Printed on Recycled Paper

B E N C H M A R K

N

A T I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E R E V I E W

Industry-Government Partnership

B est P ractices
Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Serving the American Public:

Best Practices in

Performance Measurement

JUNE 1997

Benchmarking

Study Report
Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

BEST PRACTICES IN

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

BENCHMARKING

STUDY REPORT

JUNE 1997
i

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SUMMARY OF BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . 11

SECTION 1: ESTABLISHING AND UPDATING PERFORMANCE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SECTION 2: ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

SECTION 3: GATHERING AND ANALYZING PERFORMANCE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

SECTION 4: REPORTING AND USING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDICES

A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B. STUDY PARTICIPANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

C. SITE VISIT SURVEY RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

D GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

E. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

F. AGENCY CONTACTS AND OTHER SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

. . . chart a course for every endeavor that we take the people’s money for, see how well we

are progressing, tell the public how we are doing, stop the things that don’t work, and

never stop improving the things that we think are worth investing in.

President William J. Clinton, 

on signing the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993

All high-performance organizations—whether public or private—are, and must

be, interested in developing and deploying effective performance measurement

and performance management systems, since it is only through such systems

that they can remain high-performance organizations. When President

Clinton signed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) into law,

this commitment to quality was institutionalized. Federal agencies were required to

develop strategic plans for how they would deliver high-quality products and services to

the American people. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting point for each federal

agency to (1) establish top-level agency goals and objectives, as well as annual program

goals; (2) define how it intends to achieve those goals; and (3) demonstrate how it will

measure agency and program performance in achieving those goals.

It was also in 1993 that President Clinton and Vice President Gore initiated the

National Performance Review (NPR) to reinvent government. One of NPR’s reinvention

initiatives has been to foster collaborative, systematic benchmarking of best-in-class

organizations, both public and private, to identify best practices in a wide range of

subjects vital to the success of federal agencies in providing high-quality products and

services to our principal customer—the American people. 

In February 1997, NPR published the Benchmarking Study Report Best Practices in

Customer-Driven Strategic Planning, which documents and details the in-depth processes

and approaches of those best-in-class organizations that excel at incorporating their

customers’ needs and expectations into their strategic planning processes. This study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

2

provided public and private leaders and managers with world-class practices and formulas

for success in developing and deploying agency strategic plans and goals. To complement

this strategic planning study, NPR commissioned the first-ever intergovernmental

benchmarking consortium—involving not only U.S. federal agencies, but also local

governments and the government of Canada—in a collaborative study of performance

measurement. 

This report documents the Performance Measurement Study Team’s findings, and will

be a useful tool for public and private leaders and managers in identifying and applying

best-in-class performance measurement and performance management practices. When

used in conjunction with the Customer-Driven Strategic Planning study, federal agencies will

have a framework for success in meeting the Administration’s expectations for not only

“doing the right things” but for “doing them right,” as well.

STUDY FINDINGS

Leadership is critical in designing and deploying effective performance measurement and

management systems. Clear, consistent, and visible involvement by senior executives and

managers is a necessary part of successful performance measurement and management

systems. Senior leadership should be actively involved in both the creation and

implementation of its organization’s systems. In several public and private organizations

studied, the chief executive officer not only personally articulated the mission, vision, and

goals to various levels within the organization, but was also involved in the dissemination of

both performance expectations and results throughout the organization. 

A conceptual framework is needed for the performance measurement and management

system. Every organization needs a clear and cohesive performance measurement framework

that is understood by all levels of the organization and that supports objectives and the

collection of results. Some of the benchmarking partners used a balanced set of measures

methodology to organize measures and align them with their overall organizational goals

and objectives. The majority had a uniform and well-understood structure setting forth

how the process worked and a clear calendar of events for what was expected from each

organizational level and when.

Effective internal and external communications are the keys to successful performance

measurement. Effective communication with employees, process owners, customers, and

stakeholders is vital to the successful development and deployment of performance

measurement and management systems. It is the customers and stakeholders of an

organization, whether public or private, who will ultimately judge how well it has achieved

its goals and objectives. And it is those within the organization entrusted with and expected

to achieve performance goals and targets who must clearly understand how success is

defined and what their role is in achieving that success. Both organization outsiders and

insiders need to be part of the development and deployment of performance measurement

systems.
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

3

Accountability for results must be clearly assigned and well-understood. Highperformance organizations clearly identify what it takes to determine success and make

sure that all managers and employees understand what they were responsible for in

achieving organizational goals. Accountability is typically a key success factor, but one

with multiple dimensions and multiple applications.

Performance measurement systems must provide intelligence for decisionmakers, not just

compile data. Performance measures should be limited to those that relate to strategic

organizational goals and objectives, and that provide timely, relevant, and concise

information for use by decisionmakers—at all levels—to assess progress toward achieving

predetermined goals. These measures should produce information on the efficiency with

which resources are transformed into goods and services, on how well results compare to

a program’s intended purpose, and on the effectiveness of organizational activities and

operations in terms of their specific contributions to program objectives. Many of our

partners cautioned against repeating their initial mistake: collecting data simply because

the data were available to be collected, or because having large amounts of data “looked

good.” Instead, organizations should choose performance measures that can help

describe organizational performance, direction, and accomplishments; and then

aggressively use these to improve products and services for customers and stakeholders.

Compensation, rewards, and recognition should be linked to performance measurements.

Most partners link performance evaluations and rewards to specific measures of success;

they tie financial and nonfinancial incentives directly to performance. Such a linkage

sends a clear and unambiguous message to the organization as to what’s important.

Performance measurement systems should be positive, not punitive. The most successful

performance measurement systems are not “gotcha” systems, but learning systems that

help the organization identify what works—and what does not—so as to continue with

and improve on what is working and repair or replace what is not working. Performance

measurement is a tool that lets the organization track progress and direction toward

strategic goals and objectives.

Results and progress toward program commitments should be openly shared with

employees, customers, and stakeholders. While sensitive competitive financial and market

share information generally must be protected, performance measurement system

information should be openly and widely shared with an organization’s employees,

customers, stakeholders, vendors, and suppliers. Many of our partners maintained

information on their performance objectives and specific progress toward these objectives

on their organizations’ Internet and intranet sites for real-time access by various levels of

management, teams, and sometimes individuals. Most used periodic reports, newsletters,

electronic broadcasts, or other visual media to set forth their objectives and

accomplishments. 
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

4

NOT AN END, BUT A BEGINNING . . .

This report is not the end of our performance measurement benchmarking study, but

rather creates a platform for a wide range of beginnings. The approaches identified in

this report will be given life by being shared, debated, and implemented in the context of

organizational realities. Then, where appropriate, they must be used—and improved

upon. One of the consistent themes from our benchmarking partners, both public and

private, was that effective performance measurement systems take time: time to design,

time to implement, time to perfect. Performance measurement must be approached as an

iterative process in which continuous improvement is a critical and constant objective. 

Another hallmark of the successful organizations we studied was the use of

benchmarking to establish performance targets as part of a continuous improvement

process. Our partners first detailed their own processes through such practices as process

mapping; they then compared these with those organizations, both public and private,

considered to be the best. Through this organizational self-analysis and comparison

against the best, our benchmarking partners have learned what needs to be changed as

well as the processes, methodologies, approaches, and practices that can help them

continuously improve. We urge leaders throughout the federal community to establish

their own planning and measurement networks and working groups to share their best

practices and process improvements with each other.
5

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

INTRODUCTION

L

eading-edge organizations, whether

public or private, use performance

measurement to gain insight into, and

make judgments about, the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs,

processes, and people. These best-in-class organizations decide on what indicators they will

use to measure their progress in meeting

strategic goals and objectives, gather and

analyze performance data, and then use these

data to drive improvements in their organization—and successfully translate strategy into

action.

For decades, the federal government as a

whole has demonstrated a keen interest in

performance measurement. Specifically, it has

considered ways of measuring government

performance and using these results in the

budget process. Thus, the Hoover

Commission of 1949 proposed performance

budgeting, President Johnson implemented a

program planning budgeting system, and the

Carter Administration advocated a zero-based

budgeting system. All of these efforts looked to

better define government program

objectives—and to link program accomplishments to the means of achieving them. 

Today, several pieces of landmark

legislation—including the Chief Financial

Officers Act of 1990, the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993, the

Government Management Reform Act of

1994, and the Information Technology

Management Reform Act of 1996—require

that federal agencies:

• strategically plan how they will deliver

high-quality goods and services to their

customers, and 

• specifically measure their programs’

performance in meeting these commitments.

To help agencies respond to this new challenge, Vice President Gore’s National

Performance Review (NPR) has assembled a

group of process experts to identify how some

of the best organizations, public and private,

are implementing results-oriented

performance measurement and performance

management. In this first-ever intergovernmental benchmarking study, we have tried to

identify the processes, skills, technologies, and

best practices that can be used by government

to link strategic planning with performance

planning and measurement by:

• establishing and updating performance

measures; 

• establishing accountability for performance; 

• gathering and analyzing performance

data; and 

• reporting and using performance

information.
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

6

• clearly link strategic plans and

accountability, 

• use compensation and rewards systems

effectively, 

• operate effective information management systems, and 

• use performance measurement results to

drive continuous improvement.

Terminology. An important early task for the

team was to define our terms. Not surprisingly,

given the relatively recent and widespread usage

of performance measurement practices, we

found a broad range of definitions for key

terms. For our purposes in this study, we

defined our basic terminology as follows:

• Performance goal: A target level of an

activity expressed as a tangible

measurable objective, against which

actual achievement can be compared. 

• Performance management: The use of

performance measurement information

to help set agreed-upon performance

goals, allocate and prioritize resources,

inform managers to either confirm or

change current policy or program directions to meet those goals, and report on

the success in meeting those goals. 

• Performance measure: A quantitative or

qualitative characterization of performance.

• Performance measurement: A process of

assessing progress toward achieving

predetermined goals, including information on the efficiency with which

resources are transformed into goods and

services (outputs), the quality of those

outputs (how well they are delivered to

clients and the extent to which clients are

satisfied) and outcomes (the results of a

program activity compared to its

intended purpose), and the effectiveness

of government operations in terms of

their specific contributions to program

objectives.

Other terms related to performance

measurement and management used in this

report are defined in the glossary (appendix D).

STUDY DESIGN

Context. NPR sponsors and organizes benchmarking studies aimed at making government

work better and cost less. This effort is championed by the President’s Management

Council, which is made up of the Deputy

Secretaries and their equivalents in the major

federal agencies. 

The present performance measurement

benchmarking study builds on and extends the

findings contained in the February 1997 NPR

report Serving the American Public: Best

Practices in Customer-Driven Strategic Planning.

Further, we found that the best performance

measurement and management systems and

practices work within a context of strategic

planning that takes it cue from customer needs

and customer service. 

Participants. The Performance Measurement

Study Team was comprised of representatives

from 14 U.S. federal agencies, six Canadian

government agencies, the United Kingdom,

and two local governments in the United

States (see appendix B for a list of team

members). The high level of Canadian participation on the team reflects that country’s

recent commitment to performance management. In 1995, Canada’s Expenditure

Management System adopted a strategic,

multiyear perspective in planning and results

reporting. Accordingly, Canadian departments—like their U.S. counterparts—must

report on their performance to ensure the

effective use of appropriated resources.

The intergovernmental benchmarking team

worked with 32 study partners drawn from

more than 100 organizations considered bestin-class in the area of performance

measurement (study partners are listed in

appendix A). These best-in-class organizations:

• are recognized as leaders in performance

measurement, 

• have in place a mature performance

measurement process, 

• communicate this process throughout

the organization, 
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

7

Performance measurement process model.

Another early task for the team was to try to

build a model of the performance

measurement process used in the federal

context. To this end, we analyzed performance

measurement and management as practiced by

the various public agencies represented among

our members. Developing this model gave us a

good understanding of the steps, phases, and

considerations involved in performance

measurement, and an appreciation for the

broad variety of ways in which it is

approached. Our model is presented on the

following page; it is descriptive, rather than

prescriptive, illustrating the basic stages and

flow of the process. The model provided us

with a useful frame of reference as we began

our study of performance measurement in

best-in-class organizations. 

Survey of best practices. The study team next

designed a structured site visit instrument to

survey best practices in performance measurement and management among the partners. A

matrix of partner responses appears as

appendix C; highlights of our findings are

presented in the following four sections.

REPORT OVERVIEW

The next four sections describe how highperforming organizations develop, communicate, and constantly improve their

performance measurement and management

systems. They highlight a broad array of

successful processes, approaches, tools, and

practices used in:

• establishing and updating performance

measures,

• establishing accountability for

performance,

• gathering and analyzing performance

data, and

• reporting and using performance

information.

Finally, we present strategies in performance

measurement and management specifically

aimed at the public sector. This information is

drawn from our research and from the survey

of our partners.
11

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

SUMMARY OF

BEST PRACTICES IN

PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT

I

mplementing and maintaining a

performance measurement system represents a major commitment on the part of

an organization. Following are some of

the basics of philosophy and methodology that

facilitate the performance measurement development process. With these in place, an organization can generally establish a successful

performance measurement and management

system.

Executive involvement. In most of our

partner organizations, the performance measurement initiative was originally introduced, and

continually championed and promoted, by the

top executives. In many of the organizations we

studied, leadership commitment to the development and use of performance measures was a

critical element in the success of the

performance measurement systems.

Sense of urgency. The impetus to move—or

move more aggressively—to a new or

enhanced performance measurement and

performance management system is generally

the result of a cataclysmic event—most

frequently, a circumstance threatening the

organization’s marketplace survival. One of

several scenarios may precede initiating a

performance measurement system within an

organization: (1) a newfound leadership

commitment to performance measurement;

(2) the desire of a high-performance organization to keep its competitive edge; (3) the need

to link organizational strategy and objectives

with actions; or (4) the resultant outcome of

current quality programs.

Alignment with strategic direction.

Performance measurement systems succeed

when the organization’s strategic and business

performance measures are related to—that is,

are in alignment with—overall organizational

goals. Top leaders convey the organization’s

vision, mission, and strategic direction to

employees and external customers clearly,

concisely, and repeatedly. Moreover, organizational objectives are shared with employees in

several different formats, both visual and

verbal. For example, one partner published

and distributed a booklet to show each

employee what matters at the corporate level,

what affects the division level, and how everything aligns within the corporation. This

information sets the stage for the development

of useful performance measures, since the

more clearly goals are communicated, the

easier it is for employees to see and decide on

what needs to be accomplished. 

The most common thread among the organizations benchmarked was the linkage/alignment between their corporate strategy and

their performance measurement system. One

participant noted that this linkage allowed his

company to operate with very optimistic

“stretch” performance goals and measures. We

also found that partners with a vibrant linkage
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

12

between corporate goals and performance

plans were easily able to align the contributions of––customers, ––external partners,

stakeholders, and in one case even volunteers.

Conceptual framework. An organization’s

performance measurement system should be

integral to its overall management process and

directly support the achievement of the organization’s fundamental goals. In fact, in some

cases, the performance measurement system is

its management process. Examples of a

conceptual framework for organizing measurement systems include the use of: 

• a balanced set of measures, 

• matrix systems,

• target setting,

• benchmarking,

• objective-setting workshops, and

• the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award criteria.

Communication. Communication is crucial

for establishing and maintaining a

performance measurement system. It should

be multidirectional, running top-down,

bottom-up, and horizontally within and across

the organization. Our partners communicate

internally by way of interactive, grouporiented mechanisms (town hall meetings,

business update meetings, and focus groups);

various forms of print media (newsletters,

reports, and publications); advanced computer

technology (e-mail, video conferencing, and

on-line Internet/intranet systems); and other

highly visible means, such as the routine placement of progress charts in appropriate work

areas. For example, one of our partners holds a

breakfast every two weeks with 40 different

employees to review where the organization is

going and how it is doing.

Employee. Employee involvement is one of

the best ways to create a positive culture that

thrives on performance measurement. When

employees have input into all phases of

creating a performance measurement system,

buy-in is established as part of the process. As

with other concepts described here, the level

and timing of employee involvement is

individually tailored by the partners depending

on their size and structure.

In sum, to undertake performance measurement successfully, an organization must: 

• Make a commitment to measure performance and get started. Although several

participants emphasized this, one stated

it best, “You just need to start—and

don’t expect it to be perfect.”

• Treat performance measurement as an

ongoing process. Performance measurement is an iterative process that

progresses but has no end. An organization’s commitment to performance

measurement is a tacit agreement to

continually build, change, and improve.

• Tailor the process to your organization.

An organization must develop

performance measures that complement

its culture—size, mission, vision, organizational level, and management

structure—as well as its goals and

objectives.
13

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Each organization must create and communicate

performance measures that reflect its unique strategy.

Dr. Robert S. Kaplan,

Harvard Business School 

World-class organizations use

performance measurement

systems to determine whether

they are fulfilling their vision

and meeting their customer-focused strategic

goals.Their performance measures must therefore meet the following criteria:

Ensure a narrow, strategic focus. The

measures and goals an organization sets should

be narrowly focused to a critical few. It is

neither possible nor desirable to measure

everything. In addition, mature performance

measurement systems are linked to strategic

and operational planning. 

World-class organizations know where

they’re headed through effective customerdriven strategic planning. They know where

they are by measuring performance against

corporate goals and objectives. The organizational strategy, correctly developed and

modeled by senior management, provides a

framework within which business units, teams,

and individuals can implement a performance

measurement system.

Our study partners concentrate their

measurement efforts on items that can be

traced through business unit performance

plans to the entity’s strategic vision. If a

measure and its corresponding data

requirements cannot be linked back to

strategic planning, they are immediately

considered for deemphasis or elimination. This

frees organizations from “rescue initiatives” in

areas that produce little value and—equally

importantly—avoids data overload. 

Measure the right thing. Before deciding on

specific measures, an organization should identify and thoroughly understand the processes

to be measured. Then, each key process should

be mapped—taken apart and analyzed—to

ensure (1) a thorough, rather than assumed,

understanding of the process; and (2) that a

measure central to the success of the process is

chosen. In some cases, targets, minimums, or

maximums are defined for each measure.

Be a means, not an end. In a best-in-class

organization, employees and managers understand and work toward the desired outcomes

that are at the core of their organization’s

vision. They focus on achieving organizational

goals, by using performance measures to gauge

goal achievement, but do not focus on the

measures per se. Performance measurement is

thus seen as a means, not an end. Several study

participants reminded us to “focus on the goal,

measure the end results, and don’t focus on the

measurement.” 

SECTION 1:

ESTABLISHING AND

UPDATING

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

14

WHAT TO MEASURE?

Regardless of size, sector, or specialization,

organizations tend to be interested in the same

general aspects of performance: 

• financial considerations 

• customer satisfaction 

• internal business operations 

• employee satisfaction 

• community and shareholder/stakeholder

satisfaction. 

Attention to, and establishment of,

measurements in these areas is thus a

significant part of a successful performance

measurement system. 

In the private sector, the principal measure

of successful performance is profit. Public

agencies, on the other hand, have no such

universal and widely accepted performance

measure of success. For public sector organizations, performance must be judged against the

goals of their programs and whether the

desired results and outcomes have been

achieved. Success is often viewed from the

distinct perspectives of various stakeholders,

such as legislatures, regulators, other

governmental bodies, vendors and suppliers,

customers, and the general public. Therefore,

it is extremely important that the measures of

performance used by a public organization be

created with as much input and consultation

from these constituencies as is feasible, so as to

reach as much consensus as is possible

regarding what is expected of the organization.

While a publicly owned corporation may

ultimately be held accountable by its

stockholders, and a public entity by the

taxpayers, most of the best-in-class

organizations place customer satisfaction above

all else. “Customers are a source of goals,”

noted one partner representative, and many

others weigh customer concerns heavily when

developing strategic goals. 

Often, measures are tied to corporate

strategy; this often requires negotiation

between a team of senior executives and business unit managers. A small manufacturing

partner describes its process as “not really topdown or bottom-up,” because it involves

reconciling strategic requirements with the

reality of its factory capabilities. More than

one participant noted that their organization’s

measures cascade both up and down.

DETERMINING A BASELINE AND

GOALS

Once an organization has decided on its

performance measures, the next step in the

process is to determine a baseline for each of

the measures selected. Once data are collected

for the first time on a particular measurement,

the organization then has baseline data.

Determining appropriate goals for each

measure after these baseline data are collected

can be accomplished in several ways. Most

partners use various statistical analysis

techniques as well as benchmarking to set goals

for future performance.

A common practice is to set goals that will

force the organization to “stretch” to exceed its

past performance. By benchmarking measures,

an organization can validate the fact that the

goals are still attainable. For example, a goal of

100 percent customer satisfaction may be an

admirable goal for any organization. However,

if industry standards have been at 80 percent, a

goal of 100 percent may not be realistically

attainable. Setting a 100 percent goal anyway

can easily demotivate employees by giving

them an essentially impossible target. In this

regard, one partner representative noted that

setting a quality standard with zero tolerance

for human error undermines morale and

makes goals appear unattainable. Organizations should instead set goals that excite an

employee’s interest and elicit commitment.

To this end, it is important to provide information on performance goals and results to

employees. Many partners provide information

on key goals and measures to all employees

through their intranets, newsletters, and

bulletin board displays. This increases

employee understanding of the organization’s
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

15

Performance analysis also lets organizations

change the priority of specific measures over

time. Some performance goals, for instance,

are intended to influence behavior and should

be deemphasized once target performance is

achieved. Some other goals may change due to

the nature of the business, market conditions,

or regulatory requirements. One partner regularly develops employee change teams to look

at the measures and determine whether they

might need adjusting. 

Refining and changing measures is healthy

and necessary, but our partners cautioned that

frequent changes will cause confusion and may

affect accountability.

Continuous and regular review of measures

as they relate to the corresponding goals and

the organization’s strategic plan are key to

success in performance measurement. It not

only helps in deciding the right things to

measure, but provides needed information to

assess progress toward reaching goals of all

levels within the organization. Performance

measurement has no purpose if data are not

used to improve organizational performance.

mission and goals and unifies the workforce

behind them. It also helps emphasize a team

philosophy rather than foster individual

competition. 

REVIEWING MEASURES

An important aspect of performance

measurement is its iterative quality. Organizations should continually assess whether their

current measures are sufficient or excessive, are

proving to be useful in managing the business,

and are driving the organization to the right

result. This review lets the organization make

sure that it is maintaining the right measures.

When measures become obsolete, they should

be discarded, and—possibly—replaced with

something else. One partner representative

noted that measures should be dropped if they

were no longer needed or if no change

occurred in a measure after much attention.

Many partners found that they began with too

many measures and needed to reduce the array

of measures tracked at each organizational

level.
17

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

• Corporate executives (including senior

managers) often are accountable for

developing the strategic plan and

resource allocation plans. 

• Generally, managers, individual business

units, or in-house staff are accountable

for coordinating and maintaining the

performance measurement system.

Following are successful strategies used by

our partners for establishing employee and

management accountability for the success of

the organization’s performance measurement

system.

EMPOWERMENT

Employees are most likely to meet or exceed

performance goals when they are empowered

with the authority to make decisions and solve

problems related to the results for which they

are accountable. In many ways, accountability

is analogous to a contract between manager

and employee, with the manager providing a

supportive environment and the employee

providing results.

The performance goals of an organization

represent a shared responsibility among all its

employees—each of whom has a stake in the

organization’s success. A critical challenge for

private and public organizations alike is

ensuring that this shared responsibility does

SECTION 2:

ESTABLISHING

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR

PERFORMANCE

What gets measured, gets done.

A Study Participant

Establishing viable performance

measures is critical for organizations;

making those measures work is even

more important. Once the

performance measurement system is created,

then, the next step is to implement it within

the organization. One partner representative

provided the following insight: “the key issue

with performance measurement is

deployment—success is 20 percent approach,

80 percent deployment.” 

And successful deployment appears to be

strongly related to developing a successful

system of accountability: that is, of making

managers and employees alike “buy in” to

performance measurement by assuming

responsibility for some part of the process. 

Among our study partners, we found the

following general areas of responsibility/

accountability:

• CEOs, presidents, and upper/senior

managers are usually the key individuals

responsible for establishing performance

measurements and goals. This upper

management leadership and commitment were identified as enablers for

effective performance measurement

systems.
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

18

REWARDS AND INCENTIVES

More than half of our benchmarking partners link pay or rewards to their performance

measurement systems. In other cases, managers

ensure that performance goals are met by

rating individual contributions to performance

goals in individual appraisals. One partner

links corporate values with performance

measures for determining management pay.

An example of how this linkage of

performance measurement and employee

incentives works follows. One of our partners

feels so strongly about a training measurement

that it mandates a specified number of hours

for training annually for every employee as

part of its incentive program. And if only 1 of

its 9,000 employees does not make this

training minimum, the amount of the

incentive is reduced accordingly for all

employees. This demonstrates the

organization’s commitment to training, stresses

the importance of each individual to the team,

and creates a commitment to training at all

levels of the organization to achieve a goal. 

Incentives don’t always have to have financial attributes. For example: 

• One partner offers “corporate dollars”

provided by the local business

community (consisting of coupons for

restaurants and other local amenities) for

immediate recognition of excellent

performance. 

• In another organization, employees can

qualify for credits toward training

courses.

• To improve workplace safety, one partner

provides administrative and legal support

to employees who apply for patents on

safer, better designed, equipment.

Other rewards for exceptional performance

include acknowledgment in newsletters and

other publications as well as annual awards.

In addition to rewarding achievement,

many organizations also recognize a pattern of

chronic substandard performance by linking

job performance to pay. One participant noted

that “adverse actions tend to be rare because

not become an unfulfilled responsibility.

Accountability helps organizations meet this

challenge.

According to one participant, “the system is

a closed loop . . . responsibility is attached to

authority resulting in accountability.” Another

partner representative commented that “you

can only hold employees accountable if they

have control.” A third participant believed

that measures over which organizations have

no control—external measures—should also

be included.

Underlying employee empowerment is

management’s view of its employees as an asset

rather than a resource. One partner representative stressed the use of the term “asset” because

it implies that employees are to be valued and

cared for, while a “resource” is something that

is used up and replaced. 

In many leading organizations, the process

of performance measurement has led to a

better understanding of how individual

employees or teams of employees contribute to

the performance goals of an organization. The

contributions of individuals and teams are a

starting point for enumerating the results for

which they are accountable. 

OWNER IDENTIFICATION

Most managers from best-in-class organizations hold an appropriate individual accountable for each performance measure. Most organizations therefore identify a measurement

owner. This is an assigned individual who is

accountable and responsible for a particular

measure.

One study partner formally documents who

is responsible for each performance target

within a business unit. A single matrix identifies the business unit’s goals and measures, the

accountable individuals, and those individuals

and organizations that have a collateral responsibility for meeting the performance target.

Another partner uses a matrix to identify and

document roles that must be played to achieve

organizational performance targets. This matrix

allows the business unit to emphasize business

goals rather than internal process outputs.
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

19

nonperformers are weeded out during the

probationary period . . . a supportive culture of

excellence tends to result in excellence.”

CULTURE AND

COMMUNICATION

Within most of our partner organizations,

failure to meet performance goals results in a

comprehensive review of problems and

solutions. As one partner explained, “the

culture is based on understanding the reality of

human error and striving to improve . . .

employees do not fear admitting mistakes.” 

Periodic meetings allow staff to review

progress and strategize about solving problems.

Several participants emphasized that the focus

is on corrective action, not blame. A number

of our partners have established policies that

institutionalize problem-solving approaches for

failures and substandard performance. 

Generally, organizations have a formal

written plan describing how performance

measures will be implemented. In many cases,

the plan details the measurements, goals,

objectives, and the common alignment to the

organizational strategy. In addition, it is a

common practice to identify one individual

who will be responsible and accountable as a

respective measurement owner.
is very much a senior leadership responsibility.

This focus ensures that the right data—and

only the right data—are collected, that repetitious or tangential compilations are avoided,

and that the questions originally posed by the

performance measures are being answered.

Keep it flexible. In best-in-class organizations, data are collected from a variety of

sources and through a variety of media. Any

one system isn’t necessarily right—or wrong.

Although using automation is preferable,

world-class organizations also use manual

systems when needed and cost efficient. 

Keep it meaningful. Useful and relevant

data can be gathered if the correct measures

were set up in the first place. One partner

representative observed that a few basic, wellaligned measures taken seriously are better

than a number of complex measures. That’s

because with simple measures, it’s clear what

data need to be collected; with well-aligned

measures, it’s easy to see the data’s relevance.

On the other hand, it’s possible to carry

simplicity too far. A recurring challenge to

effective performance measurement is to overcome, in the words of one participant, a “longlived work culture of transactional auditing

which causes a focus on checklist-type, as

opposed to results-oriented, trending.” In

other words, data collection must be tailored

and thoughtful, not derived from a “one-sizefits-all” master checklist.

21

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

SECTION 3:

GATHERING AND

ANALYZING

PERFORMANCE DATA

Without a yardstick, there is no measurement; without

measurement, there is no control.

Anonymous

Data are collected and then analyzed

for each performance measure to

determine if—and how well—goals

are being met. It is very easy for the

data collection and analysis phase of performance

measurement to get out of hand. Advanced technology facilitates this tendency: It is tempting to

take advantage of the myriad data resources available via Internet and intranet. Best-in-class organizations remember that data collection and

analysis are not a research activity conducted for

its own sake. Rather, data are collected and

analyzed to get answers. 

Our partners collect data at all levels of

their organizations through any number of

mechanisms, at both regular intervals and on

an ongoing basis. Through it all, they remain

focused on the questions they are trying to

answer. This focus on strategic alignment

makes data collection a dynamic and vital,

rather than tedious and never-ending, exercise.

GATHERING THE DATA—

PRINCIPLES

Keep it focused. One participant commented that “our company was data rich and

insight poor.” Keeping data gathering focused
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

22

Keep it consistent. Data collection should be

based on a set of agreed-upon definitions. These

definitions need to be universally understood by

employees, managers, partners, suppliers, and

even customers. Data collected within a

common framework of understanding can be

easily compared and analyzed, allowing

subsequent evaluations to be “apples to apples.”

GATHERING THE DATA—

RESPONSIBILITIES

Each business unit and hierarchical level of

an organization will have different needs for

the data gathered. These differences should be

reflected in the collection process.

Line supervisors and employees. The data

focus for line supervisors and employees relates

to daily operations and customer service as

these are aligned with the organization’s vision

and strategic planning. Thus, line supervisors

and employees collect operational performance

data. These data are often best gathered as part

of the employees’ interface with the customer.

One of our partners uses advanced technology

that automatically records every time a work

product changes status. The updated status

information is accessible to anyone in the

company and to company business partners

and customers. The capture of the performance data is seamless in the process of the

business transaction. 

Business unit managers. Business unit

managers need data that can be used to

measure customer satisfaction, dissatisfaction,

or indifference. These data are usually

collected via customer surveys administered by

a third party or in-house office. 

Another kind of data in which the business

unit manager is interested involves program

costs. These data come from the organization’s

accounting and cost accounting systems which

record expenses and revenues. Armed with

these data, a manager can not only react to,

but can also institute proactive measures to

reduce unnecessary costs. 

Best-in-class business units also measure the

health of their organizations. They survey

employee morale and—where appropriate—

employee safety. They look for skill deficiencies and try to be a continuous learning organization.

Executive management. Senior managers

need to determine whether their organizations

are meeting or exceeding the expectations

defined in their customer-focused strategic

plans. Generally, they target a vital few

measures as critical to their responsibilities.

Rather than immersing themselves in day-today details, executives look for trends. 

TRANSFORMING DATA INTO

INFORMATION

Data analysis in performance measurement

is the process of converting raw data into

performance information and knowledge. The

data that have been collected are processed and

synthesized so that organizations can make

informed assumptions and generalizations

about what happened. They can then compare

the actuality to what they had expected to

happen, decide why there might be a variance,

and determine what corrective action might be

required. This last set of activities is the subject

of the next section—reporting and using

performance information. As in data collection, the organization must keep this next step

perpetually in mind. Though interesting,

analysis is not undertaken for its own sake.

Following are some principles of data analysis

drawn from best-in-class organizations.

Everyone needs information. But not

everyone knows what to do with raw data. So,

frequently in world-class organizations, inhouse quality staff or outside contractors

analyze the data used to measure performance.

Some organizations provide data directly to

managers, or to the relevant business unit, for

analysis. At one world-class organization, data

analysis takes the form of “cross talks” between

organizational units jointly reviewing

performance results. 

To ensure that everyone can use and understand data and its analysis, some organizations

train their workforces in rudimentary analytical
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

23

on performance information become stronger

as performance measurement processes

mature. The business units of one partner

organization that used advanced statistical

techniques to analyze data tended to do better

than those units that didn’t. 

A similar maturation occurs over time

regarding the complexity of the measures used.

For example, several partners began with

straightforward workload/output measures. As

they needed to conduct more sophisticated

analysis, however, they moved to complex

results-oriented measures of effectiveness and

efficiency. 

Several partners have developed mainframe

applications that upload data from operating

systems, process them overnight, and prepare

performance activity reports tailored to

different organizational units. Properly maintaining the mainframe or host computer environment re-enforces data consistency and definitions. 

The partners tend to apply a reasonableness

test of the cost and complexity of their performance data analysis systems. One partner

representative observed that one of the organization’s primary tools is common sense.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Performance data can be displayed in a wide

variety of ways, including graphic

presentations such as histograms, bar charts,

pie charts, and scatter diagrams. Most organizations use some form of spreadsheets and

databases to organize and categorize their

performance data. Information technology

advances—particularly in electronic communications—will provide still more options for

data display and dissemination.

methods. Such an evaluative culture is promoted by engaged executive leadership, and

often nurtured by a cadre of analysts helping

business units understand and interpret their

data. 

One partner established skilled measurement coordinators within each operating area

of its organization, trained them in

measurement and analysis techniques, and

charged them with the responsibility for

educating team leaders and employees. 

In some organizations, central analytical

staffs collect and analyze data related to corporate strategic goals and prepare concise reports

for executives or agenda material for high-level

business review meetings. At this senior level,

it is essential to provide information rather

than merely show data. Graphics and other

visuals are used to focus senior management

on points needing immediate attention. 

User information needs differ. Different

levels of an organization will use different

pieces of the analyzed data. The critical users

of performance information are

decisionmakers, both on the front lines and in

the executive suite. One benchmarking partner

representative stated that the goals of its

analysts are not always synchronized with the

goals of the decisionmakers. As a rule,

decisionmakers need information that is

timely, relevant, and concise; analysts tend to

value products that are thorough, objective,

and professionally acceptable. The successful

resolution of this internal tension is a sign of a

world-class performance information system.

Good analytic tools are available. Many

tools for effective performance analysis are

readily available in today’s marketplace. Offthe-shelf software packages can perform

straightforward aggregation/disaggregation,

statistical analysis, linear programming, trend

analysis, charting, quality control, operations

research, process cost analysis, and forecasting.

More sophisticated packages can also perform

a wide range of quality control functions and

econometric modeling. 

Over time, analysis can become more sophisticated. Analytic approaches and dependence
25

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

SECTION 4:

REPORTING AND USING

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

You have to be a learning organization—learn from

your failures, so you don’t repeat them; learn from

your successes, so you can replicate them.

A Study Participant

High-performing organizations do

not measure things just for the

sake of measurement. Rather, they

report, evaluate, and use performance information as integral parts of their

performance measurement systems to:

• inform various levels of management and

employees about performance information;

• determine whether corrective action is

necessary; and

• determine whether changes are necessary

in the performance measurement system,

to the measures themselves, or to the

organization’s goals.

These same high-performing organizations

see performance data as empirical information

about the operation of their organizations and

their customer or stakeholder requirements

and preferences. Whether applied over the

longer term or for short-term corrective

actions, performance information is reported,

evaluated, and used as an underpinning for the

continuous improvement of overall management and strategic planning processes.

REPORT INFORMATION

Performance information should be disseminated quickly. Putting useful information into

the hands of an organization’s decisionmakers

promptly and efficiently is critical. 

Many communication devices can be used to

meet this objective, including meetings, reports

and newsletters, charts placed in work areas,

e-mail, publications, and videoconferencing.

Intranets are also being used to give entire organizations access to performance data summaries;

this gives them the opportunity to be proactive

about issues or adverse trends. 

Another performance reporting objective is

to keep employees at all levels “in the loop,”

interested, and motivated. To this end, many

partners use sophisticated communication

systems so that all staff receive performance

measurement status repeatedly in many forms.

In several cases, scorecards are posted in

work areas throughout the organization,

enabling everyone to know how they

personally contributed to corporate performance. Employee newsletters, “Employee

Recognition Day,” and regular daily feedback

are other useful communication techniques. 

Some partners use a weekly newsletter that

contains updated information about the

different branches, new employees, operating

results, business economy, and company’s

training schedule. Once each quarter, a more
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

26

elaborate newsletter containing more detailed

articles is sent to each employee’s home. 

At one partner organization, employees and

executive staff share information with one

another through a unique “recognition days”

program. Once each year, executive staff

members, together with workers from various

company sites, visit each branch of the company

to find out how things have been going.

Another partner uses a system of icons

representing each of the six key performance

measures used within the business unit. These

icons are posted widely throughout the plant

to focus employees’ attention on the measures.

This clever and effective deployment strategy

serves to educate employees about the

measures themselves as well as the status of

their performance.

EVALUATE PERFORMANCE

Organizational performance evaluations are

conducted periodically to best meet an organization’s individual management information

needs; they are typically scheduled on a

monthly or quarterly basis. Depending on the

types of activities and the organization, the

frequency of evaluation could range from daily

or weekly to semiannually. In many cases, organizations use a combination of reviews at

various intervals. For example, one partner uses

a combination of a monthly office review, a sixmonth review, and an annual review. Others

rely on quarterly senior management reviews. 

In one organization, reviews are done

monthly to assess budget results and key

project milestones, quarterly for customer

satisfaction results, and annually for individual

performance. In several instances, organizations undergo specific, externally mandated,

six-month evaluations as part of their participation in “ISO 9000,” an international

standard setting and certification process. 

In addition, unscheduled events—such as

customer feedback; industry mergers; or

changes in contracts, technology, or the

market—can all trigger a performance

evaluation.

While evaluation is done at various levels of

the organization, evaluation results usually

flow up to a senior-level person, chief

executive, or some type of senior executive

committee for review. Based on the evaluation,

senior management determines whether

corrective actions or changes are necessary in

the performance measurement system, the

measures themselves, or the organization’s

goals.

There are many management tools and

techniques available for conducting this type

of top-level review and evaluation of

performance information; one useful approach

is known as “story boarding.” This approach is

based on a managing for results and

management by fact “story board.” As depicted

in the exhibit on the following page, the story

board compares annual objectives and plan

targets with year-to-date performance and

identifies any gaps. Staff members—generally

those involved in either planning or quality—

who report directly to senior management

conduct either a “gap analysis” or “root cause

analysis.” They develop recommendations to

senior management as countermeasures or

solutions. They also make recommendations as

to whom should be accountable for, the

current status of, and the milestones related to,

the countermeasures. 

One partner has developed a new aspect to

the story board process—a countermeasure

outlook. This includes an assessment of

whether the countermeasure was capable of

closing the identified gap, whether the proper

resources had been allocated, and a prediction

for performance improvement.

USE PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

Feed it into resource allocation decisions.

There are important linkages among resource

allocation, strategic planning, and performance

measurement. A high-performing

organization’s strategic planning process is

directly related to—and may drive the process

for—allocating its resources to carry out goals
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

28

and objectives. An organization’s strategic plan

is also directly related to what it is that the

organization decides to measure in terms of

performance and outcomes. However, the relationship between performance measurement

and resource allocation is less clear.

Many of our study partners factor

performance information into resource allocation decisions involving personnel or budget.

Generally, they do not rely solely on such

information. Resource allocation decisions are

likely to be based on tactical and/or strategic

considerations related to new initiatives,

specific markets, technologies, or other factors.

Use it in employee/management evaluations.

Most high-performing organizations have

developed some means of linking accountability with incentive compensation or wage

increases based on performance. Several

partners hold managers accountable, factoring

performance measurement results into their

bonus plans. Most best-in-class organizations

link performance measures in some way to pay.

People are also empowered and rewarded for

making process changes based on performance

results. One company provides people with

incentives for achieving performance results

based on doing things a certain way. Quality

success stories are shared two or three times a

year. The chair and senior officers review

individual and team applications for significant

improvement above and beyond the call of

normal duty. A percentage of the savings is then

shared with award recipients. 

Other organizations use a multisource feedback appraisal process for managers that

provides for evaluation by superiors, their

employees, and their peers. In the case of one

organization, this approach is used to assess

“organizational vision, team participation,

integrity and dignity, job knowledge and skills,

and continuous improvement.” Other organizations combine a similar feedback appraisal

process with an approach that evaluates not

only performance, but also criteria (or values)

addressing individual behavior. The values one

company uses to conduct its reviews include

“respect for each other, integrity, trust,

credibility, and continuous improvement and

personal renewal.” These multisource feedback

reviews are often administered by an outside,

third-party organization. 

Most of our benchmarking partners have a

recognition or rewards system linked to their

performance measures. These organizations

provide financial and nonfinancial incentives

for successful performance (see section 2). 

Use it to determine gaps between goals and

reality. Performance results can be used, as

discussed above, to determine gaps between

specific strategic objectives and/or annual goals

and actual achievement. The root causes of

these gaps are analyzed, and countermeasures

developed and implemented. Whenever there

is a gap between current results and an organization’s objectives, it is an opportunity for

process improvement. 

Use it to drive reengineering. Several of our

benchmarking partners use reengineering in

response to the identification of gaps between

objectives and achievement. Some of the

processes reengineered by our partners

included cycle time, organizational structure,

outsourcing, information technology,

programs, and benefits. 

A good example of how performance

measurement drives reengineering is the case

of one partner which recently focused on

addressing customer complaints. This partner

achieved significant improvements over a 12-

to 15-month period by focusing on measuring

complaints addressed in the same day when

received by 3 p.m. This focus drove efforts to

improve the process and to add technicians

and resources. 

One partner did not want to add staff

simply to meet a high volume of calls received

during a 30-minute period every day. Instead,

it reengineered the process completely so as to

reduce the number of “abandoned” calls.

Use it in benchmarking. Our study revealed

that most of our partners use benchmarking as

a methodology for organizational improvement; developing their performance measurement systems; and validating their operational

position; and to maintain world-class
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

29

performance. Our partners primarily use

external benchmarking and competitive

benchmarking, where they compare their operations with organizations outside of their

companies. 

A few of our partners used internal

benchmarking, where an internal business unit

would compare itself with similar business units

within the same organization. One partner uses

the same performance measures across business

units to facilitate internal benchmarking. 

At least two of our partners regularly participate in benchmarking consortia where participants from various industries meet to benchmark processes. These benchmarking consortia

regularly use performance measures to discover

best practices.

Use it to improve organizational processes.

Our study showed that managers are most

often the ones empowered to make process

changes. One organization used a multivariable testing technique to discover how

process improvements can be made.

Management set up trial and control processes

in such a way that employees could try various

process improvements in a controlled manner

and selectively identify changes that would

improve process performance. 

One partner created a roll-out group to

get out of the “stove pipes” of individual teams

and departments. This group—“a place to try

new processes and to address process issues”—

meets every two months and is empowered to

decide on how situations are to be handled. As

a result of its efforts, cycle time for a particular

product has been reduced from 52 to 29 days.

An employee survey has been administered,

identifying the need for a better training

program. Also, lack of sales growth has

resulted in a major reorganization, including

the development and implementation of a

team structure. 

Use it to adjust goals. In most cases, if performance goals are not met, corrective action is

implemented. Conversely, if goals are exceeded,

the “bar is reset to establish stretch goals.”

One way of adjusting goals and the

approach to their achievement is to form partnerships with other entities. Through these

partnerships, organizations can combine

resources and adjust their part of the overall

goal accordingly. An example of this type of

partnership was demonstrated when one organization teamed with another local organization to negotiate with potential new industries

wishing to establish facilities in the overall

area. Through this partnership, the

organization was able to achieve desired

community growth scenarios, as well as more

aggressive revenue goals. 

Use it to improve measures. One organization displayed performance measurements on

bar charts and used raw data in its first year of

implementation. In the next, it validated and

normalized the data. In the following year, its

bar chart included the normalized data with a

trend line, a simple five-year moving average.

In the next year, it used a logarithmic trend

line to obtain a better fit.

Another organization originally used percentage data to measure performance. However, as the volume grew, it became apparent

that actual data should be used instead. For

example, a 99.5 percent successful on-time

delivery rate meant 1.5 million failures per

year.

One process owner claimed his process was

as high as it could be: 99 percent on time. He

defined on time as when the order came in.

This meant that items sent back were counted

as on time. The term was redefined. 

One partner provided an example from its

community service work. It measured

pollution on beaches by counting the number

of times—rather than the length of time—a

beach was closed because of pollution. For

increased precision, it now counts the number

of “beach blocks,” measured in terms of lifeguard towers closed and the number of days

closed. Based on customer reports of closure

tolerance, zero beach closures was set as the

goal. 

Several participants stressed the need to

analyze significant movements before acting.

Organizations must recognize and understand

that variation occurs in many selected
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

30

around a performance target. If actual performance falls within the limits, the partners

normally take no action.

The bar keeps getting raised. The question is—how

fast are you getting better?

A Study Partner

measures, and that there are both normal and

special causes for such variations. Two partners

develop upper and lower statistical limits
31

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

STRATEGIES FOR

SUCCESSFUL

PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT

The public sector is under intense

pressure to improve its operations

and deliver its products and services

more efficiently and at the least cost

to the taxpayer. Performance measurement is a

useful tool in this regard, since it formalizes

the process of tracking progress toward established goals and provides objective justifications for organizational and management decisions. Thus, performance measurement can

help improve the quality and cost of

government activities.

The 1993 passage of Public Law 103-62,

the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA), represents a federal commitment to

performance measurement. GPRA aims to

improve the management of federal programs

through the use of strategic planning and

performance measurement systems. Under

GPRA, all federal agencies will, beginning

with the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle, be

required to draft and submit five-year strategic

plans with clearly stated strategic goals, annual

performance plans describing how they will

carry out these strategic plans and meet their

goals, and annual reports on their progress.

Meeting GPRA’s requirements constitutes a

dramatic shift in focus and approach for many

agencies. For example, GPRA requires the

development of performance data that are

aligned with agencies’ strategic goals. It

emphasizes outcomes rather than inputs and

outputs. It looks to identify goals at given

resource levels and to hold managers more

accountable for program results. Any one of

these precepts might represent a paradigm shift

for a given agency. The following paragraphs

therefore describe key strategies drawn from

our research for successfully implementing a

performance measurement system that meets

GPRA objectives.

WHY MEASURE?

Performance measurement yields many

benefits for an organization. One benefit is

that it provides a structured approach for

focusing on a program’s strategic plan, goals,

and performance. Another benefit is that

measurement provides a mechanism for

reporting on program performance to upper

management. 

Our partners use measurement information

to:

• set goals and standards; 

• detect and correct problems; 

• manage, describe, and improve processes;

and 

• document accomplishments. 
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

32

CUSTOMER-DRIVEN STRATEGIC

PLANNING

Although agencies rely on Congress and

other stakeholders to clarify their mission and

agree on their goals, they also, like private

sector organizations, must address customer

needs. Many tools are available to help

agencies gauge these needs and obtain

stakeholder input for strategic planning. These

tools include the following:

• Future Search Conference—A

conference could be held for some 30 to

80 agency stakeholders. These

participants could use the structured

environment of the conference to help

the organization define its past, explore

its present, and develop its future.

• Logic model—This model is one form

of displaying the concept of an “inputprocess-output-outcome” continuum,

which is helpful in developing outcomeoriented goals as required by GPRA.

Logic models support decision issues and

the decisionmaking process. 

• “Why” technique—Starting with activities and successively answering the question “why,” an organization can move

from activity-oriented goals to outcomeoriented goals. 

• SWOT analysis—This tool is useful in

assessing an organization’s environment,

as it enables review of information

related to internal strengths and

weaknesses and identification of external

opportunities and threats.

This customer-driven strategic planning

process should result in “stretching” strategic

goals and focused objectives. Agency managers

should then identify owners for each goal and

objective, and develop strategies and allocate

the necessary resources for performance. 

GETTING STARTED

Three elements are useful in developing and

implementing a performance measurement

system: 

• a change management plan (which

includes a communication plan), 

• the formation of teams, and

• just-in-time training. 

Change management is ultimately the

responsibility of senior leadership. Management implements a plan by using techniques

to align the organization’s people and culture

with changes in business strategies,

organizational structures, and systems. For

example, one of our partners initiated a change

process to focus a greater amount of attention

on performance measurement. Concurrently,

however, the organization experienced

numerous changes in senior leadership

positions within a relatively short time frame.

Because the organization was relying on a

process, rather than people alone, to

institutionalize performance measurement, the

new approach gradually evolved and eventually

became ingrained in the corporate culture.

There were learning pains, but people became

more used to it every year.

Employees should be involved in

performance measurement as members of the

organization’s “team”—although the specific

degree of involvement will vary by

organization. At one end of the spectrum, for

example, some organizations use a cross-functional or matrix team of employees—and

sometimes of stakeholders, too—representing

all areas involved in or responsible for the

performance measurement system (e.g.,

program areas, planning, and budget). These

teams use various techniques to brainstorm,

discuss, clarify, and prioritize ideas related to

the development of performance measures.

If individuals have not worked on teams

before, they should receive training so they can

learn to function in and as a team. Similarly, if

managers have never used performance

measurement information before, they should

receive training on how to understand and use

such information. One partner provides a

“how to” book for managers on writing

specific objectives so they can more effectively

communicate their organization’s destination.
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

33

The key here is for the organization to identify

gaps in knowledge and experience—at

whatever level—and provide targeted, just-intime training to address these.

ESTABLISHING AND UPDATING

PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND

GOALS

For each goal and objective, performance

measures, baselines, and performance targets

need to be established both organizationwide

and for each contributing program/process.

Thus, managers can work with

multidisciplinary teams, focus groups, and/or

stakeholders to develop measures from goals

and objectives. Next, they should establish

baseline data to help them understand their

current status. They can use benchmarking,

competitive comparisons, gap analysis, and

past experience to establish these targets.

A conceptual framework can help in

deciding what to measure. For example,

measuring organizational performance can be

linked to the strategic planning process. Or

you can use a balanced set of measures that

ensures that senior leaders can get a quick,

comprehensive assessment of the organization

in a single report. A family of measures can be

used to align measurements across levels of the

organization. 

Regardless of which framework is used to

design and implement a system for measuring

organizational performance, several criteria

need to be addressed in creating good

measures. In general, a good measure:

• is accepted by and meaningful to the

customer; 

• tells how well goals and objectives are

being met; 

• is simple, understandable, logical, and

repeatable; 

• shows a trend; 

• is unambiguously defined; 

• allows for economical data collection; 

• is timely; and

• is sensitive.

Above all, however, a good measure drives

appropriate action. 

Several characteristics are associated with

the implementation of a successful performance measurement system. Such a system:

• comprises a balanced set of a limited vital

few measures;

• produces timely and useful reports at a

reasonable cost;

• displays and makes readily available

information that is shared, understood,

and used by an organization; and

• supports the organization’s values and the

relationship the organization has with

customers, suppliers, and stakeholders. 

By creating an operational definition for

each measure, you can ensure that these

measures are understood by everyone in the

organization. A typical definition includes (1)

a specific goal or objective; (2) data requirements, such as the population the metric will

include, the frequency of measurement, and

the data source; (3) the calculation methodology, including required equations and precise

definition of key terms; (4) reports in which

the data will appear and the graphic presentation that will eventually be used to display the

data; and (5) any other relevant rationale for

the measure.

Some of our partners explored an inventory

of common measures to cut across all business

units. For example, one partner developed an

economic value-added index to measure its

financial performance; a customer value-added

index to measure the satisfaction of its

customers relative to that of its competitors;

and a people value-added index to measure

employee perceptions of senior leadership,

overall job satisfaction, and diversity practices.

Once measures are in place at the highest

level of the organization, they should be

cascaded to lower levels. One organization we

studied demonstrated a seven-level cascade—

moving from the vice president to the hourly
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

34

worker—with an associated measurement

priority at each level. Another organization

suggested using policy deployment to plan and

execute organizationwide and customerfocused performance improvement. 

We found that successful entities maintain a

strong focus on customer and market expectations, as well as on profit and production. This

focus is reflected in the measures selected. For

example, one partner operates with fewer than

20 percent of its performance measures related

to financial, bottom-line categories. Another

partner ranks employee safety and customer

satisfaction above corporate profits in its

measurement hierarchy. 

ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY

FOR PERFORMANCE

An organization needs to establish who is

responsible for performance measurements.

Someone must be responsible for getting the

information needed and for reporting it in a

timely manner. Others need to be responsible

for the actual outcomes on the measurements.

Some partners have team-level measurement

experts who are responsible for helping team

members understand the significance of the

performance data collected and who guide the

team in using data at weekly goal meetings.

Another partner has people responsible for

training employees on what the data mean and

how to interpret the data.

Both organizational and individual responsibilities need to be identified for the

performance measures. For example, one

partner uses a “role/responsibility” matrix to

formalize the process and identify ownership

of each measure. This matrix lists measures

along the vertical axis; the horizontal axis

includes the present goal, the future goal, each

business process, and the associated process

owner. Status is indicated within the matrix

using the letters “R,” responsible; “A,”

accountable; “C,” consult; and “I,” inform. 

Through a variety of techniques, the goal

owner establishes goal targets. For example, at

one organization, the target does not become

official at the corporate level until it is agreed

to through a negotiation process between the

office of the chairman and the goal owner.

This ensures a high degree of integrity in the

process and the people involved.

A powerful message is sent to employees

and to the organization as a whole by formally

linking executive compensation to organizational performance, as well as by judging individual performance by the achievement of

strategic objectives. At several organizations,

managers could not only earn a certain

percentage of salary in annual bonuses, but

could actually lose access to bonuses by not

meeting goals. The issue of control does not

affect this concept of ownership. For example,

even if a senior official could not make a 25

percent increase in a volume goal because the

market went down and interest rates fell, the

goal did not change. Instead, because the goal

owner is seen as responsible for making the

best of a bad situation, that manager would

forfeit a certain amount of money tied to the

achievement of that goal.

One partner representative stated that, “an

effective performance measurement system is a

servant of the business, not its master.” The

primary purpose of measuring performance is

to develop, deliver, and improve on world-class

products and services—not to audit or find

fault. For government offices and business

units, the essential responsibility is to provide

services to citizens, not monitor the behavior

of employees.

DATA COLLECTION AND

REPORTING

Performance measures must be timely, easy

to implement, and clearly defined. Speed is

essential in both data collection and

distribution. Our study partners try to collect

data as work is done rather than through separate collection and maintenance tasks.

Performance measurements tend to be simple.

According to one partner, simple and clear

nomenclature should be used, measures should

be user-friendly, and the data collection effort
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

35

ANALYZING AND REVIEWING

PERFORMANCE DATA

Various processes can be used to analyze

and validate performance data—including

operations research, statistical analysis, quality

control, and process cost analysis, among other

techniques. A representative of one study

partner said that the organization’s business

units that use advanced statistical techniques

to analyze data tend to do better than those

that don’t. This partner often applies its expertise in advanced technical methods to improve

performance at a lower level of the organization so as to effect results at a higher level.

Another partner representative said the analyst

needs to be able to explain to senior leadership

how the measure was obtained and what the

measures mean. Management then reviews

results versus expectations and makes midcourse corrections: Data are truly integrated.

A very useful method for measuring performance is statistical process control (SPC), a

scientific method of analyzing data and using

the analysis to solve practical problems. The

most common statistical tool in SPC is the

control chart, which is used to detect

differences in variation among numerical

results obtained. Numbers always contain variation. There is variation in the way the

numbers are generated, collected, and

analyzed, as well as variation in the measurement process itself. The control chart filters

out routine variation so exceptional values can

be revealed. SPC helped one study partner,

which began using the process about 12 years

ago, determine which problems required

follow-up actions. Feedback was provided to

activity/process owners for continuous

improvement.

Graphic presentation of key information is

a critical element of the analysis and review

process. Many partners use run charts to identify meaningful trends. They analyze indicator

data at least annually against intended targets

and look for trends. Based on these trends,

they take appropriate action as required. In an

effort to relate employee progress to its

should not be overly structured. A standard

data definition helps business units throughout

an organization use and understand measures

uniformly.

A clear data collection plan helps streamline

the data collection process:

1. Identify how much data need to be

collected, the population from which the

data will come, and the length of time

over which to collect the data. 

2. Identify the charts and graphs to be used,

the charting frequency, the type of

comparison to be made, and the calculation methodology. 

3. Identify the characteristics of the data to

be collected—attribute data are things

that can be counted; variable data are

things that can be measured. 

4. If the performance measure is new, try to

identify existing data sources or create

new sources. All data sources need to be

credible and cost effective.

Resources must be allocated for the data

collection effort. This entails identifying who is

responsible for collecting and reporting the

data. Management must also identify who will

ensure that the data collected are reliable,

timely, and accurate, and that the process is

confidential and access is rapid. In addition,

management must describe how the data will be

collected, including data entry, tabulation, and

summarization methods. Managers should also

identify any associated costs of collecting data.

Generally, our partners use information

systems to support data collection and

reporting. They use both automated and

manual requests for periodic updates.

Organizations should try to automate when

possible to reduce the burden of data

collection on the workforce. They should also

centralize their databases, create an on-line

data entry system, make sure it is flexible

enough to respond to improvements/changes,

and make it user-friendly. One partner uses

automation in order to be proactive. This

allows it to identify and fix failures well before

customers indicate that something is wrong.
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

36

strategic plan without sharing inside information, one partner visually indicateds targets

without using actual data. Icons, such as an ice

cream cone or a pot of gold, are used on charts

to identify who is above, below, and on target.

Other study partners color code their charts—

e.g., green for good, red for bad, and yellow

for caution. The Pareto chart is another useful

tool to show the relative importance of

different categories.

EVALUATING AND UTILIZING

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance information must be formally

reviewed—and acted upon to improve or

simplify processes. Most of our partners incorporate a review of performance measurements

into the strategic planning process in order to

provide management feedback for adjusting

future performance plans and resources and for

confirming or modifying performance plans or

targets. They use performance information to

perform benchmarking and comparative

analysis with best-in-class organizations or to

identify opportunities for reengineering and

resource allocation.

Most of our partners base rewards and recognition on results. One partner has several incentive pay programs that focus the hourly workers

on accomplishing what is best for their

customers and for the company. 

Process owners use performance information for continuous improvement. A popular

continuous improvement model used by our

partners was the Shewart cycle: plan, do, study,

act. The “plan” is what is expected to happen

for any selected action. The “do” is the execution of what was planned; often, this is in the

form of a pilot test. The “study” compares the

results of what actually happened to the

expected results. The “act” acts on the results.

If the predictions hold true, then execution

can be standardized. The process for taking

action varies, but generally includes the

following steps: understand the results, establish and clarify priorities, generate recommendations, develop action plans, implement

action plans, and monitor progress. 

Under GPRA—and, indeed, as a principle

of good management—agencies must continually revise and improve their program and

activity measures. The June 2, 1997, Federal

Times cites several examples of agencies

improving and refining performance measures: 

• Instead of increasing vessel inspections

and certifications, the Coast Guard trains

entry-level crew members to reduce

human error in the towing industry. The

fatality rate dropped from 91 to 27 for

every 100,000 employees. 

• Instead of counting the number of forecasts it makes, the National Weather

Service measures the warning time given

to the public before severe weather. The

lead time before tornadoes increased

from seven minutes to nine minutes.

• Instead of tracking the response time to

questions about veterans’ eligibility for

burial on its grounds, the National

Cemetery System is trying to improve

the scheduling of burial services. Its goal

is to finalize a date within two hours of

receiving a request.

REPORTING ON PERFORMANCE

TO CUSTOMERS AND

STAKEHOLDERS

Data should be reported and performance

explained internally, and performance

information should be consolidated across the

organization. One partner introduced a new

internal document on key performance indicators that uses color-coded graphs to show

progress—or trouble. The CEO of another

study partner uses an internal television system

to communicate information—including

information on performance measurement—

to all organizational locations worldwide on a

quarterly basis. A third partner has over 5,000

data sites on its intranet, each of which is kept

apprised of performance measurement data

and findings.

Information should not only be shared

internally, but also externally with customers

and stakeholders through annual reports. One
BEST PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

37

planning process. Congress and management

use this information to set priorities and make

decisions. Further, the input influences the

customer-driven strategic planning process, the

multiyear goal setting and resource planning

process, the annual performance planning

process, and—ultimately—resource allocation.

Customer/stakeholder feedback also influences

the updating of performance measures and

goals and the establishment of new ones. Thus

informed, updated, and revised, the

performance measurement process begins

anew.

partner formed formal partnership agreements

with industry associations in the United States

so as to share performance information with

customers and stakeholders. The aim is to

employ quality management principles in a

joint effort to enhance operations and offer

innovative, nonregulatory approaches to

problem solving.

REPEATING THE CYCLE

Sharing performance information with

customers and stakeholders facilitates the

receipt of pertinent input from them for the
Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

APPENDICES
41

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Prince William County, VA

AT&T Telecommunications

AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada, LTD)

Pratt & Whitney 

Canadian Intellectual Property Office

Trade Marks Office, Industry Canada

Halliburton Company

Xerox

Chevron

Custom Research, Inc.

Florida Power & Light

Multnomah County, Oregon

Department of Energy/University of California

Commonwealth of Virginia

DuPont

City of Scottsdale, Arizona

Granite Rock 

City of Sunnyvale, California

Honeywell Air Transport

ADAC

Fannie Mae

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Canada

Department of Veterans Affairs

Saturn

British Telecommunications

Eastman Kodak

U.S. Coast Guard

Wainright Industries

Federal Express Corporation

Her Majesty’s Land Registry

BellSouth Telecommunications

City of Coral Springs, Florida 

APPENDIX A:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Performance Measurement Study Team thanks the corporate and government partners that willingly

shared their experiences and best practices with us. Special thanks are also due Harry Hatry, The Urban

Institute; Robert Kaplan, Harvard University; Steve Klink, Federal Quality Consulting Group; Melissie

Rumizen, National Security Agency; Joyce Thompson, Zenger Miller; the United Kingdom U.S. Embassy;

and Nita Congress, editor, for her special touch.

STUDY PARTNERS
43

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Linda Allen-Benton, National Science Foundation

Brian Andrew, Canadian Intellectual Property Office

Industry Canada

Linda Bailey, Department of Health and Human Services

Barbara Bova, Canadian Intellectual Property Office,

Industry Canada

Wilett Bunton, National Performance Review

Lori Byrd, Department of Transportation

Jerry Chatham, Department of Veterans Affairs

Danna Chung, Department of Health and Human

Services

Michel Côté, Canadian Heritage

Donna V. Davis, General Services Administration

Stephen J. Dienstfrey, Department of Veterans Affairs

Thomas Garin (Major), U.S. Air Force

Hap Hadd, Department of Health and Human Services

Gia Harrigan, Department of the Navy

Hamid Jorjani, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Larry Juul, Department of Defense

Suneel Kapur , Department of Energy

Margo Kiely, Fairfax County, VA

Steve Lambing, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Romeo Lavarias, Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Steve LeNard, Department of Health and Human Services

Daryl Lucas, Department of Education

Curt Marshall, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

John Scott McAllister, Department of Veterans Affairs

Jennifer McKay, Canadian Intellectual Property Office,

Industry Canada

Dana Mellerio, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Kathleen Monahan, Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Carmen Nadeau, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Canada

Linda Nivens, Department of Labor 

Jane Osborne, Department of Health and Human Services

Chris Peterson, Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Peter Poulos, Department of Defense

Valerie Richardson, Patent and Trademark Office 

Armeta Ross, Government of the District of Columbia

Michael Turner, Federal Aviation Administration

Mike Whitfield, AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd)

APPENDIX B:

STUDY TEAM

Study Sponsor

National Performance Review

Study Organizers

Wilett Bunton, NPR Benchmarking Team Leader

Lori Byrd, NPR Benchmarking Team

Linda Nivens, NPR Benchmarking Team

Study Team Leaders

James J. Cavanagh, Department of Energy

Lisa J. Roth, Patent and Trademark Office

Adel Shalaby, Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada

Gary A. Steinberg, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Study Team Members
45

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

APPENDIX C:

SITE VISIT SURVEY

RESPONSES
63

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

APPENDIX D:

GLOSSARY

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it

is the skin of a living thought, and may vary greatly in

color and content according to the circumstances and

time in which it is used.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 

The following terms have been defined as listed

below for the purposes of this study.

Advance planning: That part of the planning

process in which organizational leaders—together

with the strategic planning staff—define the planning process; establish membership, roles, and

responsibilities for the process; clarify expectations

for process outputs and outcomes; and provide the

necessary resources to ensure its success.

Balanced scorecard: A management instrument

that translates an organization’s mission and

strategy into a comprehensive set of performance

measures to provide a framework for strategic

measures and management. The scorecard

measures organizational performance across several

perspectives: financial, customers, internal business

processes, and learning and growth.

Baseline data: Initial collection of data to establish

a basis for comparison.

Benchmark: A standard or point of reference used

in measuring and/or judging quality or value.

Benchmarking: The process of continuously

comparing and measuring an organization against

business leaders anywhere in the world to gain

information that will help the organization take

action to improve its performance.

Core process: The fundamental activities, or group

of activities, so critical to an organization’s success

that failure to perform them in an exemplary

manner will result in deterioration of the organization’s mission.

Customer: The person or group that establishes the

requirement of a process and receives or uses the

outputs of that process, or the person or entity

directly served by the organization.

Environment: Circumstances and conditions that

interact with and affect an organization. These can

include economic, political, cultural, and physical

conditions inside or outside of the organization.

External customer: An individual or group outside

the boundaries of the producing organization that

receives or uses the output of the process.

Government Performance and Results Act (Public

Law 103-62): A law that creates a long-term goalsetting process to improve federal program

effectiveness and public accountability by

promoting a new focus on results, service quality,

and customer satisfaction.

Internal customer: An individual or group inside

the boundaries of the producing organization that

receives or uses the output from a previous stage or
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

64

including information on the efficiency with which

resources are transformed into goods and services

(outputs), the quality of those outputs (how well

they are delivered to clients and the extent to which

clients are satisfied) and outcomes (the results of a

program activity compared to its intended

purpose), and the effectiveness of government operations in terms of their specific contributions to

program objectives.

Stakeholder: Any person, group, or organization

that can place a claim on, or influence, the organization’s resources or outputs; is affected by those

outputs; or has an interest in or expectation of the

organization.

Strategic direction: The organization’s goals, objectives, and strategies by which it plans to achieve its

vision, mission, and values.

Strategic goal: A long-range change target that

guides an organization’s efforts in moving toward a

desired future state.

Strategic objective: A broad time-phased

measurable accomplishment required to realize the

successful completion of a strategic goal.

Strategic planning: A continuous and systematic

process whereby guiding members of an organization make decisions about its future, develop the

necessary procedures and operations to achieve that

future, and determine how success is to be

measured.

Vision: An idealized view of a desirable and potentially achievable future state—where or what an

organization would like to be in the future.

process to contribute to production of the final

product or service.

Key performance indicator: Measurable factor of

extreme importance to the organization in

achieving its strategic goals, objectives, vision, and

values that, if not implemented properly, would

likely result in a significant decrease in customer

satisfaction, employee morale, and effective financial management.

Measure: One of several measurable values that

contribute to the understanding and quantification

of a key performance indicator.

Metrics: The elements of a measurement system

consisting of key performance indicators, measures,

and measurement methodologies.

Mission: An enduring statement of purpose; the

organization’s reason for existence. The mission

describes what the organization does, who it does it

for, and how it does it.

Outcome measure: An assessment of the results of

a program activity as compared to its intended

purpose.

Output measure: Tabulation, calculation, or

recording of activity or effort.

Performance goal: A target level of an activity

expressed as a tangible measurable objective, against

which actual achievement can be compared.

Performance management: The use of

performance measurement information to help set

agreed-upon performance goals, allocate and prioritize resources, inform managers to either confirm

or change current policy or program directions to

meet those goals, and report on the success in

meeting those goals. 

Performance measure: A quantitative or qualitative

characterization of performance.

Performance measurement: A process of assessing

progress toward achieving predetermined goals, 
65

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

Several useful publications are listed here for your

reference in initiating or improving your organization’s performance measurement and performance

management processes.

Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key

Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review.

GAO/GGD-10.1.16. General Accounting Office,

version 1, May 1997.

Best Practices: The IRS Research Project on

Integrating Strategic Planning, Budgeting,

Investment and Review. Office of Economic

Analysis, Internal Revenue Service, May 1996.

Criteria for Developing Performance Measurement

Systems in the Public Sector. Department of the

Treasury, September 1994.

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the

Government Performance and Results Act.

GAO/GGD-96-118. General Accounting Office,

June 1996.

Focusing on Results: A Guide to 

Performance Measurement. Industry Canada,

March 1995.

The Government Performance and Results Act:

1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be

Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. General Accounting

Office, June 1997.

Guidelines for Performance Measurement.

DOE/G/120.1-5. Department of Energy, June

1996.

Guidelines for Strategic Planning. DOE/PO-0041.

Department of Energy, January 1996.

A Handbook for Strategic Planning. Publication

No. 94-02. Total Quality Leadership Office,

Department of the Navy.

Implementation of the Government Performance

and Results Act. Chief Financial Officers Council,

GPRA Implementation Committee, May 1995.

In Their Own Words. Executive Summary of

Strategic Management Interview Data. Total

Quality Leadership Office, Department of the

Navy.

Integrating Performance Measurement Into the

Budget Process. Chief Financial Officers Council,

GPRA Implementation Committee Subcommittee

Project, January 1997.

Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in

Measuring Performance. GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-

138. General Accounting Office, May 1997.

NASA Strategic Management Handbook. National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, October

1996.

The National Highway and Traffic Safety

Administration Case Study: Strategic Planning and

Performance Measurement. National Highway and

Traffic Safety Administration, August 1996.

OMB Circular A-11, Part 2: Preparation and

Submission of Annual Performance Plans, Section

220. Office of Management and Budget, revised

May 1997.

APPENDIX E:

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT

PUBLICATIONS
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

66

Strategic Information Management (SIM) SelfAssessment Toolkit. General Accounting Office,

Accounting and Information Management

Division, Exposure Draft, Version 1.0, October

1994.

Strategic Management for Senior Leaders: A

Handbook for Implementation. Publication No.

96-03. Total Quality Leadership Office,

Department of the Navy.

Strategic Planning and Strategic Management

Within NASA: A Case Study. National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, June 1996. 

Strategic Planning: Charting a Course for the

Future. Video. Document No. T012-00- 0000150.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

October 1996.

Strategic Planning: Selecting the Leadership Team.

Total Quality Leadership Office, Department of

the Navy. May 1992.

Toward Useful Performance Measurement: Lessons

Learned From Initial Pilot Performance Plans.

National Academy of Public Administration,

November 1994.

Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer

Insights for GPRA Implementation. GAO/AIMD97-46. General Accounting Office, March 1997.

Performance Measurement Guide. Department of

the Treasury, Financial Management Service,

November 1993.

Performance-Based Management: Eight Steps to

Develop and Use Information Technology

Performance Measures Effectively. General Services

Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy,

December 1996.

Program Performance Measures: Federal Agency

Collection and Use of Performance Data.

GAO/GGD-92-65. General Accounting Office,

May 1992.

Reaching Public Goals: Managing Government for

Results - a Resource Guide. National Performance

Review, October 1996.

Serving the American Public: Best Practices in

Customer-Driven Strategic Planning.

Benchmarking Study Report. National

Performance Review, February 1997.
67

Vice President of the United States

AL GORE

APPENDIX F:

AGENCY CONTACTS AND

OTHER SOURCES

Many individuals and organizations can provide

valuable assistance as you and your organization

move forward in improving your performance

measurement process. Listed below are phone

numbers and e-mail addresses for the organizations

represented in this study and some other helpful

points of contact.

U.S. Air Force

SAF/ST

Thomas Garin

Phone: 703-808-3837

e-mail: garint@sgate.com

Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Trade

Marks Office, Industry Canada

Mike Whitfield

Phone: 819-997-2469

e-mail: whitfieldm@aecl.ca

Department of Defense

Phone: 703-614-9163

Department of Education

Daryl Lucas

Phone: 202-401-8547

e-mail: daryl_luca@ed.gov

Department of Energy

Office of Policy and International Affairs

Suneel Kapur

Phone: 202-586-0110

e-mail: suneel.kapur@hq.doe.gov

Fairfax County, VA

Margo Kiely

Phone: 703-324-7533 

e-mail: MKIELYE@FFXVM1.CO.FAIRFAX.US

Federal Aviation Administration

Michael Turner

Phone: 405-954-0425

e-mail: mturn1@ibm.net

General Services Administration

Carole A. Hutchinson

Director of Performance Management

carole.hutchinson@gsa.gov

(202) 501-0325

Office of Governmentwide Policy

Donna V. Davis

Phone: 202-401-8134

e-mail: donna.davis@gsa.gov

Government of the District of Columbia

Phone: 202-727-6554

Department of Health and Human Services

Phone: 202-205-5766

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Phone: 202-401-8800, ext. 2706

Department of Labor

Linda Nivens

Phone: 202-219-7357

e-mail: linda.nivens@dol.gov

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Gary Steinberg

Office of Policy and Plans

Phone: 202-358-4552

e-mail: gary.steinberg@hq.nasa.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

Curt Marshall

Phone: 202-482-5181

e-mail: curt.l.marshall@noaa.gov
SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

68

Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada

Adel Shalaby

Phone: 613-957-2493

e-mail: shalaby.adel@tbs-sct.gc.ca

Internet: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tb/ige/

mnpgen.html

Department of Veterans Affairs

Phone: 202-273-5084

OTHER SOURCES

National Performance Review

Managing for Results Web Page

Internet: http://www.npr.gov

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: 202-395-4840/5670

Internet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html 

Inter-Agency Benchmarking and Best Practices

Council

Internet: http://www.va.gov/fedsbest/

index.htm

National Performance Review

Wilett Bunton

Phone: 202-632-0150/0367

e-mail: wilett.bunton@npr.gsa.gov

National Science Foundation

Phone: 703-306-1104

Department of the Navy

Naval Undersea Warfare Center (Newport)

Gia Harrigan

Phone: 401-841-6167

e-mail: harrigan@c80.npt.nuwc.navy.mil

Patent and Trademark Office

Office of the Comptroller

Valerie Richardson

Phone: 703-305-8161

e-mail: vrichard@uspto.gov

Department of Transportation

Lori Byrd

Phone: 202-366-6068

e-mail: lori.byrd@ost.dot.gov