Measuring the quality of the strategic financial planning information (Q-FPI) in the local government

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20 International Journal of Public Administration ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20 Measuring the Quality of the Strategic Financial Planning Information (Q-FPI) in the Local Government Sandra Matos, Susana Jorge & Patricia Moura e Sá To cite this article: Sandra Matos, Susana Jorge & Patricia Moura e Sá (2021): Measuring the Quality of the Strategic Financial Planning Information (Q-FPI) in the Local Government, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2021.2011315 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2011315 Published online: 21 Dec 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 142 View related articles View Crossmark data Measuring the Quality of the Strategic Financial Planning Information (Q-FPI) in the Local Government Sandra Matos a , Susana Jorge b , and Patricia Moura e Sá b a CeBER, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; b Faculty of Economics and University of Minho, Research Centre in Political Science (CICP), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal ABSTRACT Having quality information about strategic financial planning is very important for any organization. In the Local Government (LG) it is pivotal, as it is expected to impact strategic decision-making and overall management of local public resources. Yet, empirical research has failed to assess the quality of financial planning information, which must be assured both for management and accountability purposes. By proposing a quality index for strategic financial planning information – the Q-FPI Index – based on programming documents made available on the municipalities’ websites, this research contributes to address this gap. The paper describes the multidimensional conceptual model followed to build the Index, considering the identification of data quality requirements and defining indicators to operationalize them. The Index is then tested through a pilot application, using data from five Portuguese municipalities. The Q-FPI Index constitutes a flexible tool, capable of fostering continuous improvement of local government performance. KEYWORDS Quality information; quality index; programming documents; municipalities; Portugal Introduction Local governments are considered main entities for promoting social and economic development. Acting close to the populations, they systematically face the need to ‘do more with less’ (Da Cruz & Marques, 2014), constantly searching for delivering better public services under limited resources (Dewi et al., 2019). Strategic planning becomes critical for better public sector management (Berry, 2007). In the public sector, the development of tools, concepts, practices and procedures of strategic planning has been occurring since the 1960s (Obeidat & Udin, 2021). Recent empirical studies highlight that strategic planning, including financial planning, can improve the performance of local governments, fostering greater efficiency and efficacy in decision-making (Bryson et al., 2009; Johnsen, 2018). The quality of information, of any kind, has been acknowledged as fundamental (Lee et al., 2002) and the poor quality of data underlined as severely impacting the efficacy and efficiency of an organization (Wand & Wang, 1996). Consequently, ensuring good quality of financial planning information and of programming documents is critical to support better decision-making in municipalities, allowing them to achieve good management results (Bryson et al., 2018). According to Druker (2008, p. 73), planning “is the process of translating the organization’s strategic or mission goals to a set of actionable programs, and tracing the path of how those within the organization would meet the goals.” In the present study, strategic financial planning is reflected in a set of programming documents (long, medium and short term planning), which lay out the broad lines for strategic development that guide the organization on what it must do, why and how it must proceed. In the public sector, strategy planning involves to set out a course of action and program, expressed in financial terms, in a way that is expected to respond to citizens’ needs (Aladwan & Forrester, 2016; Da Cruz et al., 2016; Obeidat & Udin, 2021). Therefore, high quality financial planning information is important not only for management purposes, but also to inform citizens on how (local) governments plan to fulfil their needs. Later, these plans and goals can be compared with the results obtained from their implementation, thus indirectly fostering accountability and increasing citizens’ and other external stakeholders’ confidence (Nurrizkiana et al., (2017a). In fact, it will be important for citizens and other external stakeholders (such as regulatory bodies) to have access to quality information in the financial planning documents disclosed. CONTACT Sandra Matos [email protected] University of Coimbra, Coimbra, University of Coimbra, CeBER, Faculty of Economics, Av. Dias da Silva, 165, 3004-512 Coimbra Portugal INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2011315 © 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Having considered the above, the Local Government (LG) setting emerges as an appropriate setting for developing tools to measure the quality of such information. The purpose of the current paper is therefore to develop a tool (in this case, an index) for evaluating the quality of information produced in the context of strategic financial planning in the LG. The relevance of such tool comes from the fact that quality financial planning information is an important requisite for local managers decision-making, as well as for the purpose of rendering accountability towards local citizens. Moreover, the Index proposed gives important hints on what needs to be improved in the planning documents. As a consequence of better-quality information, performance and transparency are expected to increase. Within the scope of this research, to assess the quality of financial planning means, in practice, to identify, in programming documents, the ‘signs’ or evidences that the information for strategic financial planning embedded in such documents exhibits the desired quality attributes. In the LG context, academic literature has almost exclusively addressed the quality of financial information considering ex-post financial information. Particular attention has been given to understanding factors that may influence the quality of financial reporting, affecting transparency and accountability, namely towards citizens (e.g., Cohen & Karatzimas, 2017; Da Cruz et al., 2016; Dewi et al., 2019; Sofyani et al., 2020). Very few studies (e.g., Cepiku et al., 2017) have looked at financial planning (ex-ante) information used for supporting management decision-making and, as far as we know, none has attempted to measure the quality of such information. Accordingly, the present paper seeks to fill in this literature gap and aims at developing a tool that can be used to assess the quality of information that municipalities produce within their strategic financial planning processes. Among scholars, it has been highlighted that the quality of strategic planning information must be operationalized through multiple dimensions, as multidimensional methodologies help reveal different aspects of strategic planning in the public sector (Bryson et al., 2018). Therefore, this paper contributes to the literature by proposing an index to measure, in the LG setting, the quality of strategic financial planning information – the Q-FPI Index, considering a multidimensional perspective. With reference to the LG context, and having in mind managers’ and citizens’ needs and concerns, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the data quality requirements identified in the literature? (2) Which dimensions should be considered for assessing the quality of information for strategic financial planning? (3) How can financial planning information quality dimensions be operationalized? Following this introduction, the paper is organized as follows. The next section, which corresponds to the literature review, discusses the concept of information quality and highlights the dimensions of information quality that are suggested both by information systems scholars and by financial information researchers and accounting standard-setting committees. Afterwards, the methodology is described and the model for the development of the Q-FPI Index is clarified. Subsequently, the paper illustrates how the Index can be used to assess the quality of strategic planning information disclosed by five Portuguese municipalities. Finally, the main conclusions are summarized and the contributions of the study highlighted. Information quality: a multidimensional perspective This section analyses the streams of literature that have been dealing with the quality of information, and underlines the importance of the quality of programming documents for sound strategic financial planning. Information systems perspective Information quality (IQ) in organizations is paramount (Lee et al., 2002). Researchers who study management information systems believe that information quality is important. Over time, the number of scientific IQ studies grew significantly in response to organizational needs to measure and improve the quality of information (Ballou & Fisk, 1983; Ballou & Pazer, 1985, 1995; Wang & Strong, 1996). IQ is a property that is inherent to information itself and that stands out for its characteristics. Many authors define it as a multidimensional concept, as can be seen in Table 1. This multidimensional approach means information quality depends on a number of perspectives (Arazy & Kopak, 2011; Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Wang & Strong, 1996). Table 1 is structured into four categories of IQ – intrinsic, contextual, representational and accessibility, according to Wang and Strong (1996). The intrinsic quality of information includes the internal characteristics of information (Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Michnik & Lo, 2007), i.e., it 2S. S. MATOS ET AL. considers that information has quality on its own, regardless of the context in which it is used. Intrinsic quality is translated into reliability, accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation, true representation, verifiability, neutrality, prudence and absence of error. The contextual quality of information requires such quality to be assessed against the task at hand (Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Michnik & Lo, 2007; Strong et al., 1997; Wang & Strong, 1996). Therefore, information must be useful, relevant, timely, complete, full and appropriate, so as to add value. Concerning the representational quality of information, information must be clear (Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Wang & Strong, 1996), and have coherent representation, interpretability, understandability, conciseness and consistency. Accessibility is another category of information quality, which emphasizes the importance of information storage and access (Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Wang & Strong, 1996). Meyen and Willshire (1997) report that 35% of users’ concerns about IQ relate to accessibility issues, 27% to intrinsic issues, 24% to contextual issues and 14% to representation. It follows a brief summary of the major works referred to in Table 1: •Wang and Strong (1996) propose a “A Conceptual Framework for Data Quality”, divided into 4 categories and 20 dimensions that capture the quality features of data considered important to data users. A striking feature of the study is that the quality attributes of the data are collected from the opinions of data users. These authors believe high quality data must be intrinsically good, contextually adjusted to a task, clearly represented and accessible to users. •Wand and Wang (1996) define the dimensions of data quality according to the function of an information system, as a representation of a system in the real world. The dimensions arise from possible representation gaps. The quality of data depends on whether or not a certain number of intrinsic dimensions are met: integrity, lack of ambiguity, significance and correctness. The authors state that poor data quality can severely impact the overall efficacy of an organization. •Batini and Scannapieca (2006) show that dimensions are the core of all research on quality of data. There are three approaches: theoretical, empirical and intuitive. The theoretical approach adopts a formal model for defining or justifying the dimensions. The empirical approach suggests a set of dimensions based on experience, interviews and questionnaires. The intuitive approach simply defines the dimensions according to Table 1. Academics’ view of information quality from a multidimensional perspective. Authors Intrinsic Contextual Representational Accessibility Wang & Strong, 1996 Accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Relevancy, value-added, timeliness, completeness, appropriate amount of date Interpretability, ease of understanding, representational consistency, concise representation Accessibility, security Wand & Wang, 1996 Correct, unambiguous Complete Meaningful – – - Batini & Scannapieca, 2006 Believability, accuracy, objectivity, reputation Relevancy, value-added, timeliness, completeness and appropriate amount of data Interpretability, ease of understanding, representational consistency, concise representation Accessibility, access security Michnik & Lo, 2007 Accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Relevancy, valueadded timeliness, completeness, amount of information Interpretability, ease of understanding, consistent representation, concise representation Access, Convenience, Security Arazy & Kopak, 2011 Accuracy, objectivity Completeness Representation Accessibility information quality was not considered, because they made an empirical study based on Wikipedia Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019 Believability, objectivity, accuracy Timeliness, value-added, appropriate amount of date, relevancy, completeness. Concise representation, interpretability, representational consistency, ease of understanding Accessibility, access security INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3 common sense and practical experience. These authors state that good quality data helps to improve the efficiency of organizations. •Michnik and Lo (2007) propose to assess information quality with the assistance of multiple criteria analysis. They adopt in their paper four information categories: (1) intrinsic, (2) contextual, (3) representational, and (4) accessibility. According to the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), these categories are divided into several criteria, which correspond to Wang and Strong’s (1996) different dimensions of information quality. The model submitted by the authors developed a set of appropriate strategies for improving the quality of information, which are analyzed by a number of experts with different opinions, taking into account all criteria. •Arazy and Kopak (2011) address the issue of the quality of the information available on the web. Their research seeks to establish the quality of information and to identify the underlying dimensions (for example, accuracy and completeness), subsequently developing measurement tools. •Ghasemaghaei and Hassanein (2019) developed a dynamic model of perceptions and impacts on the quality of online information. In their study they highlight user characteristics, website characteristics, task characteristics and social characteristics as contextual factors that influence the quality of information. Furthermore, they also group the dimensions of information quality into four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational and accessibility, thus using the typology proposed by Wang and Strong (1996). Financial information perspective In financial literature, there are also several studies on the quality of financial information. Kaplan et al. (1998) and Fletcher et al. (2004) set forth methodologies for the assessment of financial information based on the assessment of Accounting Information Systems (AIS). An accounting information system keeps and produces organizational data for planning, assessing and diagnosing the dynamics of transactions and financial situations (Kaplan et al., 1998). The purpose of an accounting information system is to document economic events and capture their impact on an entity’s financial position (Kaplan et al., 1998). According to Bernardes (2001), accounting systems are no longer developed from purely abstract structures, but are generated from its users’ (information) needs. Therefore, accounting and financial information fit into the so-called usefulness paradigm (Phornlaphatrachakorn & Na Kalasindhu, 2021). Alongside academic studies (e.g., Boolaky et al., 2020; Sellami & Gafsi, 2017; Tran et al., 2021), reference to the quality of financial information or of financial statements is found in national and international accounting and financial reporting pronouncements, which highlight a set of qualitative characteristics that financial information should display to be considered quality information. International organizations issuing accounting standards propose common qualitative attributes, for both the private and public sectors, as displayed in Table 2. The four international standard setting boards for the public sector recognize, in their conceptual frameworks, a set of qualitative characteristics that should be evident in financial reporting (Australian Accounting Standards Board, 2009; Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, 2009a; Governmental Accounting Standards Board, 1987; IPSASB, 2014). These qualitative characteristics are somehow a reflex from those established for business accounting in the conceptual framework by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its counterpart in the USA, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Paragraph 2.1 of the Conceptual Framework of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB, 2014) states that public sector financial reporting is intended to provide information about public sector entities, which is useful for several users, for accountability and for decision-making purposes. “The discharge of accountability obligations requires the provision of information about the entity’s management of the resources entrusted to it for the delivery of services to constituents and others . . . “ (paragraph 2.8). The information disclosed will also support decisionmaking, namely about resources to be made available to support future activities, by lenders, creditors, donors and others, or decisions about voting preferences by service recipients and taxpayers (paragraphs 2.9–2.10). Table 2. Qualitative characteristics of financial information by international standard-setters. Qualitative Characteristics CF joint project IASB-FASB GASB IPSASB AASB CICA Relevance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Understandability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Comparability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Timeliness ✓ ✓ ✓ - - Faithful representation ✓-✓- - Consistency - ✓- - - Reliability - ✓-✓ ✓ Verifiability ✓ ✓ Source: Cohen and Karatzimas (2017) Key: IASB – International Accounting Standards Board; GASB – Governmental Accounting Standards Board; IPSASB – International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board; AASB – Australian Accounting Standards Board; CICA – Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 4S. S. MATOS ET AL. Consequently, financial statements are mostly intended for providing information on the financial position, financial performance, cash flows and changes in the financial position of an entity, being useful to a large number of users. Paragraphs 3.1–3.5 of the IPSASB’s Conceptual Framework further specify that qualitative characteristics are attributes that make information provided in the financial reporting useful. These characteristics must therefore be reflected in the preparation of financial statements. Specifically for financial reporting, Conceptual Framework of the IPSASB (2014) refers to six main quality characteristics (Chapter 3) as prerequisites required for public sector entities’ financial statements: relevance, reliability (faithful representation), understandability, timeliness, comparability and verifiability. Relevance is when information is capable of making difference, which happens when it has confirmatory value, predictive value, or both. Thus, this qualitative characteristic helps to confirm or adjust users’ past expectations and predictions about the entity’s financial condition, performance and service delivery; it also helps to confirm or correct expectations about future financial outcomes, starting from financial information included in previous statements (paragraphs 3.6–3.8). Reliability or faithful representation (paragraph 3.10) is attained when the depiction of the phenomenon is complete, neutral, and free from material error. Therefore, information must be as complete, neutral and error-free as possible. Understandability is the quality of information that enables users to comprehend its meaning. As such, all efforts should be undertaken to represent economic and other phenomena in a manner that is clear to a wide range of users (paragraph 3.17). Timeliness (paragraph 3.19) means having information available for users before it loses its capacity to be useful for accountability and decision-making purposes. Delays in obtaining the information can be a critical issue for many decisions that must be taken. Comparability is the characteristic of information quality that allows users to identify similarities and differences between two sets of phenomena, requiring consistency (paragraph 3.21). As to verifiability, it is the quality that helps to reassure users that the information in financial reports is a true representation of the economic and other events it intends to represent. Therefore, the more verifiable the information is the more reliable it will be. Sometimes it is referred as supportability. Whether referred to as verifiability or supportability, this characteristic implies that different knowledgeable and independent observers could reach general consensus about what the information represents (paragraph 3.26). Academic studies show that information quality has a significant impact on the performance of organizations (e.g., Beest et al., 2009; Boolaky et al., 2020; Jones, 1991; Tran et al., 2021). The quality of financial information has also been highlighted as critical for transparency and accountability purposes, focusing on financial reporting (e.g., Dewi et al., 2019; Sofyani et al., 2020). Therefore, the quality of financial information has been considered in the literature from a financial reporting standpoint. However, in the public sector, including in the LG, programming documents (such as, strategic financial plans and budgets), also require quality attributes. Financial planning documents are key instruments to the definition of public policies and to political decision-making in the public sector context; and also, to inform citizens about plans and projects that are going to be implemented (Aladwan & Forrester, 2016). Therefore, the quality of the information in these documents has to be assured, either for management or for accountability purposes. The qualitative characteristics may approximate those of financial reporting information. Strategic financial planning fosters good performance and influences decisions, which is why the delivery of good quality programming documents is a decisive factor for obtaining good outcomes. In the public sector setting, some researchers have found evidence that strategic planning helps to produce desirable results and outcomes (Bryson et al., 2018), which helps managers decide in their organization’s best interests (Bryson et al., 2009). Cepiku et al. (2017) examined the connections between strategic planning and financial management for the fifteen largest Italian cities in the context of the global financial crisis that broke out in the United States in 2007. After analyzing, in depth, the documents for strategic planning and financial reporting, as well as other documents, the authors realized that the cities featuring enhanced strategic planning, generally display more responsible behavior. Therefore, assessing the quality of programming documents, combining different dimensions, is an exercise than needs to be constantly carried out in LG, and for which a valid assessment tool is highly recommended. The conceptual development of a tool for assessing strategic financial planning information quality – the Q-FPI index This section describes the model followed to build the Q-FPI Index proposed for the assessment of information quality in strategic financial planning in the LG, starting by the overall methodology adopted. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5 Methodology To assess the quality of the programming documents, the Q-FPI Index proposed in this research follows a model based on the identification of the main dimensions of information quality. Such dimensions can be used to make the documents more useful for decisionmaking (Braam & Beest, 2013), providing guidance on the preparation of documents for financial planning, and ensuring focus on the qualitative characteristics of the information (AL-Shatnawi, 2017). This model was inspired by two major literature streams: information systems literature (which tends to define quality of information in general, and more abstracted, terms), and financial information literature (which tries to translate those general characteristics into the particular context of financial documents preparation and reporting). Both were briefly described in the previous section. Consequently, besides focusing on the quality dimensions of information suggested by information systems literature, this research also takes into account the characteristics of the quality of the information in financial reports according to the financial reporting standards, assumed to be important also for strategic financial planning documents. In doing so, the model begins by identifying the requirements of information quality in the literature on information systems and then specifically on financial information. Consequently, the model follows a multidimensional perspective, capturing the intrinsic, representative, contextual and accessibility features of the programming documents related to LG strategic financial management (Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Batini et al., 2009; Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Pipino et al., 2002; Strong et al., 1997; Wang & Strong, 1996; Wand & Wang, 1996; Wang, 1998), while supporting strategic financial management and accountability. Figure 1 illustrates the process of conceptual development of the Index for assessing the quality of strategic financial planning information (Q-FPI). The process has been organized into four broad stages: ●Stage 1 – Identification of information quality requirements based on information systems literature and on quality of financial information literature; ●Stage 2 – Selection of information quality dimensions for strategic financial planning; ●Stage 3 – Operationalization of the information quality dimensions for strategic financial planning (indicators); In this stage the indicators and the ways of measuring information quality dimensions in strategic financial planning are laid out. ●Stage 4 – Index validation (pilot study using data of five Portuguese municipalities). The Index is of a theoretical basis and uses a set of indicators to operationalize each information quality dimension. The evaluation is of dichotomous nature using a binary scale, thus assuming only two values, 0 where the phenomenon does not occur and 1 where it does (Costa et al., 2018; Pino, 2007). Figure 1. Development process of the Q-FPI Index. 6S. S. MATOS ET AL. The Index is validated on the basis of programming documents, more specifically the Strategic Financial Plan (including investment plan), the Budget and their Reports, and other documents alike disclosed on municipalities’ official webpages. Such strategic financial planning documents are generally used across the European Union and in other countries. Therefore, with slight adjustments, the index methodology can be replicated in other contexts. As the model is flexible, the indicators for each dimension can be adjusted. One example is the Accessibility dimension – it can be said that strategic financial planning information is accessible to the public in a way other than through the website. The stages involved in the development of the Index are described in detail next. Selection of information quality dimensions for strategic financial planning (stage 2) The quality dimensions of strategic financial information were identified based on the analysis of a number of scientific papers. Such papers were selected based on keywords associated with “information quality” and come from non-financial and financial literature (stage 1). The following are the characteristics (dimensions) for the quality of information that were mentioned most often in those papers: Reliability, Relevance, Timeliness, Completeness, Understandability, Comparability, Consistency, Accessibility and Data Security, as highlighted in Table 3. Reliability is the characteristic that is most often mentioned in the papers analyzed. This intrinsic quality of information is considered a fundamental dimension of the quality of strategic financial information, encompassing internal characteristics of the information and translating into trustworthiness, accuracy, objectivity, credibility, reputation, faithful representation, neutrality, prudence and absence of mistakes. Reliable information has no mistakes and inaccuracies and can be relied on when making decisions. In 87% of the analyzed papers, relevance is mentioned as a fundamental qualitative characteristic. This contextual characteristic of information requires such quality to be assessed in the context of the task at hand. Relevance means that information can make the difference in decision-making. Besides being relevant, information must be timely and complete. Consequently, we propose the following dimensions of contextual information quality: Relevance, Timeliness and Completeness. Understandability is yet another characteristic that literature frequently highlights. In simple terms, understandability as a quality of financial information means asking whether the organization’s financial information is presented in an organized, clear and easy to interpret manner (Jonas & Blanchet, 2000), allowing users to easily understand its meaning. The representational quality of information requires quality information to be clear (Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2019; Wang & Strong, 1996). Besides being understandable, information must be comparable, concise and consistent. Therefore, the representational dimensions proposed are Understandability, Comparability and Consistency. Consistent representation means data is presented always in the same way and is compactly represented with previous data (Batini & Scannapieca, 2006; Pipino et al., 2002). Regarding financial information, for related items over time, it must follow the same accounting principles and criteria (Cole et al., 2012) and be prepared without judgment (Solsma & Wilder, 2015). The quality of accessible information is translated into the Dimensions of Accessibility (access to data) and Data Security. Accessibility includes concerns about the ease of access to information. Data security is different from accessibility; it is the quality of secure information, representing the degree to which data is suitably restricted to ensure it is secure (Pipino et al., 2002). Derived from the literature review, Figure 2 presents the dimensions of information quality that need be considered when evaluating strategic planning documents. Thus, as displayed in Figure 2, nine dimensions of information quality assessment were firstly identified. However, two of these dimensions (Timeliness and Data Security) were excluded from the Q-FPI Index, since it would not be possible to measure them in the empirical context the authors chose to test it, as explained next ●Timeliness is a dimension of the contextual requirements of information quality, which translates into appropriate information or information adjusted to the time or occasion (Michnik & Lo, 2007). From a theoretical standpoint, it should be considered when assessing information quality for strategic Table 3. Characteristics/Dimensions for the quality of information mentioned most often in the 30 papers analyzed (financial and non-financial literature). Qualitative Characteristics /Dimensions No. of papers % RELIABILITY 30 100% RELEVANCE 26 87% TIMELINESS 17 57% COMPLETENESS 16 53% UNDERSTANDABILITY 24 80% COMPARABILITY 14 47% CONSISTENCY 18 60% ACCESSIBILITY 8 27% DATA SECURITY 5 17% INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7 financial planning. However, in the operationalization process, when the Portuguese context was considered, it was removed. Municipalities in Portugal follow a budgetary calendar, laid down in national laws, according to which, every year, the executive body (Town Council) delivers to the deliberative body (Municipal Assembly) such programming documents by October, the 31st. Yet, many of these documents, disclosed on the municipalities’ official webpages (the model assumes online disclosure), do not have dates, although they may have been submitted in due time to the Municipal Assembly, in compliance with the laws in force. Therefore, it is not possible to know exactly when the competent bodies have approved these documents. Furthermore, it would be difficult to evaluate either whether they are adjusted to the right time or to the proper occasion, since the moment of use and the exact needs of such use are also unknown. ●Data security was another dimension that could not be operationalized. This dimension relates to actions taken to protect information from espionage or sabotage, crime, attack or leak (Michnik & Lo, 2007). In the current research, this dimension was not considered, because the model is based on the assumption that all documents on the official websites of municipalities are secure and that information is shielded from sabotage. Accordingly, seven dimensions for assessing the quality of strategic financial planning information were finally considered in the Q-FPI Index. Operationalization of the information quality dimensions for strategic financial planning – establishing the indicators (stage 3) In Stage 3, the indicators for the operationalization of the quality dimensions for assessing strategic financial planning information are identified. This a complex procedure that needs to be adjusted to each particular setting. However, to enhance the internal validity of these measures, the process is based on a definition that reflects the way each dimension is characterized in previous literature. Table 4 displays such definitions and shows the number of indicators considered for each dimension. The 58 indicators are arranged in an Index used to measure the overall level of information quality for strategic financial planning from a multidimensional perspective. Appendix lists all indicators by dimension. As an illustrative example, for one particular dimension of the Index (Accessibility), Table 5 provides an overview of the relevant indicators, issues and respective scales used. The nine indicators and related questions, are thus shown in Table 5. Given the dichotomous scales used, the resulting score ranges from 0 to 9. If a given municipality obtains the maximum score it means that, in addition to complying with the legal provisions concerning the principle of transparency, it has top quality in terms of Accessibility in its strategic financial planning information. It must be stressed that indicators are literaturebased. The operationalization process entails asking the right questions for the indicators used to measure each dimension (Beest et al., 2009; Jonas & Blanchet, 2000). Dimension: Reliability Dimensions: Relevance Timeliness Completeness Dimensions: Understandability Comparability Consistency Dimensions: Accessibility (Data access) Data security Intrinsic Contextual Representational Accessibility Information quality for strategic financial planning Figure 2. Dimensions of information quality to be considered in strategic financial planning documents. 8S. S. MATOS ET AL. References AL-Shatnawi, H. M. (2017). Measuring the quality of the interim financial reports using the qualitative characteristics of accounting information and its effect on the investment decisions according to the IAS 34. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(5), 159–170. https:// doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v9n5p159 Aladwan, S. A., & Forrester, P. (2016). The leadership criterion: Challenges in pursuing excellence in the Jordanian public sector. The TQM Journal, 28(2), 295–316. https:// doi.org/10.1108/TQM-08-2014-0064 Arazy, O., & Kopak, R. (2011). On the measurability of information quality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 89–99. https:// doi.org/10.1002/asi.21447 Australian Accounting Standards Board. (2009). Framework for the preparation and presentation of the financial statements. ACSB. Ballou, D. P., & Fisk, J. C. (1983). Queue control using a historically developed stochastic model. Journal of Operations Management, 3(2), 99–103. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0272-6963(83)90011-6 Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (1985). Modeling data and process quality in multi-input, multi-output information systems. Management Science, 31(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10. 1287/mnsc.31.2.150 Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (1995). Designing information systems to optimize the accuracy–timeliness trade off. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10. 1287/isre.6.1.51 Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., & Maurino, A. (2009). Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41(3), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880.1541883 Batini, C., & Scannapieca, M. (2006). Data quality dimensions Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. In Data quality. Data centric systems and applications (pp. 19–49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33173-5_2 Beest, F. V., Braam, G., & Boelens, S. (2009). Quality of financial reporting: Measuring qualitative characteristics. In Nijmegen. Nijmegen Center for Economics (NiCE), Radboud University Nijmegen 09–108 . Bernardes, A. F. (2001). Contabilidade Pública e Autárquica – POCP e POCAL. Centro de Estudos e Formação Autárquica. Berry, F. S. (2007). Strategic planning as a tool for managing organizational change. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01900690601117812 Boolaky, P. K., Mirosea, N., & Omoteso, K. (2020). The adoption of IPSAS (Accrual Accounting) in Indonesian local government: A neo-institutional perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019. 1669047 Braam, G., & Beest, F. V. (2013). Conceptually-based financial reporting quality assessment an empirical analysis on quality differences between UK annual reports and US 10-K Reports. Nijmegen Center for Economics (NiCE), Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory. International Public Management Journal, 12(2), 172–207. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10967490902873473 Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2018). Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Management Review, 20(3), 317–339. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14719037.2017.1285111 Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. (2009a). Public sector accounting handbook, PS 1000 financial statement concepts. Cepiku, D., Giordano, F., & Savignon, A. B. (2017). Does strategy rhyme with austerity? Public Management Review, 20(3), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017. 1285116 Cohen, S., & Karatzimas, S. (2017). Accounting information quality and decisionusefulness of governmental financial reporting: Moving from cash to modified cash. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10. 1108/MEDAR-10-2015-0070 Cole, V., Branson, J., & Breesch, D. (2012). The uniformity-flexibility dilemma when comparing financial statements: Views of auditors, analysts and other users. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 20(2), 114–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 18347641211218443 . Costa, F. J., Orsini, A. C. R., & Carneiro, J. S. (2018). Variações de Mensuração por Tipos de Escalas de Verificação: Uma Análise do Construto de Satisfação Discente. Revista Gestão, 6(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.21714/1679-18272018v16n2. p132-144 Da Cruz, N. F., & Marques, R. C. (2014). Revisiting the determinants of local government performance. Omega, 44, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.09.002 Da Cruz, N. F., Tavares, A. F., Marques, R. C., Jorge, S., & de Sousa, L. (2016). Measuring local government transparency. Public Management Review, 18(6), 866–893. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14719037.2015.1051572 . Dewi, N. F., Azam, S. M. F., & Yusoff, S. K. M. (2019). Factors influencing the information quality of local government financial statement and financial accountability. Management Science Letters, 9(9), 1373–1384. https://doi. org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.5.013 Druker, P. F. (2008). The five most important questions you will ever ask about your organization: An inspiring tool for organizations and the people who lead them. Leader to Leader Institute, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 73–76. Retrieved from https://pdf.zlibcdn.com/dtoken/ 32c3eaa0d72629e998f9c1a6c2273131/The_Five_Most_ Important_Questions_You_Will_Ever_As_1208253_(zlib.org).pdf. Fletcher, D., Robbert, M. A., Mohamad, K., & Middleton, P. (2004). A systems approach to monitoring financial data quality assessment and improvement. Ghasemaghaei, M., & Hassanein, K. (2019). Dynamic model of online information quality perceptions and impacts: A literature review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(3), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018. 1531928 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (1987). Concept’s statements no. 1 objectives of financial reporting. Helpap, D. J. (2016). Guiding the public sector: Assessing the use of recommended practices in the budgeting process. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(7), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1157815 IFAC. (2012). Public sector financial management transparency and accountability: The use of international public sector accounting standards. IPSASB (2014). The conceptual framework for general purpose financial reporting by public sector entities. IFAC. Johnsen, Å. (2018). Impacts of strategic planning and management in municipal government: An analysis of subjective survey and objective production and efficiency measures in Norway. Public Management Review, 20(3), 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285115 Jonas, G. J., & Blanchet, J. (2000). Assessing quality of financial reporting. American Accounting Association, 14(3), 353–363. Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 193–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491047 Kaplan, D., Krishnan, R., Padman, R., & Peters, J. (1998). Assessing data quality in accounting information systems. Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 72–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/269012.269024 Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133–146. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5 Meyen, M., & Willshire, M. J. (1997). A data quality engineering framework. Proceedings of the conference on information quality, Cambridge, pp. 95–116. Michnik, J., & Lo, M. C. (2007). The assessment of the information quality with the aid of multiple criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(2), 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.11.017 Nurrizkiana, B., Handayani, L., & Widiastuty, E. (2017). Determinants of transparency and accountability of regional financial management and its implications to trust of public-stakeholders. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 18(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.18159 Obeidat, S. H. A., & Udin, M. B. M. (2021). Strategic planning and public sector effectiveness in Jordan: A conceptual approach. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(10), 5319–5331. https://doi.org/10.17762/tur comat.v12i10.5335 . Phornlaphatrachakorn, K., & Na Kalasindhu, K. (2021). Digital accounting, financial reporting quality and digital transformation: Evidence from Thai listed firms. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(8), 0409–0419. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no8. 0409 Pino, F. A. (2007). Binary decision models: A review. Rev. de Economia Agrícola,beeber São Paulo, 54(1), 43–57. Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/505248.506010 Sellami, Y. M., & Gafsi, Y. (2017). Institutional and economic factors affecting the adoption of international public sector accounting standards. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01900692.2017.1405444 Sofyani, H., Riyadh, H. A., & Fahlevi, H. (2020). Improving service quality, accountability and transparency of local government: The intervening role of information technology governance. Cogent Business & Management, 7 (1), 1735690. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020. 1735690 Solsma, L., & Wilder, M. W. (2015). Pro forma disclosure practices of firms applying IFRS. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 23(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-12-2014-0083 Strong, D. M., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/253769.253804 Tran, Y. T., Nguyen, N. P., & Hoang, T. C. (2021). The role of accountability in determining the relationship between financial reporting quality and the performance of public organizations: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(1), 106801. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106801 Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/240455.240479 Wang R Y. (1998). A Total Data Quality Management (TDQM). Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/269012.269022 Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. https://doi. org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 16 S. S. MATOS ET AL. Category Quality Dimensions of the Financial Strategic Planning Information Code Indicators Accessibility Accessibility Ac1 The Grand Options of the Plan (GOP) are accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac2 The Multiannual Investments Plan (PPI) is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac3 The Most Relevant Activities (AMR) statement is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac4 The Budget is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac5 The Annual Report of Programming Documents is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac6 The Annual Accounts are accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac7 The Prior Authorization by the Municipal Assembly for the municipality to assume Multiannual Commitments is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac8 The Internal Control Standard is accessible on the municipality’s website. Ac9 Other documents related to the strategic guidelines are accessible on the municipality’s website. Representational Understandability C1 The Annual Report of Programming Documents is structured. C2 The Plurianual Investments Plan is structured according to the accounting structure of POCAL. C3 The Most Relevant Activities presents a structure . C4 The Budget presents an accounting structure in accordance with the Official Accounting Plan of Local Authorities (POCAL). C5 The Annual Report of Programming Documents is informative. C6 The Programming Documents are readable. C7 The Programming Documents describe the encodings of the various acronyms provided for in the “GOP”, “PPI” and “AMR”. Comparability Cp1 The Annual Report of Programming Documents compares the percentage weight of GOP programs with previous years Cp2 The Annual Report of Programming Documents compares the percentage weight of the revenue provided for in the Budget with revenue from previous years Cp3 The Annual Report of Programming Documents compares the percentage weight of the estimated expenditure in the Budget with that of previous years Cp4 The PPI results for the current period are compared with previous periods Cp5 The Annual Report of Programming Documents identifies trends in the Municipality’s budgetary situation Cp6 The Annual Report of Programming Documents presents a comparison with some Intermunicipal Community Index Cp7 The Annual Report of Programming Documents compares the volume of Municipal Investment in Portugal with Public Investment in Europe Cp8 The weight of the GOP coincides with the strategic policy in relation to the previous year Contextual Completeness Co1 The PPI columns are all filled Co2 The Annual Report of Programming documents presents the calculation of the Balance reports Co3 The Annual Report of Programming Documents analyzes the GOP Co4 The Annual Report of Programming Documents is complete Co5 The Annual Report of Programming Documents presents and justifies the proposed budgetary policy Co6 PPI projects have an execution phase Consistency Cs1 The Budget has the same format Cs2 PPI is always presented in the same format and is consistent with others from previous years Cs3 GOP´s are consistent in values Cs4 PPI is consistent with the Budget Cs5 PPI is consistency in project start and end dates Cs6 GOP´s are consistent with the Budget. Cs7 The projects registered at AMR have the same designation, year, number of years of action for others Relevance R1 The Annual Report of Programming Documents presents information on multi-annual commitments R2 The Annual Report of Programming Documents discloses information in terms of risk analysis R3 PPI presents a PPBS (PlanningProgramming-Budgeting System) approach R4 The Annual Report of Programming Documents disseminates information on the interconnection with the Intermunicipal Community’s Integrated Territorial Development Strategy (CIM) R5 The budget has a weight in capital revenue of more than 50% derived from community participation in co-financed projects R6 The Annual Report of Programming Documents discloses the Strategic Vision R7 The Annual Report of Programming Documents discloses the strategic guidelines R8 The Annual Report of Programming Documents analyzes the financial indicators (Debt, Degree of expenditure execution, Total debt) R9 The GOPs present municipal projects taking advantage of the common co-financing opportunities provided by the European Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework 20142020 (Common Strategic Framework - QE, according to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 39/2013, of July 14) and other community initiatives R10 The Annual Report of Programming Documents presents the calculation of the specific limits of net and medium and long-term debt (Continued) Appendix. Appendix – List of all indicators by dimension INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 17 (Continued). Category Quality Dimensions of the Financial Strategic Planning Information Code Indicators Intrinsic Reliability F1 The Report of Programming Documents presents inconsistencies in the index F2 The Annual Report of Programming presents inconsistencies in the values of the Current Budget Balance calculation. Of which: Current Budgeted Gross Revenue≥Current Budgeted Expenses + Average amortization of MLP Loans F3 The Annual Report of Programming Documents describes a service for monitoring the Execution of the GOP /PPI F4 The GOP´s are elaborated with rigor F5 The PPI is rigorously prepared F6 AMR are elaborated with rigor F7 The PPI identifies the currency unit (rule_ euro) F8 The Annual Report of Programming Documents describes the supporting legislation F9 The Annual Report of Programming Documents identifies the main categories of expected capital expenditures and their respective amounts F10 The Annual Report of Programming Documents identifies the factors that influenced the main categories of expected capital expenditures F11 The GOP´s are signed 18 S. S. MATOS ET AL.