Measuring Performance for Collaborative Public Management Using Network Analysis Methods and Tools

References

• Agranoff, R. (2005). Managing collaborative performance: Changing the boundaries of the state. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(1), 18-45.
   Google Scholar
• Analytic Technologies. 2008. Centrality. http://www.analytictech.com/networks/centrali.htm
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, L.B. (2008). Legal frameworks for governance and public management. In L.B. Bingham and R. O'Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 247-269). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, L.B., O'Leary, R., & Carlson, C. (2008). Frame shifting lateral thinking for collaborative public management. In L.B. Bingham and R. O'Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 3-16). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29(4), 555-564.
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Linton C. Freeman. (2007). UCINET 6.0 VERSION for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, S., Eimicke, W., & Horan, J. (2002). Catastrophe and the public service: A case study of the governmental response to destruction of World Trade Center. Public Administration Review, 62(S1), 24-32.
   Google Scholar
• Comfort, L.K., & Haase, T.W. (2006). Communication, coherence, and collective action: The impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications infrastructure. Public Works Management & Policy, 10(3), 328-343.
   Google Scholar
• Comfort, L.K., & Kapucu, N. (2006). Interorganizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards 39(2): 309-327.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, R., & Thomas, R.J. (2009). Driving results through social networks: How top organizations leverage networks for performance and growth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2004). National response plan (NRP). Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Dowding, K. (1995). Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach. Political Studies, 43(1), 136-158.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1992). Federal response plan. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1993). FEMA's disaster management program: A performance audit after Hurricane Andrew. H-01-93. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• General Accounting Office (GAO). (1993). Disaster management: Improving the nation's response to catastrophic disasters. Washington, DC: GPO.
   Google Scholar
• Hanneman, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, available at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N. (2006a). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multi-agency coordination. American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207-225.
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N. (2006b). Examining the National Response Plan in response to a catastrophic disaster: Hurricane Katrina in 2005. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24(2), 271-299.
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N. (2008). Collaborative emergency management: Better community organizing, better public preparedness and response. Disasters, 32(2), 239-262.
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N., & Van Wart, M. (2006). The evolving role of the public sector in managing catastrophic disasters: Lessons learned. Administration & Society, 38(3), 279-308.
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N., Augustin, M.A., & Garayev, V. (2009). Interstate partnerships in emergency management: Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) in response to catastrophic disasters. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 297-313.
   Google Scholar
• Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J.H. (1982). Network analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Koliba, C., Meek, J.C., & Zia, A. (2010). Governance networks in public administration and public policy. New York: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mandell, M.P., & Keast, R. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(4), 574-597.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2007). Answering the big questions, asking the bigger questions: Expanding the public network management empirical research agenda. Paper presented at 9th Public Management Research Conference, Tucson.
   Google Scholar
• Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). (1993). Coping with catastrophe: Building an emergency management system to meet people's need in natural and manmade disasters. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• O'Toole, L.J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1): 45-52.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K.G., & Milward, H.B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K.G., & Sebastian, J.G. (1998). Networks within networks: Service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 453-463.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K.G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479-516.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K.G., Veazie, M.A., Staten, L.K., & Teufel-Shone, N.I. (2005). The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 603-613.
   Google Scholar
• Rethemeyer R.K., &. Hatmaker, D.M. (2008). Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into management of network structures in public sector service provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 617-646.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, C.B. (Ed.). (2007). Emergency management: The American experience 1900-2005. Fairfax, VA: PERI.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, G.B., Clayton, R., & Kovoor, S. (1990). Modeling interorganizational effectiveness. Public Productivity & Management Review, 13(3), 215-222.
   Google Scholar
• Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (1998). Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks: A structurationist perspective on network process and effectiveness. Organization Science, 9(3): 265-284.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, M.A., Perry, J.L., & Miller, T.K. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23-56.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, F.F. (2006). The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. http://www.whitehouse.com
   Google Scholar
• U.S. House of Representatives. (2006). Select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Katrina: A failure of initiative. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/Katrina/ExecSum.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waugh, W.L., Jr., & Sylves, R.T. (2002). Organizing the war on terrorism. Public Administration Review, 62(S1), 145-154.
   Google Scholar