results, the measurement and evaluation activities, to permit widespread
forms of control. It is a political accountability approach since the source
of agency control is external (i.e., by the citizen) and the degree of con-
trol over agency actions is still low and without punishments.
The second dimension of e-performance concerns the level of govern-
ment and types of external stakeholders involved. The Brunetta reform
engages a wide span of stakeholders, since it is engineered around all
citizens, in their role of stakeholders of the public services acting as driv-
ers of the innovation. The central purpose of the decree is to resolve the
fundamental problem of democracy, namely how to ensure that the state,
in its political and administrative organization, answers to the citizens
for what it does.
The third dimension concerns the two main measures of performance, effi-
ciency and eff e
ff ctiveness. The reform is aimed at fostering faster economic
growth by boosting the effi
c
ffi iency and productivity of the public sector, which
responds to a vision of the public administration as a productive sector, a provider of services. This reform is also related to the fi
financial situation of the
Italian public sector that has greatly deteriorated over the last 5–6 years.
Transparency is one out of the three cornerstones of the reform,
together with evaluation and merit. The measurement and evaluation of
Bridging E-Government and Performance 67
the performances are aimed at improving the quality of services off
ffered
by government. First, this evaluation needs to embrace the administrative
organization as a whole, the individual organizational units, as well as
the individual employees. Secondly, it must be transparent with regard to
information about the measurement and evaluation of performance. In the
middle of the performance evaluation criteria should be placed the satisfac-
tion index about delivered services and therefore the citizen. Any monetary
incentive related to the subject can be granted to public employees only on
the basis of new criteria for performance evaluation.
The public administrations annually assess both organizational and individ-
ual performance. Performance evaluation is carried out at diff eren
ff
t level by the
“Independent Evaluation Body” (namely OIV) of which every administration
must adopt in order to assess the performance; the Commission for evalua-
tion, transparency and integrity of government, for guidance and coordina-
tion of the evaluation of performance in all public authorities (namely Civit);
and the individual heads of organizational units involved in the performance
cycle. Moreover, the cycle of performance measurement should be regulated
by a deliberation approved by each government and named “Measurement
and Evaluation System” that identifi es
fi stages, timing, methods, subjects and
responsibilities of the measurement and evaluation performance process.
The organizational performance measurement and evaluation system
covers, among others, policies about satisfaction of the community needs,
plans, programs, and measuring activities of level of implementation,
degree of satisfaction of activities and services through interactive mode,
qualitative and quantitative development of relations with citizens, stake-
holders and users of services, effi
fficient use of resources, quality and quantity
of provided services, and promoting equal opportunities.
The measurement and evaluation of individual performance of managers
and employees is connected to the performance indicators, the achievement
of specific individual goals, the quality of the contribution to the overall
performance of the structure, ensured through the professional and mana-
gerial skills demonstrated, and the ability to evaluate their own employees,
demonstrated by diff eren
ff
t opinions.
5 FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BRUNETTA
REFORM AT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL
Every administration has an obligation to publish specific information on
its institutional website in a special section of easy access and consulta-
tion, labeled “Transparency, evaluation and merit.” The information or
documents that are supposed to be published are the 3-year program for
transparency and integrity and its state of implementation; the plan and
report on performance; the total amount of rewards allocated and actu-
ally distributed to the performance; the analysis of data on the degree
68 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
of diff
fferentiation in the use of rewarding both for managers and their
employees; the names and curricula vitae of members of independent
bodies responsible for evaluation and performance measurement func-
tions; curricula of managers drawn up in accordance with the European
model; the remuneration of managers, with specific evidence on the vari-
able components of wage and related components to the result evaluation;
curricula and wages of those who hold positions of political adminis-
tration; assignments, paid and unpaid, granted to public employees and
private subjects.
In terms of implementation, concerning ministries, all available docu-
ments requested by Brunetta reform, are compulsory published on line
on the Civit website (section “Attuazione della Riforma—Ministeri e
Enti Nazionali,” Reform implementation—Ministries and Other Enti-
ties), that allows monitoring the state of the art. As shown in Figure 6.2, the Civit website provides a list of all documents which are available
so far (for example, since the fi
first performance management cycle has
not been fi
finished yet, the performance report is not available). They are
Performance measurement and evaluation system (Sistema misurazione
valutazione); Three-year plan for transparency and integrity (Programma
trasparenza); Performance plan (Piano della performance); and Quality
standards (Standard qualità).
Figure 6.2 Civit website—reform implementation—ministries and other entities
section. Source: www.civit.it (retrieved October 15, 2011).
Bridging E-Government and Performance 69
The Performance measurement and evaluation system is part of the over-
all performance management cycle that consists of defi
finition and assign-
ment of goals, values expected, results and their indicators; link between
objectives and resources; ongoing monitoring of exercise and activation of
any corrective actions; performance measurement and evaluation, overall
and individual; use of reward systems, according to merit criteria; reporting
of results to the political-administrative bodies, the heads of governments
and appropriate external bodies, citizens, stakeholders, users and recipients
of services. Objectives are programmed over 3 years before the beginning
of the year and defi
fined by the political-administrative bodies, after having
consulted the
heads of the administration that, in turn, consult the manag-
ers or heads of organizational units. The objectives are defined in accor-
dance with the budget and their achievement is a condition for the grant of
proposed incentives.
Every administration adopts the 3-year program for transparency and
integrity, to be updated annually, which indicates the initiatives planned to
ensure an adequate level of transparency and legality and the development
of integrity culture. The public administrations guarantee maximum trans-
parency in every phase of the described cycle of performance management.
In the t3-year program for transparency and integrity timing, resources
and tools dedicated to the eff
ffectiveness of initiatives are specified. In case of
non-adoption of the 3-year program for transparency and integrity, or non-
fulfi
fillment of the requirements for publication on the website, payments of
salaries for managers responsible for the result are suspended.
The last document is the performance plan. Performance measurement is
at the heart of the reform: what, how and when to measure? The reform gives
more emphasis on performance measurement, while in the past management
control was central. Performance plan is a 3-year planning document that
identifi e
fi s strategic and operational objectives and defines indicators for mea-
suring and evaluating the performance of the administration and objectives
and related indicators assigned to managers. Report on performance shows,
in the fi
final balance, the organizational and individual results achieved in rela-
tion to individual objectives and planned resources, with variance analysis,
and gender budgeting and it must be adopted by June 30. The report on the
validation of the performance is mandatory condition for access to tools to
reward merit. Both the plan and the report must be immediately transmitted
to the Civit and the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
As Figure 6.2 shows, on the Civit website there are diffe
ff rent levels of the
Brunetta reform implementation concerning e-government effec
ff t. Each min-
istry should prepare, approve, and upload on its websites the Brunetta reform
package and send it to Civit in order to comply with the transparency rules.
When Civit receives a document, it verifi
fies the content and uploads it on its
website, with the upload date. Sometimes ministries draw up the requested
material, but they are not ready to publish it on the websites yet. This is the
reason why the color used for the document is differen
ff
t on the Civit website
(blue for documents with link and black for documents without link).
70 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
Even if the reform started on January 2011, at present almost all minis-
tries (11 out of 13, see Table 6.2) show both the Performance measurement and evaluation system and the Performance plan, according to the reform
rules. The complete online state will be reached quite soon, considering
that the remaining documents have been already approved, except for the
Ministry of Economy and Finance Performance plan.
The 3-year plan for transparency and integrity needs to be revised annually
given its 3-year horizon, and this is the reason why we have a lower degree of
implementation of e-government tools. Lastly, the Quality Standards seems
to be less in use, but it should be considered that its core content is part of
the Performance Plan. Consequently, often Ministries do not split in to two
documents the Performance Plan, but leave the quality standards as part of its
presentation. The presence of a Quality standard should be assessed consider-
ing jointly the contents of Performance Plan and Quality Standards.
Table 6.2 Ministries: Status of Brunetta Reform Implementation through
E-Government
Performance
Three-year
Measurement
plan
and
for
Evaluation Performance transparency
Quality
Ministry of
System
Plan
and integrity Standards
1. Foreign aff
ffairs
x
x
x
x
2. Defense
x
x
x
x
3. Economy and fi
finance
x
4. Justice
x
x
x
x
5. Infrastructure and transport
x
x
x
x
6. Environment, Territory
x
x
x
and See
7. Interior aff airs
ff
x
x
x
8. Education, university
x
x
and scientifi c research
fi
9. Employment and welfare
x
x
x
10. Agricultural, alimentary
x
x
x
x
and forest policies
11. Health
x
x
x
12. Economic development
x
x
x
13. Cultural heritage
x
x
x
x
Total on line documents
11
11
9
4
Source: www.civit.it (retrieved October 15, 2011).
Bridging E-Government and Performance 71
The Brunetta reform acts also on the merit cornerstone. On the Civit
homepage, there is the Transparency, evaluation and merit section (“Tras-
parenza, Valutazione e Merito,” see Figure 6.2, on the right) that allows citizens to know about people involved in diff
fferent projects, money paid
and results achieved. That should be of help in evaluating the use of public
resources and their eff ec
ff tiveness.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The case of Italy highlights a central government case where the fi r
fi st step
of e-performance implementation has taken place almost homogeneously
in all ministries. Whereas a content analysis is needed to fully understand
whether the substance of the published documents match at least with com-
pulsory contents, it can be stated that the mechanisms provided by law
have been able to assist policy makers to fulfi
fill the e-performance strategic
goal, at least in its fi
first move. Noticeably, the Civit commission has been
able to support ministry’s managers and the OIVs to publish the fi
first two
key documents of e-performance, namely Performance Measurement and
Evaluation System and Performance Plan. In fact, the reform gives more
emphasis on performance measurement, whereas in the past management
control was central.
The reform has been a success, at least in the fi
first initial stages, and
&
nbsp; e-government appeared to be a strong mean for implementing the goals of
the reform Nevertheless, since the Brunetta reform is newly implemented, it
is too early to determine the extent of success and its implications. Moreover,
being only at the fi
first round, it is too early to make meaningful evaluation
or assessment of the success of the reform as a whole. Further development
of the research may involve the comparison with other European countries,
because it will be more useful once the Brunetta reform will be concluded
and its eff
ffect in terms of success measured.
The reform has been carried out not only by publishing guidelines,
but also by supplying further comments on guidelines, closer technical
examinations for specifi
fic purposes, plenary meeting sessions, one-to-one
meetings, and FAQ sessions online. De facto, the Civit has worked for and
with the key actors of the e-performance reform. This can be considered
as the key success factor, since this commission has been the crucial differ-
ence between this and previous public management reforms. At the same
time, all ministries had already implemented e-government solutions, as
shown by Overall On line Sophistication (OOS) values (that places Italy
at the tenth position (European Commission, 2007) among the European
countries (del Sordo et. al., 2012). OOS in fact provides an indication
of the extent to which the online provision of services is based on new
models of front and back-offi
ffices integration, the reuse of available data
and to what degree the idea of pro-active service delivery is embedded.
72 Carlotta del Sordo, et al.
Therefore any advance from performance measurement and management
solutions to what we have called e-performance have been possible with
any particular difficulties.
REFERENCES
Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (2003). Management Control in Nonprofi t
fi Orga-
nizations 7th edition. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Biancucci, R. J., Goode, L. J., Hunter, P. A., Owings, K., Tucker, A., & Willett, R.
B. (2001). CFO survey—A preview: Electronic government. Journal of Govern-
ment Financial Management, 2, 36–39.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance, International Com-
parisons. Routledge: London.
Chen, Y., & Gant, J. (2001). Transforming local e-government services: the use
of application service providers. Government Information Quarterly, 18(4), 343–355.
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 13
