Description
Summary:
After reading the paper, “The implementation and use of benchmarking in local government: A case study of the translation of a management accounting innovation”, In a single Word document, minimum 7 full pages (not including cover page and citations), using appropriate APA, answer the following questions. Use the questions as section headings.
Identify the most important elements of Benchmarking in the case
Identify the key issue or issues one must consider when benchmarking best practices for evaluating and implementing
Identify 2 potential issues with implementing best practices (benchmarking) and make recommendations.
To demonstrate effective analytical and communication skills, explain how you would communicate the importance of benchmarking and the implementation of best practice to senior leadership.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2), May 2014, 0267-4424
The Implementation and Use of
Benchmarking in Local Government:
A Case Study of the Translation of a
Management Accounting Innovation
SVEN SIVERBO∗
Abstract: Benchmarking is a management accounting innovation (MAI) that can
be used for performance measurement and management in both the private and
the public sectors. Although public sector accounting researchers have reported
some success with the use of benchmarking, frequently charged problems exist in
implementing and using this management technique. To look beyond the technical
and institutional explanations, this paper takes a translation approach and presents
a case study of a local government benchmarking network. We conclude that there is
a link between benchmarking implementation problems and initiators’ failure to build
a strong network of benchmarking allies. Implementation is facilitated if actors,
other than the initiators, recognize the possibility of making benchmarking more
relevant and less cost focused. However, even when a network of actors has a
favourable attitude towards benchmarking, benchmarking may still appear as an
unruly ‘actant’. Furthermore, the perception of implementation failure and success
is heterogeneous and connected to various actors’ adoption of benchmarking. We
also conclude that there is a connection between the use of benchmarking and 1)
actors’ possibilities to use benchmarking in the struggle for resources and 2) the
perception of benchmarking information as ‘factual’ or ‘factual enough’. However,
the perception of benchmarking information as ‘factual’ or ‘factual enough’ seems
not only a matter of correct or incorrect ratios but also of whether such information
serves actors’ interests. A final conclusion is that the use of benchmarking increases
when actors other than the initiators complement the original idea and ‘counter
interest’ the initiators.
Keywords: benchmarking, management accounting innovation, public sector, local
government, translation, use, implementation
∗
The author is from Karlstad Business School at Karlstad University.
Address for correspondence: Sven Siverbo, Karlstad Business School at Karlstad University,
651 88 Karlstad, Sweden.
e-mail: [email protected]
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
121
122
SIVERBO
INTRODUCTION
Benchmarking is a management accounting innovation (MAI) that can be used
for performance measurement and improvement in both the private and public
sectors. It can be used to compare performance (e.g., costs, productivity or
results) and processes. In the private sector, benchmarking is one of the most
adopted and popular management techniques (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007). In
the public sector, interest in benchmarking in the last decade has greatly
increased in several countries. One aspect of this interest is the external use of
benchmarking, that is, organizations’ use of various ratios to compare their units’
performance with similar units in other organizations (Northcott and Llewellyn,
2003). The United Kingdom is at the forefront of this movement. The British
government has used benchmarking since the end of the 1990s to control and
stimulate performance improvement at the local government level and in health
care organizations (Broadbent et al., 1999; Bowerman and Ball, 2000; Bowerman
et al., 2002; Jackson and Lapsley, 2003; and Northcott and Llewellyn, 2005).
Public authorities in many other countries are also involved in benchmarking
activities. Among these countries are the United States (Dorsch and Yasin,
1998; and Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004), New Zealand (Broadbent et al., 1999),
the Netherlands (de Bruijn and van Helden, 2006; and ter Bogt, 2008), Norway
(Johnsen, 2007; and Askim et al., 2008), Denmark (Triantafillou, 2007) and
Sweden (Siverbo and Johansson, 2006; and Johansson and Siverbo, 2009).
Although some researchers have reported success by users of benchmarking
and similar techniques (see Bowerman and Ball, 2000; Lapsley and Wright,
2004; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005; Siverbo and Johansson, 2006; Askim et al.,
2008; and Johnsen, 2007), other researchers have frequently observed problems
in their implementation and use (see Bowerman and Ball, 2000; Ammons et al.,
2001; Northcott and Llewellyn, 2003; Askim, 2004; Northcott and Llewellyn,
2005; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005; Johnsen, 2005; Pollit, 2006; Östergren,
2006; Triantafillou, 2007; Askim et al., 2008; and Johansson and Siverbo, 2009).
This situation is similar to that facing other MAIs in the public sector (see, for
example, Preston et al., 1992; Chua, 1995; Geiger and Ittner, 1996; de Lancer
Julnes and Holtzer, 2001; Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; ter Bogt, 2004; and
Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010) and MAIs in general (see, for example, Gosselin,
1997; Langfield-Smith, 2008; and Otley, 2008).
In previous research on benchmarking in the public sector, problems with
the use of this technique are largely explained as technical problems, as poor
implementation strategies and even as commitment problems (see a literature
review in Siverbo and Johansson, 2006). Arnaboldi and Azzone (2010) present
similar reasoning about performance measurement systems in the public sector.
In general, this research, which takes an upper management perspective,
reveals a lack of interest in social and political factors and in how the MAI
unfolds over time (cf. Modell, 2007; and Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010). To some
extent, New Institutional Sociological (NIS) theory has been used to explain
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF BENCHMARKING
123
the implementation and use of performance measurement and management.
Although several studies have supported the NIS explanation (e.g., Geiger and
Ittner, 1996; Gosselin, 1997; de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001; Cavalluzzo and
Ittner, 2004; van Dooren, 2005; and Johansson and Siverbo, 2009), the theory has
been criticized for its silence on micro dynamics, that is, the interplay between
different institutional logics, rationality, agency and power (Modell, 2009).
Therefore, in this paper we use a translation approach to increase the
understanding of the implementation and use of benchmarking in public sector
organizations (PSOs). On a general level, a translation approach means that
a critical and sociological perspective is the point of departure in the research
(Baxter and Chua, 2003). An axiom in this research is that the popularity
of an innovation is less the result of its technical characteristics or contextual
conditions and more the result of the translation process that involves a complex
and unpredictable interaction between the innovation and the actors who have
changeable interests and identities (Briers and Chua, 2001; Baxter and Chua,
2003; and Alcouffe et al., 2008).
In this paper, we view the introduction of a MAI not as a neutral activity
but rather as an attempt by an actor or actor group to maintain or improve
organizational position. A distinguishing feature of MAIs is that, by their
creation of inscriptions, they have the potential to change the way organizational
reality is constructed (Robson, 1992). Thus MAIs are likely to provoke
controversy and cause power struggles that affect their implementation and use
(Baxter and Chua, 2003; and Alcouffe et al., 2008). The translation approach
provides a useful theoretical ‘lens’ for explaining interrelated organizational
and technological phenomena that occur when MAIs are adopted in PSOs
(Papadopoulos et al., 2011). With the translation approach as our starting point,
we focus less on the technical efficacy of benchmarking or on the conditions
in the implementation process per se (the foci in previous research) and focus
more on if and how benchmarking is ‘made to be good’ (Briers and Chua, 2001,
p. 266).
In addition to increasing our understanding of benchmarking implementation
and use, our approach is a response to the challenge to improve the general
understanding of the use of MAIs in PSOs (Lapsley and Pallot, 2000; de Lancer
Julnes and Holzer, 2001; and Jackson and Lapsley, 2003) as well as complement
earlier MAI studies on budgeting (Preston et al., 1992; and Ezzamel, 1994), DRGbased accounting (Chua, 1995; and Lowe, 2001a and 2001c), ABC (Briers and
Chua, 2001; and Alcouffe et al., 2008), Juran’s cost of quality technique (Emsley,
2008), standard costing (Lowe and Koh, 2007) and performance measurement
(Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010) that also use the translation approach.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we present
the theoretical framework that defines relevant core concepts and describes the
translation approach. In the third section, we describe our method, and in the
fourth section we present and analyse our results. In the last section, we discuss
and present our conclusions.
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
124
SIVERBO
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Benchmarking: Definition and Design Elements
In an extensive literature review, Francis and Holloway (2007, p.184) identify
some basic features of benchmarking:
At its most basic, benchmarking can be conceived as a means of sharing good practice,
which has been validated in certain organizational contexts and which logic suggests
may bring benefits elsewhere.
Moriarty and Smallman (2009, p. 498) also provide some clarification by defining
benchmarking as:
an exemplar driven teleological process operating within an organization with the
objective of intentionally changing an existing state of affairs into a superior state of
affairs.
In order to analyse how benchmarking evolves in a local context, it is necessary
to have a rough understanding of the ‘original’ idea, that is, which design
elements (Bjørnenak and Olson, 1999) to expect in benchmarking. Due to
the variety of benchmarking concepts, it is difficult to find such a standard
or original idea for benchmarking. However, for analytical purposes we need
to develop a provisional public sector ‘original’, that is, a description of public
sector benchmarking design elements derived from the literature.
Public Sector Benchmarking
Under normal conditions, PSOs do not compete against each other (however, see
Northcott and Llewellyn, 2005). The lack of market pressure and competition
provides PSOs with both the opportunity and the motivation to search for best
practices among themselves (van Helden and Tillema, 2005; Northcott and
Llewellyn, 2005; and Andersen et al., 2008). Since PSOs have no trade secrets,
easy access to their information and permission to copy their exemplars are
expected (Bowerman et al., 2002). Thus the benchmarking features of internal
benchmarking (no secrets) and functional benchmarking (learning from exemplars)
(Moriarty and Smallman, 2009) are associated with PSOs. According to the
general understanding among benchmarking researchers, a combination of
internal and functional benchmarking results in a two-step benchmarking
model that begins with performance benchmarking and is followed by process
benchmarking (Elnathan et al., 1996; Wolfram Cox et al., 1997; Bhutta and
Huq, 1999; Magd and Curry, 2003; Lee et al., 2006; Francis and Holloway, 2007;
Alstete 2008; Andersen et al., 2008; and Moriarty and Smallman, 2009).
Performance benchmarking, which assesses performance, is the activity that
potentially identifies a performance gap (the difference between individual
achievement and exemplars’ achievement). A critical decision is the selection of
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF BENCHMARKING
125
measures that must be tailored to the needs of the individual organization or
department (Gunasekaran, 2005). For comparisons, these measures are often
presented as ratios (Triantafillou, 2007). Obviously, many ratios may be used
for PSOs. Furthermore, the opinion of what a good ratio is seems to change
over time. In the era of Progressive Public Administration (PPA), the emphasis
was on probity. This emphasis was reflected in holding managers accountable
for costs and procedures (Hood, 1995; and Broadbent et al., 1999). In that era,
the main interest was cost ratios (resources committed to an activity) and activity
ratios (how the activity was performed, for example, by using staff-to-client ratios
or formal competences). In the early 1990s, New Public Management (NPM)
replaced PPA in many countries. NPM is a more corporate-like management
style that, among other things, advocates increased interest in and accountability
for outputs and outcomes (Hood, 1995). In this environment, PSOs increasingly
complement the traditional cost and activity measurements with output and
outcome measurements (Broadbent et al., 1999; Pallot, 2001; Wang and Berman,
2001; Lapsley and Wright, 2004; ter Bogt, 2004 and 2008; Northcott and
Llewellyn, 2005; and Hoque, 2008). Based on this reasoning, we can identify
four kinds of ratios, or (sub)design elements (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Expected Design Elements in Public Sector Benchmarking
Performance benchmarking/Ratio comparisons
Cost ratios
Activity
ratios
Output
ratios
Outcome
ratios
Process benchmarking
Learning ‘good practice’ from
others, e.g., study visits
Process benchmarking is the activity in which organizations learn to narrow their
performance gaps through investigation of exemplars’ processes, for instance, by
study visits (Gunasekaran, 2005; and Alstete, 2008). Benchmarking researchers
generally agree that if the benchmarking process ends with performance
benchmarking, organizations learn little about improving their operations (see,
e.g., Northcott and Llewellyn, 2005; and Alstete, 2008). Some researchers even
argue that without process benchmarking aimed at improving activities through
learning from others, it is improper to speak of ‘true’ benchmarking (Alstete,
2008). Several UK researchers who implicitly or explicitly advocate the two-step
model have noted the risks and problems with only collecting data and publishing
league tables (Longbottom, 2000; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005; Northcott
and Llewellyn, 2005; and Francis and Holloway, 2007). Consequently, we may
expect public sector benchmarking to contain the design elements presented in
Figure 1.
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
126
SIVERBO
MAI Adoption, Implementation and Use
Various frameworks and conceptualisations have been developed to describe the
stages a MAI must pass through before it can be expected to be effective and
before it can be considered as taken-for-granted in an organization (Leseure
et al., 2004; and Modell, 2007). To support the analysis in this paper, we
distinguish between adoption, implementation and use (cf. Johnsen and Vakkuri,
2006; and Johnsen, 2007). Adoption refers to the formal or informal decisions an
actor group makes to commence implementation of a MAI, presumably after an
encounter with the global idea; implementation refers to how the MAI thereafter
is conceptualised, designed, developed and tested until it is ready for full-scale
use; and use refers to how the MAI is used in practice.
As stated in the Introduction, accounting researchers have frequently observed
problems in benchmarking implementation and use. Researchers have made
the same observation about other MAIs in both the public and the private
sectors. In a literature review, Siverbo and Johansson (2006) note that technical
problems and poor implementation strategies are major causes of such problems
although commitment problems in some degree also inhibit the realization of
benchmarking goals. The research on public sector performance measurement
systems also presents such technological, functionalistic and implementation
strategy-related explanations (Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010). This research,
which is often biased towards an upper management perspective, is silent
on how social and political factors affect the evolution of MAIs (cf. Modell,
2007; and Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010). Calls have been issued for more
theoretically informed research that preferably takes non-mainstream and/or
critical perspectives (Francis and Holloway, 2007; Moriarty and Smallman, 2009;
and Arnaboldi and Azzone, 2010).
Some accounting researchers have answered this call; however, their response
has not explicitly focused on benchmarking. An institutional theory perspective
has been used to study implementation and use issues related to performance
measurement and management. A standard observation in accounting studies
based in NIS theory is that organizations sometimes do not follow through
on their MAI adoption; instead, they are satisfied merely with a superficial
adoption that makes them appear modern and rational (Meyer and Rowan,
1977/1977). Although several studies support the contribution NIS theory makes
(e.g., Geiger and Ittner, 1996; Gosselin, 1997; de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001;
Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; van Dooren, 2005; and Johansson and Siverbo,
2009), the theory’s perspective has been criticized as too limiting. A common
criticism is that a perspective based in NIS theory, with its focus on institutional
pressures and legitimacy, does not explain the reality in organizations that
seemingly decouple adoption from implementation and use. The NIS perspective
has problems with micro dynamics, that is, the interplay between different
institutional logics, rationality, agency and power (Modell, 2009). Although
efforts have been made to fill the gaps in the institutional explanation,
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF BENCHMARKING
127
researchers have suggested that NIS should be complemented (Modell, 2009) or
substituted (Lounsbury, 2008) by a translation approach. In the following section
we describe the translation approach and how it contributes to the understanding
of benchmarking implementation and use.
A Translation Approach
In order to understand what happens in organizations that adopt benchmarking,
it is important to realize that organizations develop their own versions of
MAIs. Latour (1986/1986) states that artefacts – for example, MAIs such as
benchmarking – have no diffusion power of their own but live on the energy
supplied by users who adapt them to their own needs. MAIs do not spread in
unchanged forms among passive users; they are translated locally by adaptation
to local conditions, interests and preferences. The approach means that a
MAI is created in an on-going, complex interaction among structure, actors,
organization form and the prevailing situation (cf. Preston et al., 1992; Chua,
1995; Lowe, 2001b; and Mennicken, 2008). In research, this approach has
different labels, including the ‘Latourian approach’ (Baxter and Chua, 2003),
the ‘Sociology of translation’ (Chua, 1995; and Modell, 2009) and ‘Actor Network
Theory (ANT)’ (Briers and Chua, 2001; Lowe, 2001b and 2001c; and Emsley,
2008). Some researchers argue that ANT is a more controversial version of
the approach since it recognizes non-human actors, the so-called actants (see
e.g., Chua, 1995; Briers and Chua, 2001; and Lowe, 2001b and 2001c). To date,
accounting researchers have been quite reluctant to treat actors and actants
symmetrically, that is, to treat natural and social objects as equals (Lowe, 2001c).
One important principle of the translation approach is that management
accounting has the potential to create organizations’ reality (Preston et al., 1992;
Robson, 1992; Chua, 1995; and Lowe, 2001b and 2001c). Accounting visualizes
facts or inscriptions with inherent persuasive powers, which, among other
things, allows it to control actors from a distance (Preston et al., 1992; Robson,
1992; Chua, 1995; and Lowe, 2001c). In this way, management accounting can
influence behaviour, which, according to some researchers, makes it a nonhuman actor or actant (Briers and Chua, 2001; Lowe, 2001b; and Alcouffe
et al., 2008) that is therefore somewhat out of the control of actors (Lowe,
2001c). The translation approach directs the researcher to investigate how
management accounting contributes to creating organizations’ reality and how
MAIs can change widely held views about reality. The translation approach
involves deciding to what extent benchmarking information is perceived as fact,
and, consequently, what effect benchmarking has (cf. Preston et al., 1992; Chua,
1995; Briers and Chua, 2001; and Lowe, 2001b). However, this fact building is
intimately connected to various actors’ interests:
[I]t is when new accounting technologies can hold diverse ‘facts’ and interests together,
stabilise them (temporarily), that these ‘facts’ will start to become ‘true’ (Briers and
Chua, 2001, p. 267).
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
128
SIVERBO
Nevertheless, although powerful interests may influence what is perceived as
true, the possibilities for actors to control accounting systems may be limited.
According to Lowe (2001c), accounting soon escapes the grasp of actors and
starts to produce unintended consequences:
This line of theorizing would look to explain less as a result of human agency and more
as a result of the impact of relatively independent and unfettered accounting systems
(Lowe, 2001c, p. 85).
In researching accounting this means that accounting systems and techniques need
to be considered as equals with the human actors in our studies of organizational
interaction. The implication is that rather than looking always for a human or super
human interest to explain what we find in organizations, we need to look for more
mundane explanations based upon the intimacy of the bonds between people and
technology (Lowe, 2001c, p. 94).
Another important principle in the translation approach is that a MAI is
neither adopted nor implemented in a rational process. Instead, a MAI is the
result of a complex, political process of power struggles among actors with
different interests (Preston et al., 1992; Chua, 1995; Briers and Chua, 2001;
Lowe, 2001b; and Alcouffe et al., 2008). MAIs are not stable, unchangeable
standards but rather mouldable, half-filled packages that actors in organizations
fill with content (Røvik, 1998/1998). The success of a MAI depends less on its
inherent qualities and more on the outcome of the related negotiations and
power struggles among actors with conflicting interests (Preston et al., 1992;
Chua, 1995; and Mennicken, 2008). Actors who support the use of a MAI often
try to strengthen and consolidate their position in the organization; therefore
they have to deal with resistance from other actors (Ezzamel, 1994). Battles and
trials of strength arise in which advocates for an innovation must fight various
counter actors on various fronts (Preston et al., 1992; and Alcouffe et al., 2008).
Some actors believe that because MAIs are often adjusted or changed in
the translation process, they are then distorted. However, this distortion may
be necessary since the alternative is that other actors in the organization will
disassociate themselves from the MAI (Chua, 1995; and Røvik, 1998/1998).
Using different conceptualizations, several researchers have tried to describe
what occurs in the translation process. In this paper, we use the conceptualization originally developed by Callon (1986) in which the translation process
is divided into four (overlapping) ‘moments’: problematization, interessement,
enrolment and mobilization. Some accounting researchers (Ezzamel, 1994;
Skærbæk and Melander, 2004 and 2007; and Alcouffe et al., 2008) have used this
conceptualization although their interpretations differ slightly from Callon’s.1
This paper generally builds on and extends Callon’s conceptualization using
these interpretations from accounting research that are adapted to the research
on MAIs.
Problematization is the moment when an initiating actor’s (the initiator) tries
to define other actors’ problems, objectives and interests, and to make a
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF BENCHMARKING
129
MAI (suitable to that actor’s interests) indispensible. In the problematization
moment, the initiator identifies the relevant actors and demonstrates that it is
in their interests to adopt the MAI. The primary aim of initiators, who try to
establish associations between themselves and other actors, is to make the MAI
an obligatory passage point, that is, a unique and well defined practice that they
control and that other actors must follow (Ezzamel, 1994). In benchmarking,
this practice means participating in the benchmarking work and using the
information it produces.
Interessement is the moment when the initiator tries to attach other actors to the
problematization. For the initiator, an important task is to obstruct competing
problematizations posed by other initiators. This trial of strength may require
force, seduction and/or solicitation. If successful, it confirms the validity of the
problematization and of the tentative alliances.
Enrolment is the moment when the alliances are firmly established although a
successful interessement may not necessarily create alliances. Enrolment means
that actors accept their roles. In benchmarking, this means that the actors accept
benchmarking as an obligatory passage point and act in accordance with their
roles in the benchmarking process. Callon (1986, p. 211) writes:
Interessement achieves enrolment if it is successful. To describe enrolment is thus
to describe the group of multilateral negotiations, trials of strength and tricks that
accompany the interessements and enable them to succeed.
This process results in networks of actors with the same interests.
Mobilization is the moment when initiators take on the role of spokesmen for
all actors. As spokesmen, they speak and act for these other actors. Mobilization
means enrolment is transformed into active support for the initiator and the
MAI.
Successful translation means MAIs become obligatory passage points and,
eventually, if the actor network is stable, part of the taken-for-granted practices
of the organization – the MAI is ‘black boxed’ (cf. Lowe, 2001b). From the
perspective of the translation approach, the most important success criterion is
an extensive network of MAI advocates and users (Alcouffe et al., 2008).
In summary, organizations that adopt a MAI such as benchmarking initiate a
translation process. The implementation and use of benchmarking is typically a
complex and unpredictable process where the benchmarking idea is moulded in
the interaction between the idea and the actors who have changeable interests
and preferences. Power struggles among actors result because benchmarking
is not a neutral technique but rather a technique that primarily serves the
interests of the initiators. Benchmarking, with its potential for creating reality,
may pose a threat to various actors because comparisons can indicate which
actors perform well which do not.
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
130
SIVERBO
METHOD
We chose the case study method for this study because it is well suited to
obtaining an in-depth understanding of how organizations ‘experiment’ with new
accounting systems (Chua, 1995) and to focusing attention on large numbers
of variables and their interaction (Lowe, 2001b). Furthermore, case studies
enable mapping of organizational processes, which is necessary in research that
takes the translation approach (Lowe, 2001b) and which is a required step in
benchmarking research (Francis and Holloway, 2007).
Our case consists of a benchmarking network of five Swedish municipalities
in Northern Bohuslän (the Network). All 290 municipalities in Sweden are
responsible for important welfare services such as education, social care,
community planning, maintenance of local roads and parks, and waste disposal.
The largest municipality in Sweden is Stockholm (810,000 inhabitants) and
the smallest municipality is Bjurholm with 2,500 inhabitants. The median
municipality has 15,400 inhabitants. The five municipalities in the Network
have between 9,500 and 12,200 inhabitants, and their annual expenditures are
between 55 and 70 million Euro. The directly elected politicians who govern these
municipalities make decisions about taxes, fees, service levels, organizations
forms and control systems. Accordingly, each municipality decides if and how
they want to use benchmarking. Initiatives at the national level have led to
the development of national databases that make it easier for municipalities to
compare their performance with similar municipalities. However, in accordance
with the long-standing tradition of municipal autonomy, the central government
encourages, but does not require, the use of benchmarking.
This paper focuses on the two largest benchmarking groups in the Network:
the group for social care (eldercare, social welfare, social care and services for
the disabled) and the group for education (nine-year compulsory schools and preschools). The municipal council for each municipality oversees the committees
and departments responsible for social care and education. According to the
Municipality Act, these committees and departments are directly accountable
to the councils. However, to some degree the committees and departments
are also subordinate to the municipality boards that supervise and coordinate
all municipal activities. Therefore, we refer to the municipality council and
the municipality board – and their administrations – as ‘the Centre’ of each
municipality (see Figure 2).
The paper’s empirical data are semi-structured interviews. Such interviews
are appropriate in case studies that take a translation approach (Chua, 1995;
Lowe, 2001a, and 2001b; also, cf. Yin, 1984). In the selection of respondents,
our intention was to capture actor groups that presumably perceive the
benchmarking technique differently and have different interests in using it
(cf. Malmi, 1997; and van Dooren, 2005). Based on earlier studies about
various actor groups’ interests and success criteria (Kouzes and Mico, 1979;
Wang and Berman, 2001; Lapsley and Wright, 2004; ter Bogt, 2004 and
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF BENCHMARKING
131
Figure 2
Organization Scheme of a Municipality (for reasons of clarity, some
committees are excluded); Respondents are in brackets
2008; and van Dooren, 2005), we interviewed CFOs, committee chairpersons
(the politicians), department managers and department controllers. Although
practical circumstances prevented us from interviewing activity managers, we
learned their views indirectly from the other respondents.
In 2006, we initially conducted interviews with the committee chairpersons,
the department managers and the department controllers for each of the five
education departments and the five social care departments. In their positions
as committee chairpersons, the politicians are appointed by the municipality
councils and work approximately half of the time with their assignments.
A complementary group interview was conducted with the CFOs of the five
municipalities one year after the first round of interviews. We conducted this
group interview because it was clear we needed more information about the
benchmarking project’s history and the initiators’ motives. A weakness in our
method was our inability to make an ethnographic study as recommended by
Preston et al. (1992) and Chua (1995). Instead, we mapped the process by asking
the respondents to describe it. This weakness in method is somewhat remedied
by the fact that the five municipalities are well known to us from other research
projects, contract teaching and informal contacts (cf. Ahrens and Chapman,
2007).
In research based on a translation approach, it is important to present the
ideas held by participating individuals and the definitions and interpretations
that emerge from the interactions. ‘The construction of technologies is a
collective process, involving not only the designers but also the potential users
and people affected by the technology’ (Preston et al., 1992, p. 577). Therefore,
C 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
132
SIVERBO
we interviewed the four actor groups who could provide accounts of public sector
benchmarking in action (cf. Lowe, 2001b). Our intention in the interviews was to
explore the nature and extent of the benchmarking work in the municipalities.
For instance, we wished to learn which design elements had been adopted,
implemented and used, how different actors perceived the benchmarking
technique, and which factors had affected its implementation and use.
Our original ambition was to conduct 30 interviews, but we were only able
to interview 27 respondents. Two committee chairpersons and one department
manager declined to participate. We were unable to contact one
