IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v28y1982i4p379-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Valid Measures of Public Sector Productivity: Performance Measures in Urban Transit

Author

Listed:
  • John M. Gleason

    (University of Nebraska at Omaha)

  • Darold T. Barnum

    (Indiana University Northwest)

Abstract

In recent years, performance measurement has become the focus of attention in a variety of public sector fields. Unfortunately, too little has been done to develop valid operational definitions of performance, or to identify the weaknesses and biases inherent m certain types of performance measures. Thus, the potential exists for the inappropriate use of certain indicators in performance evaluations and decisions. One field in which there has been increasing effort to deal with performance problems is that of transit. Regardless, the nebulous nature of "performance" has been all too apparent in this industry. The terms "productivity," "efficiency," and "effectiveness" have been used synonymously in some instances, while in other cases "efficiency" and "effectiveness" have been considered to be different aspects of overall "productivity." This confusion is of major significance, because the use of performance measures in operations assessment, decision making, and resource allocation is increasing. Furthermore, since it increasingly is being urged that subsidy payments be linked to the performance of a transit system, and since subsidies now constitute over half of transit revenues, the performance measurement problem is particularly important. This paper examines weaknesses and biases inherent in commonly used measures of urban mass transit performance. It is shown that measures of efficiency, such as cost per passenger, are being incorrectly used as measures of effectiveness and that various traditional measures of efficiency, such as those which incorporate mileage, can be misleading when applied in decision making. Suggestions are made for developing valid performance indicators and for developing safeguards that will avoid present shortcomings.

Suggested Citation

  • John M. Gleason & Darold T. Barnum, 1982. "Toward Valid Measures of Public Sector Productivity: Performance Measures in Urban Transit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 379-386, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:28:y:1982:i:4:p:379-386
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.28.4.379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.4.379
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.28.4.379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chandra, Shailesh & Quadrifoglio, Luca, 2013. "A model for estimating the optimal cycle length of demand responsive feeder transit services," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Zack Aemmer & Andisheh Ranjbari & Don MacKenzie, 2022. "Measurement and classification of transit delays using GTFS-RT data," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 263-285, June.
    3. Barnum, Darold T. & Karlaftis, Matthew G. & Tandon, Sonali, 2011. "Improving the efficiency of metropolitan area transit by joint analysis of its multiple providers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1160-1176.
    4. Howie, Peter & Davletova, Indira & Makhazhan, Indira, 2023. "Evaluating the design and implementation of Kazakhstan’s workfare program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Uğur Baç, 2020. "An Integrated SWARA-WASPAS Group Decision Making Framework to Evaluate Smart Card Systems for Public Transportation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-24, October.
    6. Darold Barnum & John Gleason, 2011. "Measuring efficiency under fixed proportion technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 243-262, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:28:y:1982:i:4:p:379-386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.