Participative action research process (PAR process)
, 7–8, 108
Performance indicator development assemblage (PIDA)
, 7, 107
key messages
, 112–113
potential benefits
, 107–110
potential challenges and opportunities
, 111–112
questions
, 113–114
Performance Indicator House of Quality (PIHoQ)
, 7, 10, 13, 18–21, 49
areas of deployment
, 39–47
confirmation of PIHoQ and components and deciding areas of deployment
, 99–104
confirmation of VoC and TR
, 73–76
critical decision
, 35–39
framework
, 22
importance and satisfaction ratings
, 34–35
learning from
, 44, 47
mapping exercise and TR relationship matrix
, 77–78
mapping of VoC and TR relationship matrix
, 78–81
outputs and outcomes
, 82–86
plotting of critical decision
, 95–98
sample TRs for cultural precinct
, 28, 30
stakeholder selection and VoC development
, 50–70
surveying importance and satisfaction ratings
, 87–94
TR
, 24–27
TR relationship matrix
, 27–29
TRs development
, 71–72
VoC
, 21–24
VoC and TR relationship matrix
, 29–31
Performance indicators
for cultural precincts
, 84
customer approach to performance indicator development
, 6–8
customers collaboration in development of
, 3–4
and measuring performance in PA
, 4–6
outputs and outcomes
, 32–34
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
, 9
Public administration (PA)
, 1, 13
customer approach to performance indicator development
, 6–8
customers collaboration in development of performance indicators
, 3–4
performance indicators and measuring performance in
, 4–6
quality-oriented perspective to performance indicator development in
, 1–3