Table 2 Examples of studies that found... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Examples of studies that found organizational factors important for use

Author(s)	Was information used?	Type of information	Organizational factors	Information providers	Information	Information channels	Environmental factors
Hill and Andrews (2005)**	Yes, but use varies	PI: outputs, efficiencies and outcomes	Budget format influences use: Input-based budgeting processes limited the use of PI compared to performance- based budgeting approaches by focusing attention on appropriations
Bourdeaux (2006)**	Yes, but intensity of use varies	Performance measures	Legislative responsibility for budgeting influences use: Legislative responsibility for budgeting increased use of performance measures Legislative engagement in oversight of PI affects use: Legislative engagement in oversight of PI increased use of performance measures
Ellul and Hodges (2019)***	Yes, varies from high use to low use	Financial information (input information) and PI (output, outcome and efficiency information)	Organizational practices alter use: Government's existing practices encourage focus on inputs while ignoring outputs and outcomes		Information type affects use: Input information limits political bargaining which makes it attractive and more widely used
Giacomini et al. (2016)*	Yes, varies from high to low levels of use	Accounting information (financial and non- financial/PI)	Stages of political cycle can affect use: Accounting information is used more in decision-making stage, where it operates as ammunition, as compared to the policy formulating stage, where accounting information improves understanding				Level of political conflict modifies use: More political conflict indicates more accounting information use
Ho (2006)*	Yes, use varies from extensive use to no use and also varies among cities	Input, output, outcome, and efficiency information	Organizational culture relates to use: Culture integrates PI with decision-making Performance measurement practices affect use: Measurement practices need to be in order if PI use is expected to happen Performance measures connected to goals, planning and reporting influence use: Connecting measures to goals, planning and reporting enhances use				Citizens involvement in performance measurement design can steer use: Citizen involvement integrates performance measurement with decision-making
Johansson and Siverbo (2009)*	Yes, but use varies depending on the city	Performance evaluation report (quality, productivity,and efficiency benchmark information)	Organizational slack relates to use: Organizational slack contributes to higher use Administrative competences and capabilities drive use: Administrative competences and capabilities promote higher use Well-developed change routines explain use: Well-developed change routines are associated with higher use				Political environment affects use: Municipalities with left-wing majority in the local council use less information
Lu and Willoughby (2015) **	Yes, moderate use	PI (outputs and outcomes)	Performance management is crucial for PI use: Budgeting for performance is more likely to occur when state conducts performance management Measurement system maturity contributes to PI use: Measurement system maturity increases some PI use Shared responsibilities are important for PI use: Shared responsibilities advance PI use Capacity-building relates to PI use: Capacity-building increases PI use				Legal foundation promotes PI use: Having a proper legal foundation for performance-based budgeting contributes to higher PI use
Paulsson (2006)***	Yes, although it is less common that ministers would use accounting information as compared to political advisor use	Accrual accounting information	Funding of the agency shapes use: Agencies financed with fees use more information than agencies financed with appropriations Financial problems affect use: Agencies with financial problems use more information than agencies not having such problems
Raudla (2012)***	Yes, limited use	PI (outputs and outcomes)	Budget process lowers use: Budget process is too time-constrained, which limits PI use Organizational roles cause problems for use: Limited role of legislators does not incentivize use			Documents inhibit use: Documents are too long and cumbersome, and this contributes to limited use
Saliterer & Korac (2014)*	Yes, high and extensive	PI (effectiveness/outcome and efficiency)	Organizational culture enhances PI use: Developmental culture increases performance information use		Availability of information is crucial for use: When availability of PI increases, PI use also increases
Saliterer and Korac (2013)*	Yes, extensive use	PI (efficiency and effectiveness/outcome measures)	Rational culture is important for use: Rational culture is an incentive to increase PI use Partnership building affects use: Partnership building increases some PI use Internal management explains use: PI is used less in internal management Rational implementation relates to use: Rational implementation promotes higher PI use				External accountability is a determinant of use: PI is used more in external accountability relationships

Author(s)	Was information used?	Type of information	Organizational factors	Information providers	Information	Information channels	Environmental factors
Hill and Andrews (2005)**	Yes, but use varies	PI: outputs, efficiencies and outcomes	Budget format influences use: Input-based budgeting processes limited the use of PI compared to performance- based budgeting approaches by focusing attention on appropriations
Bourdeaux (2006)**	Yes, but intensity of use varies	Performance measures	Legislative responsibility for budgeting influences use: Legislative responsibility for budgeting increased use of performance measures Legislative engagement in oversight of PI affects use: Legislative engagement in oversight of PI increased use of performance measures
Ellul and Hodges (2019)***	Yes, varies from high use to low use	Financial information (input information) and PI (output, outcome and efficiency information)	Organizational practices alter use: Government's existing practices encourage focus on inputs while ignoring outputs and outcomes		Information type affects use: Input information limits political bargaining which makes it attractive and more widely used
Giacomini et al. (2016)*	Yes, varies from high to low levels of use	Accounting information (financial and non- financial/PI)	Stages of political cycle can affect use: Accounting information is used more in decision-making stage, where it operates as ammunition, as compared to the policy formulating stage, where accounting information improves understanding				Level of political conflict modifies use: More political conflict indicates more accounting information use
Ho (2006)*	Yes, use varies from extensive use to no use and also varies among cities	Input, output, outcome, and efficiency information	Organizational culture relates to use: Culture integrates PI with decision-making Performance measurement practices affect use: Measurement practices need to be in order if PI use is expected to happen Performance measures connected to goals, planning and reporting influence use: Connecting measures to goals, planning and reporting enhances use				Citizens involvement in performance measurement design can steer use: Citizen involvement integrates performance measurement with decision-making
Johansson and Siverbo (2009)*	Yes, but use varies depending on the city	Performance evaluation report (quality, productivity,and efficiency benchmark information)	Organizational slack relates to use: Organizational slack contributes to higher use Administrative competences and capabilities drive use: Administrative competences and capabilities promote higher use Well-developed change routines explain use: Well-developed change routines are associated with higher use				Political environment affects use: Municipalities with left-wing majority in the local council use less information
Lu and Willoughby (2015) **	Yes, moderate use	PI (outputs and outcomes)	Performance management is crucial for PI use: Budgeting for performance is more likely to occur when state conducts performance management Measurement system maturity contributes to PI use: Measurement system maturity increases some PI use Shared responsibilities are important for PI use: Shared responsibilities advance PI use Capacity-building relates to PI use: Capacity-building increases PI use				Legal foundation promotes PI use: Having a proper legal foundation for performance-based budgeting contributes to higher PI use
Paulsson (2006)***	Yes, although it is less common that ministers would use accounting information as compared to political advisor use	Accrual accounting information	Funding of the agency shapes use: Agencies financed with fees use more information than agencies financed with appropriations Financial problems affect use: Agencies with financial problems use more information than agencies not having such problems
Raudla (2012)***	Yes, limited use	PI (outputs and outcomes)	Budget process lowers use: Budget process is too time-constrained, which limits PI use Organizational roles cause problems for use: Limited role of legislators does not incentivize use			Documents inhibit use: Documents are too long and cumbersome, and this contributes to limited use
Saliterer & Korac (2014)*	Yes, high and extensive	PI (effectiveness/outcome and efficiency)	Organizational culture enhances PI use: Developmental culture increases performance information use		Availability of information is crucial for use: When availability of PI increases, PI use also increases
Saliterer and Korac (2013)*	Yes, extensive use	PI (efficiency and effectiveness/outcome measures)	Rational culture is important for use: Rational culture is an incentive to increase PI use Partnership building affects use: Partnership building increases some PI use Internal management explains use: PI is used less in internal management Rational implementation relates to use: Rational implementation promotes higher PI use				External accountability is a determinant of use: PI is used more in external accountability relationships

Note(s): *Local government, **State government, ***Central government