1 Department of Urban Planning, Buein Zahra Technical University, Buein Zahra, Iran

2 Department of General Economic Affairs, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of IT planning, Mellat Bank, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Regional Planning, Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this paper is to propose a performance measurement framework for Iranian municipalities as a public institution.
METHODS: By selecting Karaj Municipality and referring to Balanced Score-Card Methodology, an attempt has been made to provide a framework that can be used in public institutions as an efficient tool for measuring performance. The research used analytical methods and stand-alone questionnaire survey techniques, a case study approach by cross-sectional method. The research environment was the central municipality of Karaj and the relevant deputies. Content validity was used to determine the validity of the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was determined based on Cronbach's alpha. Also, the Balanced Score-Card framework is integrated with an Analytic Hierarchy Process.
FINDING: The results show that through the citizenship viewpoint, the satisfaction level of personal investors and makers is almost 7 times more important than citizens’ satisfaction. The Municipality of Karaj pays more attention to the interests of the private sector than the public interests which comes from the municipality money making target. The improved implemented projects index was, through the internal processes of business, about 3 times more important than the number of new projects index. It seems more logical to focus on the process improvement plan and project management improvement. Completion of the current projects can increase the added value to Karaj municipality. Also proper performance of Information Technology unit shows the growing importance of e-government to improve the performance of municipalities and process improvement plan.
CONCLUSION: Finally, it seems a continuous process of such framework has the ability to bring together all key internal and external shareholders and rulemakings can be shaped during time and this process can be accepted by Iran’s municipal management with methodologies that compare relative importance in performance criteria.


Main Subjects

Ambler, T., (2000). Marketing metrics. Bus. Strat. Rev., 11(2): 59-66 (8 pages).

Ammons, D.N.; Rivenbark, W.C., (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Admin. Rev., 68(2): 304-318 (15 pages).

Bentes, A.V.; Carneiro, J.; da Silva, J. F.; Kimura, H., (2012). Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. J. Bus.Res., 65(12): 1790-1799 (10 pages).

Bollen, K.; Lennox, R., (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychol. Bul., 110(2): 305-312 (8 pages).

Bouckaert, G.; Peters, B. G.; Verhoest, K., (2016). Coordination of public sector organizations: Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.

Chan, Y. C. L., (2006). An analytic hierarchy framework for evaluating balanced scorecards of healthcare organizations. Ca. J. Admi. Sci., 23(2): 85-104 (20 pages).

Clark, B. H.; Ambler, T., (2001). Marketing performance measurement: evolution of research and practice. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manage., 3(2-4): 231-244. (24 pages).

Devine, K.; Kloppenborg, T. J.; O’Clock, P., (2010). Project measurement and success: A balanced scorecard approach. J. Healthcare Finance, 36(4): 38-50 (13 pages).

Diamantopoulos, A.; Kakkos, N., (2007). Managerial assessments of export performance: Conceptual framework and empirical illustration. J. Int. Marketing, 15(3): 1-31 (31 pages).

Ghalayini, A. M.; Noble, J. S.; Crowe, T. J., (1997). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness. Int. J. Prod. Eco., 48(3): 207-225 (18 pages).

Gholipour, A.; Ebrahimi, E., (2018). Fuzzy Multi-criteria decision making approach for human capital evaluation of municipal districts. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban. Manage., 3(1), 1-8 (8 pages).

Giacomini, D., (2020). Use of Accounting Information by Mayors in Local Governments. Int. J. Public Admin., 43(4): 341-349 (9 pages).

Guimarães, B.; Simões, P.; Marques, R. C., (2010). Does performance evaluation help public managers? A Balanced Scorecard approach in urban waste services. J. Env. Manage., 91(12): 2632-2638 (7 pages).

Huang, H. C., (2009). Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: A balanced scorecard perspective. Expert Sys. App. 36(1): 209-218 (10 pages).

Julnes, P. d.L.; Holzer, M., (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Admin. Rev., 61(6): 693-708 (16 pages).

Kaplan, R. S., (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit manage. Leadership, 11(3): 353-370 (18 pages).

Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D.P., (1995). Putting the Balanced Scorecard. Performance measurement, management, and appraisal sourcebook. Harvard Bus. Rev., 66: 30-45: (16 pages).

Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P., (1996a). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California manage. Rev., 39(1): 53-79 (27 pages).

Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D.P., (1996b). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system: Harvard Bus. Rev., Boston.

Leung, L.C.; Lam, K. C.; Cao, D., (2006). Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process. J.  Oper. Res. Soc., 57(6): 682-691 (10 pages).

Martello, M.; Watson, J. G.; Fischer, M. J., (2016). Implementing a balanced scorecard in a not-for-profit organization. J. Bus. Eco. Res. 14(3): 61-66 (6 pages).

McGill, R., (1993). Institution building for a Third World city council: some lessons from the practice. Int. J. Pub. Sector Manage., 6(5): 12-19 (8 pages). 

McGill, R., (1995). Urban management performance: an assessment framework for Third World city managers. Cities, 12(5): 337-351 (15 pages).

McLean, R., (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Aus. J. Manage., 31(2): 367-369 (3 pages).

Meadows, M.; Pike, M., (2010). Performance management for social enterprises. Sys. Prac. Act. Res., 23(2): 127-141 (15 pages).

Mirpour, S.; Mirafshar, B., (2018). Implementation of the integrated management dashboard for learning processes based on ISO 29990. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban. Manageme., 3(3): 223-230 (8 pages).  

Neely, A.; Adams, C., (2000). Perspectives on performance: the performance prism. Handbook of Performance Measurement.  

Neely, A.D.; Adams, C.; Kennerley, M., (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. Prentice Hall Financial Times, London, UK. ISBN: 0273653342.

Niven, P. R., (2002). Balanced scorecard step by step: Maximizing performance and maintaining results. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ: USA.

Northcott, D.; Ma'amora Taulapapa, T., (2012). Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations: Issues and challenges. Int. J. Public Sec. Manage., 25(3): 166-191 (26 pages).

Olson, E.M.; Slater, S. F., (2002). The balanced scorecard, competitive strategy, and performance. Bus. Horizons, 45(3): 11-16 (6 pages).

Osborne, D., (1993). Reinventing government. Public. Prod. manage. Rev., 3: 349-356 (8 pages).

Padovani, E.; Yetano, A.; Orelli, R.L., (2010). Municipal performance measurement and management in practice: which factors matter? Pub. Admin. Q., 4 (1): 591-635 (45 pages).

Rainey, H. G.; Backoff, R. W.; Levine, C. H., (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Pub. Admin. Rev., 36(2): 233-244 (12 pages).

Reisinger, H.; Cravens, K. .; Tell, N., (2003). Prioritizing performance measures within the balanced scorecard framework. MIR, 4 (3): 429-437 (9 pages).

Salamzadeh, A., (2020). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? J. Org. Cult. Communicat. Conf., 24 (1): 1-2 (2 pages).

Self, P., (1983). Elusive quest for efficiency. Political Q.., 54(1): 66-68 (3 pages).  

Sharma, B.; Gadenne, D., (2011). Balanced scorecard implementation in a local government authority: Issues and challenges. Aus.J.Pub. Admin., 70(2): 167-184 (18 pages).

Umashev, C.; Willett, R., (2008). Challenges to implementing strategic performance measurement systems in multi‐objective organizations: the case of a large local government authority. Abacus, 44(4): 377-398 (22 pages).

Van Dooren, W.; Bouckaert, G.; Halligan, J., (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge, London: UK.

Venkatraman, N.; Ramanujam, V., (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11(4): 801-814 (14 pages).

Verzola, A.; Bentivegna, R.; Carandina, G.; Trevisani, L.; Gregorio, P.; Mandini, A., (2009). Multidimensional evaluation of performance: experimental application of the balanced scorecard in Ferrara university hospital. Cost Effect. Resource Alloc., 7(1): 15-19 (5 pages).

Wang, H., Chen, W.R., (2010). Is firm specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity. Res. Policy, 39(1): 141-154 (14 pages).

Watson, J. G.; Fisher, D.M. J., (2008). Implementing A Balanced Scorecard In a Not ForProfit Organization. J. Bus. Eco. Res. 5 (1): 2471-2479 (9 pages).

Wisniewski, M.; Stewart, D., (2004). Performance measurementfor stakeholders: The case of Scottish local authorities. Int. J. Public Sec. Manage., 17(3): 222-233 (12 pages).

Wu, H.Y.; Tzeng, G.H.; Chen, Y.H., (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Ex. Sys. App., 36(6): 10135-10147 (13 pages).


International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management (IJHCUM) welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in IJHCUM should be sent to the editorial office of IJHCUM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.

[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.

[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.

[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.

[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.

[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.

[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.