Performance Measurement

Finally, as performance, public value can serve as a performance measurement and management framework. A key advantage of the public value idea is that there is no single bottom line. Moore, for example, proposes that managers look at costs and benefits, but also at less tangible aspects when they assess public value creation. Bozeman and Talbot  argue for using a variety of public value criteria to discern how much public value has been created or diminished. A focus on public value also stimulates attention to the long-term viability and reliability of public investments (Fisher 2014).

A number of governments have made explicit or implicit use of the public value framework. Kernaghan, for example, exam ines the values statements of four Westminster-style governments; each contains a range of values beyond efficiency. The “joined-up government,” “whole-of-government,” and collaborative governance initiatives that developed in many countries in response to the frag mentation caused by New Public Management were about coordi nation and also about recovery and pursuit of public values beyond narrowly defined results and efficiency. Unfortunately, some of these efforts have used excessively narrow interpretations of public value. For example, the British government under Tony Blair made explicit use of public value as a way of thinking about performance, but operationalized Moore’s strategic triangle by focusing on services (for operational capabil ity), outcomes (for public value), and trust and legitimacy (for the authorizing environment). Accenture consultants Cole and Parston (2006) further diminish the meaning of public value. Their approach just repackages existing approaches to performance measurement and management under a different label. Dahl and Soss’s (2014) cautions about the ease with which the public value approach can be hijacked for purposes not intended by its principal authors is on clear display.