A Diagnostic Approach to Performance Management: The Case of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit of Malaysia

REFERENCES

• Barber, M. (2009). Instruction to deliver: Fighting to transform Britain’s public services. London, UK: Mathuen.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, K., & Moubourne, R. (2006). Blue ocean strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Iyer, D. (2011). Tying performance management to service delivery: Public sector reform in Malaysia, 2009–2011. Innovations for Successful Societies, Princeton University, Retrieved December 9, 2012, from http://www.princeton.edu/successfulsocieties
   Google Scholar
• KPI test in November. (2009, April 16). New Straits Times.
   Google Scholar
• McCourt, W. (2012). Can top-down and bottom-up be reconciled? Electoral competition and service delivery in Malaysia. World Development, 40(1), 2329–2341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery, J. D., & Esman, M. J. (1996). Development administration in Malaysia: Report to the Government of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Government Printer.
   Google Scholar
• O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://wiki.douglasbastien.com/images/1/1d/From_New_Public_Management_to_Public_Value.pdf
   Google Scholar
• PEMANDU. (2011). Government transformation program: Annual report, 2011, 2012. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/annualreport2011
   Google Scholar
• PEMANDU. (2012). Government transformation programme: Annual report, 2011. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.pemandu.gov.my/gtp/wp-content/uploads/reports/GTP_AR2011_ENG_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1991). Development administration circular no. 6/91: Guidelines on productivity improvement in the public sector. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1992a). Development administration circular no. 1/92: Guidelines on total quality management for the public service. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1992b). Development administration circular no. 3/92: Guidelines on micro accounting system. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1993). Development administration circular no. 3/93: Guidelines on clients’ charter. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1996). Development administration circular no. 2/96: Guidelines on MS ISO 9000. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (1999). Development administration circular no. 1/99: Guidelines on benchmarking. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Prime Minister’s Department. (2005). Development administration circular no. 2/05: Guidelines on establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) and implementing performance measurement in government agencies. Putrajaya, Malaysia: MAMPU.
   Google Scholar
• Siddiquee, N. A. (2010). Managing for results: Lessons from public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(1), 38–53.
   Google Scholar
• Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. Retrieved February 28, 2014, from http://arp.sagepub.com/content/36/1/41.full.pdf+html
   Google Scholar
• Treasury Circular No. 5: Federal Budget Estimates. (1969). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Budget Division, Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• Treasury Circular No. 11: Preparation of the 1990 Expenditure proposals under the modified budgeting system. (1989). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Budget Division, Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2005). Unlocking the human potential for public sector performance: World public sector report 2005. New York, NY: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2012a). World Bank approach to public sector management, 2011–2020. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/286304-1286388782250/7457546-1303330758812/COMPLETE.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2012b). Doing business: Measuring business regulations—Ease of doing business in Malaysia. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/malaysia/
   Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (2009). Establishing key performance indicators for the top echelons of the public service. Excellence Journal, 1(1). Putra Jaya, Malaysia: Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Planning Unit (MAMPU). [Reprinted in Commonwealth Innovations, a Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) Quarterly Publication. March 2010, Vol.16 No. 1.]
   Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A. (2013). The World Bank approach to public sector management 2011–2020: Lessons from the Malaysian experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 426–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xavier, J. A., & Sambasivan, M. (2011). Critical success factors in the implementation of technology systems in the public service: A case study of the Malaysian procurement system. Excellence Journal, 3(1). Putra Jaya, Malaysia: Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Planning Unit (MAMPU).
   Google Scholar