The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review

Febriyanti, Doris; Widianingsih, Ida; Sumaryana, Asep; Buchari, Rd. Ahmad Article The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Febriyanti, Doris; Widianingsih, Ida; Sumaryana, Asep; Buchari, Rd. Ahmad (2024) : The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315681 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326055 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review Doris Febriyanti, Ida Widianingsih, Asep Sumaryana & Rd. Ahmad Buchari To cite this article: Doris Febriyanti, Ida Widianingsih, Asep Sumaryana & Rd. Ahmad Buchari (2024) The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2315681, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2315681 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315681 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 26 Feb 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3063 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2315681 The typology and determinant of performance measurement for public sector organizations – a literature review Doris Febriyantia,b , ida Widianingsihc,d , asep sumaryanac and Rd. ahmad Bucharic,d agradute Program in administrative science, Faculty of social and Political sciences, universitas Padjadjaran, Kota Bandung, indonesia; bFaculty of governmental and Cultural sciences, universitas indo global Mandiri, Kota Palembang, indonesia; cPublic administration Department, Faculty of social and Political sciences, universitas Padjadjaran, Kota Bandung, indonesia; dCenter for Decentralization and Participatory Development Research, Faculty of social and Political sciences, universitas Padjadjaran, Kota Bandung, indonesia ABSTRACT Public sector organization is very influential. however, due to the limitations of the papers discussing the topic of performance measurement for public sector organizations, thus this research explores existing research on this topic. the main objective of this research was to know the issue of performance measurement in public sector organizations. the systematic literature review method was used to explore different issues related to performance measurement for public sector organizations. in this research, various type of performance measurement for public sector organizations is described. Based on the findings, we suggest concerning determinants of performance measurement for public sector organizations at individual and organizational levels as the fundamental performance measurement elements, due to the lack and the limitation of the research concerning individuals as a critical element. the source of the literature from the scopus Preview from 2013 to 2022 was taken by implementing the typology agenda. the result proposes a performance measurement typology based on the unit, level, measures, target, and realization. Besides, the result confirms that there has not been in-depth research on performance measurement for public sector organizations specifically on the public sector especially mixed-method research approaches from emerging and developing countries of the individual. the contribution of this research is as a reference material in encouraging more effective policies and evaluation in the implementation of public sector performance measurement. 1. Introduction arranging a performance measurement framework (PMF) to plot the specifics of a non-profit organization (nPO) is a challenging mission (Moura et al., 2020). the notion of the social element as design qualifications is a critical topic for arranging a PMF. throughout the development of the study in PMF, various schemes have been used for an nPO. a framework that is commonly adopted by organizations and discussed in the literature is the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & norton, 1992). the balanced scorecard (Bsc) is designed to be applicated with a target on the public sector organization (PsO) such as government organizations at the local or national level (hoque, 2014). even there are numerous measurement approach has been arranged, the Bsc has been commonly debated, evaluated, and adopted in the last two decades (speklé & Verbeeten, 2014). Furthermore, even though research on the PMF is advancing, but not on research PMF focusing on the PsO (Moxham, 2009). PMF has been widely discussed in PsO in the last ten years. PsO is studied as a sort of nPO (Valentinov, 2011). the challenge is due to there being no consensus on the nPO definition and typology. Various categories of organizations can be grouped into nPO. it comprises colleges, healthcare institutions, © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Doris Febriyanti [email protected].ac.id Faculty of social and Political sciences, universitas Padjadjaran, Kota Bandung, indonesia https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315681 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 8 February 2023 Revised 9 august 2023 accepted 2 February 2024 KEYWORDS typology; performance measurement; public sector organization; literature review REVIEWING EDITOR huifen (helen) cai, Middlesex University Business school, United Kingdom SUBJECTS Public & nonprofit Management; Organizational studies 2 D. FeBRiYanti etal. voluntary institutions, labor institutions, regulatory bureaus, professional federations foundations, social companies, associations, and philanthropic (Moxham, 2009; Valentinov, 2011). thus, this research recognizes them as nPOs. however, experts debate the adoption of the profit framework of PMF for the inadequate of a robust theoretical basic (almeida Prado cestari et al., 2018; Borst et al., 2014). consequently, most of the PMF made by the consultant agency are eligible to perform the intended PMF’s target of nPO due to the lack of a rigid theoretical basis (Mouchamps, 2014). Previous research on PMF as a kind of nPO organization reflection found that PMF frequently fails due to dissimilar perceptions and concerns of the stakeholders throughout the implementation (leotta & Ruggeri, 2017). that diversity must not be neglected. the adoption of the Bsc in a rehabilitation institution should deal with both the recipients’ and the economic viewpoints due to the need to satisfy the recipients and keep income stable (Martello et al., 2016). Regardless of the use of Bsc in university, the model was not able to catch the main role of this type of institution, and the quality assurance application only slightly expressed the system (Reda, 2017). the adoption of the Bsc in the educational background must be arranged with a distinctive element that meets the organizational policy due to the original element, such as financial, recipients, internal operation, and training and development, which are not absolutely appropriate. Research by Keser Ozmantar and gedikoglu (2016), found the need for practitioners as the fifth additional element of Bsc. Furthermore, arranging a PMF for nPO, especially for the public sector is very demanding. the PMF maker should calculate all elements that affect the strategy, such as legality, the involved participants’ requirements, companies’ parameters, and the affection one for another. it comprises the aspects, challenges, determinants, and incentives. the target of this organization is chasing social goals rather than monetary profit for their stakeholders or companions. the requirement to have a measurable and accountable performance evaluation for public sector organizations is very critical. however, the literature on this topic is quite limited and there is a need to study the performance measurement of this organization especially the determinant of the PMF so that the leader of the organization can get insight related to this organization (Moura etal., 2020). Besides, the research on public sector performance measurement has been hindered due to the absence of a general conceptual systematic classification and principle descriptions (alach, 2017). therefore, the objective of this research is to explore the current state of the art of PMF in the public sector and the determinants of PMF in public sector organizations. the hypothesis in this study is that important factors in performance measurement for public sector organizations at the individual and organizational levels as elements of performance measurement are more contextual and actual. in addition, there is a lack of and limited previous research on performance measurement in the public sector that conducts performance measurement. typology is based on unit, level, measure, target, and realization. since there is no exclusive research on the adoption of performance measurement in indonesia, future research can discuss the adoption of performance measurement in indonesia. 2. Literature review even there is the universalization of the public sector and private sector to become too simple (steccolini, 2019). Regarding that fact, the difference between those sectors actually has declined (Bogt et al., 2015), some researchers suggest for see the context of the analysis comprises control, ownership, and finances (Rainey & Jung, 2015). Borders among sectors may not be as rigid and need more study. besides, the diversity among sectors can simply be elaborated, which has directed to an unfruitful typology of the organizational public sector as the complex and organized private sector as simple (Mazzucato, 2018; cohen, 2019; cohen et al., 2019). there are some features that are accurate for organizations that work in the public context, that draft practical scenery in which performance measurement research is conducted (chenhall et al., 2017). For example, the monetary performance of the profit company can usually be analyzed by examining cash flow or income. While those performance measurements in the public sector are quite rare (hofstede, 2011, 2018). then, the public organization collaborates with other stakeholders to obtain the target. some social goals become materialized in the future years. this condition makes detecting and calculating the performance of that definite interventions or program very interesting (ter Bogt etal., 2015) Regarding this, as leaders in private company companies produce benefits for shareholders, the leaders in the public cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 company generally have a broader array of stakeholders to complete, such as inhabitants, legislator, and interest groups. their task has been claimed unclear. numerous organizations are identifying inclusive performance measurement outside the economic indicator (nudurupati et al., 2011). these non-financial measures such as value, recipients’ happiness, and waiting time were calculated. the study of the public sector is a unique research condition (Burgess et al., 2021). in the last five decades, the quantification of performance has always been the core of numerous transformation progressions in the public sector of numerous countries. Performance assessment has been conducted in the past, such as in the 19th century to the implementation of the assessment to the UK and the Usa teachers’ performance (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2009). in the past ten years, public sector organizations in numerous developed countries improved the adoption of performance measurement but decreased other management regulations such as input, guidelines, and parameters. nowadays most developed countries adopt performance measurement for their central public sector organization. the search for efficiency and effectiveness is the driver of performance measurement adoption (newberry, 2020). the efficiency due to the 2008 financial crisis forced numerous governments to be concerned about performance measurement. however, this condition leads to the outlay of other management controls. the government in europe was provoked by and transformed their concern in the assessment of performance measurement (Bracci etal., 2015). numerous academicians have also shown their interest in performance measurement adoption (Budding & helden, 2022). Debate on this topic also occurred such as the argument of the negative effect of performance measurement (van der Kolk, 2022) or the other political agenda (lapsley & Miller, 2019). the positive and negative effects may also occur on organizational policy (speklé & Verbeeten, 2014). Many factors influence the adoption of performance measurements, such as internal stimuli, external stimuli, processes, and changes (Waggoner etal., 1999). two cases of public service organizations in italy showed that one of the two organizations was successful. the problems were the factors of the vision of the organization, internal confrontation, and external impact. the adoption should also calculate the external and internal factors (Bracci et al., 2017) and legal aspects, or there will be confrontation (Barbato & turri, 2017). the process was challenging due to the requirements of the legal and stakeholders. there are numerous transformations in the public sector toward professionalism (Kroll & Proeller, 2013) due to the financial necessity for efficiency. But the performance measurement in the public sector is debatable due to the various stakeholder’s need to satisfy (Borst et al., 2014; Putera et al., 2022b). consequently, the measurement should be complex. then the attempt to design was limited (lee & nowell, 2015). there should be more studies on this topic in the public sector which consider the limitation of the resources, the perspective of the society as the recipients, and the multi stakeholders’ requirements. Performance management facilitates leaders to supervise performance (Kroll & Proeller, 2013). Performance management has three grades of measures when arranging and adopting: (1) the individual measure that conducts the calculation of the efficiency and effectivity of activity; (2) the group of measures that give an understanding of organizational performance; (3) the required infrastructure to accumulate, examine, distribute and implement regarding information and measures (neely etal., 2005). some definitions of performance measurement over time (see Figure 1). this study’s main objective is to find out the research gap on PMF and its antecedents. so, it is critical to limit the concerned theme of the study to be analyzed. 3. Method 3.1. Ethics statement neither approval by the institutional review board nor obtainment of informed consent was required since this was a literature-based study. 3.2. Study design this study uses the bibliometric analysis method with data sources from literature studies from various scientific journals. the primary data used in this research was taken from the scopus database. the author chose the scopus database because it has complete data and is also one of the databases with 4 D. FeBRiYanti etal. the highest rating in various scientific fields. and they are also equipped with various literature studies to improve research accuracy and get the best conclusions (abdillah, Buchari, et al., 2023; abdillah, Widianingsih, etal., 2023; Muhtar etal., 2023). 3.3. Data collection the context of the study literature review is the ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’. the approach applied is a systematic review. a systematic review is an approach to knowing, asses, and constructing the whole related result of the papers discussing specific questions, certain themes, or areas of research (Kitchenham, 2004; Putera et al., 2022a). the researchers retrieved articles from the scopus database that was conducted on 18 January 2023. the research strategy uses scopus data title-aBs-KeY (performance anD measurement anD systems, anD public anD sector). Results from identification and exploration based on 3 criteria relevant is with the topic of performance measurement for public sector organizations which refers to (1) suitability with the research topic; (2) connectedness to the topic of research; and (3) Research implications found or recommended (abdillah, Buchari, et al., 2023; abdillah, Widianingsih, etal., 2023; Muhtar etal., 2023; Putera et al., 2022a). Based on Figure 2, we can see the steps of data collection carried out by researchers, as follows: step 1: identification. the search of document on online bibliometrics. searching for articles was conducted online by the keywords’ performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ in the scopus Preview on January 2023. this step of searching with no restriction year finds 727 documents. step 2: screening. Regarding the title and abstract, the document issued that focus on the’ performance measurement for the public sector’ and ‘the determinants’ were selected. consequently, the number of papers was reduced to 328 documents. Figure 1. Conceptual discussion on performance measurement over time. Source: processed from authors, 2023. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 step 3: eligibility. During the eligibility phase, there were 133 documents selected. these papers examine ‘performance measurement for the public sector’ and ‘the determinants’, from the perspective of sociology, economics, and management. step 4: included. the last step was to select 38 documents that fit the criteria, namely papers examining’ performance measurement for the public sector’ and ‘the determinants’. 3.4. Data analysis this research focused the topic of the study on’ performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’. therefore, prioritizing the study’s topic is’ performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’. the urgency to concern in the research paper analyses’ performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ is crucial to explore the research gap other than the selected issue in contrast to an investigation of the extensive problem. contemplation of the definite extensive theme:’ performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ in other topics’, to make sure this research focuses on the research topic, the selected documents also facilitate the documents related to the application of ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’, in other fields. since ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ comprehends the measurement, selecting articles in other not exclusive to this topic is viewed as needed. this study’s aim paper selection was made by choosing a specific research bibliography. as exposed in Figure 1, the choices from research catalogs were implemented. this study selects the papers from scopus, as those search engines have a broad bibliography collection of the documents. the reliable and relevant exploration papers from those search engines are carefully chosen and analyzed. nevertheless, that method may imply numerous reports and be inefficient in classifying the articles. therefore, to discover the related papers, it is also probable to organize keywords in advance and determine the bases of the documents, such as a specific source, to limit the papers’ results. this research examines the chosen studied articles by implementing depth-paper analyses. this research also analyzed every selected report to a specific phase until we know the core of the research information, objective, and result. afterward, the researchers categorized the papers by types of context: ‘advanced and developing countries’, methodology being conducted which allied to the objectives of the Figure 2. Retrieval process of this study (Putera et al., 2020; Widianingsih et al., 2021). 6 D. FeBRiYanti etal. research, implication, and methodology being implemented by the issue’s papers analyzed. Finally, this paper discussed the theme of those papers. By the stated classification above, it is crucial to boundary the debate of this study, considering the publishers’ and papers’ editions. this research still requires expert perspectives to confirm the study categorization; and tools like information searching and text examination (Walczak & Kellogg, 2015). that explanation describes why a rigid-based paper categorization scheme fits the need of this research (Denyer et al., 2008). Many studies are concerned with performance measurement, such as the program performance as the object to examine (Ferdilan etal., 2021). typology is an ‘organized system of kinds’ that lead to improved thought of complicated facts (collier et al., 2012; Kluge, 2000). But, the lack of clarity and consistency ruins academic research, as well as practical. Description and agreement are critical for any systematic search for knowledge (choong, 2014). Without a compatible and definitive theory, then the study is problematic. nor is it only an ivory tower consideration. Practical adoption is also hindered. to reach this objective, this paper conducted the following phase. it first described performance measurement and state some areas with its implementation, implying that these complications as a result of weak theory at the underlying level. examples of theoretical distractions are noted. afterward, the paper seeks to the categorization pattern, in generic and by analyzing and evaluating some general patterns applied in the research of performance measurement. constructed based on the pattern, a new approach to categorization is constructed on a more proper barometer. this paper concludes by recording the value of the classification and the possible extension. a series of iterative examinations were conducted to assure the validity of the classification, concerning the correlation, similarity, and contrasting, and uniqueness (Kluge, 2000). the finding was what could be organized as a theory rather than an informative classification (collier et al., 2012). 4. Results there are 38 papers about management factors that influence the manifestation of ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ as shown in table 1. the ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’ varies from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method. some management factors that lead to ‘performance measurement’ and ‘public sector’, including in the individual and organization. Most of the papers were conducted in europe and organizational level as the unit analysis. Declaring the unit analysis is crucial in analyzing the data. the unit analysis can be the person or other things, such as individuals, groups, organizations, nations, and skills due to the limitless object of the research (s. Kumar, 2018). there is an almost limitless variety of potential units of analysis in social research. even individuals are the most common unit of study, yet, various research questions can be answered more effectively via the study of other kinds of units. thus, social scientists can study anything that stands on social life. they could be also a person, aggregate level of groups or organizations, the institutions in a special, or cultural and social context (Rosenberg, 1968). John and lofland (1995) divided the unit of analysis into roles, organizations, relationships, and social world. they could be also a person, group, space, and social (Yurdusev, 1993). While in performance measurement research, the unit of analysis commonly on the individual, department, and organization (van der Kolk, 2022). thus, the various units of analysis in this study are the individual and the organization due to the most common unit of analysis are those units of analysis. the scopus search engines led the number with the keywords: ‘performance measurement’, and ‘public sector’, = 727 articles. therefore, the articles were chosen and analyzed due to the correlation of the limitation of the issue. the following phase to narrow the papers was based on the peer-reviewed title, abstract, and duplication. the results were 38 papers. the final step was skimming, scanning, and thoroughly reading the papers that discussed ‘performance measurement for the public sector’. some studies finding in illustrates based on the keyword being applied are not associated with the boundary or context of the theme of the issue, are too far from the correlation to ‘performance measurement for the public sector’, or the article does not discuss this theme were deleted, such as a paper cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 Table 1. Reviewed papers. no author Country, setting unit analysis Performance measurement PM determinant Research method 1Bassani et al. (2022) italy, health organization BsC: financial, customers, internal business process internal factor: 1. top managers; external factors: 1. Political parties, 2. social, 3. Politic, 4. economic, Qualitative-longitudinal case studies 2Betto et al. (2022) global, health organization BsC: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth internal factors: 1. Communication, leadership, support, training 2. incentive method 3. transparency, knowing the strategy, collaboration 4. Participation and commitment 5. organizational culture Qualitative-sLR 3elbashir et al. (2022) australia, government organization na internal factors: 1. support of top management 2. employee capability Quantitative-survey 4J. Kumar etal. (2022) global, public sector organization BsC: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth internal factors: 1. support of top management 2. Communication 3. coordination Qualitative-sLR 5 Malakoane et al. (2022) south africa, health organization 4 aspects of BsC: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth internal factors: 1. service delivery 2. Workforce 3. information systems 4. access to resources 5. Financing system 6. Leadership dan governance Qualitative–action research 6o’neill et al. (2022) Canada, health organization 4 aspects: financial; learning and growth; customers; internal business process internal factors: 1. Mission and vision 2. structure organizational 3. approach of PM 4. timing 5. unobservability indicators external factors: 6. Macro context Qualitative-thematic analysis 7ippolito et al. (2022) italy, health organization na internal factor: 1. technological innovation 2. the involvement of middle management Qualitative -case study 8sardi et al. (2022) italy, government organization 2 aspects: Legitimacy and economic internal factors: 1. Regulation and 2. Managerial needs Qualitative-action research 9sayed et al. (2022) Canada, government organization 5 aspects of BsC adoption: 1). Diversity and growth, 2) customer, 3) internal process, 4) organizational learning and support, 5) financial internal factor: the leadership of the management Qualitativecase study 10 Krupička (2021)Czech, health organization Financial, customer, process, learning, and support internal factor: 1. it support, 2. Communication 3. Manager enggagement Mixed-method 11 stříteská and sein (2021) nordic (sweden, Finland, and norwegian); government organization 4 aspects of BsC: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth internal factor: organizational culture: leadership, communication, reward, and punishment Qualitativecase study (Continued) 14 D. FeBRiYanti etal. the literature on the performance of measurement mostly conducts on the level of the organization, while at the same time, the unit of the individual also influences the result of the performance measurement adoption. Uncalculating the individual aspect as a critical influencing aspect will affect the adoption process, for example, the behavior of individuals who conduct manipulation due to the intervention just concern does not comprise the detail of individual behavior Kalgin (2016). this research suggests comprising the unit of intervention as the fundamental of performance measurement (e.g., organizational, and individual) (Figure 7). the unit of intervention could be divided into two parts: individual and organization. Most of the previous research in table 1 discusses the intervention in the unit of organization. Just a paper examines the performance measurement in the unit of individuals Kalgin (2016) and an article examined from the perspective of individual and organization (Dobija et al., (2019). While the perspective of the intervention on the organization could be based on the organization or individual; or both organization and individual. Furthermore, performance measurement could lead to misinformation if the movement (Kravchuk & schack, 2014; cohen, 2019; cohen et al., 2019) as the organization and individual have their goals. the reasoning is the correlation of among the organization’s movement and the individual goals. the application of individuals should be led by the organization’s goals. Otherwise, the conflict will come up in the case of individual behavior who conduct manipulation due to the intervention just concern do not comprise the detail of individual behavior Kalgin (2016). Besides, when as the previous research stated the fundamental divisions are the level, this research found it insufficient no to dividing the nature of the performance issue being reviewed. this research, then, put the unit of intervention as the fundamental. the next is the level of performance. it is stated that those were arranged in a causal chain which is claimed that the under-level influenced the shift of the upper level. the level of performance is generic enough to be adopted in the entire scope of the public organization. those five levels are divided into five levels (alach, 2017) and need to be validated (Flynn, 1986): 1. the outcome or the intended final condition is the effect of the action applied. an example is the number of smokers. Different public sector organizations may focus on different results, such as those related to health (such as life expectancy), law enforcement (crime rates), or municipal government (economic performance within its jurisdiction), but the goals themselves are universal. 2. the impact is ‘the transitional efforts undertaken to a result by the products provided by the entity’. the public sector experiences a wide variety of effects. 3. the output is ‘the transitional efforts undertaken to a result by the products provided by the entity’. these are the first results from the outputs and are frequently referred to as ‘intermediate outcomes’ to differentiate them from ‘real outcomes’, which are the final alterations. 4. Processes are activities inside the reporting entity that transform inputs into outputs. the results are not shared with any other parties, and the processes are not used elsewhere in the manufacturing process. Planning and budgeting, information technology, and human resources are all examples of procedures that are likely to be highly generalized, despite the fact that they may be used by vastly diverse public sector organizations. 5. input is the operations of the reporting entity to consume inputs in order to generate results or outputs. inputs, like processes, tend to be very standard. the third is the measures of performance. the operations of the reporting entity consume inputs in order to generate results or outputs. inputs, like processes, tend to be very standard. land, labor, and capital are the pillars of conventional economic models; these concepts may be renamed property and infrastructure, personnel, and money in public sector organizations. it’s possible that certain businesses have very distinct needs for their inputs, such as fresh meat for a public sector manufacturing company Figure 7. Proposed typology. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 or fresh produce for a public school. in conclusion, inputs permit processes, which generate results, which have effects, which have consequences, which ultimately lead to outcomes (smith, 1995). the fourth is the target. goals are ‘intended states for quantitative and qualitative performance evaluations’. the target number of surgeries throughout the reporting period and the intended average cost per output are both examples of such information that are readily understandable. in terms of consequences, it’s more convoluted. Desired effects and outcomes are goals, however general they may be since the phrase ‘desired’ indicates an intentional rather than descriptive assertion. however, context is crucial: ‘fewer individuals smoking’ might be an effective measure if it is only an assessment of the present condition, or it could be an effective aim if the reporting entity wants to see fewer smokers. Because they are aimed after rather than just descriptive, all organizational goals may be categorized as targets. this encompasses broader, long-term objectives. goals for the average cost per employee or any other lower-level aim are not clearly distinct from more qualitative goals, such as those found in vision statements. the fifth is realization. the realizations are ‘qualitative and quantitative assessments of states of performance’, to put it simply, actuals are the outcomes that the reporting entity has accomplished in relation to predefined performance metrics. they provide a vivid picture. Despite appearances, typology allows for estimated levels of performance to be included in actuals. the reason for this is that estimates are just another kind of observation, albeit one that relies on old data rather than real-time information. these findings could contribute to the policy maker as the tools to implement performance measurement in their regions. Besides, the findings will be contributing to the theoretical framework of performance measurement at the individual and organizational levels. 6. Implications the theoretical implications in this study offer significant implications for research and theories that contribute to the literature on the development of the concept of performance measurement of public sector organizations. the practical implications of this research as reference material, evaluation and governance in public sector organizations (government). 7. Conclusion this research has analyzed the scholarly research on performance measurement for public sector organizations. the literature review suggests gaps in the study of performance measurement related to based on individual and organizational intervention could influence the impact of organizational performance and could be another future research. it is possible to explore the complexity. nevertheless, the analyses of a fit performance measurement could expose novel understanding from the limited source of insight by applying inclusiveness. in the current literature, the performance measurement adoption could be examined by an individual and organization at the fundamental level. the typology should be based on the unit, level, measures, target, and realization. since there has not been exclusive research about performance measurement adoption in indonesia, future research could discuss the performance measurement adoption in indonesia, and another populous countries such as china, india, or Brazil. this research also suggests the limitation of this paper as the following research opportunity. the current research strategy facilitates the literature review from the scopus Preview database. therefore, due to the research limitation, future research may be enhanced the database from Web of science and google scholar. this research inspires scholars to see this opportunity for the following literature review of the social, cultural, and political context in performance measurement from an inclusive viewpoint. these findings would contribute to future performance measurement and handling of problems related to performance measurement through the knowledge of the current study and the feasibility of public sector organizations. this research sees it crucial for academics to analyze this issue in the following research deeply. such research findings will contribute from practical and theoretical sides. 16 D. FeBRiYanti etal. Disclosure statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). About the authors Doris Febriyanti is a Doctoral student and assistant Professor in the administrative sciences Programme, Faculty of social and Political sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, indonesia. her research interests relate to local government studies, Organization Public sector, and artificial intelligence in government. Ida Widianingsih is a Professor at the Public administration Department and Vice Dean for learning, student, and Research affairs of the Faculty of social and Political sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, indonesia. her research interests relate to public administration and development issues, inclusive development policy, and participatory governance. Asep Sumaryana is a lecturer at the Department of Public administration, Faculty of social and Political sciences, Padjadjaran University, indonesia. his research is related to Dynamic systems, Public Organizations, and Public Management. Rd. Ahmad Buchari is a lecturer at the Public administration Department, Faculty of social and Political sciences, Padjadjaran University, indonesia. his research relates to local government, Public Policy leadership, and Disaster Management. ORCID Doris Febriyanti http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8705-3612 ida Widianingsih http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2472-5236 asep sumaryana http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0254-7387 Rd. ahmad Buchari http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-1336 References abdillah, a., Buchari, R. a., Widianingsih, i., & nurasa, h. (2023). climate change governance for urban resilience for indonesia: a systematic literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.223 5170 abdillah, a., Widianingsih, i., Buchari, R. a., & nurasa, h. (2023). implications of urban farming on urban resilience in indonesia : systematic literature review and research identification. Cogent Food & Agriculture ISSN, 9(1), 2216484. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2216484 agostino, D., steenhuisen, B., arnaboldi, M., & de Bruijn, h. (2014). PMs development in local public transport: comparing Milan and amsterdam. Transport Policy, 33, 26–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.007 alach, Z. (2017). towards a standard conceptual typology of public sector performance measurement. Kotuitui, 12(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2016.1225579 alboushra, M. a., Md shahbudin, a. s., & abdalla, Y. a. (2015). Understanding challenges of performance measurement in a public university: evidence from sudan. Asian Social Science, 11(15), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass. v11n15p10 almeida Prado cestari, J. M., Pinheiro de lima, e., Deschamps, F., Morton Van aken, e., treinta, F., & Moura, l. F. (2018). a case study extension methodology for performance measurement diagnosis in nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Production Economics, 203, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.06.018 audenaert, M., Decramer, a., george, B., Verschuere, B., & Waeyenberg, t. V. (2019). When employee performance management affects individual innovation in public organizations: the role of consistency and lMX. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(5), 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016. 1239220 avby, g., Kjellström, s., & andersson Bäck, M. (2019). tending to innovate in swedish primary health care: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3874-y Barbato, g., salvadori, a., & turri, M. (2018). there’s a lid for every pot! the relationship between performance measurement and administrative activities in italian ministries. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1527965. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1527965 Barbato, g., & turri, M. (2017). Understanding public performance measurement through theoretical pluralism. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/iJPsM-11-2015-0202 Bassani, g., leardini, c., campedelli, B., & Moggi, s. (2022). the dynamic use of a balanced scorecard in an italian public hospital. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 37(3), 1781–1798. https://doi. org/10.1002/hpm.3440 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 17 Betto, F., sardi, a., garengo, P., & sorano, e. (2022). the evolution of balanced scorecard in healthcare: a systematic review of its design, implementation, use, and review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610291 Bititci, U., garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & nudurupati, s. (2012). Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00318.x Borst, R., lako, c., & de Vries, M. (2014). is performance measurement applicable in the public sector? a comparative study of attitudes among Dutch officials. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(13), 922–931. https://doi. org/10.1080/01900692.2014.944988 Bracci, e., humphrey, c., Moll, J., & steccolini, i. (2015). Public sector accounting, accountability and austerity: More than balancing the books? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(6), 878–908. https://doi.org/10.1108/ aaaJ-06-2015-2090 Bracci, e., Maran, l., & inglis, R. (2017). examining the process of performance measurement system design and implementation in two italian public service organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(4), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12131 Budding, t., & helden, J. v. (2022). theme: Politicians’ use of accounting information. editorial: Unraveling politicians’ use and non-use of accounting information. Public Money & Management , 42(3), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09540962.2022.2028467 Burgess, s., Metcalfe, R., & sadoff, s. (2021). Understanding the response to financial and non-financial incentives in education: Field experimental evidence using high-stakes assessments. Economics of Education Review, 85, 102195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102195 carlucci, D., schiuma, g., & sole, F. (2014). the adoption and implementation of performance measurement process in italian public organisations: the influence of political, cultural and rational factors. Production Planning & Control, 26(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.906678 cepiku, D., hinna, a., scarozza, D., & savignon, a. B. (2017). Performance information use in public administration: an exploratory study of determinants and effects. Journal of Management & Governance, 21(4), 963–991. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10997-016-9371-3 chenhall, R. h., hall, M., & smith, D. (2017). the expressive role of performance measurement systems: a field study of a mental health development project. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aos.2014.11.002 choong, K. K. (2013). Understanding the features of performance measurement system: a literature review. In Measuring Business Excellence, 17(4), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBe-05-2012-0031 choong, K. K. (2014). the fundamentals of performance measurement systems: a systematic approach to theory and a research agenda. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(7), 879–922. https://doi. org/10.1108/iJPPM-01-2013-0015 cohen, h. B. (2019). an inconvenient truth about leadership development. Organizational Dynamics, 48), (1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.10.002 cohen, s., Manes Rossi, F., caperchione, e., & Brusca, i. (2019). local government administration systems and local government accounting information needs: is there a mismatch? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(4), 708–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317748732 collier, D., laPorte, J., & seawright, J. (2012). Putting typologies to work: concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162 Denyer, D., tranfield, D., & van aken, J. e. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020 Dobija, D., górska, a. M., grossi, g., & strzelczyk, W. (2019). Rational and symbolic uses of performance measurement: experiences from Polish universities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(3), 750–781. https://doi. org/10.1108/aaaJ-08-2017-3106 Domokos, l., & szolnoki, D. W. (2020). audit performance measurement model and the main areas of performance management. Pénzügyi Szemle = Public Finance Quarterly, 65(special issue), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.35551/PFQ_2020_s_1_1 effectiveness of entrepreneur Development Program training, chennai. (2018). A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master of Business Administration of Pondicherry University. submitted by Mr. sakthinarayanan. elbashir, M. Z., sutton, s. g., arnold, V., & collier, P. a. (2022). leveraging business intelligence systems to enhance management control and business process performance in the public sector. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(4), 914–940. https://doi.org/10.1108/MeDaR-04-2021-1287 Ferdilan, R., Dhewanto, W., & Rustiadi, s. (2021). evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: a systematic literature review. JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi Dan Manajemen, 18(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.31106/ jema.v18i2.11461 Ferreira, a., & Otley, D. (2009). the design and use of performance management systems: an extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003 Flynn, n. (1986). Performance measurement in public sector services. Policy & Politics, 14(3), 389–404. https://doi. org/10.1332/030557386782628172 garcía-aracil, a., & Palomares-Montero, D. (2010). examining benchmark indicator systems for the evaluation of higher education institutions. Higher Education, 60(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9296-8 18 D. FeBRiYanti etal. george, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? a meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13104 hofstede, g. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 hofstede, g. (2018). National culture. hofstede insights. hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003 ippolito, a., sorrentino, M., capalbo, F., & di Pietro, a. (2022). how technological innovations in performance measurement systems overcome management challenges in healthcare. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 1(1), 1. John, l., & lofland, l. (1995). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. thomson Wadsworth. Johnsen, Å. (2005). What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management? Public Money and Management, 25(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302. 2005.00445.x Jurnali, t., & siti-nabiha, a. K. (2015). Performance management system for local government: the indonesian experience. Global Business Review, 16(3), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915569923 Kalgin, a. (2016). implementation of performance management in regional government in Russia: evidence of data manipulation. Public Management Review, 18(1), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.965271 Kallio, t. J., Kallio, K. M., & Blomberg, a. (2020). From professional bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy – redefining universities’ organization principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for being. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17(1), 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRaM-10-2019-0111 Kaplan, R. s., & norton, D. P. (1992). the balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79. Keser Ozmantar, Z., & gedikoglu, t. (2016). Design principles for the development of the balanced scorecard. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1108/iJeM-01-2015-0005 Kitchenham, B. (2004). NICTA technical report: Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Vol. 33). Keele University. Kloot, l., & Martin, J. (2000). strategic performance management: a balanced approach to performance management issues in local government. Management Accounting Research, 11(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/ mare.2000.0130 Klovienė, R., gimžauskienė, e., stravinskienė, J., & Misiūnas, D. (2016). Measuring performance: case of lithuanian municipalities. Engineering Economics, 27(2), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.2.14333 Kluge, s. (2000). empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), 14. Kravchuk, R. s., & schack, R. W. (2014). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the government performance and results act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348. https://doi. org/10.2307/976376 Kroll, a., & Proeller, i. (2013). Managing and measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations: an integrated approach. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513551311293435 Krupička, J. (2021). the performance management design in public hospitals: a case study. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(1), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0005 Kumar, J., Prince, n., & Baker, h. K. (2022). Balanced scorecard: a systematic literature review and future research issues. FIIB Business Review, 11(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211049625 Kumar, s. (2018). Understanding different issues of unit of analysis in a business research journal of general ManageMent research. Journal of General Management Research, 5, 70–82. lapsley, i., & Miller, P. (2019). transforming the public sector: 1998–2018. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2211–2252. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaJ-06-2018-3511 lee, c., & nowell, B. (2015). a framework for assessing the performance of nonprofit organizations. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014545828 lemire, M., Demers-Payette, O., & Jefferson-Falardeau, J. (2013). Dissemination of performance information and continuous improvement: a narrative systematic review. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 27(4), 449– 478. https://doi.org/10.1108/JhOM-08-2011-0082 leotta, a., & Ruggeri, D. (2017). Performance measurement system innovations in hospitals as translation processes. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 955–978. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaJ-01-2014-1580 lewis, J. M. (2015). the politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society, 34(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.001 Malakoane, B., heunis, J. c., chikobvu, P., Kigozi, n. g., & Kruger, W. h. (2022). improving public health sector service delivery in the Free state, south africa: Development of a provincial intervention model. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07777-x Martello, M., Watson, J. g., & Fischer, M. J. (2016). implementing a balanced scorecard in a not-for-profit organization. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 14(3), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i3.9746 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 19 Mättö, t., anttonen, J., Järvenpää, M., & Rautiainen, a. (2020). legitimacy and relevance of a performance measurement system in a Finnish public-sector case. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRaM-04-2018-0027 Mauro, s. g. (2019). Public sector performance-based budgeting in italy. in governance and public management (pp. 125–140). springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02077-4_6 Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034 Mouchamps, h. (2014). Weighing elephants with kitchen scales: the relevance of traditional performance measurement tools for social enterprises. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(6), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1108/iJPPM-09-2013-0158 Moura, l. F., Pinheiro de lima, e., Deschamps, F., M. Van aken, e., gouvea Da costa, s. e., tavares treintaa, F., almeida Prado cestari, J. M., & assumpção silva, R. (2020). Factors for performance measurement systems design in nonprofit organizations and public administration. Measuring Business Excellence, 24(3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MBe-10-2019-0102 Moxham, c. (2009). Performance measurement: examining the applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(7), 740–763. https://doi. org/10.1108/01443570910971405 Muhtar, e. a., abdillah, a., Widianingsih, i., & adikancana, Q. M. (2023). smart villages, rural development and community vulnerability in indonesia: a bibliometric analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2219118. https://doi.org/10. 1080/23311886.2023.2219118 Murphy, K. R. (2019). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259 narayan, a. K. (2020). the development and use of performance measures in new Zealand tertiary education institutions. Accounting History, 25(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1032373219842383 ndevu, Z. J., & Muller, K. (2018). Operationalising performance management in local government: the use of the balanced scorecard. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v16i0.977 neely, a., gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263. https://doi. org/10.1108/01443570510633639 newberry, s. (2020). Policy conflict: the influence of fiscal targets on reform of new Zealand’s natural disaster fund. Financial Accountability & Management, 36(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12232 nudurupati, s. s., Bititci, U. s., Kumar, V., & chan, F. t. s. (2011). state of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 60(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.11.010 O’neill, M., de Prophetis, e., allin, s., Pinto, a. D., smith, R. W., di Ruggiero, e., schwartz, R., Pawa, J., ammi, M., & Rosella, l. c. (2022). “We cobble together a storyline of system performance using a diversity of things”: a qualitative study of perspectives on public health performance measurement in canada. Archives of Public Health, 80(1), 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00931-1 Poli, M., cornolti, D., Pardini, s., & iervasi, g. (2018). how and why to implement a performance management system in public research institutions: the approach and the experience of a large multidisciplinary italian centre. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3), 757–772. https://doi.org/10.18421/iJQR12.03-13 Pollitt, c., & Bouckaert, g. (2009). Continuity and change in public policy and management. elgar. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781849802291 Pudovkin, a. i., & garfield, e. (2002). algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10153 Putera, P. B., suryanto, s., ningrum, s., Widianingsih, i., & Rianto, Y. (2022a). three decades of discourse on science, technology and innovation in national innovation system: a bibliometric analysis (1990 – 2020). Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2109854 Putera, P. B., Widianingsih, ida., ningrum, s., suryanto, s., & Rianto, Yan. (2022b). Overcoming the cOViD-19 Pandemic in indonesia: a science, technology, and innovation (sti) policy perspective. Health Policy and Technology, 11(3), 100650.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100650 PMc: 35813992 Putera, P. B., suryanto, s., ningrum, s., & Widianingsih, i. (2020). a bibliometric analysis of articles on innovation systems in scopus journals written by authors from indonesia, singapore, and Malaysia. Science Editing, 7(2), 177– 183. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.214 Rainey, h. g., & Jung, c. s. (2015). a conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu040 Rajala, t., laihonen, h., & haapala, P. (2018). Why is dialogue on performance challenging in the public sector? Measuring Business Excellence, 22(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBe-06-2017-0032 Rana, t., hoque, Z., & Jacobs, K. (2019). Public sector reform implications for performance measurement and risk management practice: insights from australia. Public Money & Management, 39(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9540962.2017.1407128 Reda, n. W. (2017). Balanced scorecard in higher education institutions: congruence and roles to quality assurance practices. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(4), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/Qae-09-2015-0038 20 D. FeBRiYanti etal. Robert, M., giuliani, P., & gurau, c. (2020). implementing industry 4. 0 real-time performance management systems: the case of schneider electric. Production Planning & Control, 33(2–3), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287. 2020.1810761 Rosenberg, M. (1968). Introduction: ‘The meaning of relationships’, from the logic of survey analysis (4th ed., Vol. 6). Basic Books inc., Publishers. sardi, a., sorano, e., giovando, g., & tradori, V. (2022). Performance measurement and management system 4.0: an action research study in investee nPOs by local government. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(4), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.1108/iJPPM-10-2021-0607 sarr, M. s., Diallo, a. M., & King-Okumu, c. (2022). a review of public versus private reforestation programs in the senegalese sahel: taking stock of realities and challenges. Restoration Ecology, 30(5), e13582. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.13582 sayed, n., lento, c., & henderson, M. (2022). application of the Balanced scorecard for strategy reformulation: Perspectives from a canadian municipality. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’Administration, 39(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1644 simonet, D. (2020). the quest for a better performing health system: Public expertise and corporate management recipes in France. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1), e1985. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1985 singh, s. K., gupta, s., Busso, D., & Kamboj, s. (2023). top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 128(august), 788–798. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040 sitopu, Y. B., sitinjak, K. a., & Marpaung, F. K. (2021). the influence of motivation, work discipline, and compensation on employee performance. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 1(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.52970/ grhrm.v1i2.79 siverbo, s., cäker, M., & Åkesson, J. (2019). conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1801–1823. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577906 smith, P. (1990). the use of performance indicators in the public sector. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 153(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983096 smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699508525011 sofyani, h., akbar, R., & Ferrer, R. c. (2018). 20 Years of performance measurement system (PMs) implementation in indonesian local governments: Why is their performance still poor? Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 11(1), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.22452/ajba.vol11no1.6 speklé, R. F., & Verbeeten, F. h. M. (2014). the use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: effects on performance. Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.004 srimai, s. (2015). Performance agreement in thai public sectors a call for reconsideration at the provincial level. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1108/ iJPPM-06-2013-0112 steccolini, i. (2019). accounting and the post-new public management: Re-considering publicness in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaJ-03-2018-3423 stříteská, M. K., & sein, Y. Y. (2021). Performance driven culture in the public sector: the case of nordic countries. Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010004 syachbrani, W., & akbar, R. (2020). The influence factors of the development of performance measurement systems in Indonesia central government [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the international conference on industrial engineering and Operations Management, august. ter Bogt, h. J., Jan Van helden, g., & van der Kolk, B. (2015). challenging the nPM ideas about performance management: selectivity and differentiation in outcome-oriented performance budgeting. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12058 Valentinov, V. (2011). the meaning of nonprofit organization: insights from classical institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(4), 901–916. https://doi.org/10.2753/Jei0021-3624450408 Van der Kolk, B. (2022). Performance measurement in the public sector: Mapping 20 years of survey research. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(4), 703–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12345 Waggoner, D. B., neely, a. D., & Kennerley, M. P. (1999). Forces that shape organisational performance measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, 53–60. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00201-1 Walczak, s., & Kellogg, D. l. (2015). a heuristic text analytic approach for classifying research articles. Intelligent Information Management, 07(01), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2015.71002 Widianingsih, i., Paskarina, c., Riswanda, R., & Putera, P. B. (2021). evolutionary study of watershed governance research: a bibliometric analysis. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(4), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/019426 2X.2021.1926401 Yurdusev, n. (1993). level of analysis’ and “unit of analysis” a case for distinction. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 22(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298930220010601 Zheng, Y., Wang, W., liu, W., & Mingers, J. (2019). a performance management framework for the public sector: the balanced stakeholder model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 70(4), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/01 605682.2018.1448247