, Italian Universities, ANVUR guidelines

  1. Broadbent J., Laughlin R. (2009), Performance management systems: A conceptual model, Management Accounting Research, 20, pp. 283-295.
  2. Ammons D., Rivenbark W. (2008), Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project, Public Administration Review, 19, 2, pp. 304-318.
  3. ANVUR (2015), Linee Guida per la gestione integrata del Ciclo della Performance delle università statali italiane. --
  4. Arnaboldi M., Azzone G. (2010), Constructing performance measurement in the public sector, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 4, pp. 266-282.
  5. Behn R.D. (2003), Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures, Public administration review, 63, 5, pp. 586-606. DOI: 10.1111/1540-6210.00322
  6. Benito B., Brusca I., Montesinos V. (2007), The harmonization of government financial information systems: the role of IPSASs, International review of Administrative Sciences, 73, 2, pp. 293-317.
  7. Beyle H.C., Parratt S.D. (1938), Public attitudes and government efficiency, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 199, pp. 26-32.
  8. Bianchi C., Rivenbark W. C. (2012), A comparative analysis of performance management systems: the cases of Sicily and North Carolina, Public Performance & Management Review, 35, 3, pp. 509-526. DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576350307
  9. Bini M., Chiandotto B. (2003), La valutazione del sistema universitario italiano alla luce della riforma dei cicli e degli ordinamenti didattici, Studi e note di economia, 2, pp. 29-61.
  10. Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks (2005), A Framework for the Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, Copenhagen.
  11. Borgonovi E. (2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, Milano, Egea.
  12. Bouckaert G., Balk W. (1991), Public productivity measurement: Diseases and cures, Public Productivity & Management Review, 15, 2, pp. 229-235.
  13. Brusca I., Manes Rossi F., Aversano N. (2015), Performance Measurement in Italian and Spanish Local Governments: Comparative Policy Analysis, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2015.1094892
  14. Cantele S., Campedelli B. (2013), Il performance-based funding nel sistema universitario italiano: un’analisi degli effetti della programmazione triennale, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 309-332.
  15. Cavalluzzo K.S., Ittner C.D. (2004), Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 3, pp. 243-267. DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00013-8
  16. Christopher J., Leung P. (2015), Tensions arising from imposing NPM in Australian public universities: A management perspective, Financial Accountability & Management, 31, 2, pp. 171-191.
  17. Cosenz F. (2011), Sistemi di governo e di valutazione della performance per l’azienda «Università», Milano, Giuffrè Editore.
  18. 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.
  19. Cuganesan S., Guthrie J., Vranic V. (2014), The riskiness of public sector performance measurement: a review and research agenda, Financial Accountability & Management, 30, 3, pp. 279-302.
  20. de Lancer Julnes P., Holzer M. (2001), Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation, Public administration review, 61, 6, pp. 693-708. DOI: 10.1111/0033-3352.00140
  21. Esposito V., De Nito E., Pezzillo Iacono M., Silvestri L. (2013), Dealing with knowledge in the Italian public universities: the role of performance management systems, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14, 3, pp. 431-450. DOI: 10.1108/JIC-03-2013-0035
  22. European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) (2009), Position paper on the BFUG –“Bologna beyond 2010” Report.
  23. Ferreira A., Otley D. (2009), The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis, Management accounting research, 20, 4, pp. 263-282.
  24. GASB (2010). Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting, SEA Performance Information, GASB.
  25. Greiling D. (2005), Performance measurement in the public sector: the German experience, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54, 7, pp. 551-567. DOI: 10.1108/17410400510622223
  26. Higgins J.C. (1989), Performance measurement in universities, European Journal of Operational Research, 38, 3, pp. 358-368. DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(89)90012-X
  27. Hood C. (1995), The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 2/3, pp. 93-109.
  28. IPSASB (2015), Recommended Practice Guideline (RPG3) on Reporting Service Performance Information. IFAC. -- Available at -Performance-Information.pdf.
  29. Johnsen Å. (2005), What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management?, Public Money and Management, 25, 1, pp. 9-17.
  30. Jones C.S. (1991), Power, politics and the Jarratt proposals for accounting in British universities, Financial Accountability and Management, 7, 3, pp. 142-158.
  31. Kallio K.M., Kallio T.J. (2014), Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities-implications for work motivation, Studies in Higher Education, 39, 4, pp. 574-589.
  32. Kallio K.M., Kallio T.J., Tienari J., Hyvönen T. (2016), Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities, Human Relations, 69, 3, pp. 685-709.
  33. King Alexander F. (2000), The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education, Journal of Higher Education, 71, 4, pp. 411-431. DOI: 10.2307/2649146
  34. Kloot L. (1999), Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12, 7, 565-584. DOI: 10.1108/09513559910308039
  35. Kuah C.T., Wong K.Y. (2011), Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis, Procedia Computer Science, 3, pp. 499-506.
  36. Lapsley I. (2008), The NPM agenda: back to the future, Financial Accountability & Management, 24, 1, pp. 77-96.
  37. Lapsley I., Miller P. (2004), Foreword: Transforming Universities: The Uncertain, Erratic Path, Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 2, pp. 103-106.
  38. Leitner K.H. (2004), Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities, Research Evaluation, 13, 2, pp. 129-140. DOI: 10.3152/147154404781776464
  39. Marchi L., Marasca S., Giuliani M. (2013), Valutare la ricerca nella prospettiva europea e internazionale: prime riflessioni, Management Control, 3, pp. 99-113. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-003006
  40. Modell S. (2003), Goals versus institutions: the development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector, Management Accounting Research, 14, 4, pp. 333-359.
  41. Mussari R., D’Alessio L., Sostero U. (2015), Il nuovo sistema contabile delle università, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 227-246.
  42. Mussari R., Sostero U. (2014), Il processo di cambiamento del sistema contabile nelle università: aspettative, difficoltà e contraddizioni, Azienda Pubblica, 2, pp. 125-147.
  43. OECD (2007), Towards Better Measurement of Government, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 1, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/301575636734
  44. OECD (2009), Roadmap for the OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes. --
  45. Paolini A., Quagli A. (2013), Una riflessione sugli strumenti bibliometrici per la valutazione della ricerca e una proposta: il real impact factor, Management Control, 3, pp. 115-128. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-003007
  46. Paolini L., Soverchia M. (2013), Le università statali italiane verso la contabilità economico-patrimoniale ed il controllo di gestione, Management Control, 3, pp. 77-98. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-003005
  47. Pettersen I.J. (2014), A tale of diverse qualities - reflections on performance measures in higher education, in Bourmistrov A., Olson O., a cura di, Accounting, management control and institutional development, Oslo, Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 201-216.
  48. Pollitt C. (2013), The logics of performance management, Evaluation, 19, 4, pp. 346-363.
  49. Romano M., Cirillo A. (2015), La misurazione delle performance economico-finanziarie delle università pubbliche italiane. Logiche e strumenti nel nuovo sistema di contabilità, Azienda Pubblica, 4, pp. 377-394.
  50. Rusconi G. (2014), La valutazione della ricerca scientifica. Alcuni spunti di riflessione dopo le recenti esperienze in Italia, Management Control, 1, pp. 73-85. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2014-001005
  51. Smith P. (1995), On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector, International Journal of Public Administration, 18, pp. 277-310.
  52. Sousa C.A., de Nijs W.F., Hendriks P.H. (2010), Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations, Human Relations, 63, 9, pp. 1439-1460.
  53. ter Bogt H.J., Scapens R.W. (2012), Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems, European Accounting Review, 21, 3, pp. 451-497. DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2012.668323
  54. Tieghi M., Gigli S. (2015), L’introduzione della Contabilità Economico-Patrimoniale negli Atenei: un commento su alcune opzioni esercitate e alcune possibili proposte di miglioramento, Azienda Pubblica, 1, pp. 13-31.
  55. Trequattrini R., Nappo F., Lardo A. (2015), L’introduzione della contabilità-economico patrimoniale nelle università tra adeguamento alle norme e nuovi paradigmi emergenti: il caso Uniclam, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 269-285.
  56. van Dooren W., van de Walle S.G.J. (2008), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan.
  57. van Dooren W., Bouckaert G., Halligan J. (2015), Performance management in the public sector, New York, Routledge.
  58. van Helden G.J., Johnsen Å., Vakkuri J. (2012), The life-cycle approach to performance management: Implications for public management and evaluation, Evaluation, 18, 2, pp. 159-175.
  59. Van Thiel S., Leeuw F.L. (2002), The performance paradox in the public sector, Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 3, pp. 267-281. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2002.11643661

  • Moving from Social and Sustainability Reporting to Integrated Reporting: Exploring the Potential of Italian Public-Funded Universities’ Reports Sara Giovanna Mauro, Lino Cinquini, Elena Simonini, Andrea Tenucci, in Sustainability /2020 pp.3172
    DOI: 10.3390/su12083172
  • Il ruolo dei manager universitari in un'ottica di performance integrata. Analisi di un caso studio Franco Rubino, Pina Puntillo, Stefania Veltri, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 3/2017 pp.95
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-003007
  • Legitimating efforts in Performance Plans. Evidences on the thoroughness of disclosure in the Italian Higher Education setting Alessandra Allini, Adele Caldarelli, Rosanna Spanò, Annamaria Zampella, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2019 pp.143
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2019-001007
  • Il risk management approach nelle Università italiane: prime riflessioni su vincoli e opportunità Manuela Lucchese, Giuseppe Sannino, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2020 pp.111
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001006
  • Integrating strategic planning and performance management in universities: a multiple case-study analysis Lucia Biondi, Salvatore Russo, in Journal of Management and Governance /2022 pp.417
    DOI: 10.1007/s10997-022-09628-7
  • Accounting Reform in Italian Universities. Internal Response to Accounting Change Marco Tieghi, Rebecca L. Orelli, Emanuele Padovani, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2018 pp.117
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2018-001006
  • Social Network e Stakeholder Engagement, un binomio tutto da sviluppare? Un confronto tra le università pubbliche di Italia e Cina Elena Gori, Silvia Fissi, Michele Fiumanò, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2018 pp.95
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2018-001005
  • On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion for university managers: a case study Stefania Veltri, Pina Puntillo, in Journal of Management and Governance /2020 pp.135
    DOI: 10.1007/s10997-019-09461-5
  • Distorsioni nel sistema di accountability delle Università: analisi di un caso Andrea Francesconi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2020 pp.59
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001004

Natalia Aversano, Francesca Manes Rossi, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini, I sistemi di misurazione della performance nelle università: considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 1/2017, pp 15-36, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-001002