Strategic responses to Performance Measurement in Nonprofit ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Client satisfaction measures 110 32,4 16 % 11 % 2 % 3 % Client status measures e.g. health status, therapy success rate 76 22,4 8 % 12 % 1 % 1 % Process measures 59 17,4 5 % 11 % 1 % 1 % Infrastructural measures 55 16,2 8 % 6 % 1 % 2 % Market share measures 49 14,4 6 % 6 % 1 % 1 % Innovation measures 34 10 5 % 4 % 0 % 0 % Ecological and social performance measures Source: author‟s compilation 29 8,5 4 % 4 % 0 % 1 % Table 4: Performance measures in a groupwise perspective (n=340) 24 Table four clearly demonstrate that the more complicated the measurement process get the fewer performance measures are implemented. The findings also demonstrate that non-profit management are not getting swamped with too many performance measures which might create the danger of an information overload. Tables three and four also clearly demonstrate that the participating non-profits prefer operative and easy to compile performance measures. Strategic and process-oriented performance measures play a much lesser role. The low relevance of performance measures which monitor the social or ecological performance and the low relevance of market share-related performance measures are signals that the environment is not systematically taken into account. In order to link performance measurement with the criteria of success in non-profits the participating non-profit managers were asked to rank organizational objectives. Table 5 presents the results. objectives n arithmetic average standard deviation 95% confidence interval of the arithmetic average lower value upper value Cost recovery 335 4,77 0,53 4,71 4,83 Client satisfaction 337 4,74 0,5 4,69 4,79 High quality of care 334 4,68 0,57 4,62 4,74 Retaining qualified personnel 338 4,63 0,56 4,57 4,69 Survival rate 330 4,6 0,78 4,52 4,68 Capacity utilization 337 4,55 0,68 4,48 4,62 Healthy liquidity reserve 335 4,49 0,64 4,42 4,56
Good quality of processes 322 4,44 0,65 4,37 4,51 Public image 335 4,42 0,69 4,35 4,49 Employee satisfaction 337 4,41 0,64 4,34 4,48 Social responsibility 331 4,4 0,7 4,32 4,48 Employment Security 338 4,4 0,73 4,32 4,48 Competitiveness 335 4,37 0,84 4,28 4,46 Satisfaction of other stakeholders 25 330 4,33 0,77 4,25 4,41 Financial independence 329 4,29 0,84 4,20 4,38 Preservation of infrastructure 334 4,24 0,7 4,16 4,32 Corporate independence 325 4,18 0,91 4,08 4,28 Funders‟ perception of the nonprofit organisation Good cooperation relationships 327 4,16 0,83 4,07 4,25 329 4,12 0,82 4,03 4,21 Client loyalty 326 4,05 0,93 3,95 4,15 High level of innovation 326 4,03 0,87 3,94 4,12 Cost-minimal processes 328 4,02 0,87 3,93 4,11 Volunteer satisfaction 295 3,94 1,07 3,82 4,06 Time-efficient processes 329 3,89 0,92 3,79 3,99 Financial surplus 327 3,72 1,02 3,61 3,83 Environmental protection 330 3,64 0,94 3,54 3,74 Increase in turnover 324 3,39 1,06 3,27 3,51 High market share 324 3,38 1,21 3,25 3,51 Growth 328 3,32 1,07 3,20 3,44 Ideological or religious beliefs Source: author‟s compilation Table 5: Relevance of organizational objectives 329 3,14 1,39 2,99 3,29 The answering manager regarded nine out of the 30 organisational objectives as very important, 22 out of 30 scored a arithmetic average of 4,0 or higher. This leads to a distribution which is skewed to the right. The results also indicate that non-profit managers regard (to) many objectives as relevant. The first position shares the objectives „cost recovery” and „client satisfaction”. As the confidence intervals overlap no clear ranking is possible. Within the German non-profit sector cost recovery was traditionally regarded as an
Page 1 and 2: 09052011 Please do not quote withou
Page 3 and 4: 3 2002), such publications focus on
Page 5 and 6: 5 due to failures in its adaptation
Page 7 and 8: 7 This paper focuses on performance
Page 9 and 10: 9 than 86 % of the answering 575 or
Page 11 and 12: 11 Campos et al. (2010) examined th
Page 13 and 14: 13 challenges is that multiple fund
Page 15 and 16: 15 et al. 2003, Bedford et al. 2008
Page 17 and 18: III. Methodology 17 The paper is ba
Page 19 and 20: 19 distribution of the data the fac
Page 21 and 22: financial performance measurement s
Page 23: 23 authors „value challenges plac
Page 27 and 28: Table 6 presents the findings with
Page 29 and 30: 2. Balanced Scorecard 29 As introdu
Page 31 and 32: 31 intensive and difficulties in ev
Page 33 and 34: V. Discussion of the results 33 App
Page 35 and 36: 35 That the whole potential of perf
Page 37 and 38: 37 The identified roles for nonprof
Page 39 and 40: 39 reporting tactic “to feed them
Page 41 and 42: 41 share in reducing the importance
Page 43 and 44: 43 Contingency theory also allows t
Page 45 and 46: 45 P16: The tighter the (perceived
Page 47 and 48: 47 Anheier, HK and Salamon, LM (200
Page 49 and 50: 49 Ittner, CD, Larcker, DF and Meye
Page 51: 51 Schaeffer, U and Matlachowsky, P

Strategic responses to Performance Measurement in Nonprofit ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?