Collaborative Performance Management for Public Health

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda E. McCarty ◽  
Sonja M. Armbruster ◽  
John W. Moran
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
Collaborative Performance

Collaborative Performance Management in Interfirm Relationships

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henri C. Dekker ◽  
Rong Ding ◽  
Tom Groot
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Environmental Variability ◽  
Asset Specificity ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Boundary Spanners ◽  
Interfirm Relationships ◽  
Performance Information ◽  
Collaborative Performance

ABSTRACT In this study, we examine how firms' collaborative objectives influence their use of performance management practices in interfirm relationships. We conceptualize collaborative performance management to include three interrelated practices: measurement of interfirm performance, information sharing, and interaction between boundary spanners of partner firms. Prior research has related firms' interfirm control choices to transaction risk as proxied by “given” transaction characteristics. We hypothesize that transaction characteristics are determined by the strategic importance of the collaboration (manifested by the importance of firms' collaborative objectives) and, in turn, influence the use of firms' performance management practices. Analysis of survey data supports our hypotheses that strategic importance of the collaboration is associated with transaction characteristics (i.e., with asset specificity, transaction scope, task interdependencies, and environmental variability), which, in turn, mediate the influence of collaborative objectives on the use of performance management practices. We also find that performance measurement, information sharing, and boundary spanner interaction are used as complementary practices in the management of interfirm relationships.

scholarly journals Outcomes-based performance management through measuring indicators: Collaborative governance for local economic development (LED) in South African municipalities

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Richard Douglas Kamara
Keyword(s):  
Performance Management ◽  
Local Economic Development ◽  
Collaborative Governance ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
System Management ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Economic Issues ◽  
Collaborative Performance ◽  
Local Municipalities ◽  
The Impact

Undoubtedly, there is a lag in the scholarships on performance outcomes of collaboration aimed at improving the system management and responsiveness to socio-economic issues in local government. Whilst most scholarships on collaborative governance in LED focuses on what we do (processes), some others research addresses the outputs in terms of the goods and services produced from the activities as well as the social outcomes. Very little discourse on collaboration addresses collaborative outcomes in LED. Put simply, we are acquainted with what collaborative actors do, but we know very little about the impact of collaboration on the system management and responsiveness to socio-economic issues within municipalities. Now the question is how do we know what to measure? The dearth in scholarship on how to assess collaborative outcomes in LED provide an impetus to present this paper as it helps to address the knowledge gap on LED and collaboration. The paper aims to present some innovative indicators which can be used to assess, monitor and review collaborative performance in LED, with special focus on the processes and outcomes of the collaboration. Using secondary sources, the paper argues the desirability and constraints of assessing performance outcomes in collaborative governance of development pathways in local municipalities. Moreover, the paper presents some criteria for selecting effective indicators used in measuring outcomes performance of collaboration. A synopsis of major determinants of effective outcomes in collaboration for LED is presented in the paper. Finally, the paper presents proposed innovative quantitative and qualitative indicators which can be used to assess, monitor and review collaborative performance in LED in local municipalities.

scholarly journals Case for rethinking system leadership and its development in public health

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Smith
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Leadership Development ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
System Development ◽  
Leadership Capacity ◽  
System Leadership ◽  
Systems Leadership ◽  
Management Staff ◽  
Leadership Research ◽  
Developing System

Abstract Background There is growing recognition of the importance of leadership in Public Health (PH) practice, and the need to embed it into the education and training of PH professionals. However the theoretical discourse within leadership research has changed significantly and there is recognition that previous conceptualisations of leadership, and our ways of developing it may be flawed, and need to be changed in practice. Objectives This presentation will discuss development of leadership theory, and system leadership. In particular it will highlight how System Leadership differs from previous understandings of leadership and the implications of this for ph practitioners and those charged with developing system leadership capacity within public health. Body of the session Leadership in organisations is mostly focused on current/anticipated internal challenges (strategy, performance management, staff engagement, etc.). Leaders are generally developed via individual leader development rather than a focus developing Leadership capacity across organisations/systems. Within PH it is increasingly realised that single organisations can no longer respond effectively to the “wicked” issues they face. They do not possess sufficient know-how to address the complex and multi-dimensional problems faced, so leadership models based on a single hierarchical organisation are not sustainable. There is a need to work collectively in an ecosystem-based approach (not an ego-based system). System Leadership development requires that participants are actively engaged in real attempts to improve PH System. Development requires that underlying values are made explicit, explored and diversity embraced. The emphasis will be on supporting learners in the doing rather than critiquing or talking about it. Conclusions There is need to appreciate fully the nature of systems leadership, together with implications for PH practice and the development of system leadership capacity throughout the PH workforce.

Quality Improvement and Performance Management Benefits of Public Health Accreditation

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S3-S9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa Siegfried ◽  
Megan Heffernan ◽  
Mallory Kennedy ◽  
Michael Meit
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
And Performance

scholarly journals Framing Bias in the Interpretation of Quality Improvement Data: Evidence From an Experiment

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 307-314
Author(s):  
Andrew Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Similar Degree ◽  
Sources Of Information

Background: A growing body of public management literature sheds light on potential shortcomings to quality improvement (QI) and performance management efforts. These challenges stem from heuristics individuals use when interpreting data. Evidence from studies of citizens suggests that individuals’ evaluation of data is influenced by the linguistic framing or context of that information and may bias the way they use such information for decision-making. This study extends prospect theory into the field of public health QI by utilizing an experimental design to test for equivalency framing effects on how public health professionals interpret common QI indicators. Methods: An experimental design utilizing randomly assigned survey vignettes is used to test for the influence of framing effects in the interpretation of QI data. The web-based survey assigned a national sample of 286 city and county health officers to a "positive frame" group or a "negative frame" group and measured perceptions of organizational performance. The majority of respondents self-report as organizational leadership. Results: Public health managers are indeed susceptible to these framing effects and to a similar degree as citizens. Specifically, they tend to interpret QI information presented in a "positive frame" as indicating a higher level of performance as the same underlying data presenting in a "negative frame." These results are statistically significant and pass robustness checks when regressed against control variables and alternative sources of information. Conclusion: This study helps identify potential areas of reform within the reporting aspects of QI systems. Specifically, there is a need to fully contextualize data when presenting even to subject matter experts to reduce the existence of bias when making decisions and introduce training in data presentation and basic numeracy prior to fully engaging in QI initiatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document