@article{KuhlmannBogumil2018,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg},
  title     = {Performance measurement and benchmarking as "reflexive institutions" for local governments},
  series = {International journal of public sector management},
  volume    = {31},
  journal   = {International journal of public sector management},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {0951-3558},
  doi       = {10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0004},
  pages     = {543 -- 562},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss different approaches of performance measurement and benchmarking as reflexive institutions for local governments in England, Germany and Sweden from a comparative perspective. Design/methodology/approach These three countries have been selected because they represent typical (most different) cases of European local government systems and reforms. The existing theories on institutional reflexivity point to the potential contribution of benchmarking to public sector innovation and organizational learning. Based on survey findings, in-depth case studies, interviews and document analyses in these three countries, the paper addresses the major research question as to what extent and why benchmarking regimes vary across countries. It derives hypotheses about the impacts of benchmarking on institutional learning and innovation. Findings The outcomes suggest that the combination of three key features of benchmarking, namely - obligation, sanctions and benchmarking authority - in conjunction with country-specific administrative context conditions and local actor constellations - influences the impact of benchmarking as a reflexive institution. Originality/value It is shown in the paper that compulsory benchmarking on its own does not lead to reflexivity and learning, but that there is a need for autonomy and leeway for local actors to cope with benchmarking results. These findings are relevant because policy makers must decide upon the specific governance mix of benchmarking exercises taking their national and local contexts into account if they want them to promote institutional learning and innovation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BogPlattnerZeier2011,
  author    = {Bog, Anja and Plattner, Hasso and Zeier, Alexander},
  title     = {A mixed transaction processing and operational reporting benchmark},
  series = {Information systems frontiers},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Information systems frontiers},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1387-3326},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10796-010-9283-8},
  pages     = {321 -- 335},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The importance of reporting is ever increasing in today's fast-paced market environments and the availability of up-to-date information for reporting has become indispensable. Current reporting systems are separated from the online transaction processing systems (OLTP) with periodic updates pushed in. A pre-defined and aggregated subset of the OLTP data, however, does not provide the flexibility, detail, and timeliness needed for today's operational reporting. As technology advances, this separation has to be re-evaluated and means to study and evaluate new trends in data storage management have to be provided. This article proposes a benchmark for combined OLTP and operational reporting, providing means to evaluate the performance of enterprise data management systems for mixed workloads of OLTP and operational reporting queries. Such systems offer up-to-date information and the flexibility of the entire data set for reporting. We describe how the benchmark provokes the conflicts that are the reason for separating the two workloads on different systems. In this article, we introduce the concepts, logical data schema, transactions and queries of the benchmark, which are entirely based on the original data sets and real workloads of existing, globally operating enterprises.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuhlmannJaekel2013,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and J{\"a}kel, Tim},
  title     = {Competing, collaborating or controlling? - Comparing benchmarking in European local government},
  series = {Public money \& management : integrating theory and practice in public management},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Public money \& management : integrating theory and practice in public management},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0954-0962},
  doi       = {10.1080/09540962.2013.799815},
  pages     = {269 -- 276},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {The way that local authorities in OECD countries compare and benchmark their performance varies widely. This paper explains some of the reasons behind the variations. The current local government benchmarking schemes in Europe their governance, coverage and impactlargely depend on the institutional characteristics of the respective administrative and local government systems (in other words, the starting conditions). There are signs that, as a result of the fiscal crisis in Europe and need to cut public sector costs, many countries (but not England and Wales) are leaning towards compulsory large-scale benchmarking projects.},
  language  = {en}
}