Assessment of Public Bureaucracies Performance

Performance assessment of public bureaucracy is not enough simply done by using indicators inherent in the bureaucracy as the efficiency and effectiveness, but must be seen also from the indicators attached to the service users, such as satisfaction, accountability and responsiveness. Dwiyanto (1995, 9) suggested some indicators that can be used in measuring the performance of public bureaucracies, namely:

1. Productivity
The concept of productivity is not only measure the level of efficiency, but also the effectiveness of services. Productivity is generally understood as the ratio between input and output. At this level, the concept of productivity is felt too narrow so that the General Accounting Office (GAO) to try to develop a measure of the broader productivity by entering how much public services that have the expected results as one of the key performance indicators.

2. Quality of Service.
The issue of service quality tend to become increasingly important in explaining the performance of public organizations. Many negative views about public organizations emerged as the public dissatisfaction with the quality of services received from public organizations. Thus, the public satisfaction of services can be used as indicators of performance of public organizations, because access to information about the quality of service is very easy and relatively inexpensive.
3. Responsiveness.
Responsiveness is the ability of organizations to identify community needs, develop the agenda and priorities of service and develop programs of public service in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the community. In this context, responsiveness refers to the alignment of programs and service activities with the needs and aspirations of the community. Responsiveness was included as one indicator of performance because the direct responsiveness describes the ability of public organizations in conducting the mission and purpose, especially to meet the needs of the community. Low responsiveness shown by the lack of harmony with the needs of the community service that automatically bad performance of the organization. This clearly shows the failure of the organization in realizing the organization's mission and goals.
4. Responsibility.
Responsibility to explain whether the implementation of the activities of public organizations was conducted in accordance with the principles of proper administration or in accordance with organizational policies, either explicit or implicit (Lenvine, 1990). Thus, responsibility may be at some point collide with the responsiveness.

5. Accountability.
Public accountability refers to how much the policies and activities of public organizations are subject to political officials elected by the people. The assumption is that political officials are elected by the people, so that by itself will always represent the interests of the people. In this context, the concept of public accountability can be used to see how much the policies and activities of public organizations is consistent with the will of the community at large. Performance of public organizations not only can be seen from the internal measures developed by public or government organizations, such as the achievement of targets, but performance should be judged by external measures, such as values and norms prevailing in society. A public organization's activities have high accountability if the activity is considered correct and in accordance with the values and norms that develop in society

Peluang Bisnis Untuk Anda

Related Post: