000			01700naa a2200169uu 4500
001			6032415433721
003			OSt
005			20190211160803.0
008			060324s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aHALACHMI, Arie _94520
245	1	0	_aPerformance measurement : _btest the water before you dive in
260			_aThousand Oaks, CA : _bSage publications, _cJune 2005
520	3		_aPerformance measurement and reporting are promoted in various publications as a management concept that can help administrators and elected officials address the issues of productivity and accountability. This article challenges this general assertion for two reasons. First, because the cost of performance score cards is always significant while the benefits, in many instances, may be only tentative. Second, because of possible problems that result when measuring performance is used for two different and potentially competing functions: accountability versus productivity. The article concludes that while performance measurement has a potential, its use should be encouraged but not mandated by external bodies. The article asserts that a more prudent introduction and use of performance score cards may result from better understanding of two things: first, what can go wrong when compiling performance reports; and, second, that there might be a need for other corresponding changes, within and outside government agencies, in order to facilitate meaningful performance reports.
773	0	8	_tInternational Review of Administrative Sciences _g71, 2, p. 255-266 _dThousand Oaks, CA : Sage publications, June 2005 _xISSN 0020-8523 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20060324 _b1543^b _cNatália
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c15168 _d15168
041			_aeng