page_title: Performance measurement
hierarchical_section_title: Performance measurement
caption_attribution_description: English: Performance Reference Model The PRM framework is designed to clearly articulate the cause-and-effect relationship between inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The framework builds from the value chain and program logic models. This “line of sight” is critical for IT project managers, program managers, and key decision-makers to understand how, and to the extent, key inputs are enabling progress toward outputs and outcomes. The PRM captures this “line of sight” to reflect how value is created as inputs (such as Technology) and used to create outputs (through Processes and Activities), which in turn, impact outcomes (such as, Mission, Business and Customer Results). Guiding the entire PRM are “Strategic Outcomes,” representing broad, policy priorities driving the direction of government (such as, to Secure the Homeland). The PRM is structured around Measurement Areas, Measurement Categories, Measurement Groupings, and Measurement Indicators. Measurement Areas – The high-level organizing framework of the PRM capturing aspects of performance at the output levels. This layer is directly linked to the performance objectives established at the agency and program levels. The PRM includes six measurement areas: Mission and Business Results, Customer Results, Processes and Activities, Human Capital, Technology, and Other Fixed Assets. Measurement Categories – Collections within each measurement area describing the attribute or characteristic to be measured. For example, the Mission and Business Results Measurement Area include three Measurement Categories: Services for Citizens, Support Delivery of Services, and Management of Government Resources, corresponding to the Lines of Business in the BRM. Measurement Groupings – Further refinement of categories into specific types of measurement indicators. For the Mission and Business Results Measurement Area, these groupings align to the Sub-functions of the BRM. Measurement Indicators – The specific meas ures, e.g., number and/or percentage of customers satisfied, tailored for a specific BRM Line of Business or Sub-function, agency, program, or IT initiative. The PRM structure is designed to provide a standardized measurement hierarchy and framework to be uniquely tailored by decision-makers for a specific environment. An agency’s strategic planning process establishes specific programs and objectives to meet the needs of its citizen stakeholders. These programs are implemented to deliver citizen services enabling agencies to achieve desired performance objectives. An agency’s EA is the management tool program managers can utilize to create views of their IT investments to be integrated into the performance and strategic planning management processes. Critical to the successful use of the PRM and the EA, performance management ensures an agency’s IT investments can be directly linked to the agency’s performance objectives.
context_page_description: Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing and/or reporting information regarding the performance of an individual, group, organization, system or component.
  Definitions of performance measurement tend to be predicated upon an assumption about why the performance is being measured.
  Moullin defines the term with a forward looking organisational focus—"the process of evaluating how well organisations are managed and the value they deliver for customers and other stakeholders".
  Neely et al. use a more operational retrospective focus—"the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions".
  In 2007 the Office of the Chief Information Officer in the USA defined it using a more evaluative focus—"Performance measurement estimates the parameters under which programs, investments, and acquisitions are reaching the targeted results".
  Beyond a simple agreement about it being linked to some kind of measurement of performance there is little consensus about how to define or use performance measures.
context_section_description: Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing and/or reporting information regarding the performance of an individual, group, organization, system or component.
  Definitions of performance measurement tend to be predicated upon an assumption about why the performance is being measured.
  Moullin defines the term with a forward looking organisational focus—"the process of evaluating how well organisations are managed and the value they deliver for customers and other stakeholders".
  Neely et al. use a more operational retrospective focus—"the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions".
  In 2007 the Office of the Chief Information Officer in the USA defined it using a more evaluative focus—"Performance measurement estimates the parameters under which programs, investments, and acquisitions are reaching the targeted results". 
  Beyond a simple agreement about it being linked to some kind of measurement of performance there is little consensus about how to define or use performance measures. In the light of this what has happened is the emergence of organising frameworks that incorporate performance measures and often also proscribe methods for choosing and using the appropriate measures for that application. The most common such frameworks include:
  Balanced scorecard—used by organisations to manage the implementation of corporate strategies
  Key performance indicator—a method for choosing important/critical performance measures, usually in an organisational context
  Operational standards often include pre-defined lists of standard performance measures. For example EN 15341 identifies 71 performance indicators, whereof 21 are technical indicators, or those in a US Federal Government directive from 1999—National Partnership for Reinventing Government, USA; Balancing Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management, August 1999.
  Defining performance measures or methods by which they can be chosen is also a popular activity for academics—for example a list of railway infrastructure indicators is offered by Stenström et al., a novel method for measure selection is proposed by Mendibil et al.
  Academic articles that provide critical reviews of performance measurement in specific domains are also common—e.g. Ittner's observations on non-financial reporting by commercial organisations, or Boris et al.'s observations about use of performance measurement in non-profit organisations.
caption: Performance Reference Model of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, 2005.[6]
exif: {}