See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349638019

“Measuring up”: a systematic literature review of performance measurement

in Australia and New Zealand local government

Article in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management · February 2021

DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-11-2020-0184

CITATIONS READS

7 598

4 authors:

Mary C. Johnsson Matthew Pepper

15 PUBLICATIONS 240 CITATIONS

University of Wollongong
53 PUBLICATIONS 941 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Oriana Milani Price Lauren Richardson

University of Wollongong University of Wollongong
29 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Oriana Milani Price on 07 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Measuring up’: A systematic literature review of
performance measurement in
Australia and New Zealand local government

Abstract
Purpose – Measurement practices have long been considered vital for informing the management of performance
in organisations. Their application to local governments is a more recent, yet multi-decade phenomenon facilitated
by New Public Management trends. This paper reviews the landscape of publications that discuss performance
measurement practices in Australian and New Zealand local government contexts and identifies implications for
future research.

Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review methodology was used to identify a shortlist of

publications. Next, we applied a rating-based researcher appraisal process. Multiple iterations of search and
appraisal were conducted to form the basis for inductive thematic analysis and synthesis.

Findings – Analysing 65 performance measurement (PM) publications, we identified two interrelated themes:
Discourses of performance as efficiency, accountability or strategic growth and change, that influence the adoption
of local PM tools and frameworks. As demands for strategic growth and more complex service delivery increase,
strategic and localised adaptation of PMs may be required to integrate learning and communicative competencies
with technical and operational capabilities.

Research limitations/implications –The systematic review methodology has been applied to address some of the
limitations of publication and reporting biases in literature. This research provides a starting point for future
investigations and broadening of discourse in local government contexts.

Originality/value – This paper represents the first systematic review of 1995-2020 publications on performance
management practices used by local governments in Australia and New Zealand.

Keywords Performance measures, Performance management, Local government, Systematic review, Australia &
New Zealand.

Paper type Literature review

Introduction

The phrase ‘performance measurement’ (PM) can connote a wide range of meanings including a
concept, set of practices, and domain of literature. It implies through the juxtaposition of its two
components – performance and measurement – the notion of doing or acting for some purpose using
methods of counting or weighing up. This often requires unpacking what is measured (measures), why
it is/needs to be measured (purpose), how it is measured (process) and where the results from measuring
are used (application and feedback) to achieve certain needs and benefits.

In an organisational context, the implementation and management of performance measurement

practices (sometimes abbreviated as PMM for performance measurement and management) is
considered critical to delivering service effectiveness and long-term survival in a range of sectors –
private, nonprofit or public (De Waal, 2013; Baird, 2017). Performance measurement processes and
metrics typically operationalise and support performance practices, which in turn can underpin the
delivery of broader continuous improvement initiatives and the realisation of organisational strategies
and outcomes.

As part of a broader applied research study, our team is currently investigating 1) how and why
performance measurement practice is enacted in certain ways within the specific context of Australian
and New Zealand (A&NZ) local government organisations, and 2) how existing measurement practice
for these organisations may be changing to address strategic growth opportunities that encompass

1
uncertain futures. The purpose of this paper is to share the findings from a systematic literature review
task representing one input into supporting our empirical investigations. We believe our analyses and
findings may be useful to others investigating performance measurement, contextually and more
broadly, because through interrogating extant literature, we came to better understand:

• The significance of an epistemological basis for performance in shaping practitioner discourses

about performance measurement (Micheli and Mari, 2014; Armstrong, 2018);

• The transformative impact of New Public Management (NPM) structural reforms on public
sector organisations (McLaughlin et al., 2002; De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Bryson et al., 2014)
that shape the design of their performance measurement systems (Moura et al., 2019);

• How studying the complex contextual characteristics of local governments in A&NZ may offer
additional contributions to extant local government performance measurement literature in other
contexts, and raise the importance of new ways to research context-sensitive performance
measurement research (Bourne, Franco-Santos et al., 2018).

In the following sections, we first situate the locus of our literature review by briefly describing how
PM approaches have evolved generally, and then to delimit the field through three influencing lenses:
epistemological assumptions, NPM priorities and A&NZ-specific characteristics. Within this localised
scope, we next explain how we applied a systematic review methodology that resulted in 65 publications
for more nuanced analysis. Our findings discuss two resultant themes that we observe as characterising
current A&NZ performance measurement practices: 1) how practitioners understand and talk about PM
differently for efficiency, accountability and strategic growth purposes, and b) the organisational
rationales for implementing a common tool (such as Balanced Scorecard) and/or a local framework
(such as the Australian Business Excellence Framework). These findings lead us to a final section that
suggests further research opportunities for context-sensitive research and more generally for the field of
performance measurement.

Situating Contextualised Performance Measurement through Epistemological, Market and

Geographic Lenses

The field of PM is challenging to categorise and to characterise given its diversity and multidisciplinary
origins in business, accounting, operations, information management and social sciences. Over 15 years
ago, Neely (2005) suggested that although performance measurement generates enduring research
questions, the field is still immature, focuses too much on tool solutions (e.g. Balanced Scorecard) and
lacks an explanatory theoretical basis. Decades later, scholars continue to call for more theory-building
towards a common theoretical basis that can shape future research agendas (Bititci et al., 2012; Melnyk
et al., 2014; Bourne, Melnyk et al., 2018).

One approach to understand how performance measurement approaches have evolved is to take a
chronological view of their development focus and underlying assumptions. Table I summarises our
interpretation of the various ‘eras’ in PM literature.

While business strategy frameworks were being developed in the 1980s, the focus of performance
measurement during the 1980s and 1990s was dominantly on managerial and accounting control. During
these decades, measurement priorities focused on how to ‘measure, compare, analyse and act’ (Bititci
et al., 2018, p.654) as stable closed systems. There was a narrow efficiency focus on identifying the
measures or metrics that could accurately reflect the operational and budgetary aspects of performance.
In the 1990s, performance tools such as the Balanced Scorecard expanded the view of performance to
include non-financial measures for customers, internal processes and innovation or learning. These eras
emphasized the what and how of performance measurement based on a causal assumption that planned
control (purpose) leads to desired action and results, with where being less relevant (i.e. the same tools
can be used for similar effects in different contexts).

2
 insert Table I. Stages of performance measurement evolution

By the beginning of the 21st century, researchers and practitioners recognised that organisations are
open systems, influenced by external events and changes that are not always plannable or predictable
(Mintzberg, 1993; Barnes, 2001). Control was still needed, but issues of integration, alignment and
coordination with other business processes became paramount if the measures were to reflect the
inherent interdependencies among business processes that contribute to service delivery outputs
(Waggoner et al., 1999; Kennerley and Neely, 2002).
Further, as Kennerley and Neely (2002, p.1222) observe: ‘Consideration is being given to what should
be measured today, but little attention is being paid to the question of what should be measured
tomorrow. Measurement systems should be dynamic. They have to be modified as circumstances
change’. Thus, the contemporary view is that where performance measurement is used strongly
influences the design of performance measures (what) and their delivery (how) if the interpretation of
measure results will contribute to improving outcomes and (re)shaping future local actions. Design and
selection of measures must adapt not only to environmental conditions, but to changing environmental
conditions. Such conditions, including legislative policy changes, advances in technology or
sociodemographic trends, make measurement design and delivery an iterative and constantly evolving
process rather than the simplified linear 1980s approach of measure then act.
This ‘era’ perspective helps us to locate the influences and orientation of our research in certain ways
that we call contextualised lenses, which we discuss next.

Epistemological Understandings of Performance and its Measurement

Underlying the chronological perspective illustrated by Table I, we believe there are taken-for-granted,
often unstated assumptions about the scope of performance epistemologies and their ontological basis.
For example, assumptions that:
(i). Measurement drives rational behaviour change.
(ii). Measurement can be objective, accurate, precise and complete.
(iii). Causal relations can be easily identified and quantified.
(iv). Performance tools, metrics and performance indicators and systems measure and/or capture
the ‘real/true’ situation within organisations.
(v). Performance is a technical, operational, control, or social practice … or a complex
combination of all of the above.
The assumptions above reflect some of the conceptual challenges recognised by Micheli and Mari
(2014)’s research. These authors suggest that the epistemology of performance measurement needs a
reconceptualised, pragmatic, model-based view that first, recognises the subjective epistemic role of the
measurer (often senior management or in local government, higher statutory authorities), thus
challenging the robustness of assumptions (i) and (ii) above. Second, Micheli and Mari (2014) seek to
apply a criterion of adequacy-for-purpose rather than a criterion of truth (p.153), challenging
assumptions (iii) and (iv) above. That is, the design of PMs should be to generate information
meaningful to its particular context-in-use, rather than to generate positivistic ratings of good/bad in
absolute terms.
Using a critical realist lens, Armstrong (2018) similarly identifies the difficulties of PM knowledge-
building while acknowledging the contemporary importance of a systems view in PM practice. Rather
than seeking causality between metric result and action, Armstrong (2018) suggests a more generative
and emergent approach to PM practice, that a) unpacks ‘deep’ unobservable mechanisms that are
sensitive to context (e.g. practitioner interpretations of language and symbols, interactive behaviours,
structuring of feedback); and b) identifies how these mechanisms influence future contexts. This

3
suggests that a deeper exploration of assumption (v) above is necessary. Such points are particularly
significant when we discuss in our Findings section, how performance measurement is talked about by
practitioners (discourses by whom), making more visible, ‘mental model’ assumptions that govern ‘talk’
to shape ‘walk’ (personal or organisational actions) with expected or idiosyncratic consequences.

NPM Transformations Shaping Local Government Performance Measurement Priorities

In private sector organisations, performance measurement results calibrate the achievement of market,
customer, and product/service goals versus outcomes in support of business strategy (e.g. Llamas-
Alonso et al., 2009; Baird, 2017). However, the challenge of where is the market, who is the customer
and what are appropriate services to provide at which service levels is less clear when the provider is a
local government organisation, constrained by legislative policy and democratically elected by
constituents and ratepayers.

The principles of NPM were first introduced by Hood (1991) to describe 1980s approaches that
attempted to make the public sector more ‘businesslike’: adopting managerialist models focusing on
financial control, accountability, target-setting and transparency while at the same time, showing greater
customer responsiveness and more entrepreneurial management (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). In the
decades that followed, the phenomenon of NPM, global and local in scope and extended over time, has
had an enduring transformative impact on many public sector organisations resulting in new hybrid
entities (McLaughlin et al., 2002; Bryson et al., 2014). Research activity on NPM encompasses, for
example, the United Kingdom (e.g. Newman, 2000), central and eastern Europe (e.g. Sorin and Pollitt,
2015), Australia and New Zealand (e.g. Carroll and Steane, 2002; Duncan and Chapman, 2010),
comparatively across country and regional geographies (see Part III in McLaughlin et al., 2002; see Part
II in Dollery and Robotti, 2008; see Part III in Christensen and Laegreid, 2016; Brusca and Montesinos,
2016) and has been analysed over a 30 plus year timeframe (Johnsen, 2005; Hughes, 2017).

Under a NPM regime, local governments restructured to become hybrids. These organisations now
attempt to balance ‘private sector-like’ aspects of performance accountability and commercial
imperatives with stakeholder imperatives to deliver public value and public goods, the conventional
domain of public sector organisations (Chaston, 2011; De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Moura et al., 2019).
These tensions problematise the purpose of performance measurement. The 1980s era of operational
control is no longer relevant nor dominant. In the era beyond 2010, complexity and customisation-to-
context requires a broader role for performance measurement, identifying why measures may need to be
reported or used in certain ways (e.g. legislated, to facilitate efficiency-based benchmarking, to
demonstrate participative democracy), to measure efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Whether
public sector reforms can continue to demonstrate citizen choice for public services (e.g. through
utilising feedback from enhanced constituent consultation) in the face of ‘technocratic planning
processes’ (Aberbach and Christensen, 2005; Rogers 2016 cited by Farid Uddin, 2019, p.98) will vary
by national context.

While NPM has had a macro transformative effect across and within many countries, we believe using
a local practice contextual lens is productive when delimiting the scope of our literature review task. In
the context of local governments, ‘there are substantial differences in the array of powers attributed to
local governments in different countries and territorial administration systems vary enormously in terms
of administrative structures, political culture, and the dynamics of central-local relations’ (Bailey 1999
cited by Dollery and Johnson, 2005, p.3). For example, in contrast to other countries (United Kingdom)
or regions (Europe), A&NZ local government practices are ‘more narrowly [focused] on ‘services to
property’, like roads, sewage and water’ (Dollery and Wallis, 2001b, p.1). We next examine these
contextual particularities.

4
A&NZ Local Governments as One Contextual Exemplar of Diversity and Complexity

Collectively, Australia and New Zealand represent less than 10% of the population size of the United
States but their local government roles in these national economies are significant, with combined
expenditures of just under $50 billion and employment of over 220,000 staff (see Table II). Further,
various rate capping strategies have been implemented, limiting revenues for financing and renewing
their services (Dollery and Mounter, 2010; Yarram et al., 2020). Historical events and sociodemographic
diversity are two other local factors:

• Past NPM-led efficiency and economies of scale initiatives have caused forced amalgamations
and sector consolidation. For example, a 1984 national fiscal crisis in New Zealand forced
consolidation of 828 bodies into 13 regional councils and 74 territorial authorities, which
represented at that time, a 90% reduction in numbers (Reid 2008 cited by Chatterjee et al., 2017,
p.37). While Australia did not undergo a comparable fiscal crisis, amalgamations have been
controversial in the largest state of New South Wales (NSW). A 2015 state goal to create super-
sized regional councils, reducing the then number of local government councils by a further
26%, was abandoned in late 2017 due to municipality and community legal objections
(Glanville and Stuart, 2017). The pressure to amalgamate has varied by state/territory in
Australia so political and governance relationships between each state/territory and their local
authorities shape performance reporting and data collection requirements (e.g. extent of
uniformity and comparability required by the state).

• Local governments within Australia demonstrate a wide disparity of operational size and scope.
This suggests the need to customise local services to differing sociodemographic characteristics
and needs (e.g. metropolitan cities, coastal towns, migrant communities, retirees, rural areas,
indigenous requirements) sometimes generating urban-rural divides (Aulich, 2005). Financial
capacities and geographic coverage also vary widely (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017, p.4):

- ‘The Brisbane City Council is Australia’s largest Local Government by population and
budget. It services about 1.2 million people, has 7550 full-time equivalent employees, brings
in over $2 billion in revenue each year … cover[ing] a geographical area of 1338 square
kilometres.
- By geographical area, the Shire of East Pilbara is Australia’s largest council. It covers an
area of area of 372 571 square kilometres, which is larger than the state of Victoria. With
only 87 staff the Shire provides services to about 20 000 people.
- In contrast, the Shire of Peppermint Grove is Australia’s smallest council by geographical
area. It covers an area of just 1.36 square kilometres across a single Perth suburb on the
shores of the Swan River. The Shire employs 24 staff to provide services to its 1524
residents.’

insert Table II. Australia and New Zealand local government characteristics

Pressures on A&NZ local governments are created by limitations on revenue-raising activities through
rate-capping policies; downward pressure on expenditures to deliver NPM efficiency and scale benefits
while also embracing effectiveness and sustainability goals; and growing need for tailored solutions to
support diverse constituent needs. Such pressures have design and delivery implications for performance
measurement practices.

Through this brief overview of performance measurement developments, we have situated our literature
review task to be practicable in scope through epistemological, sector and geographic contextual lenses.
We next describe the methodology we applied to identify the relevant literature set used for more
nuanced analysis.

5
Systematic Review Methodology and Results
A systematic review is a common structured methodology used to identify prior studies published on a
particular phenomenon of interest, often to provide evidence-based perspectives to inform research
investigations. This methodology has been used in business studies (e.g. Tranfield et al., 2003; Crossan
and Apaydin, 2010) but is not prevalent in this discipline (Snyder, 2019). However, this technique has
been used extensively in other disciplines, for example health (Lichtenstein et al., 2008; Patel et al.,
2011), education (Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2003; Bearman et al., 2012) and information technology
(Kitchenham and Brereton, 2013). Studies of interest can adopt quantitative, qualitative methods and
mixed method approaches.

Systematic reviews originated in healthcare research, where initial collaborative efforts resulted in an
international guidance statement now known as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al., 2009). Over time, researchers have contributed a rich set of
support resources, particularly but not exclusively, driven by the Joanna Briggs Institute (an Australian
healthcare research centre), including:

• explanatory articles (Aromataris and Pearson, 2014),

• a comprehensive how-to manual (Aromataris and Munn, 2017),
• guidance for mixed method systematic reviews (Lizarondo et al., 2017),
• a search strategy method called SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation
and Process (Cooke et al., 2012; Canham and Shaw, 2016),
• reference reading for further source identification called ‘snowballing’ (Ridley, 2012), and
• a rating-based appraisal tool for mixed method reviews (Pluye et al., 2009).

We utilised several of these resources in our systematic review, including the recent work by Snyder
(2019) as a point of reference for the overall planning and implementation of our review.

Figure 1 summarises our six-step process. The initial research question used to guide our screening
process was ‘What are performance measurement practices used by local governments in Australia and
New Zealand?’. We first defined keywords used for our SPIDER search strategy, that included
analogous terms (such as ‘local councils’ as a substitute for ‘local governments’; ‘performance
management’, continuous improvement’ and ‘performance metrics’ for ‘performance measurement’)
[STEP 1]. Our initial search targeted sources from three common business databases – Web of
Science™, SCOPUS® and Proquest Central™. Due to the collection timeframe established for the three
business databases, literature published over a 1995-2020 timeframe was identified [STEP 2].

insert Figure 1. Six-step systematic review

Using multiple researchers, we then underwent an iterative process of review-appraise-snowball

activities [STEPS 3, 4 and 5]. This became an iterative process for several reasons:

• Two researchers conducted full-text reading and quality appraisal of the shortlist of articles by
applying the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (Pluye et al., 2009), using a three-choice rating
process: Yes (relevant), No (not relevant), Can’t Tell (at this stage). Certain articles were
excluded whereas other articles identified new sources from citations or reference lists.
• During the first appraisal round, we questioned why our preliminary shortlist did not discuss
‘performance indicators’ (or KPIs), despite the keyword ‘performance metrics’ being used in
the initial search. This generated a second snowball round, identifying new articles.
• Since the three business databases contained mostly academic journal articles with some books,
sources identified by snowball activities that were books, book chapters, working reports, theses
or consultant reports were mostly found through Google Scholar, direct websites or through our
university document delivery services.

6
Articles excluded during Step 4 by appraiser researchers included focus and scope reasons; for example:

• Performance management of specific programs, e.g. emergency management; community

facilities; water quality; waste management; project management; impact of consultants and
other outsourcing.
• Performance management only from single perspective or specific function, e.g. human
resource performance management, management accounting (expenditure analysis/asset
depreciation), accrual accounting; accounting standards.
• Focus on performance criteria or success of amalgamation of councils in NSW.
• General discussion of performance in the public sector with only limited reference to local
government.

We expected our literature review to adopt a mostly academic orientation, Interestingly, we discovered
that certain consulting literature that included data collection (e.g. surveys, interviews, workshops) with
local government practitioners, did identify useful trends about the application of performance
measurement systems. We reviewed ten reports produced by global consultancies and three produced
by research centre or practitioner interest groups. Useful publications containing some local
measurement data were produced by KPMG (KPMG International 2017; KPMG and Public Sector
Network, 2019; 2020), and examined benchmarked services (data on 5 Australian cities), progress
assessments of performance-oriented transformations by some local governments (5 Australian cities, 1
in New Zealand) and financial sustainability case studies (12 Australian, 1 American).

Using these five steps, we identified an initial set of 140 articles. After removing duplicates or irrelevant
articles, we had 58 for detailed review that were appraised down to a set of 33. With additional snowball
rounds that were identified and appraised through the same process, we ended up with 65 that formed a
final literature set with findings from these publications forming the foundation for generating our two
contextualised themes [STEP 6].
Our search process essentially confirmed that there are not already numerous literature reviews that
analyse A&NZ-specific local government performance measurement practices. For example:

• A globally-focused systematic literature review by Narbón-Perpiňá and De Witte (2018) based

on 1990-2016 studies only marginally captured Australian and New Zealand research. Their
primary focus was on measuring local government efficiency indices for cross-country
comparisons.
• More recent publications on performance measurement tools and systems have been the focus
of two special issues in academic journals, one international in scope (Scorsone and Padovani,
2010) and the other more oriented to the Pacific region (Harrison and Rouse, 2016). However,
of the total 15 special issue articles across these two journals, only two related to the Australian
public sector (none for New Zealand) and both were conceptual in nature.
• Van Helden et al. (2008) completed a review of patterns of research published during 2000-
2005 on public sector performance measurement across four public administration journals (68
articles analysed). However, their findings only discussed American and European examples so
no antipodean perspectives were collated.
• Stringer (2007)’s literature review of 120 ‘field studies’ published during 1990-2004 in two
journals offered useful insights on how performance management frameworks lacked
integration with other organisational processes or were not studied longitudinally or in-depth,
but none were specific to local governments in Australia or New Zealand.
• Using the search criterion of ‘performance management’, we found 61 reviews published by
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, but much fewer (17) related to local
government contexts and none discussed Australia and New Zealand local government
performance practices.

7
 • In neighbouring Pacific region countries, other researchers have examined local government
performance management practices in Indonesia (Akbar et al., 2015) and the Philippines
(Gabriel and Villaroman, 2019) that are specific only to those countries.

On the basis of our initial consideration of this literature, we believe our paper represents the first
systematic review of literature that focuses on performance measurement practices in local governments
within Australia and New Zealand.

Through close reading of the literature set, we identified various repeated phrases such as ‘efficiency’,
‘accountability’, ‘çompliance’, ‘Balanced Scorecard’, ‘tools’ and ‘frameworks’ and then used inductive
content analysis (Thomas, 2006; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017) to develop five sub-themes grouped
within two broader themes. Given the relatively small data set, we chose not to use a statistical tool like
NVivo (QSR International, 2020), but provide Table V in the appendix as a mapping of supporting
articles by theme and sub-theme. Table V publication sources are those specific only to A&NZ LG
performance measurement and management, although our thematic findings discussion, discussed next,
may refer to other general, conceptual or contextual sources outside of A&NZ.

Contextualised Themes on Performance Measurement: Discussion

An organising framework for our thematic discussion in this section is presented in Figure 2. Although
discussed separately, sub-themes often generate cross-impacts, for example, an efficiency discourse may
raise accountability behaviours that are compliance-oriented, or researchers discuss the effects of
efficiency and growth measures for tool usage in their case study articles.

insert Figure 2. Contextualised themes for discussion

Theme 1 highlights patterns of understanding enacted through organisational discourses in a NPM-

driven post-transformative climate (i.e. ‘Why’ questions). Within this theme, we identify three practices
in how performance is often justified: to support 1) efficiency, 2) accountability, and 3) strategic growth
and change in preparing for sustainable futures. These Theme 1 purposes influence Theme 2 (i.e. ‘What
and ‘How’ questions), where we discuss two aspects of performance measurement practices: 1)
application of measurement tools, predominantly Balanced Scorecard, and 2) the Australian Business
Excellence Framework (ABEF), an umbrella framework used to guide ongoing process improvement.
Theme 1: Performance Discourses

Sub-theme 1.1: Performance as efficiency

Over a fifty-year period in this region, the dominant paradigm of NPM as efficiency has fundamentally
changed the dynamics of local government performance. For example:

• Structural change using forced amalgamations or mergers, e.g. numerous publications

particularly from Dollery and colleagues, illustratively Dollery and Crase (2004); Tiley and
Dollery (2010); Dollery, Grant et al. (2013); Kortt et al. (2016);

• Process change or ‘optimal scale/size’, proposals for shared services to generate economies of
scale benefits, e.g. Worthington and Dollery (2000); Byrnes and Dollery (2002); Fogarty and
Mugera (2013); Marques et al. (2015); Dollery et al. (2016); and

• Efficiency measures to facilitate comparative benchmarking, productivity improvement and

financial sustainability, e.g. Woodbury et al. (2003); Woodbury and Dollery (2004); Hoque
(2005); Dollery et al. (2007); Arunachalam et al. (2017); Drew and Grant (2017); Essential
Services Commission (2017); KPMG International (2017); KPMG (2020).

8
Despite radical New Zealand local government consolidation in 1984 and slower but continuous
attempts at consolidation in Australia up to 2017, research has shown that ‘bigger’ local governments
are not necessarily ‘better’ (Aulich, 2011), in New Zealand (LePla, 2016) or Australia (Dollery and
Crase, 2004; Bell et al., 2016). For example, Bell et al. (2016)’s analysis shows that NSW councils who
merged during 2000-2004 did not perform any better than their unmerged peers during 2004-2014.

The rhetoric of efficiency generating improved performance can result in what Drew and Grant (2017,
p.241) call ‘gaming of public performance management regimes’ through human behavioural responses.
What this means is that financially-oriented performance data can be presented and manipulated to ‘give
the appearance of improved performance without actually changing performance’ in high-stakes
environments such as public services (Drew and Grant, 2017, p.241, citing prior analysis by Copeland
1968). For example, NSW local governments continue to implement the state’s FFTF strategy (NSW
Office of Local Government, 2014), in which ‘all but one of the FFTF performance management ratios
were derived entirely from financial statement inputs’ (Drew and Grant, 2017, p.240). This signals an
efficiency directive from the state that can create local operating environments where data could be
distorted and manipulated depending upon various organisational means, motives and opportunity
(Drew and Grant, 2017).

The protracted duration of efficiency discourses has essentially regularised the language of performance,
privileging economic outcomes and inculcating an assessment culture. While this has created benefits
of more transparency through more rigorous measures development and periodic progress reporting, it
also raises a closely-related issue of accountability, which we discuss next.

Sub-theme 1.2: Performance as accountability

Sub-theme 1.2 deals with the notion of another NPM managerialist principle, viz. who performs and
who is accountable within organisational levels (individual, function/service unit, organisation) and
externally towards public accountability (citizen/constituent, government bodies). This draws attention
to the systems in place for specifying, accounting for and reporting on performance in an evidence-
based manner. Typically, notions of accountability are socially constructed through interdependencies
among organisational rules and routines, decision making processes and communication imperatives
that structure the ways performance activities are undertaken. The resultant human behaviour often
reflects historical or cultural practices: what is legitimately acceptable or not; what was done before with
what prior consequences, and given the nature of public services, what is legally required to support
enacted legislation.

A traditional view of performance as accountability is a learned social practice that changes through
processes of institutionalisation, as Yetano (2013)’s longitudinal case study of a city government
(‘City’) in the State of Victoria illustrates. Over a turbulent ten years, three Chief Executive Officers
introduced, replaced and then abandoned various performance measurement tools (see Table III later in
this paper for multiple tools used by the City organisation). In response, City staff embraced a
ceremonial discourse of planning, reporting performance for how things should be done (rules) for
compliance and instrumental purposes, but did not necessarily change how things are actually done
(routines). Here, accountability discourse creates legitimate but risk-averse behaviour, i.e. compliance
to enact performance measurement directives in ways that are ‘reputation-saving … as everyone can see
the results’ (Allen and Eppel, 2019, pp.181-182). Such behaviours can lead to poor quality performance
reporting (see New Zealand case study by Keerasuntonpong and Cordery, 2018). The cautionary lesson
suggested by Drew et al. (2018, p.419) is that ‘the exercise of performance management is an exercise
in persuasion’.

A broadened view of performance as public accountability used Best Value principles enacted in the
State of Victoria (concept originally developed in the UK by McAdam and Walker, 2004). Best Value
principles were enshrined in the Local Government Act of 1989 (Vic.) and amended in 1999 (Dollery
and Manley, 2007). In contrast to a process of compulsory competitive tendering, Best Value shifted the
focus towards ‘effectiveness of service provision’ (Dollery and Manley, 2007, p.34), expanding

9
accountability parameters to include community consultation, service accessibility, responsiveness and
continuous improvement.

A practical application of Best Value in Victorian Local Government is reported by Yetano (2009;
2013), which was integrated within the existing PM and based on the principles of Triple Bottom Line
(TBL), a term Elkington coined in 1994 (Elkington, 2004). The TBL framework is recognised as an
‘approach for performance assessment and management that stresses the interdependence of economic,
environmental and social criteria’ (Potts, 2004, p.1) as organisational outcomes. Interestingly, our
literature review only uncovered limited examples of the application of TBL.

In the context of Yetano (2009) and an earlier roundtable discussion paper by Potts (2004), TBL formed
part of initiatives focussing not only on reporting but also integrating a multi-perspective approach to
the management and measurement of performance. Specifically, the case studies of TBL – one from the
City of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) and the second from Maroochy Shire Council (Queensland,
Australia) – demonstrated how TBL could be contextualised to local government. These organisations
adapted TBL to various degrees, but experienced a number of challenges in attempting to develop
sustainability reporting using the TBL framework. Challenges included ‘no agreed methodology for
measuring environmental and social costs, the format and structure of the individual indicators, data
requirements for measuring indicators and standards for performance measurement’ (Potts, 2004, p.9).
These challenges may also explain the limited take up of TBL by local government in Australia and
New Zealand (Williams, 2011; 2012). Despite these challenges, TBL has the potential to provide local
government organisations with a mechanism to capture and report sustainability outcomes in key areas
of work and responsibility. However, it needs to be adapted to include a clear link to operational
performance that drive TBL outcomes of economic, social and environmental value.

Effectiveness measures for public accountability deal with what was achieved – outcomes rather than
outputs – making data collection and calibration more complex (Kloot, 1999; Dollery and Wallis, 2001a;
Kluvers and Tippett, 2011). Examples include measures to assess service importance (Breitbarth et al.,
2010), reward structures, training, teamwork and innovation (Baird et al., 2012), and better connecting
accountability to quality assurance (Quinlivan et al., 2014). In addition, practitioners strive to develop
better measures of social value, for example:

• Using social capital research, Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2008) identified how ambiguous
roles and misunderstandings about customer NPM accountability surfaced from a variety of
communicative competencies and processes, such as the quality of social interactions, internal
and external information-sharing and needs analyses determined during community
consultations.

• Siriwardhane and Taylor (2017) adopted stakeholder salience, asking who is important and
how should such needs be prioritised? How are tensions between political and managerial
priorities negotiated against the broader needs of the community?

• Moura et al. (2019) noted the importance of social value creation – social purpose, social value
(short term and medium term) and social impact (long-term) – in the design of PM systems.

To better understand the behavioural implications of public accountability discourses requires deeper
analysis of stakeholder power relations and tensions, examining how practitioners resolve competing
measurement priorities among efficiency and effectiveness measures and unpacking the basis of their
choices. These publications only briefly alluded to such issues and more substantive research could
assist in developing a richer view of accountability behaviours and their drivers.

10
Sub-theme 1.3: Performance for strategic growth and change
Discourses of performance for strategic growth and change involve articulating longer-term objectives
to create innovative or transformed services that align with the organisation’s strategic priorities. Such
priorities relate to the local government’s specific role in, for example, sustainable cities, urban planning
and infrastructure, environmental sustainability or supporting future sociodemographic growth. This
requires stewardship for future communities through integrated approaches to manage ‘capitals’ such as
financial, technical, environmental, cultural and leisure, intellectual and social, and democratic
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2005). Several articles provided useful commentary on LG challenges to
deliver strategic capabilities through components of their performance infrastructure:

Move from data to actionable insights

• Organisations often collect measurement data but this doesn’t mean data is in a form to enable
strategic decision making. Often, the DRIP – Data Rich Information Poor – syndrome may be
prevalent (Poister and Streib 1999 cited by Martin and Spano, 2015, p.303).
• KPMG International (2017)’s global benchmarking study of 35 cities, including five in
Australia, similarly concluded that performance data is often uncollected, unavailable,
incomplete, unreliable or too aggregated at division level rather than at the service level to be
operationally useful.

Systems for compliance and strategic management

• Strategic systems should be built upon robust compliance-oriented information systems.
Compliance systems are needed to satisfy legislated requirements or to provide integrated and
comparative reporting (see FFTF comments later this section) but at the local level, contextual
factors regarding constituent or infrastructure needs are unique (Kloot and Martin, 2000; Martin
and Spano, 2015). Therefore, attention needs to be placed on designing complementary
measures that reflect local strategic priorities, and new decision support processes and systems
to model scenarios for the future.

Change needed in cultural attitudes

• Alshumrani et al. (2018)’s research (survey responses from 200 Australian local governments)
suggest that two cultural factors may inhibit strategic change capabilities in local governments:
- Historical risk-averse behaviour of local government staff may limit the capacity to identify,
pursue and deliver innovative ideas for service delivery.
- Operational mindsets: ‘being careful, being precise, paying attention to detail, and being rule-
oriented, is found to constrain the initiation of strategic change’ (Alshumrani et al., 2018,
p.616).

These points have significant implications for the existing information systems infrastructure of many
local governments. Current legacy systems are mostly built for operational, then later, compliance-
oriented purposes. To improve public accountability and to address future challenges of sustainability
and smart cities, local governments will need to transform and/or extend their legacy systems and
workflows to create strategic performance management systems oriented for strategic decision making.
This is both a technical and human factor challenge that other local governments elsewhere have
identified (Peignot et al., 2013; Lodato et al., 2018; KPMG and Public Sector Network, 2019). One New
Zealand example is an integrated spatial decision support system that links qualitative scenarios of
different local government services (e.g. climate, hydrology, water quality, economics, population, land
use and biodiversity) to inform strategic planning and modelling (Huser et al., 2009). New Zealand is
also creating a knowledge repository of decision support systems available for local government
adaptation (Envirolink New Zealand, 2020).

In Australia, state governments vary in terms of how they embrace strategic growth and change and the
guidance they provide to their local governments. For example:

11
 • ‘The Journey: Sustainability into the Future’ strategy document for the State of Western
Australian (Government of Western Australia, 2008) sets out a roadmap for Revenues (ratepayer
fees, land valuation methods and business enterprise cultivation), Leadership (including the
imperative for change) and Capability (workforce capacity and development) that provides a
strong foundation for similar strategic initiatives at the local level.

• Dollery and Drew (2018)’s comparative analysis of NSW versus the State of Victoria’s reform
programs, note the latter’s more inclusive and comprehensive approach to community
consultation and long-term commitment to continuous improvement, inferring a stronger
preference and priority on strategic growth and change.

• In contrast, the NSW Government asks local governments to adopt integrated planning and
reporting (IP&R) (NSW Office of Local Government, 2020) and file annual FFTF improvement
plans against its original strategy (NSW Office of Local Government, 2014). Strategic
growth/revenue aims are more implicit or inferred, as its four assessment criteria for a FFTF
local council are 1) scale and capacity, 2) financial sustainability, 3) effectively managing
infrastructure and delivering services to communities, and 4) efficiency (Independent Pricing
and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), 2014). Only 37% (52 out of 139 proposals reviewed) local
governments were deemed ‘fit for the future’ in 2015 according to these criteria (IPART, 2015,
p.2). This financially-oriented assessment seems to undervalue the importance of more strategic
effectiveness measures and community needs.

In summary, discourses of performance for strategic growth and change vary in priority by state in
Australia. Measurement practices may require enhanced designs (e.g. pattern analyses across related
sets of measures to assist scenario building or impact analysis) complemented by change and training
programs and processes to enable staff more comfortably navigate uncertainty in a variety of forms.

At this point, three implications from our review of Theme 1 publications can be identified:

• Fifty years of NPM-driven change have generated new social practices (discourses and actions)
around compliance-oriented reporting, based on A&NZ local government understandings of
performance as efficiency and performance as accountability. The issue is not that compliance-
oriented reporting is negative; this process is necessary in contemporary post-NPM climates to
create an infrastructural foundation for council life. However, as Martin and Spano (2015,
pp.307-308) observe, compliance-oriented behaviour is not sufficient for local governments to
provide the types of local, innovative, (and we would add: tailored/affordable) service strategies
needed to serve future citizens and future communities.
• A&NZ local government experience of performance as accountability still maintains an
accounting and personal responsibility orientation. Consequently, management may be under-
estimating the complexity of staff skills redevelopment and organisational change when
addressing broader notions of public accountability and strategic growth (Steane et al., 2015).
• Given Australia’s state-level governance (a tier that does not exist in New Zealand), the
working relationship between state government and their local governments on negotiated
strategic priorities has a strong influence on local capacity and flexibility for innovation.

Theme 2: Performance Tools and Frameworks

Theme 2 studies discuss the use of PM tools (sub-theme 2.1) in A&NZ and an excellence framework
(sub-theme 2.2) specific to the Australian local government environment. All studies mentioned are
empirical studies with the exception of Quinlivan (2000) which used process insights about how
Balanced Scorecard measures were cascaded and aligned within the City of Charlotte (North Carolina)
as a way of customising the tool for the City of Perth in Western Australia.

12
Sub-theme 2.1 Measurement tools

Table III categorises the studies we found that discussed measurement tools and usage.

insert Table III. Performance measurement tools

Overwhelmingly in our literature set, Balanced Scorecard (BSC) was the measurement tool of choice.
BSC is used extensively in the commercial sector but was subsequently adapted for public and not-for-
profit sectors (Kaplan and Norton, 2001a, pp. 97-99; 2001b, p.135). Due to the difficulty of applying
profit maximisation as a key financial measure, a public sector version of the scorecard places the
customer dimension at the top, with financial, internal process and learning and growth dimensions in
lower positions. Of the eight BSC examples (5 Australian excluding Quinlivan (2000) as non-empirical;
3 New Zealand), all were qualitative studies conducted through interview protocols and document
analyses.
Many practitioners interviewed in these case studies valued the BSC as a performance management and
reporting tool particularly useful for external reporting. Yet adoption is limited due to various
implementation challenges (Yetano, 2009; Sharma and Gadenne, 2011; Tan et al., 2011; Baird et al.,
2012; Northcott and Taulapapa, 2012; Alshumrani et al., 2018). For example, in their New Zealand case
study, Northcott and Taulapapa (2012) identified three barriers to improved take up:

• Lack of strategic alignment–‘[BSC’s] effective use is predicated on the assumption that the
organisation is strategy driven’ (p.180). Staff perceptions tend to focus more on short-term
approaches with historically operational mindsets (as previously noted by Alshumrani et al.,
2018).

• Lack of public services contextualisation–The ‘standard’ for-profit BSC requires significant

customisation to agree on a manageable set of Key Performance Indicators that reflects the
complexity and range of public services delivered. Practitioners identified the need for public
sector templates and benchmark data as better starting points to reduce resource load for
customisation.

• Unproven causality–Kaplan and Norton (1992) assume causality (between the measure and its
action; and in the links between BSC dimensions); this may be flawed for public services and
more general applications without validation. Islam (2016)’s conceptual research noted that a
causal relationship is not supported by empirical validations (e.g. Malina et al. 2007 and
Huelsbeck et al. 2011, as cited by Islam, 2016, p.413). Rather, performance outcomes from
measures defined by a tool such as BSC derive from a portfolio of technical and human factors.
In a local government context, validations are likely to be unfeasible due to time, resource
constraints and funding, so outcomes should be epistemologically positioned as indicative
rather than correct (as we previously noted from Micheli and Mari, 2014, p.153; and
Armstrong, 2018).

Implementation of the BSC often highlights inconsistencies and gaps in ‘softer’ human process issues
of organisational change or communications. For example,

• All studies discussed the operational challenges of institutionalising change, although only two
examined its meaning extensively (Tan et al., 2011; Yetano, 2013).

• Umashev and Willett (2008) identify the necessary consistency of leadership communications
and new training needs for staff.

13
 • Yetano’s two case studies of City of Brisbane (2009) and ‘City’ in Victoria (2013) show how
the impact of senior management decisions to keep replacing/adapting performance tools could
have masked an underlying problem of leadership communications and lack of alignment with
actual service delivery processes. This turbulence generated compliant behaviour but
perpetuated non-strategic performance. Further, a performance tool cannot contribute to
performance management solutions if there is not a conducive cultural climate embracing
change and new ideas.

Given a tool like BSC is only a measurement starting point to the broader goal of strategic performance,
we next move onto discussing a specific excellence framework adopted in Australia intended to spur
performance improvement.

Sub-theme 2.2: Australian Business Excellence Framework

The Australian Business Excellence Framework (ABEF) is similar to other business excellence
frameworks (e.g. Baldrige in the US; EFQM in Europe) and provides a ‘structured approach for
organisations to assess their performance and benchmark results against an internationally recognised
score’ (Saunders et al., 2008, p.651). Specifically, the ABEF incorporates seven categories and 22 items
assessed using criteria to identify areas for improvement which can then be addressed via various
structured and systematic continuous improvement (CI) approaches (Grigg and Mann, 2008; Saunders
et al., 2008; SAI Global, 2015; Price et al., 2018). Furthermore in a study of Australian businesses,
Saunders et al. (2008) found that over three-quarters of survey respondents ‘used [the ABEF] to improve
their organisation’s performance’ (p.655) and identified the ABEF as an important ‘external measure of
performance’ (p.656).

The ABEF has also been adopted by a number of Australian local governments (Grigg and Mann, 2008;
Saunders et al., 2008; Pillora and Artist, 2010; SAI Global, 2015). These organisations have used ABEF
self-assessment and the ADRI (Approach, Development, Results, Improvement) methodology as a CI
tool to ‘identify gaps in performance’ (Pillora and Artist, 2010, p.12). Yet our review of performance
improvement practices surprisingly uncovered only a few publications of interest (Jones, 1999; Price et
al., 2018) that linked the ABEF to PM. However, these publications make some significant points about
this relationship. For example, findings from Jones (1999)’s Australian case study of Wollongong City
Council (WCC)’s ten-year quality reform journey highlight:

• A forward-looking strategic corporate planning process involving extensive community

consultation for customer and community needs to be explicitly identified and understood by
council staff (pp.340,344);
• ‘What gets measured gets done’ (p.343) – suggesting the importance of performance measures
as motivational tactics focused towards customer and community needs;
• Comparative benchmarking performance indicators should allow for inter-council contextual
differences and focus more on outcomes (e.g. community satisfaction) rather than outputs (e.g.
unit cost of service provision) (p.344) – a point also made by Tan et al. (2011) in their New
Zealand case study.

Price (2000) reported that one NSW local government organisation used self-assessment scores in the
ABEF categories as proxy overarching indicators of performance and linked these to the BSC
framework. For example, self-assessment scores for the leadership element of the ABEF were tracked
for a period of three years and used as indicative performance improvement in the learning and growth
quadrant of the organisation’s BSC. This case application suggests that:

• In absence of robust metrics, ABEF self-assessment scores may prove to be a useful proxy;
• Self-assessment scores may be used as a longitudinal evaluation mechanism to track internal
performance improvement.

14
However, reliance on self-assessment scores as the only indicator of performance may draw attention
away from the development of outcome-focused performance measures to inform the organisation about
stakeholder perceptions of service provision and meaningful operationally-focused measures.

Price et al. (2018)’s Australian case study of MetroCouncil (an alias) reinforces similar themes. During
2010-2016, MetroCouncil combined the ABEF with self-assessment cycle with an external analysis of
service review practices. Their additional contributions suggest:

• The importance, clarity and political nature of executive priority-setting: what management pays
attention to and communicates signals what constitutes ‘value’ in performance (p.189);
• ‘Complexity of identifying the customer and … [what constitutes customer] value …and for
which customer identity’ (pp.194-195) is problematic in the LG context. This ambiguity was
similarly highlighted by Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2008)’s earlier research on Queensland
councils, making the development of performance measurement and management practices to
address such complexity difficult.

Artist (2010) documented how 18 local government members of a Local Business Excellence Network
(LGBEN) discussed benchmarking and best practice activities through the application of the ABEF.
Certain CI interventions led to improvements in reductions in unplanned leave and staff turnover
performance targets (Warringah, City of Marion) and improved completion rates for Development
Applications (from 80-94% to a consistent 97-98% by the City of Marion) (Artist, 2010, pp.9-10). Other
participating local government councils reported benefits including: improved strategic planning,
stronger alignment with community expectations; shared commitment towards improvement; and multi-
council (LGBEN members) access to benchmarking. However, participants also recognised that much
of the change was cultural, so benefits were difficult to quantify beyond ABEF criteria scores.

ABEF at time of inception sought to provide a systematic approach with the purpose of improving
quality in managing organisations and quality in organisational outcomes. What is evident from the
findings of these illustrative cases, is that in some local governments,

• A discrete application of the framework’s elements to target performance improvement in

departmental operations rather than a ‘whole of organisation’ approach was evident. This
inevitably resulted in fragmented implementation that countered the framework’s integrative
intent;
• A consequence of the ABEF non-prescriptive direction on the use of improvement
methodologies and tools meant that, in some cases, performance improvement was interpreted
too narrowly, focusing on self-assessment scores rather than systemic organisational
improvements;
• As the links among the ABEF, CI and PM in practice were not strongly developed, not all CI
interventions were targeted towards improvement of outcomes for the community and
stakeholders.

Local governments must constantly navigate through multiple stakeholder issues: community
demographic trends, constituent needs, state government priorities, senior management agendas and
staff motivations and skills. These multifaceted contextual concerns complexify work and therefore how
performance is captured, managed and improved in practice. Some twenty years since its initial
introduction in Australian local government, we may be left wondering whether there is still a future for
the ABEF in this context. The systematic approach that the ABEF provides may be useful as an
integrating framework for local government organisations to connect the various policies, frameworks
and methodologies (e.g. Integrated Planning and Reporting (NSW), Best Value (NSW), Service
Delivery Review (NSW), Service Performance Principles (Vic), Local Government Performance
Measurement Framework (NSW)), but it could also be considered as state government instruments of
control over local authorities. Although the ABEF is present in the research, there may be opportunities
for future in-depth studies to uncover whether the ABEF still has relevance and value as an integrating
framework.

15
Implications from the analysis of the literature reviewed in Theme 2 are fourfold:

• Local governments tend to follow trends that have been established in the private sector.
• Once an approach is adopted by a few public service entities (internationally and
domestically), A&NZ local governments tend to follow the same approach, using similar if
not the same tools.
• There is a lack of contextualisation and thus application does not necessarily account for the
particular organisational circumstances and communities.
• There tends to be a simplistic approach to the adaptation and adoption of existing PM models
which impacts their relevance, usability and outcomes.

Synthesis: Implications and Opportunities for Further Research

The previous section analysed findings from A&NZ local government enactments of performance
measurement uncovered from our systematic review. Collectively, they indicate that NPM-driven
discourses of efficiency and accountability still dominate the less visible discourses of strategic growth
and sustainability. Despite the utility of service performance principles (e.g. Best Value), local business
excellence frameworks (e.g. ABEF) or service reviews as integrative mechanisms to foster quality and
continuous improvement, the performance practices of local governments reflect more instruments of
control for their state governments, particularly in NSW, Australia. These organisations currently have
limited flexibility to vary their levers of financial sustainability (with rate-capped revenues and
incremental expenditures). They are assessed on performance through generic reported measures for
benchmarking purposes, despite wide disparity of operational scope.

Our findings suggest that A&NZ positioning of performance measurement systems still suffer from
historical associations with management control (Otley, 2012). The enactment of performance is better
characterised as a sociotechnical practice and requires the inclusion of team-based learning and change
processes to work in tandem with the technical aspects of performance measurement (Bourne et al.,
2003b; Henri, 2006). As mentioned in sub-theme 2.2, Jones’s (1999) case study of Wollongong City
Council highlighted the importance of team-based work methods during process mapping of services as
a critical success factor. Furthermore, local government staff need enhanced communicative
competencies to assist in interpreting constituent needs during consultative sessions and team-based
learning skills to action them in a cohesive manner following impact assessment. It is insufficient to
merely enumerate and report that consultation occurred. For participatory local democracy to be
successful, local governments need better multi-stakeholder strategic performance processes that
incorporate social capital discourses and inclusion measures in performance measurement systems to
generate social outcomes (Nyamori et al., 2012; Moura et al., 2019).

Based on our review of the gaps in the existing literature, we identified several opportunities for further
research that could provide enhanced insights into A&NZ performance measurement practices and
beyond (see Table IV).

insert Table IV. Opportunities for further research

16
These can be summarised as follows:

• More research-based insights on the influence that stakeholders have on LG performance

discourses and measurement, recognising that who is also an important dimension not explicitly
included in Figure 2. Here, we highlight two external stakeholders who strongly influence
performance discourses and enactments of accountability:

- Customer/citizen/constituent: we previously identified that ‘who is the customer’ is often

problematic in local government services. For example, research that analyses specific
examples of citizen-centric measures and examines how these may complement and go
beyond existing efficiency and effectiveness measures (first row of Table IV);

- In Australia, state governments through their vehicles of policymaking and legislative acts
have essentially co-opted the discourse of performance, shaping how performance reporting
should be presented (but this varies state by state). An elaboration of the genealogy and
chronology of significant acts and policies could provide contextual insights on the ‘triggers’
that shape PM designs and draw implications for more collaborative policymaking in local
environments of use (second row of Table IV).

• Examining context sensitivity and complex change in more detail, for example:

- Analysing specific local governments that have mandates for strategic growth, and/or
infrastructure challenges to generate sustainable cities or transform public services within
their geographic footprint (third and fourth rows of Table IV).

- Unpacking context and complexity in local government services by assessing how adaptive
performance measurement systems can be designed, utilising complexity theories and notions
of systemic practice (e.g. Bourne, Franco-Santos et al., 2018).

- Uncovering enhanced research methods for studying context and the dimensions of context
(e.g. political, cultural, social, other practices) that matter for performance processes.

• Examining organisational alignment and integration interdependencies, for example:

- The importance of new learning strategies needed for performance measurement practices
(fifth row of Table IV); particularly team-based learning given service delivery inputs and
outputs are often interdependent with the responsibilities of multiple functional units.

- Situating PM within the broader initiatives of quality management and continuous

improvement (sixth row of Table IV).
As with many organisations, local governments must navigate the challenges of their internal and
external worlds, prioritising tasks and resources that matter in their situational circumstances, to learn
and continuously improve. In A&NZ, these challenges are further complicated by histories of forced
amalgamations; limitations in revenue-raising through rate-capping; disparities in performance
measurement approaches by state and within state of operational size and scope (Australia); and over-
emphasis on efficiency and compliance. In our opinion, this dominant adherence to the managerialist
dimensions of the NPM paradigm has been to the detriment of innovation needed to tailor future citizen-
centric solutions for service delivery (Dudley et al., 2015). Such solutions are needed to aspire to and
deliver a more holistic approach to sustainability (Dollery, Kortt et al., 2013) for citizens, the
communities they live in and to preserve the various ‘capitals’ needed to thrive. Local governments play
a key role in enabling this local democracy to occur and performance measurement systems and
performance discourses represent enabling mechanisms to calibrate their progress.

17
Conclusion
This paper provides a systematic literature review of 1995-2020 publications that examine A&NZ
performance measurement practices in local government. It represents a contextualised view of prior
research in discourses, tools and frameworks that highlight attention on the challenges of post-NPM
service delivery and improvement approaches to strategically grow towards sustainable futures. The
systematic review methodology has been a useful structured method to build an initial source of
knowledge in A&NZ performance measurement and more broadly, as we progress forward in our
empirical investigation. A number of potential avenues for future research have been identified.

References
Aberbach, J.D. and Christensen, T. (2005), "Citizens and consumers: an NPM dilemma", Public
Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.225-246.
Akbar, R., Pilcher, R.A. and Perrin, B. (2015), "Implementing performance measurement systems:
Indonesian local government under pressure", Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.3-33.
Allen, B. and Eppel, E. (2019), "Holding on tight - NPM and the New Zealand performance
improvement framework ", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp.171-
186, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12405.
Alshumrani, S., Munir, R. and Baird, K. (2018), "Organisational culture and strategic change in
Australian local governments", Local Government Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp.601-623.
Armstrong, R. (2018), "Critical realism and performance measurement and management", Management
Research Review, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.568-585.
Aromataris, E. and Pearson, A. (2014), "The systematic review: an overview", American Journal of
Nursing, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp.53-58.
Aromataris, E. and Munn, Z. (Ed.s) (2017), Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, Joanna Briggs
Institute, Adelaide, South Australia.
Artist, S. (2010), "Implementing the Australian Business Excellence framework in Australian local
government: summary of survey responses from eighteen councils in the Local Government
Business Excellence Network", University of Technology Sydney Centre for Local Government
and the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, Sydney, February, available at:
https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/1312428097_1311557208_LGBEN_survey_analysis
.pdf (accessed 10 October 2020).
Arunachalam, M., Chen, C. and Davey, H. (2017), "A model for measurement financial sustainability
of local authorities: Model development and application", Asia-Pacific Management
Accounting Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.39-76.
Aulich, C. (2005), "Australia: still a tale of Cinderella?", Denters S.A.H. and Rose L.E. (Ed.s),
Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke,
pp.193-210.
Aulich, C. (2011), "Consolidation in local government: a fresh look", vol. 1: report, Australian Centre
of Excellence in Local Government, University of Technology Sydney.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020), "National, state and territory population", available at:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-
population/latest-release (accessed 1 November 2020).
Australian Local Government Association (2019), "Local government key facts and figures", available
at: https://alga.asn.au/facts-and-figures (accessed 27 March 2020).
Baird, K., Schoch, H. and Chen, Q. (2012), "Performance management system effectiveness in
Australian local government", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.161-185.
Baird, K. (2017), "The effectiveness of strategic performance measurement systems", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp.3-21.
Barnes, D. (Ed.s) (2001), Understanding Business Processes, Routledge in association with Open
University, London and New York.

18
Bearman, M., Smith, C.D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Bauk, C., Hughes-Warrington, M. and Newman,
D.L. (2012), "Systematic review methodology in higher education", Higher Education
Research & Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp.625-640.
Bell, B., Dollery, B. and Drew, J. (2016), "Learning from experience in NSW?", Economic Papers, Vol.
35, No. 2, pp.99-111.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V. and Nudurupati, S. (2012), "Performance measurement: challenges
for tomorrow", International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.305-327.
Bititci, U., Bourne, M., Cross, J.A.F., Nudurupati, S.S. and Sang, K. (2018), "Editorial: towards a
theoretical foundation for performance measurement and management", International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.653-660.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Plat, K. (2003a), "Implementing performance measurement
systems: a literature review", International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol.
5, No. 1, pp.1-24.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Plat, K. (2003b), "Why some performance measurement initiatives
fail: lessons from the change management literature", International Journal of Business
Performance Management, Vol. 5, No.s 2/3, pp.245-269.
Bourne, M., Franco-Santos, M., Micheli, P. and Pavlov, A. (2018), "Performance measurement and
management: a system of systems perspective", International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 56, No. 8, pp.2788-2799.
Bourne, M., Melnyk, S.A. and Bititci, U.S. (2018), "Guest editorial, Performance measurement and
management: theory and practice", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp.2010-2021.
Brackertz, N. and Kenley, R. (2002), "A service delivery approach to measuring facility performance in
local government", Facilities, Vol. 20, No.s 3/4, pp.127-135.
Breitbarth, T., Mitchell, R. and Lawson, R. (2010), "Service performance measurement in a New
Zealand local government organization", Business Horizons, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.397-403.
Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2008), "Service delivery by local government employees post- the
implementation of NPM: a social capital perspective", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.37-56.
Brusca, I. and Montesinos, V. (2016), "Implementing performance reporting in local government: a
cross-countries comparison", Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 3,
pp.506-534.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Bloomberg, L. (2014), "Public value governance: moving beyond
traditional public administration and the New Public Management", Public Administration
Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp.445-456.
Byrnes, J. and Dollery, B. (2002), "Does economies of scale exist in Australian local government? a
review of research evidence", Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.391-414.
Canham, R. and Shaw, R.L. (2016), "Survivorship - food for thought: Systematic review of cancer
survivors perceptions of food related information", International Journal of Food Science, Vol.
3, No. 4, pp.23-34.
Carroll, P. and Steane, P. (2002), "Australia, the New Public Management and the new millennium",
McLaughlin K., Osborne S.P. and Ferlie E. (Ed.s), New Public Management: Current Trends
and Future Prospects, Routledge, London and New York, pp.195-209.
Chaston, I. (2011), Public Sector Management: Mission Impossible?, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Chatterjee, B., Mir, M.Z., Eddie, I.A. and Wise, V. (2017), "Infrastructure reporting by New Zealand
local authorities - perceptions and expectations", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1,
pp.36-57.
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (Ed.s) (2016), The Ashgate Companion to New Public Management,
Routledge, London and New York.
Commonwealth of Australia (2017), "Shifting the dial: 5 year productivity review", supporting paper
no. 16, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
Cooke, A., Smith, D. and Booth, A. (2012), "Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence
synthesis", Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp.1435-1443.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2017), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.

19
Crossan, M.C. and Apaydin, M. (2010), "A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation:
a systematic review of literature", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp.1154-
1191.
De Vries, M. and Nemec, J. (2013), "Public sector reform: an overview of current literature and research
on New Public Management and alternative paths", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.4-16.
De Waal, A. (2013), Strategic Performance Management: A Managerial and Behavioral Approach, Red
Globe Press, London.
Dollery, B. and Crase, L. (2004), "Is bigger local government better? An evaluation of the case of
Australian municipal amalgamations programs", Regional Studies Association, Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp.265-275.
Dollery, B. and Johnson, A. (2005), "Enhancing efficiency in Australian local government: an
evaluation of alternative models of municipal governance", working paper 2005-1, School of
Economics, University of New England, Armidale.
Dollery, B. and Manley, K. (2007), "A note on performance measurement in Victorian local
government", Accounting, Accountability & Performance, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.22-41.
Dollery, B. and Mounter, S. (2010), "Local government investment, maintenance and renewal: a
comparative analysis of contemporary Australia and New Zealand local government",
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.217-232.
Dollery, B., Grant, B.J. and Kortt, M.A. (2013), "An evaluation of amalgamation and financial viability
in Australian local government", Public Finance and Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.215-238.
Dollery, B., Kortt, M.A. and Drew, J. (2016), "Fostering shared services in local government: a common
service model", Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.225-242.
Dollery, B.E. and Drew, J.J. (2018), "Chalk and cheese: a comparative analysis of local government
reform processes in New South Wales and Victoria", International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 41, No. 11, pp.847-858.
Dollery, B.E. and Robotti, L. (Ed.s) (2008), The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform,
Studies in Fiscal Federalism and State-local Finance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Dollery, B.E. and Wallis, J.L. (2001a), "A case study of local government reform in New Zealand",
Dollery B.E. and Wallis J.L., The Political Economy of Local Government: Leadership, Reform
and Market Failure, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.196-220.
Dollery, B.E. and Wallis, J.L. (2001b), The Political Economy of Local Government: Leadership,
Reform Market Failure, Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham.
Dollery, B.E., Byrnes, J. and Crase, L. (2007), "Too tough a nut to crack: determining fiscal
sustainability in Australian local government", Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol.
13, No. 2, pp.110-132.
Dollery, B.E., Kortt, M.A. and Grant, B.J. (2013), Funding the Future: Financial Sustainabiliy and
Infrastructure Finance in Australian Local Government, Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.
Drew, J. and Grant, B. (2017), "Means, motive, and opportunity - local government data distortion in a
high-stakes environment", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp.237-
250.
Drew, J., O'Flynn, J. and Grant, B. (2018), "Performing what? exploring and expanding the notion of
synecdoche in performance management practice", Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42,
No. 3, pp.395-424.
Dudley, E., Lin, D.-Y., Mancini, M. and Ng, J. (2015), "Implementing a customer-centric approach to
delivering government services", McKinsey Center for Government, McKinsey & Company,
Singapore, July.
Duncan, G. and Chapman, J. (2010), "New millennium, New Public Management and the New Zealand
model", Australia Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp.301-313.
Elkington, J. (2004), "Enter the Triple Bottom Line", Henriques A. and Richardson J. (Ed.s), The Triple
Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Earthscan,
London, pp.1-16.
Envirolink New Zealand (2020), "Decision support systems directory: an Envirolink tool", available at:
http://tools.envirolink.govt.nz/ (accessed 12 November 2020).

20
Essential Services Commission (2017), "Measuring productivity in the local government sector:
consultation paper", Essential Services Commission, Melbourne, September.
Farid Uddin, K.A. (2019), "Neoliberal and post-political urban governance: local government
amalgamations in New South Wales, Australia", Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.97-109.
Ferriera, D. and Otley, O. (2009), "The design and use of performance management systems: an
extended framework for analysis", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.263-
282.
Fogarty, J. and Mugera, A. (2013), "Local government efficiency: evidence from Western Australia",
Australian Economic Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.300-311.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L. and Bourne, M. (2012), "Contemporary performance measurement
systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research", Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.79-119.
Gabriel, A.G. and Villaroman, N.S. (2019), "Strategic performance management in local governments
in the Philippines: work and rating challenges", Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.119-225.
Glanville, B. and Stuart, R. (2017) "NSW council amalgamations scrapped after government backflip",
ABC News, 27 July.
Government of Western Australia (2008), "The journey: sustainability into the future, shaping future
local government in Western Australia", Western Australia Local Government Association,
Perth, 15 September, available at: https://walga.asn.au/getattachment/Policy-Advice-and-
Advocacy/WALGA-Advocacy-Position-Statements/2-2-2008-SSS-Final-
Report.pdf.aspx?lang=en-AU (accessed 1 May 2020).
Greatbanks, R. and Tapp (2007), "The impact of Balanced Scorecard in a public sector environment:
empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp.846-873.
Grigg, N. and Mann, R. (2008), "Promoting excellence: an international study into creating awareness
of business excellence models", The TQM Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.233-248.
Harrison, J. and Rouse, P. (2016), "Editorial: Special issue: Performance measurement beyond best
practice: tools for tomorrow's organisation", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.362-
363.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Sharp, C. (2003), "The use of research to improve professional practice: a
systematic review of literature", Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.449-471.
Henri, J.-F. (2006), "Organizational culture and performance measurement systems", Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.47-76.
Hood, C. (1991), "A public management for all seasons", Public Administration, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp.3-
19.
Hoque, Z. (2005), "Securing institutional legitimacy or organisational effectiveness? a case examining
the impact of public sector reform initiatives in an Australian local authority", International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.367-382.
Hughes, O. (2017), "Public management: 30 years on", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 30, No. 6-7, pp.547-554.
Huser, B., Rutledge, D.T., van Delden, H., Wedderburn, M.E., Cameron, M., Elliott, S., Fenton, T.,
Hurkens, J., McBridge, G., McDonald, G., OÇonnor, M., Phyn, D., Poot, J., Price, R., Small,
B., Tait, A., Vanhout, R. and Woods, R.A. (2009), "Development of an integrated spatial
decision support system (ISDSS) for local government in New Zealand", in Anderssen, R.S.,
Braddock, R.D. & Newham, L.T.H. (Ed.s), 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09
International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, 13-17 July, Modelling and Simulation
Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation, Cairns, Australia, pp.2370-2376.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) (2014), "Review of criteria for Fit For The
Future", IPART, Sydney, September.
IPART (2015), "Assessment of council Fit for the Future proposals", IPART, Sydney, October.
Islam, S. (2016), "Reconceptualizing the notion of relations underlying performance measurement
models: implications for research", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.111-118.

21
Johnsen, Å. (2005), "What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance
measurement in public policy and management?", Public Money & Management, Vol. 25, No.
pp.9-17.
Jones, R. (1999), "The role of benchmarking within the cultural reform journey of an award-winning
Australia local authority", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.338-349.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), "The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance",
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001a), "Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from performance
measurement to strategic management: part 1", Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.87-
104.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001b), The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard
Companies To Survive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
Keerasuntonpong, P. and Cordery, C. (2018), "How might normative and mimetic pressures improve
local government service performance reporting?", Accounting and Finance, Vol. 58, No. 4,
pp.1169-1200.
Kennerley, M.P. and Neely, A. (2002), "A framework of the factors affecting performance measurement
systems", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 11,
pp.1222-1245.
Kitchenham, B. and Brereton, P. (2013), "A systematic review of systematic review process research in
software engineering", Information and Software Technology, Vol. 55, No. 12, pp.2049-2075.
Kloot, L. (1999), "Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government",
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp.565-583.
Kloot, L. and Martin, J. (2000), "Strategic performance management: a balanced approach to
performance management issues in local government", Management Accounting Research, Vol.
11, No. 2, pp.231-251.
Kluvers, R. and Tippett, J. (2011), "The views of councillors and managers on accountability in local
government: an empirical study in Australia: " International Journal of Management, Vol. 28,
No. 2, pp.519-527.
Kortt, M.A., Dollery, B. and Drew, J. (2016), "Municipal mergers in New Zealand: an empirical analysis
of the proposed amalgamation of Hawke's Bay councils", Local Government Studies, Vol. 42,
No. 4, pp.228-247.
KPMG (2020), "Financial sustainability in local government: planning for the next four years", KPMG
Enterprise, report 4765467421GH, June.
KPMG and Public Sector Network (2019), "Customer and technology transformation in local
government", report 383169294ENT, KPMG and Public Sector Network, August.
KPMG International (2017), "Benchmarking city services: finding the courage to improve", report
134846-G, KPMG International Cooperative, October.
LePla, R. (2016), “Amalgamation: is bigger better?”, Local Government Magazine, 12 May.
Lichtenstein, A.H., Yetley, E.A. and Lau, J. (2008), "Application of systematic review methodology to
the field of nutrition", Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 138, No. 12, pp.2297-2306.
Lizarondo, L., Stern, C., Carrier, J., Godfrey, C., Rieger, K., Salmond, S., Apostolo, J., Kirkpatrick, P.
and Loveday, H. (2017), "Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews", Aromataris E. and
Munn Z. (Ed.s), Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide.
Llamas-Alonso, M.R., Jimenez-Zarco, A.M., Martinez-Ruiz, M.P. and Dawson, J. (2009), "Designing
a predictive performance measurement and control system to maximize customer relationship
management success", Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.1-41.
Lodato, T., French, E. and Clark, J. (2018), "Open government data in the smart city: interoperability,
urban knowledge and linking legacy systems", Journal of Urban Affairs, Epub ahead of print,
16 October, https://doi-org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1511798.
Marques, R.C., Kortt, M.A. and Dollery, B. (2015), "Determining the optimal size of local government:
the case of Tasmanian councils", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 74, No. 2,
pp.212-226.

22
Martin, J. and Spano, A. (2015), "From performance management to strategic local government
leadership: lessons from different cultural settings ", Public Money & Management, Vol. 35,
No. 4, pp.303-310.
McAdam, R. and Walker, T. (2004), "Evaluating the best value framework in UK local government
services", Public Administration and Development, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.183-196.
McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S.P. and Ferlie, E. (Ed.s) (2002), New Public Management: Current Trends
and Future Prospects, Routledge, London and New York.
Melnyk, S.A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J. and Andersen, B. (2014), "Is performance measurement
and management fit for the future?", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.173-
186.
Micheli, P. and Mari, L. (2014), "The theory and practice of performance measurement", Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.147-156.
Mintzberg, H. (1993), Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Simon & Shuster, New York.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), "Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement", Annuals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 151,
No. 4, pp.264-269.
Moura, L.F., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F., Van Aken, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E., Tvares Treinta,
F. and Prado Cestari, J.M.A. (2019), "Designing performance measurement systems in
nonprofit and public administration organizations", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 68, No. 8, pp.1373-1410.
Narbón-Perpiňá, I. and De Witte, K. (2018), "Local governments' efficiency: a systematic literature
review - Part I", International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.431-
468.
Neely, A. (1998), "Three modes of measurement: theory and practice", International Journal of
Business Performance Managment, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.47-64.
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, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp.1264-1277.
New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (2018), "About local government", available at:
http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_URL/About-Local-Government-
Index?OpenDocument (accessed 27 March 2020 and 2 November 2020).
Newman, J. (2000), "Beyond New Public Management: modernizing public services", Clarke J., Gewitz
S. and McLaughlin E. (Ed.s), New Managerialism, New Welfare?, Open University and SAGE,
London, pp.45-61.
Northcott, D. and Taulapapa, T.M. (2012), "Using the Balanced Scorecard to manage performance in
public sector organizations: issues and challenges", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.166-191.
NSW Office of Local Government (2014), "Fit For The Future - A blueprint for the future of local
government", NSW Office of Local Government, Nowra, September.
NSW Office of Local Government (2020), "Integrated planning and reporting framework", available
at: https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/councils/integrated-planning-and-reporting/framework/
(accessed 15 May 2020).
Nyamori, R.O., Lawrence, S.R. and Perera, H.B. (2012), "Revitalising local democracy in the context
of a New Zealand local authority", Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 23, No.s 7/8,
pp.572-594.
Osborne, D.E. and Gaebler, T.A. (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector, Basic, New York.
Otley, D. (2012), "Performance management under conditions of uncertainty: some valedictory
reflections", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.247-261.
Patel, V.M., Ashrafian, H., Ahmed, K., Arora, S., Juwan, S., Nicholson, J.K., Darzi, A. and Athanasiou,
T. (2011), "How has healthcare research performance been assessed? a systematic review",
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 104, No. 6, pp.251-261.
Peignot, J., Peneranda, A., Mabile, S. and Guenoun, M. (2013), "Strategic decision support systems in
local management: a performance management issue?", International Business Research, Vol.
6, No. 2, pp.92-100.

23
Pillora, S. and Artist, S. (2010), "Overview of 14 excellence frameworks and tools: background research
for the ACELG 'Review of excellence frameworks in local government' project", Australian
Centre of Excellence for Local Government, Sydney, November.
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F. and Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009), "A scoring system for appraising
mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews", International Journal of Nursing Studies,
Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.529-546.
Potts, T. (2004), "Triple bottom line reporting: a tool for measuring, communicating and facilitating
change in local communities", paper presented at Roundtable on Sustainability and Social
Science, Sydney, Institute of Sustainable Futures and CSIRO Minerals, available at:
http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/44741 (accessed 10 November 2020).
Price, O. (2000), "The Balanced Scorecard at Bankstown City Council", paper presented at
Implementing the Balanced Scorecard in Local Government, 29 August, Hilton Sydney Airport,
Australian Local Government Association.
Price, O.M., Pepper, M. and Stewart, M. (2018), "Lean Six Sigma and the Australian Business
Excellence Framework: an exploratory case within local government", International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.185-198.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2005), "Cities of the future: global competition, local leadership",
PricewaterhouseCoopers, available at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/government-public-sector-
research/pdf/cities-final.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).
QSR International (2020), "Unlock insights in your data with powerful analysis", available at:
https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home (accessed 7
November 2020).
Quinlivan, D. (2000), "Rescaling the Balanced Scorecard for local government", Australian Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp.36-41.
Quinlivan, D., Nowak, M. and Klass, D. (2014), "From accountability to assurance - stakeholder
perspectives in local government", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 73, No. 2,
pp.206-217.
Ridley, D. (2012), The Literature Review: A Step by Step Guide for Students, SAGE, London.
SAI Global (2015), "Australian Business Excellence Framework", available at:
www.saiglobal.com/improve/excellencemodels/businessexcellenceframework/ (accessed 1
September 2019).
Saunders, M., Mann, R.S. and Grigg, N.P. (2008), "Utilisation of business excellence: Australian and
international experience", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.651-663.
Scorsone, E. and Padovani, E. (2010), "Editorial: Special issue on the comparative analysis of local
government performance measurement systems: a global perspective", International Journal of
Public Sector Performance Management, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.325-328.
Sharma, B. and Gadenne, D. (2011), "Balanced Scorecard implementation in a local authority: issues
and challenges", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp.167-184.
Siriwardhane, P. and Taylor, D. (2017), "Perceived accountability for local government infrastructure
assets: the influence of stakeholders", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.551-572.
Snyder, H. (2019), "Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines", Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 104, No. pp.333-339.
Sorin, D. and Pollitt, C. (2015), "NPM can work: An optimistic review of the impact of New Public
Management reforms in central and eastern Europe", Public Management Review, Vol. 17, No.
9, pp.1305-1332.
Stats NZ (2020), “New Zealand’s population passes 5 million, available at:
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/new-zealands-population-passes-5-million (accessed 1
November 2020).
Steane, P., Dufour, Y. and Gates, D. (2015), "Assessing impediments to NPM change", Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.263-270.
Stringer, C. (2007), "Empirical performance management research: observations from AOS and MAR",
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.92-114.

24
 Tan, C.Y., Lord, B.R., Craig, R. and Ball, A. (2011), "Exploring a local council's change to an outcome
measurement regime", Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.391-
407.
Thomas, D.R. (2006), "A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data",
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.237-246.
Tiley, I. and Dollery, B. (2010), "Historical evolution of local government amalgamation in Queensland,
the Northern Territory, and Western Australia", working paper 02-2010, Centre for Local
Government, University of New England, Armidale.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review", British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.207-222.
Umashev, C. and Willett, R. (2008), "Challenges to implementing strategic performance measurement
systems in multi-objective organizations: the case of a large local government authority", A
Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies (ABACUS), Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.377-398.
Van Helden, G.J., Johnsen, Å. and Vakkuri, J. (2008), "Distinctive research patterns on public sector
performance measurement of public administration and accounting disciplines ", Public
Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.641-651.
Waggoner, D.B., Neely, A.D. and Kennerley, M.P. (1999), "The forces that shape organisational
performance measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review", International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 60-61, No. pp.53-60.
Williams, B.R. (2011), “Sustainability reporting in local government authorities”, PhD thesis,
Department of Accounting, Audit and Accountability, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Williams, B.R. (2012), "Sustainability reporting in local authorities - an interview approach", in The
RMIT Accounting for Sustainability, RMIT University, Melbourne, pp.1-24.
Woodbury, K. and Dollery, B.E. (2004), "Efficiency measurement in Australian local government: the
case of New South Wales municipal water services", Review of Policy Research, Vol. 21, No.
5, pp.615-636.
Woodbury, K., Dollery, B.E. and Rao, P. (2003), "Is local government efficiency measurement in
Australia adequate? analysis of the evidence", Public Performance & Management Review, Vol.
27, No. 2, pp.77-91.
Worthington, A.C. and Dollery, B.E. (2000), "Measuring efficiency in local governments' planning and
regulatory function", Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.469-485.
Yarram, S.R., Dollery, B. and Tran, C-D.T. (2020), "The impact of rate capping on local government
expenditure", Policy and Politics, Epub ahead of print, 22 June,
https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15910206974407 (accessed 10 November 2020).
Yetano, A. (2009), "Managing performance at local government level: the cases of the City of Brisbane
and the City of Melbourne ", Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 68, No. 2,
pp.167-181.
Yetano, A. (2013), "What drives the institutionalization of performance measurement and management
in local government?", Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.59-86.

Appendix

insert Table V Mapping of A&NZ LG publications by theme and sub-theme

25

View publication stats