1

David CAPES’ paper for The fourth TransAtlantic Dialogue (4TAD) _ June 2008
‘The status of Inter-Governmental Relations and Multi-Level Governance in Europe and the US’

Workshop 5: Performance measurement and accountability in IGR-MLG

Paper m ust be s ent to t he works hop ’s co- chair s as well as to A LL t he follow ing addre sses :
bradin@ix.netcom.com ellen.wayenberg@hogent.be holzer@rutgers.edu edoardo.ongaro@unibocconi.it
a.massey@exeter.ac.uk ricucci@rutgers.edu claudia.azevedo@portugalmail.com

Title :
Measuring Performance as a tool for managing inter-governmental
collaborative processes : the case of the multi-national ENTER project.

Author :
David Capes Dr. http://davidcapes.com Partner Consultant Creder.com davidcapes@free.fr
Joint Professor Researcher University of Bordeaux www.u-bordeaux4.fr
36, rue Saint Joseph 33000 BORDEAUX_FR Cell: 33 (0)6 87 29 78 03 Tel: 33 (0)5 56 34 16 59

The ENTER project is managed with the support of the Lifelong Learning Program of the
European Union. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This
communication only reflects the views of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible
for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Abstract :
The paper rely on the experience in progress of the ENTER project http://enter.maiainova.pt/
ENTrepreneurship Enhancement and Reinforcement that is financed by the European Commission
Lifelong Learning program. Based on a Web Collaborative Platform, the ENTER project aims at
involving the various stakeholders of the Business Incubation process : a) beneficiaries developing
ideas, projects and plans of new business, b) educators and mentors, c) public and private partners of
ideas, projects and business plans, d) future clients… The ENTER project associates partners from
four European Countries : Portugal, Greece, Romania, France and is managed taking into account of
American experiences of Business Incubation, and Intellectual Entrepreneurship in USA and
Canada. Responsible for a Work Package that deals with the opportunities of holding on the project
with financers relying the Commission support, David CAPES will explain how the ENTER project is
an example of the way we can use Measuring Performance as a tool for managing inter-governmental
collaborative processes. Even the Project is financed by European Commission, because of the need
of cooperation for : recruiting beneficiaries and involving partners, we need to anticipate and measure
Performance as the project is in progress so that this helps to manage the inter-governmental
collaborative processes. Collaborating with future partners in identifying (more and more precisely)
the Performance that are targeted, is a way to involve them into a collaborative process and a possible
future support to the cost.
 2

The case study will help to understand that Measuring Performance when we try to (as Workshop
5 proposes) “balancing accountability with flexibility” can be a tool for inter-government project
management. But this calls for an important theoretical framework, requiring concepts from : Public
Action Pragmatism, Organizational Learning, Process Innovation, Activity-Based & Costing
Management… Except the four regional contexts that the paper will describe with different possible
inter-government partnership systems, the case study will refer to US and European
“Entrepreneurship Enhancement” and “Business Incubation” Multilevel Public Policies, this
transatlantic US/EU perspective being already shared by the partners of the ENTER project.

Key words : Performance Management, Entrepreneurship, Public Action Pragmatism,

Organizational Learning, Activity-Based Management.

------------------------------

Measuring Performance as a tool for managing inter-

governmental collaborative processes : the case of the multi-
national ENTER project.
David CAPES, Dr.
Partner Consultant Creder.com
Joint Teacher-Researcher University of Bordeaux U-bordeaux4.fr

As taking part in a project in progress called ENTER (for : ENTrepreneurship Enhancement and
Reinforcement, see : http://enter.maiainova.pt/ supported by the European Commission Lifelong
Learning program) the author of this paper wants to show how measuring performance can be a tool
for managing inter-governmental collaborative processes. ENTER will provide educational services to
young people that will follow courses and sessions that consist in : 1/ training them in order to enable
them to manage a project of new business, and 2/ mentoring them so that they can find good
information and reach the right people and institutions possibly interested in theirs projects.
The ENTER project is based on a Web Collaborative Platform, the ENTER project aims at
involving the various stakeholders of the Business Incubation processes (in four countries Portugal,
Greece, Romania and France) :
- a) beneficiaries developing ideas, projects and plans of new business,
- b) educators and mentors,
- c) public and private partners of ideas, projects and business plans,
- d) future clients…

Responsible for a Work-Package that deals with defining the opportunities of holding on the
project with financers relying the Commission support, David CAPES will explain how the ENTER
project is an example of the way we can use Measuring Performance as a tool for managing inter-
governmental collaborative processes. Responsible for designing a plan for prospecting of partners
and financial agreements after the two years of implementation and testing of the Platform, we need
 3

to propose these prospects guarantees of performances justifying propositions of financial

agreements.
This case study helps to understand that Measuring Performance - when we try to “balance
accountability with flexibility” (4TAD, Workshop 5 proposition) - can be a tool for inter-government
project management.
The first part of the paper with presents the Activity-Based Management and Performance
Measurement principles we apply to this professional situation we consider as an intervention-
research experimental context.
The second part of the paper explains how contemporary approaches as concurrent engineering of
project and others action-science concepts and principles have been applied to the management of
the results-oriented Work Package of ENTER we are responsible for.
The final part will insist on the issue of this apparently simple concept of “Measuring
Performance” as a tool for management, and the way it must be related to a general conception of
systematic collaborative control of production of value, that involve all the co-producers, beneficiaries,
financers… with a conclusion stressing the importance of “historical” pragmatist concepts for this kind
of approach.

1. Why, and how experiment Performance Measurement as a tool for

managing collaborative processes ?

This paper refers to the Action-Research approach that Coghlan & Brannick (2003) proposed as a
possible activity to be manage in your own organization. In this paper, we do not present a complete
process of what Coghlan & Brannick call “action research cycle” or a “researcher’s experiential
learning cycle”. Although the ENTER project is in progress, we can yet assert that our approach focus
on both System and Researcher transformational change according to Coghlan & Brannick table for
defining a method (see below).
 4

Because of our responsibility in the Project we experiment changes through self-study in our action
as Consultant-Researcher. But the experimentation we want to propose implies that we propose to
the manager of the project (Claudia Azevedo, www.tecmaia.pt ), to integrate self-study in action in the
processes of the project management. Although the project started recently, we can envision that at its
end the ENTER technological platform will generate – when we will interact with possible partners –
a perspective similar to the Large-Scale Transformational Change approach that Coghlan & Brannick
propose (see above quadrant 4.). Actually when we look for associating partners in a participation in
the activities of the ENTER platform, we need to consider both theoretically and pragmatically how
their possible participation implies changes in yet existing (or not) collaborative processes and
supplier/consumer chains (with three different aspects : public policy, public-private partnership, for-
profit activities…).

In order to interact effectively with potential partners, we need to associate self-study in action by
both individuals and system concerned by the proposition of partnership. As Coghlan & Brannick
explain : “the research process itself may provoke a move from one quadrant to another.” (2003, 49).
In this paper, although our project is in progress, we can already precise that in the earlier months
of the ENTER project, we have conducted our intervention this way :
Quadrant 1. = traditional research consultant activity (Benchmarking study),
Quadrant 2. = internal reflective position of consulting (change of calendar in order to better
interact with the existing business envrionment),
Quadrant 3. = reflective study of professional practice (mobilization of theoretical tools as Activity
& Market Based Management in order to coordinate prospecting partners and designing ENTER
platform),
Quadrant 4. = proposition/adoption of a pro-active strategic approach of partnership based on
experimentations generating occasions for first measures of performance, that will help for negotiating
partnerships and financial agreements (perspective of a large-scale transformational change).

The performance measurement approach we have to define for preparing partnerships for the
ENTER collaborative activities and/or commercialized services must be first related to the Activity-
Based Management methodological tradition. Since the 1980’s Activity-Based Management and Cost
Control, (after Cokins 1996, we use the expression “Activity Based Management” as integrating
various Activity Based Costing tools) has become a standard worldwide for the business for profit and
has influenced Public Management. As Gary Cokins states (Cokins, 1996, 11-39) : a consensus on
Activity-Based Management (ABM) has emerged in the 1990’s that insist on the need for overcoming
the simple data that Cost analysis and information systems provide in order to use Activities and Cost
Analysis Information Systems as tool for managing Changes.
This issue of managing changes refers to Chris Argyris’ Organizational Learning approach. Cokins
stress that ABM is a tool that integrate metrics tools but “goes beyond cost information”, taking into
account : cycle time, quality, agility, flexibility, customer service (Cokins, 1996, 40). Each future user
of an ABM information system must be a key-decision-maker when mapping the activity processes
that will inform the control of production of value. The analysis of the flow of costs must be
systematically related to the final edge : the client’s behavior, that will or not accept to pay for the
 5

value he or she acknowledge to the product/service. Some Company leaders developed approaches
focusing, this issue, as the one called “Market-Based Management” (Koch, 2007).

This issue of market seems to be obvious, but actually, cost-management approaches, especially
when Costing Control information systems are launched from the finance or accounting department,
because the only understanding of reality is through financial results. This risk of narrowing the
approach through a unilateral obsession of financial-result, can be very dangerous, and potentially kill
the business activity, especially when the Costing Control decision-makers want to evaluate immediate
results, considering that the evaluation process cannot be depending on budgeting processes (Cokins,
1996, 35).

For our participation in the ENTER project, we are interested in the most valuable part of an
ABM approach : its usefulness for business process improvement. Except the risk of narrowing with a
financial approach of production of value, another problem is related to the misuse of information
systems. Keith Devlin’s book Turning information into knowledge, (2001) is significant of this passage
from the “Information Age” discourse (that Cokins 1996 mentions) to the conceptual framework of a
“Knowledge Society”. He provides interesting insights mobilizing concepts from the Situation Theory
proposing to proceed through identifying: 1/ what it is that the information is about and what that
information tell us about that entity, 2/ the critical contextual situations, 3/ the constraints that support
the encoding and the transmission of the information (Devlin, 2001, 72). Unless context is not taking
into account, information cannot make sense for the one that will turn information into knowledge
that will be used in order to decide actions. A good Activity-Based Management information system
must be considered as a tool for decision making impacting actions for improving multi-criteria values
of the business outcomes.

The more you take into account the contextualized constraints of your situation, the more your
can learn from your environment. We will see later how the traditional pragmatist deweyan
conceptions of inquiry concurrently to developing your projects seems to be one of the ancestor of
these conceptions. The first part of the paper with presents the Activity-Based Management and
Performance Measurement principles we apply to this professional situation we consider as an
intervention-research experimental context. In “The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research”
(1998) James G. Greeno shows that Situation Theory is a synthetic useful approach that allows to
combine behavior and cognition issues that is why is helps to guarantee that a Performance
Measurement tool provide information useful for action and not only for decision-making separated
from the contexts of real activities (that is why some Performance Measurement Systems are so often
considered as enemies because they are only able to provide information for decision of no more
investment in an activity although it could be contextualized and explain what has to be changed).

The use of performance measurement as a tool for managing collaborative processes, need to
focus on the Organizational Learning conceptual frames. Thomas H.Davenport in Process
innovation Reengineering Work Through Information Technology (1993) has shown how the
accessibility of information through the information technologies has obliged to re-think the all
processes of business organizations. Marshall Scott Poole and alii, (2000) from an intervention-
 6

research viewpoint proposed to apply a typology of processes theories that will help to define the link
we want to experiment between : 1/ a tool for Performance Measurement (necessary based on a
theoretical model of the process of producing results) and 2/ the management of the processes
involved in the business activity. The basic hypothesis is that the choice of a theory of process that
underlies a tool for Performance Measurement will influence the management of activity that will use
the information the tool will produce.

Pool and alii propose four ideal types (2000, 56-88) : a) Life cycle Evolution, b) Evolution,
c) Dialectic, d) Teleology. According to the approach of ideal-type theories of process, the
Performance Measurement must focus on various aspects.
A) The Life-Cycle theory focus on the business process as a prefigured program – in this case the
evaluation of its performance is decided according to what was decided at the beginning of the
business designed.
B) The evolution theory, stressing the dynamics of market-based “natural selection” – this means
that the Performance Measurement must produce information evaluating the capacity to survive
through competitiveness.
C) Dialectic theory focus on confrontation of interests - according to this theory, Performance
Measurement is a tool providing information as arguments in the context of confrontation of the
interests of various decision-makers : Managers / Shareholders / Clients / Suppliers.
D) The teleology theory insist on goal enactment that is supposed to produce cooperation and
consensus on means and ends – a Performance Measurement tool must help the various stakeholders
to understand how they build together a purposeful cooperation.
We can already say that the performance measurement tools of the ENTER Project need to
change its underlying process theory according to its phase. In our role of anticipating the
implementation of its results, we have to adopt a teleology approach that is relevant to the
collaborative structure of the web-based innovative services ENTER proposes.

Another issue for measuring performance of the ENTER : 1/ collaborative activities and/or 2/
commercialized services that need definition of two kinds of chains : one of the stakeholders, a
second of suppliers/customers. The ENTER web-based platform, as a tool for training and mentoring
managers of new business projects, must prepare to deal with two approaches relevant to : first_public
policies, second_public-private partnerships, and third_business private contracts.

Contrary to the North American situation, in Europe, the services aiming at developing
Entrepreneurship Skills are much more considered as private that public. The American Website :
http://www.enterweb.org is the most well-informed with more than 800 worldwide websites identified.

David D. Chrislip and Carl E. larson in Collaborative leadership propose an interesting conceptual
framework for “identifying the relevant community of interests”. It is quite easy to define ENTER
community of interests that include : students, educational institutions, educators, mentors, state and
regional public partners, business and financial companies … They also propose questions helping to
assess the extend of stakeholder agreement that can be very useful for preparing the contacts with
potential ENTER partners (1994, 67). We propose to re-write these questions as :
 7

- have stakeholders agreed there is a problems that need attention AND the definition of the
problem/issue ?,
- have stakeholders agreed to work AND how to work together ?,
- have stakeholders agreed on solutions to the problem/issue AND on an implementation plan and
action steps.

At least, we would like to use again some approach compatible with the Activity Based
Management (Cokins, 1996, p 68). The principle is simple, but as a consequence its application raises
complex issues. The idea is to consider a much broader scope beyond the enterprise’s boundaries,
that are interacting with : 1/ upstream :  the suppliers and  the suppliers’ suppliers of the
enterprise, and 2/ downstream :  the customers and  the customers’ customers of the enterprise.

The foundation for Performance Measurement http://www.fpm.com that promotes the

importance of broadening Performance Measurement beyond Financial Results, proposes after
Fitzgerald L. and alii a complementary table of indicators that helps to check various issues a Business
Model must face to be successful.

Table of Upstream Determinants and Downstream Results

Performance Dimensions Types of Measures

Relative market share and position
Competitiveness
Sales growth, Measures re customer base
Profitability, Liquidity, Capital Structure,
Financial Performance
Market Rations, etc.
Reliability, Responsiveness, Appearance, Cleanliness,
Quality of Service Comfort, Friendliness, Communication, Courtesy,
Competence, Access, Availability, Security etc.
Volume Flexibility, Specification and Speed of Delivery
Flexibility Flexibility
Resource Utilisation Productivity, Efficiency, etc.
Performance of the innovation process, Performance of
Innovation
individual innovations, etc.
Source : "Performance Measurement in Service Businesses" by Lin
Fitzgerald, Robert Johnston, Stan Brignall, Rhian Silvestro and
Christopher Voss, page 8. http://www.fpm.com/journal/mattison.htm

Because we need to prepare a flexible negotiation for implementing and financing ENTER
activities, we have to consider this broader scope when we interact with potential partners and/or
financers. And we have to add to this approach the three types of participation and financing
partnership ENTER, i.e. partners involved in : public policy, public-private partnership, for-profit
activities.
For public activities Cokins provides relevant approaches to this particular partners in its recent
edition (2006) of he book Activity-Based Cost Management in Government.

Also, we must add that the fact that the ENTER project, as a web-based platform of services need
to be designed with conceptual tools that are especially adapted to e-services. The paper : Searching
for e-Business Performance Measurement Systems, (Barnes, Hinton, 2007) analyzing various case
studies reach the conclusion that e-services are not particularly object of performance measurement,
 8

nor they have given opportunities to scholars or practitioners to develop specific performance
measurement tools.

Barnes and Hinton insist on the relevancy of the Balance Scorecard (BSC) that developed Kaplan
and Norton, (1992 and 2000), observing that managers of e-services activities can apply this
methodology as described in the Figure below.

( concepts from : Kaplan and Norton, 1992 and 2000)

Although this integrative approach is particularly adapted to our situation, we lack information to
apply it. We will use another similar vision that refer to the employees. Actually it is needed for us (as
professionals part of the ENTER teams) to consider the questions that rise with the possible future
management of ENTER after the European Funds financing. But before setting these questions, we
have to explain how the theoretical resources we have chosen have helped us to learn from the
ENTER experience. This will prepare our final part focusing on the way we are about to use
performance measurement in perspective of collaborative control of value production.

2. First results and perspective from our ENTER experience : when a

collaborative platform, being a multi-partners chain, has to be
implemented in various inter-governmental contexts.

We have chosen to refer to various theoretical resources for guiding our use of Performance
Measurement in the context of our intervention in the ENTER project, in order to plan the definition
its Business Model in an iterative and inclusive way. Our work of definition of a Business Model, that
we asked to be planned concurrently to the first experiences of recruiting and training students,
 9

encourage inputs from beneficiaries and potential partners and financers of the ENTER platform.
The iterative and inclusive methodological concerns look for ways to conceive a flexible Business
Model that can be improved when the stakeholders (beneficiaries, potential partners and financers)
express any kind of needs, opinions, advices …

ENTER will be a web-based platform that will allow young people to follow courses and sessions
that consist in : 1/ training them in order to enable them to manage a project of new business, and 2/
mentoring them so that they can find good information and reach the right people and institutions
possibly interested in theirs projects.

We are about to start an experiment of the project in various geographical spots of Europe (Porto,
Portugal; Bordeaux, France; Bucarest, Romania; Crete, Greece). One of the value of the ENTER
project is that we started to develop a network, to share methods and tools, to produce an interactive
know-how in the field of entrepreneurship enhancement that can help the manager of a project of
new business to think and possibly test its viability at the beginning of its process design considering
advices, information and contacts coming from various areas in Europe. Of course the problem of
language matters. This synergy is active when we use English, and become slowed when we have to
translate so that ideally all the activities might be in English if someone managing a project of a new
business would like to use the ENTER tools, people and networks

We started by proposing a general presentation of the ENTER Process as below :

Most of the activity sequences of the ENTER project are dedicated to design and implement the
training mentoring web-based tools. But an experiment of the tools is part of the project.
 10

As responsible for a Work Package that must define the ENTER Business Model and prospect
opportunities for financing a continuation of the activities of the platform, we stressed during the kick
off meeting our need to rely on concrete evaluation of cost and beneficiaries of the ENTER process.

At the beginning of the two years project, the general idea was that we needed to have done yet the
experiment. Carter & Baker, (1991) and in France Bossard (1997) have described how applying
concurrent engineering means : shaping an iterative and inclusive product development environment,
plus overlapping sequences (for instance the conception, production, testing, marketing sequences…),
and associating the various stakeholders to the maximum aspects of the sequences.

Thus, we propose to adopt some principles of Concurrent Engineering and look for ways to allow
iterative and inclusive conception of the ENTER platform. By iterative we mean : results from
experience must help to improve conception of tools. Inclusive means : reactions from the potential
partners must help to conduct design of the platform.

Using again the Coghlan & Brannick Action-Research theoretical framework, we can add some details
on our progression during the first months of the project that allow to understand how progressively
concurrent engineering approach has been integrated into the network of the project partners :
I- we have collected data in order to understand [partially] the existing supplier/consumer chains in
the field of Entrepreneurship training and mentoring services (quadrant 1. : traditional Benchmarking
study),
II- we have decided, as a result of a pragmatic self-study in action, to propose changes in the
calendar of in order to give opportunities to the project of using our results of benchmarking and
understanding through the marketing study that we need to re-think the priorities of the project
(quadrant 2. : internal position of consulting),
III- we have understood that our professional responsibility for preparing the financing of the
Enter Platform after the designing and testing phases – need to rely on conceptual approaches as
Activity-Based Management, anticipating performance measure tools that can help to manage
collaborative processes (quadrant 3. : reflective study of professional practice),
IV- we have made the proposition, that has been approved, for adopting a pro-active strategic
approach of partnership based on first experimentations that will generate occasions for concrete first
measures of performance that will prepare prospecting of partners and financial agreements (quadrant
4. : in the perspective of a large-scale transformational change ).

The idea of a “large-scale transformational change perspective” is particularly adapted to the

ENTER project because as collaborative platform involving these stakeholders, it can be considered
as a multi-partners chain that has to be implemented in various inter-governmental contexts. Two
questions arise : first, a general one : What are the best ways for the ENTER partners for proposing
potential partners to be part of this chain ?, second, a specific one, related to the subject-matter of this
paper : What kind of performance measurement could help to guarantee these potential partners
what ENTER services can bring to them ?
 11

The ENTER platform will have to interact strategically with various stakeholders that, at this stage,
we have categorized that way :
A- students,
B- students’ families,
C- educational institutions integrating entrepreneurship program
D- educational institutions without entrepreneurship program
E- educators inside of the ENTER process
F- educators outside of the ENTER process
G- mentors inside of the ENTER process
H- mentors outside of the ENTER process
I- state and regional public partners
K- financial services organizations
L- business organizations

Applying Chrislip and Larson questions to be answered for building good agreements with
stakeholders, we can assert at this stage of the project :
1- the Benchmarking Study have shown arguments ENTER partners can promote : 1.1. the
importance of European-wide new business project building process, 1.2. the opportunity of a
comprehensive accompaniment associating training and mentoring as ENTER propose, 1.3. the
strong value of user-friendly web-based services, BUT the stakeholders have not generally
acknowledge these facts,
2- the existence of various and multiple services in the field of Entrepreneurship Enhancement
imply that the ENTER managers should design flexible solutions for partnerships in order to be able
to sharing all or some of the goals that target the ENTER platform process,
3- in the same way, because we are not sure that potential partners will approve the general
comprehensive partnership proposed with the ENTER platform design, we need to prepare possible
propositions to stakeholders if they are interested in adjustable and case by case partnership
agreements.

With the information we have already, we can inform some of the squares of the Fitzgerald L. and
alii Table promoted by the Foundation for Performance Measurement.
Performance Dimensions Types of Measures
1. Competitiveness 1.1. Differential of costs with traditional training and
mentoring. 1.2. Lowering of public costs because of private
partnership and financing. 1.3. Relative market share (on
partial activity).
2. Financial Performance Depending on the future status of the institution that will
manage ENTER activities.
3. Quality of Service 3.1. Web-based services quality (various user-friendly criteria).
3.2. Students/Families satisfaction. 3.3. Testing of knowledge
and skills. 3.4. Professional opportunities resulting of
participation in ENTER activities. 3.5. Economic
opportunities demonstrated by the Business Plans. 3.6.
 12

Beginning of effective economic activities.

4. Flexibility Depending on the final operating system, but will focus on
Human Resources costing.
5. Resource Utilization Depending on the final operating system, but will focus on
Human Resources costing.
6. Innovation Value added because of : 6.1. the comprehensive service :
training + mentoring + networking. 6.2. the web-based
interactive services. 6.3. the European-wide design of projects
and plans of new business.

We can understand that because of the Business design phase that we are involved in now with the
ENTER innovative project, we do not need to close our thinking in a static system of control. That is
why Action-Research is not only a good theoretical/pragmatic method to apply in an intervention
perspective, but also a general management approach relevant to this kind of activity. Actually,
D.Schön and C.Argyris (1974, 1983, 1996), that have developed Action-science concepts and
principles , have conceived intellectual tools relevant to very various collaborative situations.
Action-science make the people interacting with the research part of a dynamic collaborative
comprehensive process that is made of a circle of inquiry transforming the reality : a) diagnosing, b)
planning acts that can be : b1) search for knowing, b2) concrete actions, c) taking the
intellectual/practical planned acts, d) evaluating the results, e) new diagnosing (see : Coghlan and
Brannick, 2001, 20). This circular dynamics is not only a way to produce what Argyris calls
“actionable knowledge” it is relevant to the structure of the ENTER platform that is focused on
diagnosing progressively economic and organizational opportunities for new business towards its
concrete starting.

3. Performance Measurement as a Tool for Collaborative Control of

Production of Values

Although the ENTER project has started some monthes ago, we can we propose to separate the
activity of the ENTER Web-based Platform considered as a unified process in twelve activity
sequences (and associated costs):
1- promoting the possible participation in ENTER,
2- prospecting/contracting with ENTER activities 9- protecting intellectually the design a new business
financers, project,
3- getting information about possible participation in 10- promoting a project of potential new business,
ENTER, 11- getting information about the potential new
4- recruiting students, businesses that ENTER produced,
5- training students, 12- contracting financing the use of results that
6- learning management of new business project, ENTER produced (i.e. potential new businesses files
7- mentoring students, & contacts + continuation of the training/mentoring
8- designing a project of potential new business, activities within a context of partnership).
 13

This list make us understanding that the future Business Model will have to separate intellectually
AND to coordinate strategically the search for possible financial resources. And for each activity
sequence, the use of “Measuring Performance” can be a tool for managing the conception of the
ENTER activity and the preparation of arguments for interacting with partners/beneficiaries/financers.

At this moment of the project we can classified the activity according to three types of possible
process production :

ENTER’s or partners’ back- ENTER’s marketable front- Co-production of services by :

office services
1- promoting the possible
participation in ENTER,
2- prospecting/contracting with
ENTER activities financers,
9- protecting intellectually the
design a new business project,
10- promoting a project of
potential new business,
office services BUT possible
co-production with partners
4- recruiting students,
5- training students,
7- mentoring students,
? 12- contracting financing the
use of results that ENTER
produced (i.e. potential new
businesses files & contacts +
continuation of the
training/mentoring activities
within a context of partnership).
?
beneficiaries, partners,
financers
3- getting information about
possible participation in
ENTER,
6- learning management of new
business project,
8- designing a project of
potential new business,
11- getting information about
the potential new businesses
that ENTER produced,

At least, we want to refer to a value mapping approach that Andrew Jack (2001) proposes similar
to the Kaplan and Norton one that we mentionned (1992 and 2000). His proposition is interesting
because it allows us to define not only the use of Performance Measurement for the present
management of ENTER, but also in the perspective of its future management after the financial
resources from the European Funds. Taking into account two reviews that have been done assessing
Performance Measurement methods and framework i.e. : (Ballantine, J., Brignall, S., 1994), and
(Kennerley and Neely 2000). Andrew Jack make understand that the companies often lack to
guarantee the ways these measures are identified, integrated, communicated and acted upon.

Then, he proposes a Value Mapping Solution that is relevant to our situation, the design in
progress of our ENTER platform being able to take advantage of :
1_[right side of the circle]: targeting Value Creation and
2_[left side of the circle]: assessing acknowledgement of the correspondence with Value Needs.
Through this double movement, we develop a general conception of systematic collaborative
control of production of value, that involves all the co-producers, beneficiaries, financers … finally all
the ENTER stakeholders.

The dynamics of Value Mapping circle can be applied to our previous list of sequences, using the
identification of the ENTER stakeholders in order to propose ENTER partners
Categories of stakeholders :
A- students,
B- students’ families,
C- educational institutions integrating entrepreneurship
program
D- idem without entrepreneurship program
E- educators inside of the ENTER process
F- educators outside of the ENTER process
G- mentors inside of the ENTER process
H- mentors outside of the ENTER process
I- state and regional public partners
K- financial services organizations
L- business organizations
14
Possible : Value Need (VN) / Value Outcome (VO)
VN : professional integration, personal potential
fulfillment, human resources development, service to
society… VO : diploma, skills acquisition,
professional/social/economic opportunities …
VN : promotion/enhancement of youth future VO :
diploma, skills acquisition, professional/social/economic
opportunities …
VN : ¿ web-solutions, comprehensive partnership,
European-wide network ? VO : delegation of educational
tasks and goals …
idem
VN : educational activity in an innovative international
context VO : various professional skills development
VN : Broadening of the educational know-how and
integration to a European-wide network VO : new skills
VN : taking part in anticipation of new business while
promoting young future VO : intense networking
development
idem
VN : tools for actualizing public policies for youth +
contribution of developing new businesses in the
knowledge economy VO : young situations improvement +
business opportunities and social/economy dynamics
VN : preparing contacts +promoting good image towards
future clients + society VO : detecting new business/clients
Idem clients and/or suppliers
 15

Conclusion
Academia people as practitioners often notice that one of the major issue with Performance
Measurement is the lack of appropriation of the information produced. Because this paper is for both
scholars and practitioners in an conferential context, we have referred to a lot of theoretical tools,
much more that the ones needed in a project management context. Our idea was to take advantage of
this paper to write for providing a broad reflection related to the ENTER project that could benefit to
the conference audience.
We want to conclude that an important theoretical source of this issue of using Performance
Measurement as a tool for collaborative control of production of values is in the deweyan pragmatism
(that Argyris & Schön, but also Herbert Simon quoted as a major source). The Action-science circle
of inquiry, and “iterative/inclusive” project management is already theorized in Dewey’s Logic (1938).
Likewise the collaborative control of value production is already in his Theory of Valuation
(1939/1966). Also recent authors as Lorino (2005) in France (Lorino being one of the most important
scholar in the field of performance measurement, see 2001) or Garisson in the USA (2008) are
showing that a lot of contemporary issues can be still enlighten with a re-contextualization of Dewey’s
concepts and principles that are ancestors of Cogntive sciences and Knowledge Management.
But as a passing of references to an author that Dewey himself acknowledged as one of his major
sources, we want to finish this paper quoting Samuel Taylor Colereidge. Those who would be
interested in the history of pragmatist philosophical roots that influences many of contemporary
authors in the management field will add to this connection others lineages that cross J.S.Mill,
C.S.Peirce, W.James…
Let us just ending this paper with this sentence found in Aids to Reflection (1825/1993, 70) :
“The worth and value of Knowledge is in proportion of the worth and value of its object.”

References :
_ Alastair S., (1999) A Guide to Performance Measurement and Non-Financial Indicators, to
download at: http://www.fpm.com/journal/mattison.htm Foundation for Performance Measurement.
_ Ballantine J., Brignall S., (1994), “A Taxonomy of Performance Measurement Frameworks”,
Warwick Business School Research Paper : Warwick.
_ Barnes D., Hinton M., (2007) Searching for e-Business Performance Measurement Systems
Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation Volume 10 Issue 1 2007 (1 - 8)
_ Bossard P., Chanchevrier C., Leclair P., (1997) Ingénierie concourante, de la technique au
social, : Paris, Economica, 166p.
_ Carter, D. E. & Baker, B. S. (1992) Ce Concurrent Engineering: The Product Development
Environment for the 1990s : New-York, Addison Wesley Publishing Company 175p.
_ Chrislip, D. D. & Larson E.L. (1996) Collaborative Leadership : San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
192p.
_ Cokins, G. (1996) Activity-Based Cost Management Making It Work : Chicago, London,
IRWIN, 226p.
 16

_ Cokins, G. (2006) Activity-Based Cost Management in Government : New York, Management

Concepts, 384p.
_ Coleridge S.T., (1825/1993) Aids to Reflections : New Jersey Princeton University Press, 678p
_ Davenport, Th. H. (1993) Process innovation Reengineering Work Through Information
Technology : Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 352p.
_ Delvin K. (2001) Turning information into knowledge, New-York, W.H. Freeman and
Company, 215p.
_ Dewey J., (1938/1991) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, 1991 new edition : Carbondale, Southern
Illinois University, 549p.
_ Dewey J., (1939/1966) Theory of Valuation, 1991 new edition : Chicago, University of Chicago,
67p.
_ Garisson, J. (2008) Reconstructing Democracy, Recontextualizing Dewey : Pragmatism and
Interactive Constructivism in the Twenty-First Century : New-York, State University of New York
Press.
_ Greeno, J. G. (1998) “The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research”, to download at:
http://methodenpool.uni-koeln.de/situierteslernen/Greeno_1998.pdf , 22p.
_ Jack, A. (2001) Value mapping – a second generation performance measurement and
performance management solution to download at:
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/articles_jack_value_mapping_second_generation_performance_management.pdf
_ Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) “The balance scorecard - measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.71-79
_ Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2000) “Having trouble with your strategy: Then map it”,
Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, pp. 167-176 see also :
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx
_ Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G. _ Kennerly, M. and Neely, A. D. (2000), “Performance Measurement
Frameworks – A Review”, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, UK.
_ Koch, Ch.G., (2007) The science of success : New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 194p.
_ Lorino, Ph., (2001) Methodes et pratiques de la performance, Paris, Editions d’organisation,
551p.
_ Lorino, Ph., Teulier R., (2005) Entre connaissance et organization, l’entrepriseface au défi de la
connaissance , Paris, La découverte, 332p.
_ Schön, Donald A. Chris Argyris, (1996) Organizational learning, t1 et t2 : New York, Addison
Weslay.
_ Schön D.A., (1974) Theory in Practice : Increasing Professional Effectiveness : San Fransisco,
CA Joseey-Bass.
_ Schön D.A., (1983) The reflexive practicioner, How professionals think in action, : New York,
Harper Collins Publishers, Basic Books.