The defence performance measurement framework: measuring the performance of defence organisations at the strategic level

ABSTRACT

As the gap between strategic commitments and budgetary constraints continues to grow, defence organisations have introduced performance management initiatives to support decision-making and to improve governance. However, introducing managerial practices in public organisations, including defence, proves to be challenging. As performance management initiatives within defence suffer from an implementation gap, strategic benefits are not being harnessed. In our study, we first exploit the results of a systematic literature review to better anchor the encountered challenges within the literature. We then apply thematic analysis to a unique dataset from twelve NATO countries to propose a new defence-specific performance management framework for the strategic level. As the framework preserves the benefits of existing initiatives while mitigating most recorded challenges, it is proposed as a new guide for designing and assessing defence performance management efforts. Thereby, professionals and scholars are provided with a powerful instrument to address the implementation gap. Moreover, the theoretical and empirical lens adopted facilitates alignment between performance management initiatives, defence policy, defence strategy, and strategic objectives. Notably, policy goals and strategic “ends” are clearly connected to critical processes and resources. Thereby, the proposed framework better supports discussions with key defence stakeholders pertaining to the gap between commitments and constraints.

KEYWORDS:

• Defence policy
• defence strategy
• performance management
• performance measurement
• conceptual framework

Acknowledgements

First, we would like to thank the national representatives who took part in the survey and meetings and thereby provided most of the data for this study. In particular, we would like to thank Mr. Tony Lawrence and Mr. Chad Young for their support in the development of the DPMF from the collected data. Their constant feedback proved to be invaluable for the development of the framework. Second, we would like to thank Mr Juan Raemdonck and Mr. Walter Baeten who delved on parts of the overall study within the context of their thesis and thereby facilitated the discovery of the potential of the framework. Finally, we acknowledge funding from the Royal Higher Institute for Defence (Belgium).

Disclosure statement

No relevant financial benefit(s) or conflict of interest(s) to disclose

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance measurement framework structured around goals and measures in four domains or perspectives of performance, being “financial”, “client”, “internal process”, and “innovation and growth”.

2. The Logic Model is a performance measurement framework that structures organisational performance according to the value production process, in other terms; based on clearly defined objectives and measures related to “inputs”, “processes”, and “outputs” of the organisation (Beeres et al. 2010). It is better known within NATO as “means”, “ways”, and “ends” (Erbel 2017; Kingdon 2011; Perry 2013).

3. Key Performance Area, ref page 2.

4. Such as better organisational learning, knowledge sharing, understanding of the strategy and strategic awareness, management, employee commitment, and quality.

5. Such as better strategic communication, organisational reputation, and legitimization.

6. Such as better focus, decision-making, monitoring, improvement initiatives and results, feedback, tracking, testing, and validation of the strategy.

7. The Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine Corps in the U.SA. for example.

8. Such as the level of spending or the availability of resources.

9. In turn, failure to align the “outputs”, “processes” and “inputs” has led to huge defence shortfalls over the years. This includes deployments without adequate resources, as is illustrated by the massive volume of outsourcing contracts given to private military and security companies to sustain current operations (Erbel 2017). Moreover, effective strategy development is hampered and policy decisions are restrained to “inputs” and “processes” without adequate consideration of the “outputs” (Kingdon 2011).

10. Also referred to as cause-and-effect maps and success maps.

11. Studies conducted within the purview of the STO’s System Analysis and Studies Panel are abbreviated as SAS along with the attributed study number.

12. Despite the fact that the STO is one of the most innovative and analytically rigorous institutions with a far reaching impact within NATO, there is a surprising paucity of academic analysis pertaining to its activities (Morgan 2015), and our study therefore offers incremental remedial.

13. Including geography, defence expenditure, percentage of defence expenditure with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the size of the active armed forces, the size of the active armed forces with respect to the population, the type of armed forces or the ambition level, the deployment commitments, the Government’s effectiveness, and the number of years in NATO.

14. This section primarily discusses the framework development process as such, culminating in a detailed description of the new framework at the beginning of the next section (Results).

15. Interestingly, these two nations have a leadership role within NATO given their relative size, sophistication, and interest in international security, due to which many European states follow their example when contemplating organisational change and defence reform (Erbel 2017).

16. Absence of KPAs or KPAs lacking focus in a nation’s strategy.

17. KPAs that are not measured.

18. For a deeper discussion on bargaining around national (or vital) interest, power, and values and how this is linked to the generation of different credibility options, we refer to Lindsay and Gartzke (2020) and Morgan (2003).

19. The degree of coverage (i.e. the number and size of the blind spots) and the number of measurement gaps provide a strong indication of the overall maturity of a PM system (Wettstein and Kung 2002). In the case of the assessed nation, the maturity level was found to be coherent with the one indicated in the NATO proceedings.

20. Such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and the Logic Model.

21. In the PM literature, giving prominence and consideration to the different organisational stakeholders is a reflection of increased PM system maturity (Chearskul 2010; Wettstein and Kung 2002), and this is therefore also an important contribution of the DPMF.

22. e.g. in this case the department of defence.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Royal Higher Institute for Defence (Belgium) [HFM18-4].

Notes on contributors

Joaquim Soares

Joaquim Soares is an officer in the Belgian Defence and a Double PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp and the Royal Military Academy (RMA, Belgium) where he also serves as an assistant in the Department of Economics, Management and Leadership. Previously holding several management-related master’s degrees, he has served as a supervisor for several Master thesis on this subject, has participated in several data collection and experimental studies, and has successfully completed his Joint PhD training. He is also an active participant in several NATO work-groups including SAS096 on Performance Management in Defence Organizations and SAS152 on Comprehensive National Defence Systems.

Geert Letens

Geert Letens is a Colonel in the Department of Economics, Management and Leadership of the RMA and a research fellow at the Vlerick Business School. He has a M.S. in Telecommunications from the RMA, a M.S. in Mechatronics from KULeuven, and in TQM from Hasselt University. He holds a PhD in Applied Economics from Ghent University and in Social and Military Sciences from the RMA. Geert served as the President of the SEMS within IISE. He is a Fellow and past President of ASEM and serves as the voting member for Belgium on the NATO SAS panel.

Nathalie Vallet

Nathalie Vallet is a Professor at the University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics’ Management department as well as the Faculty of Design Sciences of the same university. She currently serves as the vice-dean of this last faculty besides having other management and expert roles within the university. She teaches courses on general management, organization management and strategic management. Her current research focuses on strategic implementation and strategic management in the public sector. She is also specializes in qualitative research methods (grounded theory). She is also actively involved in the executive master’s program in public management as well as the postgraduate program in social profit management of the Antwerp Management School.

Wouter Van Bockhaven

Wouter Van Bockhaven is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics’ Management department. He received his PhD in Applied Economic Sciences from the University of Antwerp in 2014. His research focuses on how firms can develop innovation networks to tackle institutional and social barriers preventing the creation of shared value. He is engaged in teaching and coaching students in strategic analysis and consulting projects, strategic management, strategy implementation, PM and innovation management at various faculties of the University of Antwerp, the Antwerp Management School, the Royal Military Academy, the Artesis university college (Antwerp, Belgium) and the Karel De Grote university college (Antwerp, Belgium).

Heather Keathley-Herring

Heather Keathley-Herring is an Assistant Professor in the Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department at the University of Central Florida. She received her Bachelor’s degree in Systems Engineering from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and her Master’s degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech. She then completed a dual doctoral degree with the Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech and the DEML department of the RMA in 2016. Her research is in Management Systems Engineering with a focus on organizational change and transformation. She is a member of Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers and the American Society for Engineering Management.

Eileen Van Aken

Eileen Van Aken is a Professor and Interim Head of the Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. She is a three-time graduate of Virginia Tech, earning her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in industrial engineering in 1988, 1991, and 1995, respectively. Her research focuses on enterprise PM Systems, lean work systems, and organizational improvement practices. She is a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), the American Society for Engineering Management, and the World Academy of Productivity Sciences. She is also a member of both the American Society for Quality and the American Society for Engineering Education.