Table 1 Obstacles to NFI use by Public... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Obstacles to NFI use by Public Sector Organisations

Obstacles to NFI use by public sector organisations
Organisational	Rigidity of Administrative Systems: Highly rigid administrative and budgetary systems limit managers’ flexibility, creativity, and involvement in achieving goals, making it difficult to use NFI effectively. Similarly low decision-making autonomy and strict procurement frameworks hinder innovation and exploratory use of NFI, which is crucial for addressing complex issues like climate policy Time Constraints in Budget Cycles: The budget cycle often imposes significant time pressure, leaving little room for thorough analysis or actionable use of NFI Underestimation of Workload and Costs: NFI integration reforms often overlook the additional workload and associated costs, leading to capacity issues. Larger organisations are better equipped to handle NFI requirements, while smaller entities often struggle Knowledge and Skills Gaps: Employees frequently lack the expertise to interpret or utilise NFI effectively, further limiting its impact
Based on: Behn (2014), De Graaf and de Waard (2023), De Jong and Ho (2019), Grandia and Volker (2023), Ho and De Jong (2019), Laegreid et al. (2008), Langer et al. (2016), Metzenbaum (2015), Moynihan and Kroll (2016), Moynihan (2018), Moynihan and Beazley (2016), Moynihan and Kroll (2016), Moynihan and Landuyt (2009), Moynihan and Pandey (2010), OECD (2018), Posner et al. (2008), Raudla (2012), Schick (2003), Speklé and Verbeeten (2014), Taylor (2014)
Informational	Lack of Common Standards and Inconsistent Terminology: The absence of shared definitions, indicators, and aligned goals across stakeholders complicates effective use, especially for cross-cutting issues like sustainability Fragmentation of Systems: Separate dashboards and monitors with varying standards, definitions and measurement intervals hinder harmonisation and comparability of NFI and its validity for management and benchmarking Low Perceived Credibility of NFI: Unreliable or controversial NFI can be exploited by political opponents, discouraging its use by policymakers and civil servants Gaming and Manipulation Risks and Lack of Independent Verification: Subtle manipulation of indicators (e.g. selective definitions or measurement points) undermines trust, particularly when linked to financial incentives or penalties
Based on: De Jong (2015), De Jong and Mills (2022), Ho and De Jong (2019), Moynihan and Beazley (2016), Park (2021), Taylor (2014)
Cultural	Lack of participative and reflective openness: Effective NFI use is hindered when employees don’t feel encouraged to participate in discussions about results or to think critically about how to improve them. More specifically, fear of reporting bad news, defensive routines, or denial strategies can prevent employees from using NFI for discussing underperformance or proposing improvements Political Domination: Political interests may overshadow objective evaluation, discouraging candid discussions of NFI. Lack of Leadership’s commitment to NFI: Leaders who champion performance measurement significantly enhance NFI use. If leaders show no commitment to measured results, this will negatively affect the organisational support for using NFI. Prioritisation of Compliance over Results: Leadership that prioritises compliance over results signal to their organisation that avoiding mistakes is more important than achieving better results. This inhibits the explorative use of NFI for learning and decision-making
Based on: De Jong (2015), De Jong (2019), Dull (2009), Hatry et al. (2003), Hijal-Moghrabi (2018), Mahler (1997), Moynihan and Pandey (2010), Osborne and Plastrik (1997), Schick (2003), Senge (1990), Zhao and Ho (2019)

Obstacles to NFI use by public sector organisations
Organisational	Rigidity of Administrative Systems: Highly rigid administrative and budgetary systems limit managers’ flexibility, creativity, and involvement in achieving goals, making it difficult to use NFI effectively. Similarly low decision-making autonomy and strict procurement frameworks hinder innovation and exploratory use of NFI, which is crucial for addressing complex issues like climate policy Time Constraints in Budget Cycles: The budget cycle often imposes significant time pressure, leaving little room for thorough analysis or actionable use of NFI Underestimation of Workload and Costs: NFI integration reforms often overlook the additional workload and associated costs, leading to capacity issues. Larger organisations are better equipped to handle NFI requirements, while smaller entities often struggle Knowledge and Skills Gaps: Employees frequently lack the expertise to interpret or utilise NFI effectively, further limiting its impact
Based on: Behn (2014), De Graaf and de Waard (2023), De Jong and Ho (2019), Grandia and Volker (2023), Ho and De Jong (2019), Laegreid et al. (2008), Langer et al. (2016), Metzenbaum (2015), Moynihan and Kroll (2016), Moynihan (2018), Moynihan and Beazley (2016), Moynihan and Kroll (2016), Moynihan and Landuyt (2009), Moynihan and Pandey (2010), OECD (2018), Posner et al. (2008), Raudla (2012), Schick (2003), Speklé and Verbeeten (2014), Taylor (2014)
Informational	Lack of Common Standards and Inconsistent Terminology: The absence of shared definitions, indicators, and aligned goals across stakeholders complicates effective use, especially for cross-cutting issues like sustainability Fragmentation of Systems: Separate dashboards and monitors with varying standards, definitions and measurement intervals hinder harmonisation and comparability of NFI and its validity for management and benchmarking Low Perceived Credibility of NFI: Unreliable or controversial NFI can be exploited by political opponents, discouraging its use by policymakers and civil servants Gaming and Manipulation Risks and Lack of Independent Verification: Subtle manipulation of indicators (e.g. selective definitions or measurement points) undermines trust, particularly when linked to financial incentives or penalties
Based on: De Jong (2015), De Jong and Mills (2022), Ho and De Jong (2019), Moynihan and Beazley (2016), Park (2021), Taylor (2014)
Cultural	Lack of participative and reflective openness: Effective NFI use is hindered when employees don’t feel encouraged to participate in discussions about results or to think critically about how to improve them. More specifically, fear of reporting bad news, defensive routines, or denial strategies can prevent employees from using NFI for discussing underperformance or proposing improvements Political Domination: Political interests may overshadow objective evaluation, discouraging candid discussions of NFI. Lack of Leadership’s commitment to NFI: Leaders who champion performance measurement significantly enhance NFI use. If leaders show no commitment to measured results, this will negatively affect the organisational support for using NFI. Prioritisation of Compliance over Results: Leadership that prioritises compliance over results signal to their organisation that avoiding mistakes is more important than achieving better results. This inhibits the explorative use of NFI for learning and decision-making
Based on: De Jong (2015), De Jong (2019), Dull (2009), Hatry et al. (2003), Hijal-Moghrabi (2018), Mahler (1997), Moynihan and Pandey (2010), Osborne and Plastrik (1997), Schick (2003), Senge (1990), Zhao and Ho (2019)