The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

Knowledge
Dealing with knowledge in the in public
Italian public universities universities
The role of performance management systems
Vincenza Esposito 431
Dipartimento di Studi dei Sistemi Economici, Giuridici e Sociali (SEGIS),
Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento, Italy
Ernesto De Nito
Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Storiche, Economiche e Sociali,
Università degli Studi Magna Græcia, Catanzaro, Italy
Mario Pezzillo Iacono
Dipartimento di Economia,
Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli, Capua, Italy, and
Lucia Silvestri
Dipartimento di Studi dei Sistemi Economici, Giuridici e Sociali (SEGIS),
Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – This article sets out to investigate the relationship between performance management
systems (PMSs) and knowledge in public universities. In particular, this paper intends to verify how
different choices related to PMS affect the nature of knowledge, in terms of the well-known tacit vs
explicit dichotomy.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical focus is on the recent PMS changes that have been
developing in the “modernisation agenda” of the Italian public sector. In particular, 15 case studies of
PMS design in Italian universities are presented. The interpretation of the results is based on the
Simon’s theoretical framework related to the four levers of control.
Findings – Results show how PMSs (in the different forms presented in the universities’ evaluation
plans) could represent an important social tool to facilitate the management of organizational
knowledge, combining explicit and tacit forms of knowledge.
Originality/value – This paper tackles a topic neglected in the knowledge management literature,
aiming to open up a discussion on the possible interconnections between PMSs and knowledge in
the public arena.
Keywords Performance management systems, Knowledge, Public universities,
Performance management, Knowledge management, Universities, Italy
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Intellectual capital management and knowledge management (KM) are playing an
increasingly important role within the public sector. In particular public universities
are acknowledging the relevance of KM to their policy making and service delivery
and are beginning to put KM high on their organizational design programs (Girard
and McIntyre, 2010), viewing knowledge as a significant competitive resource of
value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2013
The management of knowledge, within this domain, is increasingly important for at pp. 431-450
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
least two main reasons. In the first place, public universities clearly have knowledge as 1469-1930
their core business, providing knowledge to and sharing it with external stakeholders DOI 10.1108/JIC-03-2013-0035
JIC as their main activity (Cong and Pandya, 2003; Rebora, 2003). Second, public
14,3 universities are under constant pressure from the society to increase their effectiveness
and quality with fewer resources, while simultaneously being expected to show greater
accountability and transparency in processes (Borgonovi, 2009; Riege and Lindsay,
2006). The academic department (often public) is among the institutions facing rapid
change as a result of a need for a more efficient utilization of human resources due to
432 cut-backs in basic funding, as well as the introduction of new accountability measures
by government (Minelli et al., 2012; Hellström and Husted, 2004).
At the same time, while organizational literature has focussed on KM practices
and processes for the private sector, highlighting new challenges and critical issues,
little has been said about the public sector. Syed Ikhsan and Rowland (2004a) provide
some examples of empirical researches realized in public organizations: they embrace
benchmarking of KM (Syed Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004b), knowledge sharing (Liebowitz
and Chen, 2003) and the overlapping between KM and effective decision making
(Wiing, 2002). Besides, within the higher education domain it is hard to find researches
or discussions of KM as a strategy for improving organizational practice, program
implementation and teaching and learning (e.g. Edge, 2005; Coukos-Semmel, 2003).
This study is interested in a certain managerial tool recently adopted by many
Italian public universities and here interpreted in terms of KM: performance
management systems (PMSs).
New public management (Hood, 1991; Vienažindiene and Ciarniene, 2007) proposes
that public organizations should introduce managerial processes from the private
sector, following their successful practices. In particular, this approach emphasizes
operational efficiency driven through the rationality of managerial systems, showing
how the concept and the practice stemming from the private companies can be used in
the public sector. Notwithstanding, only recently has some attention been devoted
to understanding the impact of PMSs on KM in public institutions in general, and
higher education institutions in particular. Although some scholars have focussed on
this relationship in the private sector, exploring – for instance – the boundaries
between knowledge complexity and the PMS (Ditillo, 2004), or investigating the role of
knowledge in adopting different PMSs (Turner and Makhija, 2006), the literature rarely
provides this analysis within the public context (e.g. Heinrich and Marschke, 2010).
This paper aims at investigating the relationship between PMS and knowledge
in public universities verifying how different choices related to PMS affect the nature
of knowledge, in terms of the well-known tacit vs explicit dichotomy. The different
components of a PMS – according to Simons’ classification – could influence
the capacity of the organization to generate knowledge: specifically, some parts of the
PMS affect the explicit dimension of knowledge, while others are more related to
the tacit dimension.
The empirical focus of the paper is the recent PMS changes that have been
developing in the “modernization agenda” of the Italian public sector. In particular,
15 case studies of PMS design in Italian public universities will be presented. The
analysis is concentrated only on the performance of universities’ managers, excluding
other categories (i.e. academics).
The paper is articulated as follows: in the next two paragraphs a literature review,
concerning the issues of KM and PMS in public universities, is presented and the
theoretical framework is clarified. In paragraph 4 the research context and the methodology
adopted for the empirical study are described. Lastly, the results of the empirical research
will be discussed, summarizing the conclusions and the main findings of the study.
2. The role of PMSs in public universities Knowledge
PMSs are a complex tool, composed of different parts and with different goals in public
typically adopted by private and public organizations as a means for engaging
in policy and management organizational change. They present an attractive universities
proposition to politicians, citizens and public spending supporters, opening the
black box of public organizations which greatly enhances their transparency and
manageability (de Bruijn, 2002). So, over the past decade, public management scholars 433
and practitioners have expressed growing interest in the use of performance
management tools to increase government accountability and effectiveness.
Notwithstanding, literature typically suggests that public-sector applications of
PMS are limited and have to date met with only limited success, primarily due to
inadequate performance evaluation methods and underfunding of data management
systems and rewards for performance (Rainey, 2006). Prior researches on public
sector performance management (Heinrich, 1999; Radin, 2000) typically describe
shortcomings in both the design and the results of these systems. Moynihan (2008,
p. 68), for example, states that, with the implementation of PMS, public managers have
been more likely to realize the “symbolic benefits” of creating an impression that
“government is being run in a rational, efficient and results-oriented manner.”
Recent public sector reforms (in Italy, for instance, the “Brunetta Reform”) have
aimed at improving public organization performance: the achievement of program
outcomes reflects the approach to measuring, evaluating and regulating performance
(Heinrich and Marschke, 2010). As we said, under the umbrella of the new public
management (Hood, 1991), public organizations have been engaged in a systematic
attempt to control performance over the last few years. In the opinion of Cavalluzzo
and Ittner (2004) the basic assumption of these initiatives is that the strategic
performance indicators can improve public efficiency and effectiveness by increasing
the accountability and improving the decision making of public administrators.
According to Broadbent and Laughlin (2009), the university system is a specific
area of the public services where this approach is needed and where there is a growing
interest in performance measurement. Recently Corcoles et al. (2011) conducted a study
on the stakeholders’ need for information in higher education organizations in Spain.
The need for universities to have a greater involvement with their wider community
and to ensure information transparency makes it advisable to present information on
performance in their current accounting system. The academic departments competing
for teachers, researchers, students and funds are getting used to managerial practices
and producing reports which allow internal and external bodies to evaluate their
performance (Paloma Sánchez et al., 2009). Finally, according to Secundo et al. (2010),
the increasing cooperation between university and firms has resulted in the demand
for similar processes of evaluation for both players.
In order to explore the concept of control and monitoring in public universities, a
preliminary aspect is related to the conceptualization of PMS.
A PMS is “the set of metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness
of actions” (Neely et al., 1995, p. 81). As stated by Otley (1999), PMSs provide the
information that should be useful to managers “in performing their jobs and to assist
organizations in developing and maintaining viable patterns of behaviour” (p. 364).
Gruman and Saks (2011) suggest that although performance evaluation is at the heart
of PMS (Cardy, 2004), the full process extends to all organizational policies, practices,
and design features that interact to produce employee performance. Aguinis (2009)
has proposed a broader understanding of performance management that includes
JIC organizational planning, performance assessment and behavioral review. Consistently
14,3 with the approach of Broadbent and Laughlin (2009) and Fitzgerald and Moon (1996),
we interpret performance management as a system concerned with defining,
controlling and managing both the achievement of outcomes or ends as well as the
means used to achieve these results at organizational level.
Following a previous enquiry by Otley (1999), Ferreira and Otley (2009) have
434 compared the concepts of PMS and management control system, building their
conceptual model empirically by drawing on an analysis of control systems in a range
of organizations. According to these scholars management control system has become
“a more restrictive term than was the original intention and we prefer to use the
more general descriptor of PMS to capture an holistic approach to the management
and control of organizational performance. We see this term as including all aspects
of organizational control, including those included under the heading of management
control systems” (Ferreira and Otley, 2009, p. 264). As Otley (1999) argues, PMS
provides an integrating framework, both academically and practically, that goes
beyond the traditional boundaries of accounting related with the traditional banner
of management control system. In other words, PMS is a new label for an old concept: it
represents a way to describe a new theoretical framework, whose aim is the design and
the implementation of the “package of controls.”
In this view, it could be interpreted as an integrated technical system to gather
and provide information to help managers in their work and decision-making activities
in order to efficiently and effectively achieve the desired organizational goals, acting
on the employees motivation and the performance assessment (Canonico and
Söderlund, 2010).
Moreover, Ferreira and Otley (2009) highlight that PMSs are not just a technical tool,
but a process where interaction and communication among members support learning
and the creation of knowledge within the organization, both in a tacit and an explicit
dimension Vaivio (2006).

3. PMSs and KM
The aim of this section is twofold. First of all we present some of the main studies that
examine the interplay between PMS and KM, detailing the gaps in extant literature.
In the second place we build up a theoretical framework in order to interpret this
relationship.
With reference to the literature analysis, two issues should be pointed out. First,
most of the researches on performance measurement are focussed on the private sector:
in fact, we have outlined the main conclusions prompted by this branch of research.
Second, previous studies on PMS tend to neglect the role of controlling and evaluating
performance in the management of knowledge, except for a few exceptions focussed
primarily on diagnostic control. As Turner and Makhija (2006, p. 197) argue: “The
literature provides us with only a rudimentary understanding of such organizational
processes associated with the treatment of knowledge.” Scholars analyzed the impact
of control systems (according to the classical classification by Ouchi, 1979) on the
different kind of knowledge attributes and KM. The main idea is that control systems
have specific attributes that affect the way knowledge can be acquired, disseminated
and interpreted inside a firm. On one hand, these tools have inherent information
processing properties that influence how knowledge is shared and disseminated within
the organization; on the other hand, controls and performance evaluations create
incentives and disincentives to behave in a manner consistent with firm objectives,
directing the type of KM behaviour exhibited (Turner and Makhija, 2006). Franco- Knowledge
Santos et al. (2010) point out that, although it is possible to design, maintain and use a in public
PMS without organizational learning occurring, such an outcome is extremely
unlikely: in fact, one of the primary effects during the system design is improved universities
knowledge of the organization. Minelli et al. (2008) understand and compare the
structure and impact of control systems implemented in Italian public universities,
showing that they have given rise to effective results particularly in the area of 435
organizational learning: thus the evaluation experience has brought an increase in
knowledge and transparency.
Other attempts have proposed a theoretical framework adopting an empirical
investigation. For example, Ditillo (2004) presents some reflections interconnecting the
topics of knowledge and control/performance systems with the typology of skill in
knowledge intensive firms. According to his model, management control systems play
a double role in knowledge-intensive firms: on one hand, they help coordinate activities
and, on the other hand, foster a specific mode of knowledge integration. He concludes
by observing that knowledge complexity represents a driving force in the design and
use of management control systems.
All these studies start from the concept of knowledge in order to investigate which
forms and mechanisms of control are most suitable in relation to different knowledge
typologies (or the different features of knowledge). Only a few research projects
have tried to study this relationship the other way around, focussing on how PMSs
influence KM processes.
For example, Currie and Kerrin (2003) use the case study approach to explore
the influence of performance management on enhancing knowledge sharing within a
company. They suggest that tools such as performance evaluation and incentive
compensation systems improve organizational knowledge sharing.
A recent contribution (Rijsdijk and Van den Ende, 2011) has made a broader
analysis of the effects of and interactions among the three prototypical control
mechanisms (outcome, process, clan). The authors show how “combining outcome and
clan controls is most effective in attaining high levels of process performance within
new product development” (Rijsdijk and Van den Ende, 2011, p. 877). Unfortunately,
they do not focus on the role of knowledge as a mediating variable.
Finally, Li et al. (2010) develop and test a theoretical model to discover how various
organizational controls facilitate knowledge exploitation to achieve endogenous
innovation. They offer evidence that different types of organizational controls play
different roles at different points in knowledge exploitation and in the innovation process,
showing that behavioral control enhances a firm’s knowledge exploitation efforts.
These contributions are not always focussed clearly on the concept of knowledge,
and none of them analyzes the dichotomy of tacit vs explicit knowledge. In this paper,
the authors propose a theoretical model for investigating an empirical dimension
related to the application of PMS in the Italian university system, examining the
influence of PMS on knowledge and verifying how different choices related to PMS –
classified according to the Simons levers of control taxonomy – affect the nature of
knowledge in terms of the tacit vs. explicit dichotomy.
This study refers to the well-known concept of knowledge presented by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995) and inspired by Polanyi (1966). They suggest knowledge is
characterized by two dimensions. Tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and
communicate, being part of an individual’s personal baggage. It only has value in relation
to a specific context and by its nature it has a practical component. Explicit knowledge,
JIC however, is communicable. It can be codified and therefore relates to a reality that belongs
14,3 to the past. It is an objective dimension with a distinctive feature: explicit knowledge
becomes theoretical in that it is representable and therefore storable through the use of
appropriate languages. Both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are the intangible
assets any organization holds to provide excellent service to their customers (Yeh, 2005).
According to Nonaka and von Krogh (2009) in the organizational knowledge
436 creation theory, tacit and explicit knowledge should not be seen as separate entities but
rather as mutually complementary and based on the same continuum.
In the literature the relationship between knowledge and control mechanisms was
investigated according to different perspectives (Canonico et al., 2012; Pezzillo Iacono
et al., 2012). For example, Turner and Makhija (2006, p. 205) suggest: “The more tacit,
incomplete, and diverse the process-related knowledge, the more effective the use of
outcome controls will be” and vice versa: “The more explicit, complete, and non-diverse
the outcome related knowledge, the more effective the use of outcome controls will be.”
Following an analogous argument they argue that also the outcome-related knowledge
has a similar effect. The choice of which management control systems to adopt
depends on the level of knowledge (process related or outcome related). Similarly,
Ditillo (2004) states “we predict that a task involving technically complex knowledge
requires the use of result oriented control mechanisms hinging primarily on setting
objectives and monitoring achievements with reference to content, timing, frequency,
and location of required outputs.”
So the tacit/explicit dimension of the process-related knowledge influences the
typology of control mechanism to choose.
The framework adopted in this study explores various typologies of PMSs in order
to investigate which kind of knowledge they affect. Viewing PMS as a framework
to explore management control system allows us to use this influential taxonomy to
interpret the different parts and goals of PMS. In this perspective we adopt Simons’
(1990, 1994, 1995) framework, based on four levers of control working simultaneously
even if for different goals: belief systems, boundary systems, diagnostic control
systems and interactive control systems. Belief systems are defined as formal systems
used by top managers to define, communicate, and reinforce the basic values, purposes
and directions for the organization. Marginson (2002) suggests that the belief systems
open the doors for new ideas, actions, and initiatives. Boundary systems are “formal
systems used by top managers to establish explicit limits and rules which must be
respected” (Simons, 1994, p. 170). According to Canonico and Söderlund (2010), they are
meant to contain cost escalations and their existence allows top management to
regulate decision making. Diagnostic systems are defined as the “formal feedback
systems used to monitor organizational outcomes and correct deviations from
preset standards of performance” (Simons, 1994, p. 170). The diagnostic use of PMS
represents the traditional feedback role as these tools are employed on an exceptional
basis to monitor and reward the achievement of pre-established goals, by focussing on
and correcting deviations from preset standards of performance (Henri, 2006). In fact
the purpose of diagnostic control systems is to ensure the implementation of existing
or intended strategies (Simons, 1995).
Interactive systems are defined as “formal systems used by top managers to
regularly and personally involve themselves in the decision activities of subordinates”
(Simons, 1994, p. 171). These systems are forward looking and are characterized
by active and frequent dialogue among top managers and among managers and
employees (Widener, 2007). According to Simons (1994) whatever control system could
be used in an interactive way following certain guidelines. This implies that a certain Knowledge
degree of interaction could be used in the three different categories influencing the role in public
and the adoption of the control system inside the organization. In particular a control
system could become interactive when managers participate in face-to-face meetings, universities
discuss and challenge data, assumptions and action plans. In this sense interactive
systems are a sort of macro category that could be encompassed in the three previous
ones. As Simons said (1990, p. 136): “Management controls become interactive when 437
business managers use planning and control procedures to actively monitor and
intervene in ongoing decision activities of subordinates.”
In line with this perspective PMSs could be interpreted as an opportunity to nurture
“the continual exchange between top management and lower levels of management,
as well as interactions within various levels of management but across functions”
(Abernethy and Brownell, 1999, p. 191). As stated by Tuomela (2005, p. 298), “The
distinguishing advantage of interactive control is its support for double-loop learning.
In other words, interactively used strategic performance measurement systems can
assist in identifying emerging strategies and they can lead to the reformation of the
existing modes of control.”

4. Research context and methodology

The recent guidelines to reform the Italian public administration passed into law on
4 March 2009 – Law 15/2009 – approved with the Legislative Decree 150 (the Reform
Decree), known as the “Brunetta Reform.” The reform strategy rests on three pillars:
first, modernization of the public administration, second, innovation and digitalization
within the public administration and the country more broadly and finally,
improvement of the relationship between the public administration and citizens and
businesses (OECD, 2010). In coherence with the new public management, the overall
purpose of the reform is to ensure the highest level of accountability for the state
toward its citizens and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Italian public
sector work by raising the quality of public services and by boosting productivity
factors. The reform emphasizes the need to reach these ambitious goals through a new
management approach oriented toward a continuous improvement of performance, the
adoption of the benchmarking method and the measurement of customer satisfaction.
In the lawmaker’s opinion this requires an integrated system of evaluation, incentives
and rewards based on results. This view is consistent with the idea of competitive
selection of the best individuals and organizational units, rewarding them in monetary
and non-monetary terms on the basis of innovative capability and excellence in
performance.
Law 15/2009 took effect, making it obligatory to adopt the PMS concerning the
performance of organizational structures, individual employees and groups of them.
In the absence of these systems, the law prevents public administrations from funding
and/or adopting important organizational policies such as hiring staff, providing
monetary incentives for managers and awarding bonuses to employees.
In the university sector, in particular, a strong tendency toward change has emerged
around the issue of performance assessments. For about the last five years the national
government has invested in training projects that support organizational change
so universities would adopt suitable performance assessment systems in relation to
training and research.
Moreover, in the university sector the reform process has been heavily supported by
the government, who financed two projects to carry out an analysis of the contexts and
JIC planning of the new PMS, which then came into force in the academic years beginning
14,3 in 2010 and 2011. The two projects adopted different working methodologies and
PMS designs that the individual universities subsequently adapted and implemented:
the European Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and the balance scorecard
(BSC) method.
The analysis is focussed on the performance of university managers (excluding
438 technical and academic categories) in the Italian public context. There were two
reasons for restricting the study to the public universities: the external (normative)
pressure to adopt PMSs was the same in all cases; and they have a more homogeneous
experience in performance evaluation compared to private universities.
The focus on the administrative staff is coherent with the idea that universities
are moving from a traditional academic organization to new forms of useful knowledge
to support cooperative activities and relationships with external stakeholders
and funders (Hunt, 2003). In the opinion of Boyer (1990), the increasing emphasis
on integration – such as university-industry cooperation – calls for new forms of
academic and administrative management.
This paper proposes an analysis of the Italian public reform focussing on a research
conducted on 15 PMSs that universities should implement in accordance with the
reform itself.
Within the overall total of 47 Italian public universities, the cases examined in the
empirical study were singled out using three successive steps. Initially, a review was
made of the 31 universities which, during the course of 2011, had formally adopted and
implemented the PMSs for the first time. Next, three different types of university were
identified among these: universities which made use of the CAF method in planning
the PMSs (14); those which used the BSC method (10); those which did not participate
in either of the two government projects set up to design the PMSs and adopted hybrid,
or in some cases completely original, solutions with respect to the other two groups (7).
Finally, in each of the three groups, five individual cases were selected, differing in
terms of size (large/small) and geographic location (north/central/southern Italy).
Fieldwork was carried out between January and early July 2011. During this period
only two phases of PMS have been implemented: programming and goals allocation;
and intermediate monitoring. Because measurement and evaluation of performance
defined in the first assessment cycle ended in March 2012, it was not possible to
conduct a more detailed analysis of some tools provided by the PMSs. The choice of the
geographical limitation (Italian universities) is related to the opportunity of comparing
different realities that are going through similar experiences and share the same
regulatory framework.
The collection of data were carried out using a heterogeneous plurality of
instruments. Such pluralism is coherent both with the theoretical framework and
with the differentiated nature of the information required by the multiple case
studies method.
Focus group: two residential focus groups were held, the first with 24 university
administrative directors and/or HR Managers who used the CAF method; the second
with 14 directors and/or HR Managers who used the BSC method. This close contact
with administrative staff helped us to understand the design of PMSs and to position
the different tools adopted within the Simons taxonomy.
Semi-structured interviews: the analysis is also based on a total of three in-depth
semi-structured interviews with administrative staff members of Benevento
University, one of the universities which did not participate in either of the two
government projects. The interviews were guided by a wide-ranging questionnaire Knowledge
which included questions about: the university organization, the action-learning in public
program and the ethic code characteristics, the strategic map structure, the functioning
of interactive methods. We explored the research issues thoroughly, allowing the universities
interviewees to freely and fully express their views, beliefs and thoughts.
Formal documentation: data were gathered by analysing the text of the law reform
and the formal instruments implemented by each university, i.e. 15 performance 439
evaluation manuals, 15 strategic plans and 15 objective plans. These are documents
which are publicly available on university web sites and/or the site of the national
watchdog (CIVIT), and include all performance measurement targets for managers.

5. Data analysis
The focus groups were designed to clarify the principles and main aims of introducing
a PMS and the design criteria used in their elaboration. It emerged that the PMSs
were seen as very important tools for enhancing the managerial skills and level of
responsibility of staff, namely, these comments by an administrative officer in the
Politecnico, Milano: “Used in this sense, the PMS is not a tool restricted to top level
management; it requires widespread awareness and responsibility. It can in fact be an
important opportunity for implementing a policy of extending management or
leadership at various levels” – and from the Università Sapienza, Roma – “The PMS
fosters the use of tools of self-evaluation and performance enhancement which make
strategic choices aware, coherent, integrated and participative.”
Furthermore in the focus groups it was pointed out that performance management
has to be structured so as to enable benchmarking activities, namely this comment by
an officer in the Università di Ferrara: “The added value provided by the PMS is the
consolidation of a panel of indicators and the possibility of implementing auditing
activities in conjunction with other universities.”
One further indication to emerge from the focus groups was the importance of
participation and communication between management and human resources in all the
phases of PMS design and implementation. According to an administrative director
from the Università del Molise: “In order to improve the efficiency and quality of the
administrative action using the PMS, it is necessary to improve communications (both
bottom-up and top-down) and foster the development of an atmosphere of collaboration
[y] in addition it is necessary to increase motivation in the human resources,
promoting a new culture of staff participation in defining the administrative goals.”
During the interviews carried out with the director general and the administrative
staff of the Università del Sannio, which adopted a hybrid model with respect to the one
used by the two university groupings which participated in the government’s PMS
design projects, particular emphasis was laid on the need to adopt design criteria
and modalities of implementation to take into account the circumstances in which
some universities operate: “My University is only small; it has to grow, and the
human resources have to grow with it [y]” “The PMS must help me to strengthen
the coordination and communication mechanisms linking the central structures and
the peripheral organisms charged with teaching and research [y]” “Through the PMS
we have to learn to really work towards goals and achieve tangible assessments
of results.”
Analysis of the PMSs and the relative strategic plans revealed some general
features. In half the cases (seven) the PMSs made direct use of the organizational value-
based tools (ethic charter, disciplinary code, managerial discourses, vision) to influence
JIC the goal setting process. In only half the cases the PMSs relied on formal systems for
14,3 defining the core processes and key performance indicators.
A similar number (eight) of PMSs envisaged the use of the skill professional system
to achieve a better evaluation of staff performance.
In just one case (Università Sapienza) the PMS envisaged the formal use of tools in
which performances were assessed primarily taking into account the viewpoint of
440 the service users (service charter).
Only rarely (two) were the performances to be assessed defined with reference to a
more general programming tool (budget) with an economic aspect.
Finally, in most cases (11) the technique adopted for goal setting was the interview,
even though with different degrees of autonomy and responsibility concerning the
subjects whose performance was to be evaluated.
An overview of the selected universities, set out according to the Simons
framework, is given in Table I.
A set of organizational solutions for managing performance assessment processes
can be assigned to Simons’ category of “beliefs methods,” with the focus on sharing
principles among the participants in the different steps of the PMS. In particular, some
universities rely heavily on formal tools to communicate the principles, values and
expectations (ethic charter, vision, managerial discourses, culture, disciplinary code)
that define how performances are managed. A special role seems to be carried out
within this category by the various training initiatives on the assessment issue, which
are used to transfer meanings and shared approaches. Another example of a PMS
planning solution directed at beliefs comes from the initiatives intended to study the
organizational climate and to represent the phenomena of organizational well-being or
stress from work.
The second “boundary methods” category defined by Simons can be applied to
other solutions adopted by some of the 15 universities analyzed for planning their
PMS. These are sets of management solutions that are formally brought into the PMS
for the purpose of providing specific methodological inputs and constraints from
various sources to regulate the assessment processes. Specifically, some universities
have introduced tools for measuring significant organizational characteristics that can
be used as the input for each cycle that assesses the performances (Organizational
Check-up Report and Salary and Skill Pay Survey). In many cases, to guarantee a
suitable level of consistency between the various existing directional systems, the
universities analyzed introduced the use of tools for codifying the characteristics and
responsibilities of the persons involved and the activities carried out with the
performance management processes (role and responsibility map, skill professional
system, dictionary skill, job and skill evaluation system, information system plan).
This category also includes management tools, such as certification systems of
evaluation process or service charter, that have been introduced into the PMS for the
purpose of specifying the minimum requirements and minimum performance levels to
be guaranteed in the development of work and performance management processes.
The third category, “diagnostic methods,” includes numerous planning solutions
used by the universities analyzed. These are management tools and methods designed
to define the various “targets” through which to carry out the typical tasks of a PMS
(programming, monitoring, measurement and evaluation). In more detail, the adopted
solutions provide examples of tools that generate strategic and operative macro-
objectives (BSC, key performance indicators); in some cases these goals were set
through a comparative analysis of the results obtained by similar organizations in the
Control system
universities Beliefs Boundary Diagnostic Interactive

Benevento Codes of ethics Dictionary skills Allocation targets meetings

Action-learning program
PoliMi Action-learning program
Sapienza Disciplinary code
Action-learning program
Organizational climate survey
Trento Action-learning program
Verona Discourses on tradition
Bergamo
Bologna Organizational climate survey
Ferrara Mission
Action-learning program
Organizational climate survey
Strategy map
Skill professional system
Strategy map
Strategy map
Role and responsibility map
Certification systems of
evaluation process
Service charter
Job evaluation system
Role and responsibility map
Strategy map
Organizational check-up
Dictionary skills
Budget
Balanced scorecard
Customer satisfaction survey
Strategic planning process
Balance scorecard
Intermediate monitoring report
Benchmarking system
Intermediate monitoring report
Customer satisfaction survey
Management control system
Budget
Balanced scorecard
Customer satisfaction survey
Balanced scorecard
Benchmarking system
Intermediate monitoring report
Risk self-assessment
Internal audit
Analytical accounting system
Management control system
Analytical accounting system
Benchmarking system
Interimediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Self-evaluation activity
Allocation target meetings
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Indicator definition meetings
Allocation targets meetings
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Strategic planning process
Allocation targets meetings
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Intranet
Allocation targets meetings
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings

(continued)

universities using
Knowledge

Simons taxonomy
adopted by 15 Italian
in public
universities

The different PMSs

441

Table I.

Table I.
Control system
universities Beliefs Boundary
Genova Strategy map
Job evaluation system
IUAV Information system plan
Role and responsibility map
Padova Action-learning program Organizational check-up
Organizational climate survey Role and responsibility map
Managerial discourses Job evaluation system
Pavia Action-learning program Role and responsibility map
Skill professional system
Salary and skill pay survey
Information system plan
Perugia Stranieri Strategy map
Role and responsibility map
Pisa Certification systems of
evaluation process
Reggio Calabria Vision Strategy map
Role and responsibility map
Job evaluation system
Skill evaluation system
Diagnostic
Strategic planning process
Internal audit
Balance scorecard
Key performance indicators
Customer satisfaction survey
Internal audit
Balance scorecard
Key performance indicators
Customer satisfaction survey
Internal audit
Balance scorecard
Key performance indicator
Benchmarking system
Quality management system
JIC
14,3
442
Interactive
Allocation targets meetings
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Self-evaluation activity
Allocation targets meetings
Strategic planning process
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Self-evaluation activity
Intermediate results monitoring
meetings
Performance evaluation meetings
Self-evaluation activity
university sector (benchmarking system); in other cases they were set by ascertaining Knowledge
the judgments and expectations of those using the services provided by the in public
universities (customer satisfaction survey); in other cases, starting from the knowledge
of their own specific organizational features (quality management system, risk self- universities
assessment, internal audit). Other elements belonging to this category include common
management tools that provide standards for comparison and estimative or final
summary data obtained through internal accounting systems (budget, analytical 443
accounting, management control system, intermediate monitoring report and strategic
planning process).
The last category of planning solutions, defined in line with Simons as “interactive
methods” encompasses all methods and tools within the PMS: in these cases
interaction means participation between different organizational levels in the PMS
setting process, but also the opportunity of cooperating among organizational
members influencing the organizational behaviours and the possibility of monitoring
and changing through ongoing decisions. Different ways of interactions are used in
order to set up the method and content of the assessment processes (meetings, intranet,
strategic planning process, talks for allocation targets, talks for indicator definition),
and the analysis of the results achieved (talks for intermediate results monitoring, talks
for performance evaluation, self-evaluation activity).

6. Discussion
The use of the particular theoretical framework enabled us to identify the four different
typologies of levers of control in order to discuss the implications in terms of the
explicit vs tacit knowledge dichotomy.
Looking at Table I, the entire sample of universities shows a widespread adoption of
diagnostic forms of control. This choice is clearly directed to influence the process
of accountability and objectives evaluation inside universities. Obviously this process
influences the way the organization produces knowledge. Adopting the Nonaka and
von Krogh (2009) perspective, it is the explicit dimension of knowledge that is directly
affected by these tools and choices. All the tools we described have a clear explicit
dimension consisting of indicators, check lists, rules and procedures.
The adoption of some of these tools (such as BSC, skill professional system,
organizational check-up report) is useful in terms of building up a sort of repository of
knowledge. Having an organizational memory is an objective public universities are
working on, in order to increase their awareness of their intellectual capital and to
facilitate external controls. The recourse to these levers of control capable of promoting
the dynamics of development and the spread of explicit knowledge has been seen, on
the one hand, as an opportunity to improve the capacity of the university to plan and
exploit public resources in an efficient way; on the other, as a chance to strengthen the
capacity of citizens and other stakeholders to exercise control. In this sense the explicit
dimension of knowledge sets up the basis for improving internal performance and
supporting the ability to build up organizational network.
In the case of the Politecnico di Milano, for instance, the performance of top
management was evaluated using indicators of customer satisfaction for 50 percent;
a solution which “enhances and perfects the existing planning control processes
and [y]. favours an increase in levels of efficiency and quality of expenditure on
research and education” (Politecnico di Milano, 2012, p. 2).
In the case of Università di Trento, the findings of the customer satisfaction survey
were used in the PMS in order to reinforce the image of a university committed to a
JIC constant dialogue with families, companies and institutions on the territory
14,3 (University of Trento, 2012, p. 8).
Within the bounds of autonomy permitted by the regulative framework of reform,
some of the universities examined made significant use of instruments focussing on
the interaction between the players involved in the process of performance evaluation,
on the sharing of information and on the combined achievement of objectives and
444 evaluation of their results.
Although interaction per se is not something which always influences the tacit
dimension of knowledge, it can be seen as a powerful tool in order to facilitate forms
of socialization. In particular, the different forms of interaction presented in the
universities’ evaluation plans could represent an important social exchange enabling
people to share problems and learn in a reciprocal way. The different ways of
interpreting these interactive solutions can be explicitly represented in the evaluation
manuals. In the case of Genoa (University of Genova, 2012, p. 16), for example, the
interview “is intended to allow the managers under evaluation and their boss to
exchange their observations, to explain, to defend or to criticize their choices.” In the
Università di Bologna meetings are interpreted as tools to achieve an “extensive
involvement of the individual in defining indicators and targets [y]” and “to improve
performance [y] through cooperation in the data collection” (University of Bologna,
2012, p. 28). In the Università di Ferrara, moreover, meetings are “aimed at developing
the management by objective, promoting personal growth [y] and identifying
areas for improvement organizational structure and its strategies [y]” (University of
Ferrara, 2012, p. 26).
As stated by Tuomela (2005, p. 301): “With respect to the roles of accounting, the
interactive use of accounting systems can be considered especially useful when
accounting is used as an idea or a learning machine (Burchell et al., 1980). Moreover, it
is possible to see certain similarities with interactive control and the garbage-can
model or managing the organized anarchy” (see Cooper et al., 1981). The adoption
of interactive mechanisms shows the possibility/opportunity for the universities to
start a process of knowledge sharing, where actors could discuss and evaluate
technical and organizational skills.
Furthermore, it is important to stress how in some cases the other three levers of
control are handled in an interactive way, influencing both the tacit and the explicit
dimension of knowledge. In this sense, while several universities rely on the same
budgeting system for their PMS, in some cases (Sapienza, Genova) it was used as a
diagnostic instrument which, through the production of explicit knowledge, can serve
to improve programming and control abilities, while in others (Bologna, Pisa), as
interactive levers to reinforce collaborators’ sense of responsibility and commitment
through the spontaneous creation of shared knowledge relating to significant
organizational issues.
Following Tsoukas’ (2009) argument, the adoption of interactive tools could also
be interpreted as a way to create knowledge through dialogue. Starting from the
consideration that knowledge has two dimensions (explicit and tacit) and it is
produced by their combination, universities need to combine different dimensions
of PMS, including the interactive one, since this is the only way to preserve the
tacit knowledge. Following this reasoning, the question is how the other three
components of a PMS could be considered as tools in order to manage information
and make it available and widespread (at least potentially) among the members of
the organization.
 The other three components of the PMSs could be considered to facilitate KM. If the Knowledge
interaction could be really useful to nurture socialization and so tacit knowledge in public
exchange, the other three components of the PMS could become a “database” which
nourishes the explicit knowledge dimension. In this way all four categories are universities
knowledge related and could affect both a tacit and an explicit dimension.
In coherence with this view, we suggest that the adoption of the PMS should not be
only related to the incentive/penalty policy (Ittner and Larcker, 2002), but to the 445
opportunity to identify the learning gap and to build up an educational program.
In general, even if sometimes the Brunetta Reform and the universities’ evaluation
plans refer to the topic of knowledge, it is difficult to state that there is any real
awareness related to the process of KM. The true focus of this reform is, indeed,
monitoring and controlling the organizational and individual performance.
This statement explains the significant recourse to diagnostic forms of control in
the various PMS models under analysis. The widespread adoption of various
boundary, diagnostic and belief instruments was prompted by the general wish of the
legislators to follow a regulatory course that, in a series of stages (prior to the 2009
reform) tended to encourage public administrations to display greater transparency
and efficiency in their activities.
The restricted recourse to interaction levers of control can be explained also as a
response to the need to contain organizational costs. In fact the benefits that interactive
systems can generate through the development of tacit knowledge have to be matched
to the specific organizational costs relating to the time required for integration and
decision making.
Finally, this choice can be regarded as the consequence of a series of legislative
interventions going back to the 2009 reform, which have attempted over the years to
implement the idea of “managerialization” of the public organizations. Examining
all these aspects together, it is possible to state that the actions of the Italian legislators
have determined, in a general way and consistently with the approach of the new
public management, the recourse to instruments compatible with the rationale of
the PMS and with the wish to obtain an “objective” picture of the results of the
organization.

7. Conclusions
Previous studies on PMS tended to neglect the role of controlling and evaluating
performance in the management of knowledge, except for a few exceptions focussed
primarily on diagnostic control. As Turner and Makhija (2006, p. 197) state: “The
literature provides us with only a rudimentary understanding of such organizational
processes associated with the treatment of knowledge.”
In the paper, it is presented a theoretical model in order to investigate an
empirical dimension related to the application of PMS in the Italian university system.
While some studies start from the features of knowledge to develop a frame to design
organizational control systems (Ditillo, 2004; Turner and Makhija, 2006), in coherence
with other approaches (Rijsdijk and Van den Ende, 2011; Li et al., 2010; Currie and
Kerrin, 2003), this paper deals with the influence of PMS on knowledge, verifying how
different choices related to PMS – classified according to the Simons’ levers of control
taxonomy – affect the nature of knowledge in terms of the tacit vs explicit dichotomy.
Results show how in the Italian universities there is a widespread adoption of
non-interaction mechanisms (in particular the diagnostic ones), stressing the explicit
dimension of knowledge. Unfortunately, looking deeper, the concept of knowledge is
JIC not considered as a key variable in order to assess the adoption of the four different
14,3 levers of control.
So, even though interaction mechanisms are much more expensive, their benefits
should be considered in terms of the tacit dimension of knowledge.
This paper is focussed on the relationship between control systems and knowledge
starting from a control perspective and it tries to understand how different components
446 of a PMS could influence knowledge creation (from a theoretical point of view).
Considering all four components of a PMS provides universities with an important
opportunity for managing their knowledge in a more effective way. PMSs are not just a
way to monitor and control people and organizations: they can be an interesting way
to create new knowledge in the organization.
Future directions of this research are directly related to the limits: first of all, it could
be very useful to verify how these evaluation plans will be implemented. As already
stated in the methodological part, we should go more deeply in analyzing some
selected cases to collect data in order to investigate the real influence of control
mechanisms on knowledge. Finally, notwithstanding the different reforms, it could be
useful to compare the Italian setting with other international realities. In fact, in a
global context, more and more universities accredit their competitiveness essentially in
terms of their knowledge assets and consider knowledge as the differentiating
competitive lever. In such a prospect, a suitable development and deployment of a
company’s knowledge assets becomes a strategic decision for organizational success.

References
Abernethy, M.A. and Brownell, P. (1999), “The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic
change: an exploratory study”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 189-204.
Aguinis, H. (2009), Performance Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Borgonovi, E. (2009), “Il diritto dovere di valutare e premiare il merito nelle amministrazioni
pubbliche”, Azienda Pubblica, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 199-204.
Boyer, E. (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Carnegie Foundation,
Princeton, NJ.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2009), “Performance management systems: a conceptual model”,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A.G., Hughes, J. and Nahapiet, N. (1980), “The roles of
accounting in organizations and society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Canonico, P. and Söderlund, P. (2010), “Getting control of multi-project organizations: combining
contingent control mechanisms”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28
No. 8, pp. 796-806.
Canonico, P., De Nito, E. and Mangia, G. (2012), “Control mechanisms and knowledge integration
in exploitative project teams: a case study from the coal fired power plant industry”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 538-549.
Cardy, R.L. (2004), Performance Management: Concepts, Skills, and Exercises, M. E. Sharpe,
Armonk, NY.
Cavalluzzo, K.S. and Ittner, C.D. (2004), “Implementing performance measurement innovations:
evidence from government”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 Nos 3-4,
pp. 243-267.
Cong, X. and Pandya, K.V. (2003), “Issues of knowledge management in the public sector”, Knowledge
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 25-33.
in public
Cooper, D.J., Hayes, D. and Wolf, F. (1981), “Accounting in organized anarchies: understanding
and designing accounting systems in ambiguous situations”, Accounting, Organizations universities
and Society, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 175-191.
Corcoles, Y.R., Penalver, J.F.S. and Ponce, A.T. (2011), “Intellectual capital in Spanish public
universities: stakeholders’ information needs”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 3, 447
pp. 356-376.
Coukos-Semmel, E. (2003), “Knowledge management in research university: the processes and
strategies”, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL, pp. 1-57.
Currie, G. and Kerrin, M. (2003), “Human resource management and knowledge management:
enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1027-1045.
de Bruijn, H. (2002), “Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the
risks of performance measurement”, International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 578-594.
Ditillo, A. (2004), “Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: the role of
management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 Nos 3-4, pp. 401-421.
Edge, K. (2005), “Powerful public sector knowledge management: a school district example”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 42-52.
Ferreira, A. and Otley, D. (2009), “The design and use of performance management systems:
an extended framework for analysis”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 263-282.
Fitzgerald, L. and Moon, P. (1996), Performance Measurement in Service Industries: Making it
Work, CIMA, London.
Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., Gray, D.,
Girard, J.P. and McIntyre, S. (2010), “Knowledge management modelling in public sector
organizations: a case study”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 71-77.
Girard, J.P. and McIntyre, S. (2010), “Knowledge management modeling in public sector
organizations: a case study”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 71-77.
Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “Performance management and employee engagement”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-136.
Heinrich, C.J. (1999), “Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance
management information?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 363-393.
Heinrich, C.J. and Marschke, G. (2010), “Incentives and their dynamics in public sector
performance management systems”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 183-208.
Hellström, T. and Husted, K. (2004), “Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic
environments: a focus group study”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 165-180.
Henri, J.F. (2006), “Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 529-558.
Hood, C. (1991), “A public management for all seasons?”, Public Administration, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 3-19.
JIC Hunt, D.P. (2003), “The concept of knowledge and how to measure it”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 125-142.
14,3
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (2002), “Determinants of performance measure choices in worker
incentive plans”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 58-90.
Li, Y., Lee, S.H., Li, X. and Liu, Y. (2010), “Knowledge codification, exploitation, and innovation:
the moderating influence of organizational controls in Chinese firms”, Management and
448 Organization Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-241.
Liebowitz, J. and Chen, Y. (2003), “Knowledge sharing proficiencies: the key to knowledge
management”, in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1,
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 409-424.
Marginson, D. (2002), “Management control systems and their effects on strategy formation at
middle management levels: evidence from a UK organization”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 1019-1031.
Minelli, E., Rebora, G. and Turri, M. (2008), “The risk of failure of controls and levers of change:
an examination of two Italian public sectors”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational
Change, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Minelli, E., Rebora, G. and Turri, M. (2012), “Waiting for the market: where is the Italian
university system heading?”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 131-145.
Moynihan, D.P. (2008), The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information
and Reform, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
Neely, A.D., Gregory, M.J. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a
literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Nonaka, I. and von Krogh, G. (2009), “Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy
and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory”, Organization Science,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 635-652.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
OECD (2010), “Modernising the public administration: a study on Italy”, presented at Public
Governance Committee Meeting at the Ministerial Level, November 15-16, Venice.
Otley, D. (1999), “Performance management: a framework for management control systems
research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-382.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), “A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms”, Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-848.
Paloma Sánchez, M., Elena, S. and Castrillo, R. (2009), “Intellectual capital dynamics in
universities: a reporting model”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 307-324.
Pezzillo Iacono, M., Martinez, M., Mangia, G. and Galdiero, C. (2012), “Knowledge creation and
inter-organizational relationships: the development of innovation in the railway industry”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 604-616.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Day Books, New York, NY.
Politecnico di Milano (2012), “PMS Manual”, available at: www.civit.it/?page_id¼502 (accessed
February 1, 2012).
Radin, B.A. (2000), “The government performance and results act and the tradition of federal
management reform: square pegs in round holes”, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Rainey, H.G. (2006), “Reform trends at the federal level with implications for the states: the pursuit
of flexibility and the human capital movement”, in Kellough, J.E. and Nigro, L.G. (Eds),
 Civil Service Reform in the States: Personnel Policies and Politics at the Sub-National Level, Knowledge
State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 33-58.
in public
Rebora, G. (2003), “La valutazione degli atenei: alla ricerca della qualità”, Azienda pubblica,
Vol. 16 Nos 5-6, pp. 411-436. universities
Riege, A. and Lindsay, N. (2006), “Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder
partnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 24-39. 449
Rijsdijk, S.A. and van den Ende, J. (2011), “Control combinations in new product development
projects”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 868-880.
Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, G. and Passiante, G. (2010), “Intangible assets in higher
education and research: mission, performance or both?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 140-157.
Simons, R. (1990), “The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage:
new perspectives”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 Nos 1-2, pp. 127-143.
Simons, R. (1994), “How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 169-189.
Simons, R. (1995), Levers of Control, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Syed Ikhsan, S.S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004a), “Knowledge management in a public organization:
a study of the relationship between organizational element and the performance of
knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Syed Ikhsan, S.S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004b), “Benchmarking knowledge management in a public
organization in Malaysia”, Benchmarking – An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 238-266.
Tsoukas, H. (2009), “A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations”,
Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 941-957.
Tuomela, T.S. (2005), “The interplay of different levers of control: a case study of introducing a
new performance measurement system”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 293-320.
Turner, K.L. and Makhija, M.V. (2006), “The role of organizational controls in managing
knowledge”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 197-217.
University of Bologna (2012), “PMS Manual”, available at: www.civit.it/?page_id¼502 (accessed
February 1, 2012).
University of Ferrara (2012), “PMS Manual”, available at: www.civit.it/?page_id¼502 (accessed
February 1, 2012).
University of Genova (2012), “PMS Manual”, available at: www.civit.it/?page_id¼502 (accessed
February 1, 2012).
University of Trento (2012), “PMS Manual”, available at: www.civit.it/?page_id¼502 (accessed
February 1, 2012).
Vaivio, J. (2006), “The business controller, non-financial measurement and tacit knowledge”, LTA
The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 194-212.
Vienažindiene, M. and Ciarniene, R. (2007), “New public management: theoretical and practical
aspects”, Engineering Economics, Vol. 5 No. 55, pp. 44-50.
Widener, S.K. (2007), “An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8, pp. 757-788.
Wiing, K.M. (2002), “Knowledge management in public organization”, Journal of knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 224-239.
Yeh, Y.M.C. (2005), “The implementation of knowledge management system in Taiwan’s higher
education”, Journal Of College Teaching & Learning, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 35-42.
JIC About the authors
Vincenza Esposito is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies at Università degli Studi
14,3 del Sannio, Italy. She holds a PhD in Organizational Design from Università del Molise. She was
visiting researcher at the University of Oxford (UK). Her research is focused on performance
management in public organizations. Vincenza Esposito is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: vincespo@unisannio.it
450 Ernesto De Nito is an Associate Professor in Organizational Theory at University Magna
Græcia of Catanzaro. He holds a PhD in Business Administration from University of Naples
Federico II. He was visiting researcher at the Gothenburg University, Viktoria Institute. His
research is focused on knowledge management and project organisations.
Mario Pezzillo Iacono is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies at Second
University of Naples. He holds a PhD in Organizational Design from University of Molise. He was
visiting researcher at the Cardiff Business School (UK). His research is focused on organizational
control and knowledge management.
Lucia Silvestri is a Postdoc Fellow, Università degli Studi del Sannio, Italy. Her research and
scientific interests are focused on performance management in public organizations.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.