Content uploaded by Marek Ćwiklicki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marek Ćwiklicki on Jun 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
44 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
Zarządzanie Publiczne
Public Governance
No. 1(51)/2020
ISSN 1898-3529
doi: 10.15678/ZP.2020.51.1.04
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Abstract
Objectives: The article has two main purposes. On the one hand, it shows how public value is defined and through
what management tools it is created. On the other hand, it presents how representatives of various scientific disciplines
describe the desired features of instruments creating public value and, based on this, how they evaluate the existing tools.
Research Design & Methods: We apply multiple factor analysis (MFA) on data collected from scholars from different
scientific disciplines. The dimensions of various groups of methods described by the respondents made it possible to
reveal the similarities and differences in their perceptions.
Findings: The study demonstrates that a scientific disciplinal background can influence perceptions of the benefits
of management methods to deliver public value. Knowledge of background can make public managers aware of prejudices
towards particular tools as well as it helps identify the most adequate one for each dimension of public value.
Contribution / Value Added: Our paper contributes to the body of knowledge of public value by showing how different
perspectives can be integrated and helpful for describing diversified sets of tools. We outline how the respondents perceive
the delivery of public value through management methods and, from this perspective, how they evaluate various tools.
Article classification: research article
Keywords: public value, management methods, instruments, multiple factor analysis, public value creation
JEL classification: H11, H83, C38
Professor Marek Ćwiklicki, Cracow University of Economics, ul. Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Kraków, Poland; e-mail:
marek.cwiklicki@uek.krakow.pl; ORCID: 0000-0002-5298-0210. Kamila Pilch, M.A., Cracow University of Economics,
ul. Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Kraków, Poland; e-mail: kamila.pilch@uek.krakow.pl; ORCID: 0000-0002-6491-8385.
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 45
Introduction
The practical implementation of guidelines
derived from the public value theory is associated
with activities performed in a certain way and
using certain means. Public managers seeking to
create public value have to select the right tools for
the right jobs, which raises the question of choosing
the correct instrument. Scholars who have analysed
the meaning of the term “public value” have
concluded that it is somewhat ambiguous and
vague, and that it is applied in various contexts
and described in very general terms (Meynhardt,
2009; Rhodes & Wanna, 2007; Rutgers, 2015;
Van der Wal, Nabatchi, & de Graaf, 2015). It is
thought that the idea makes it possible to connect
a number of points of view arising from fields
such as public policy, management, economics,
and political science (Smith, 2004, pp. 68–69).
Yet, to understand it intuitively is insufficient for
the needs of operationalisation, both with regard to
research design and measures directed at creating
public value. This paper contributes to the body
of knowledge of public value by showing how
different scientific disciplinary perspectives can be
integrated and helpful for describing a diversified
set of methods used to deliver public value. It is
our view that the contexts of political science,
public policy, public administration, management
studies, and place marketing are natural and obvious
perspectives from which to understand public
value. The objective of this study is to describe
an impact of the perception of the representatives
of different scientific disciplines on the delivery of
public value through management methods. In
order to show this, we apply a mixed approach that
includes multiple factor analysis performed on data
collected from academics working in the above-
mentioned disciplines.
The article begins by presenting analyses
linked to the existing definitions of the term
“public value” in the subject literature. It then
explains the assumptions behind the typologies
of methods related to the creation and management
of public value that were adopted as the basis for
the conducted analyses. The article concludes by
presenting the findings about the expected impact
of particular public management method groups.
Literature review
Understanding public value – a review
of the defi nitions
In order to identify the public value management
method, it is required to describe main features
of the pivotal term, i.e. public value. Looking
through its key dimensions allows for searching
for more specific spots, enabling the authors to
link a management tool with a given component.
The presented literature review aims at identifying
the main interpretation of PV and examining what
the researchers consider as the most relevant papers.
It was Mark Moore (1995) who first attempted
to explain what ‘public value’ is. It is worth
mentioning, though, that he paid more attention to
its implications for managers of public organisations
than to elucidating a precise definition of the
concept. What he emphasised, therefore, was that
the fundamental goal of the work undertaken by
public managers is to create public value. By this
he meant achieving outcomes valuable to society
that meet citizens’ needs and expectations, such as
keeping the streets clean, ensuring that people feel
safe and secure, and providing education, while at
the same time explaining and justifying the resources
allocated this way (Moore, 1995, pp. 29, 52). In
his explanation of public value, Moore referred
to the experiences of the private sector, which
led to the conclusion that it corresponded with
private value in the private sector (Benington,
2015, p. 41). Thus, rather than providing a strict
definition of public value, Moore left the concept
open to interpretation from diverse points of view,
making it possible to form its definition in terms
of paradigms, models, theories, narratives, and
tools, which is what Rhodes and Wanna point out
(2007, p. 408). This confusion results from Moore’s
lack of clarity when he talks about public value,
seemingly identifying it with public goods, but also
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
46 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
Table 1. Selected defi nitions of public value
Author/s Definition
(Kelly et al., 2002, p. 4) Public value refers to the value created by the government through services, regulation
of laws, and other actions.
(Blaug et al., 2006) Public value is what the public values.
(Meynhardt, 2009, pp. 204, 206) Public value is about values characterising the relationship between an individual and
‘society,’ defining the quality of this relationship.
Public value is what impacts values about the ‘public’.
(Coats & Passmore, 2007, p. 4) Public value is the analogue of the desire to maximise shareholder value in the private
sector.
(Bozeman, 2007, p. 13) A society’s ‘public values’ are those providing normative consensus about (a) the rights,
benefits, and prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not) be entitled; (b)
the obligations of citizens to society, the state, and one another; and (c) the principles on
which governments and policies should be based.
(Try & Radnor, 2007, p. 658) [T]he contribution made by the public sector to the economic, social, and environmental
well-being of a society or nation; can be generally defined as what sacrifices of money and
freedom the public is willing to make.
(Mendel & Brudney, 2014, p. 29) The holistic, full, positive, long-term consequence of doing good for a larger community.
(Rutgers, 2015, p. 40) Public values are enduring beliefs in the organisation of – and activities in – a society
that are regarded as crucial or desirable (positively or negatively) for the existence,
functioning, and sustainability of that society. They can be instant or distant (the well-
being of its members), direct or indirect, and present and/or future, e.g. in reference to
an (implicit or explicit) encompassing normative ideal of the human society (the Good
Society, the Common Wealth, the General Interest). All of these give meaning, direction,
and legitimation to collective action, as they function as arguments in the formulation,
legitimation, and evaluation of such collective actions, be it merely proposed or actually
executed.
(Benington, 2015, p. 39) Public value can be thought of in two main ways:
First, what the public values;
Second, what adds value to the public sphere.
(Papi, Bigoni, Bracci, & Deidda
Gagliardo, 2018, p. 3)
[T]he public administration’s ability to achieve and maintain an equilibrium between
the satisfaction of a community’s needs (e.g. a decrease in unemployment) and the public
administration’s needs (i.e. balanced revenues and expenditures), as mediated by political
priorities.
Source:
with non-rivalrous and non-excludable services or
public interest (Meynhardt, 2009, p. 195).
Table 1 contains a review of the definitions
of public value that appear in the literature. The
analysis of the meaning of the term ‘public value’
in publications from the years 1969–2012 revealed
that few authors provide a definition of it (Van der
Wal et al., 2015). Furthermore, the number of uses
of the terms suggests the dissipated and fragmentary
nature of public value research (Van der Wal et al.,
2015, p. 24). Nevertheless, attempts are being made
to systematise and synthesise our understanding
of public value. For this reason, the terminology
proposed by Meynhardt (2009) and Rutgers (2015)
should be noted. Their definitions derive from an
analysis of the existing meanings and they are
among very few authors who have conducted an
analysis while specifying the meanings of the words
“public” and “value” separately.
The work that Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007)
carried out to clarify the scope of the concept
of public value in academic literature led to
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 47
the emergence of a number of groups of values
associated with:
1)
the public sector’s contribution to society, which
is expressed in ideas of the common good and
of the public interest, altruism, sustainability
and the voice of the future, and regime dignity
(of the public authorities);
2) the transformation of interests into decisions,
which encompasses values associated with
majority rule, democracy, and the protection
of individual rights and the rights of minorities;
3)
the relationship between public administrators
and politicians: the former carry out tasks
in accordance with political decisions and
they are accountable and responsive as well
as display political loyalty;
4)
the relationships between the public admi-
nistration and its environment, which are
connected with openness, neutrality, and
co operation;
5)
the intra-organisational aspects of political
administration, which concerns robustness,
innovation, and productivity;
6)
the behaviour of public-sector employees,
e.g. with regard to their accountability and
professionalism;
7)
the relationships between public administration
and the citizen as expressed through legality,
equity, dialogue, and user orientation.
This overview reveals the thematic content
of public value. It can be divided into two groups.
The first one comprises a set of public values
related to the environment and to society, while
the second one is linked with a public sector entity
itself, its organisation, personnel, leadership, and
contact with users.
In the analyses of the concept of public
value, a direct reference is made to axiology
and psychology (due to the needs theory) when
considering its subjectivity (Meynhardt, 2009).
A good example in this context is the definition
adopted by British researchers who state that
“public value is what the public values” (Blaug,
Horner, Lekhi, & Kenyon, 2006). The meaning
of public value adopted by Moore is also defined as
“a combination of efficiency, social effectiveness,
politically-sanctioned outcomes, and fairness and
honesty in the context of democratic governance”
(Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2015, p. 3). Yet,
because public value is defined by deliberative
democracy, its contents cannot be unequivocally
determined (Alford & Hughes, 2008, p. 131).
Though in most cases public value is produced
by a public sector organisation, it is, in fact,
consumed collectively by society, which decides
whether a value is public or not (Alford & Hughes,
2008, p. 131).
The stakeholder theory addresses the question
of the disparate expectations formulated by dif-
ferent groups of people from the perspective
of organisation management. As Kelly, Muers and
Mulgan note (2002), value arises as a response to
the expectations of residents and citizens; the authors
also take into account the fact that citizens offer
something in return. The examples they give
include disclosing personal data in exchange for
more personalised information or services, or
the time citizens might give up to serve as school
governors. This is not, however, a view that is
widely accepted in the subject literature.
Public value is created by the work of public
organisations, which mainly means services, but
also legal regulation (Kelly et al., 2002). For
example, Kalambokidis (2014) discusses its creation
through tax policy. We are, therefore, referring
to operations management which, in the context
of public organisations, concerns the management
of public services. In a broader context, public
value is also created by businesses and non-
governmental entities, whose opportunities to be
included in this process depend on public leaders
(Benington, 2015).
Moore argued that the key role in the contri-
bution made by public sector entities to providing
public value is played by their leaders. The basic
premise for the development of this idea was an
attempt to combine two critical issues for public
managers: the goals to be achieved and the tools,
such as money or authority, that could be used
to attain them. Closer analyses have shown that
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
48 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
it is middle-level managers who are responsible
for creating public value (Diefenbach, 2011).
Public managers are responsible for carrying out
the policies that had been approved and adopted
in their operational areas. Moore drew on case
studies of employees working in public libraries,
municipal cleaning, youth services, housing
offices, environmental protection agencies, and
for the police. However, the range of posts he
took into account was relatively broad, which is
emphasised in the literature (Rhodes & Wanna,
2007). One of Moore’s criteria was that of influence
on the actions of government (1995, p. 2), by
which it is implicit that, although they possess no
formal remit to carry out public tasks for a specific
organisation, the leaders of interest groups, judges,
and even leaders of private companies performing
public tasks are also to be recognised as public
managers. Philanthropic leaders should also be
included in this group (Mendel & Brudney, 2014).
In the above-mentioned division of values,
politicians are also mentioned. This division can
be described as follows: politicians define what
needs to be done and public managers concentrate
on putting it into effect under changing conditions.
In other words, the former decide what actions are
appropriate and proper, and the latter put them into
effect accordingly. It was with these categories
in mind that Moore devised the strategic triangle as
an aid to everyday operations and as a tool to guide
their efforts. It should be added that public value
as an idea that focuses attention and action could
also be useful to local communities and public-
service providers (Smith, 2004). The latter do not
have to be a part of the state or local government.
Instead, they can act on behalf of these institutions
as NGOs contracted to provide particular services.
In order to summarise the existing state of
knowledge on the interpretation of the term ‘public
value’ in the academic discourse, let us return
to the analysis of the very words that are its
constituent parts, i.e. ‘public’ and ‘value’. In line
with the adopted axiological interpretation, value
is expressed in the preferences of individuals and
entities, which underlines its subjective nature.
If value is located outside the organisation, it is
the customers or users who decide what it is. Yet,
the public element involves the collective perception
of value, which is then expressed as the sum
of individual expectations or preferences, but is
also a generalisation of them. As a consequence,
that which is valuable arrives post factum once
the product or service has been used or consumed.
In this vein, Spano explains that only satisfying
the needs of citizens creates value, and the more
this is done, the greater is the amount of public
value created (2009, p. 330). The question of user
participation in value assessment is about taking
them into account not so much as consumers
but, rather, as active participants in the creation
process. This issue is the focus of a distinct field
of enquiry in the subject literature (Bryson, Sancino,
Benington, & Sørensen, 2016; Farr, 2016; Osborne,
Radnor, & Strokosch, 2016).
In Moore’s formulation, value is a conceptual
category developed primarily for managers and,
therefore, explicitly designed for reasons of
pragmatism rather than research. It was of greater
importance to him to specify the matters to which
public managers should attend. For this reason,
he devised the strategic triangle, which comprises
organisational capacities, the implementation
environment, and the authorising environment.
The concept of public value makes it possible for
public managers to describe and better understand
the environment they operate in, to build a narrative
of management initiatives, and to forge the rhetorical
tools to justify them. Furthermore, it serves as
a base for assessing the effectiveness of initiatives
that is used in models for measuring public value.
The versatility of public value, which can be
employed in the pursuit of disparate objectives,
lends it considerable potential when applied
to the requirements of the theory and practice
of managing public organisations. The link between
public value and other types of value is important
in this regard. In the above-mentioned argument,
the adjective ‘public’ is tantamount to society as
a whole, but also, and more precisely, to the users
of public services. The picture is incomplete,
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 49
however, if this identification is with the public
sector alone. The guiding principle that makes it
possible to attribute the feature of ‘publicness’
to value is that it is shaped by a group of people.
Taking their perspective into account by introducing
different management methods makes it possible
to distinguish between contemporary systems
for delivering public goods and services. These
are characterised by the inter-organisational and
interactive provision of public services, which
is marked by a process-based and systemic ap -
proach (Osborne, Radnor, & Nasi, 2013). From
the management standpoint, this means a focus on
strategy, the marketing of services, coproduction,
and operations management (Osborne, Radnor,
& Nasi, 2013). It should be recalled that public
values are also understood in the subject literature
as good governance criteria, which differs from
the concept discussed here (Alford, Douglas,
Geuijen, & ‘t Hart, 2017; Bozeman, 2007; Nabatchi,
2018).
The interpretive approaches discussed in this
section of the article demonstrate the complexity
of the idea of public value management. The
conducted analyses achieved their aim of identifying
the main elements of the management of public
value from the public manager’s point of view
as its creator. They follow from the strategic
triangle, whose components formulate the respective
management fields: public services, the environment
(internal and external), and results. Each of these
domains can be investigated independently, i.e.
in isolation from the other two and as a distinct
management focus. However, it is taking ac-
count of these domains together that makes the
management of public value possible. This also
means that the effects of the methods applied in
each domain are felt in the other domains, too. Other
public value frameworks in terms of measurement
are discussed elsewhere by one of the co-authors
of this article (Ćwiklicki, 2016).
Assumptions behind the typology
of public value management methods
The set of methods that could be suitable
for inclusion in a description of a given field
of public value management is not only broad,
but also, and more importantly, open-ended.
This makes it difficult to unambiguously assign
a given method to a group, because the individual
tools can be applied to other areas. Aside from
problematising the formulation of a typology
of the main dimensions of the strategic triangle
of public value, it leads to separate, partial ana-
lyses corresponding to the given domains. The
diversity of interpretations of public value –
such as the plurality of actors involved in public
value creation – leads to specific management
areas, e.g. stakeholder management and external
communications. Yet, an approach of this kind
confronts researchers or public managers with
the difficulty of assigning a method to a field,
which may affect the adequacy of its application,
i.e. the best fit between the tool and the nature
of the problem being solved. In order to avoid
this awkwardness, this article references not
specific methods, but groups of methods, which
are named after fields of study. This way, it is
possible to distinguish ten groups of public value
management methods described in Table 2. The
conceptualisation of these groups results directly
from the strategic triangle dealing with three
main topics: service management and operational
capacity, operating environment (service delivery),
and supporting environment (legitimacy for
action). The assignment of groups of methods
refers to the strategic triangle and the definitional
dimensions described in the previous section. Based
on the strategic triangle’s parts, one can consider
these three main groups as: (1) public-services-
focused management methods; (2) environment-
focused management methods; and (3) results-
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
50 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
based management methods (see Table 3). The
proposed typology is a general approximation
of classification based on the affinity of tools and
a common purpose. However, overlapping can be
observed as well as the boundaries are not clear-cut.
The above-mentioned methods are included
in our analysis. We investigate how the respondents
perceive delivering public value through the prism
of the methods and whether there are differences
in both the definition of a method’s features and
the assessment among representatives of different
academic disciplines.
Public value management can be conceived
of in three dimensions according to Moore’s
strategic triangle: public value, legitimation and
support, and operational capabilities. Public value
refers to the implementation environment and can be
connected with ideas of public service management,
while legitimation and support are linked to
the legitimising environment and as such refer to
environment-focused management. Meanwhile,
operational capabilities is a category associated
with the ideas of results-based management. This
classification makes it possible to distinguish
Table 2. Description of public management methods
Group of methods
for/of:
Description Examples
examining user
expectations of public
services
Mainly linked to studies about service
quality, as quality expresses the coherence
of the services provided with customers’
(citizens’) expectations.
SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Mystery Client
co-production of public
value
An approach where a citizen is strengthened
in service creation, design, production or
initiation.
self-service, customer engagement,
crowdsourcing
external communication Refers to information exchange via different
communication channels, with external entities
being able to influence the realisation of public
organisations’ mission.
public relations, media relations, sponsoring,
social communication by electronic means (e.g.
online meetings), traditional media (e.g. printed
newsletter), direct (e.g. press conference), and
indirect (e.g. press office)
operations management Focuses on resources and process management,
performance management, decision-making for
increasing effectiveness.
business process management, change
management, benchmarking, capacity
management, lean government
political management Refers to political marketing and election
marketing, periodically performed.
campaign management, entrepreneurial
advocacy, negotiations, public deliberation,
public relations, lobbying
organisational politics Focuses on achieving the maximisation of own
benefits by employing power and influence.
negotiation techniques, internal communication
tools, influencing
managing relationships
with stakeholders
Refer directly to the stakeholder relations
management.
stakeholder analysis, power-interest matrix
planning for results Refers to strategic management focusing on
analysing the organisation and its environment.
stakeholder analysis, project cycle management,
Critical Path Method, foresight, SWOT
monitoring for results Similar to performance measurement, based on
qualitative and quantitative measures.
public value scorecard, balanced scorecard,
performance benchmarking, Citizen’s Charter
evaluating for results Evaluates policies with reference to the initial
goals and assumption; evidence-based policy.
a variety of research methods used in social
sciences, SWOT, mind mapping, desk research,
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Source: Authors’ own work.
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 51
between three groups of methods – each related to
a particular component of the strategic triangle –
and to assign public value management methods
to various groups (Table 3).
Methodology1
Preparation of the study and collection
of primary data
The entire study was based on an interpretive-
constructionist paradigm and involved integrated
qualitative research and quantitative data ana -
lysis. The data was elicited in a purposive sample
of academics of a variety of scientific disci-
plines and sub-disciplines, who thus shared the
same professional background. Because public
value can be considered from a variety of disci-
plinary perspectives, especially from that of
public management and its associated fields,
representatives of the following disciplines were
1
The data comes from a previous work of one of the co-
authors (cf. Chapter 5 in Ćwiklicki, 2019). The current
paper synthesises the results and develops the discussion
of the findings.
included in the study: (1) economics; (2) public
policy; (3) political science; (4) administrative
law; (5) management; and (6) place (territorial)
marketing. One representative from each of these
disciplines was invited to participate in the study.
Our aim was to present how they describe features
that management methods should possess in order
to create public value, and how they perceive their
effectiveness. Holding a habilitation degree and
having experience in conducting academic research
were both adopted as additional selection criteria.
The choice of academics for the respondents was
dictated by several reasons. First of all, solutions
developed at universities are very often the basis
for the operation of companies. On the other hand,
the activities of enterprises are subject to academic
critical analysis. Designed research makes it
possible to present how professional background
influences the perceptions and, in consequence,
the choice of a given public value management
method.
The criteria for the typology of public value
management methods were established on the basis
of answers to the following question: “From
the point of view of your discipline, what features
Table 3. Characteristics of the major groups of public service management methods
Groups of public service management methods Field of public
value
Dimension
of Moore’s
strategic triangle
Field of impact
M1 Research methods for user expectations Public service
management
Public value Implementation
environment
M2 Methods of coproduction of public value
M3 Methods of external communication
M4 Methods of operations management
M5 Methods of political management Environment-
focused
management
Legitimation and
support
Authorising
environment
M6 Methods of organisational politics
M7 Methods of managing relationships with stakeholders
M8 Methods of planning for results Results-based
management
Operational
capabilities
Organisation
M9 Methods of monitoring for results
M10 Methods of evaluating for results
Source: Ćwiklicki, 2019, p. 108.
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
52 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
should management methods (tools, instruments)
possess so that they are conducive to the creation
and delivery of public value?” It was explained
in a note that this concept should be understood
as the value created for society through the work
of public organisations (services, legal regulations).
Reference was thus made to the definitions discussed
above. The responses were given by way of
free association and were recorded in the course
of the interview. They were then shown to – and
discussed with – the respondent, which made it
possible to determine the features that methods
applied in public service management should have.
This allowed for an exploration of the perception
of – and ways to define – the characteristics
of management methods that deliver public value.
It was the task of the respondents in the second
stage of the study to assess the above-mentioned
groups of methods (Table 3) on a seven-point
scale in terms of the features they had spoken
of in their responses to the said question. In
other words, the respondents were deciding on
the extent to which a given group of public value
management methods satisfies – or is charac-
terised by – a particular feature. This made it
possible to tabulate the individual evaluations
of the representatives of the said six disciplines for
each group of methods. Six sets of data in a tabular
form with different numbers of columns according to
the number of features mentioned by the respondent
in their response to the question – and ten rows
corresponding to the various groups of methods –
were obtained from the individual interviews. As
a consequence, differences and similarities between
the respondents’ assessments could be captured. The
data was collected between 25 November, 2018, and
7 December, 2018, in the form of direct individual
interviews with each member of the purposive
sample of representatives of the six disciplines.
The average duration of the interviews was forty-
five minutes. The calculations were made, and
the graphs drawn, with the aid of the XLSTAT
software.
The method of analysis
Multiple factor analysis (MFA), which was
devised in the 1980s, was selected to investigate
the data. The analysis consisted of three parts:
1)
distinguishing the main factors by means
of which it is possible to describe particular
groups of methods; the factors were recognised
on the basis of free associations provided by
the respondents;
2)
examining how particular methods are located
by the respondents in the previously created
space of factors;
3)
examining the similarities and differences
between the opinions of individual respondents.
The MFA makes it possible to perform a factor
analysis on several datasets (variables) combined
in a global matrix, and to identify the hidden
variables in datasets that have the greatest number
of colligations. The different measurement levels
produce tables of variables, which are integrated by
means of examining their interdependencies. This
involves analysing the structure both within and
between tables. As part of the procedure, the data is
normalised so that it can be compared. This, in turn,
involves dividing all of the elements of the table
by what is known as the first singular val ue,
which is the equivalent of the standard deviation
for the matrix (Abdi & Valentin, 2007). The first
singular value is the square root of the first singular
value (eigenvalue) of the principal component
analysis matrix. These values are then combined
in a single, common matrix, on which a principal
component analysis is performed again. The
data for each of the cases is then projected onto
the global space. This way, it is possible to compare
the similarities and differences between them.
The reason for using this particular method is
positive verification in studies of the perception
of certain phenomena, in which assessments are
made by a number of respondents. The essence
of the method is to integrate the interviewees’
differing opinions so that they can be shown on
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 53
a single plane. Furthermore, in multiple factor
analysis calculations are performed on data obtained
from different sources on the theme of different
groups of methods, for which the respondents
formulate their own criteria (Abdi, Williams,
& Valentin, 2013). The use of this method al-
lowed the authors to identify factors based
on the characteristics provided by individual
respondents.
As a result, the analysis, which was carried
out around three groups of methods (see Table 3),
identified the major factors, differentiating between
the individual methods for each of the three groups
and explaining the variance of the variables.
The MFA was performed for each of the groups
of the distinguished methods. This, in turn, made
it possible to identify the dimensions created by
the given characteristics, to locate the methods on
the plane of these dimensions in accordance with
the respondents’ evaluations, and to investigate
the differences in the interviewees’ perceptions
of the various methods.
Results
The characteristics of the principal
components
The analysis distinguished the principal
com ponents based on the characteristics and
at tributes provided by the respondents, which
could help describe the groups of methods. All
the characteristics formulated by the respondents
were discussed with them during the survey. This
allowed for a better understanding of the statements
and enabled us to name their expressed points
of view as factors. The principal components
analysis for public service management methods
established three explanatory factors. Out of these,
two can be described as major explanatory factors.
They explain 73% of the entire variation, with
F1 accounting for 39% and F2 accounting for
the remaining 34%. The analysis of environment
management methods identified two explanatory
factors for the investigated methods. The first one
(F1) explained 63% of the variation and the second
one (F2) explained the remaining 37%. The results
of the analysis distinguished two factors for
the results-based management methods group. The
first one (F1) explained 74% of the variation and
the second one (F2) explained the remaining 26%.
The results are presented in detail in Table 4.
When attempting to define a set of features
with high loading (above 0.863) for the various
groups of methods, the first major factor for public
service management would be ‘providing justified
benefits to society’ or, more succinctly, ‘delivering
significant social benefits’. This set comprises
the following features: productivity, fact-based use
case, offering measurable benefits, taking symbolic
action, naming, values, attractive to society,
dependent on the environment, simplicity of use.
After the selection of loadings above 0.844, the right
term for the second major factor is ‘comprehensive
efficiency’, which is to be understood not only
in the narrow sense of economic effectiveness,
but also as denoting holistic solutions. The set for
the second factor comprises characteristics such as:
the option to select contractors, systems thinking,
Table 4. Eigenvalues for the public-service-management-methods groups
Public Services Environment Results-based
F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F1 F2
Eigenvalue 4.027 3.577 2.797 5.216 3.043 5.484 1.950
Variation (%) 38.716 34.396 26.889 63.154 36.846 73.771 26.229
Cumulative (%) 38.716 73.111 100.000 63.154 100.000 73.771 100.000
Source: Authors’ own work.
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
54 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
efficiency, and effectiveness. These terms will be
used in the remaining sections of the analysis.
In the case of the group of methods associated
with environment-focused management, the first
factor can be defined as ‘an efficient tool enabling
rapid action’. Values above 0.974 have the following
features: economic efficiency, sustainability
of value delivery, strong tool multiplier, and speed
of the delivery of effects. Two sets of features
with very high (above 0.9) or slightly lower
(above 0.8) loading can be used to describe
the second factor. The first group comprises
the following features: value carrier, creating
a framework for value delivery, identification
of needs and wants, environmentally-dependent,
and short time of value delivery to user. The second
group comprises productivity, adequacy with
regard to needs, and low number of veto players.
Both supplement the context of ‘rapid creation
and delivery of value appropriate to the social
needs identified’.
Referring to the results-based management
methods group, an analysis of the loadings makes it
possible to describe the first factor as ‘effectiveness
in delivering value appropriate for society’. We
selected features with loadings above 0.990:
creating a framework for value delivery, economic
efficiency, formal justification of use, efficiency,
effectiveness, sustainability of value delivery,
user engagement, and understanding social needs.
Meanwhile, the second factor can be described
as the ‘overall relevance of value delivery’. We
were guided by the highest loadings (above 0.860)
when selecting features, which were: the relevance
of intervention, the selectivity of measures, and
a holistic understanding of the problem.
The analysis enabled us to distinguish the main
factors in relation to particular groups of methods
by which the respondents described the desired
characteristics for public value management tools.
Evaluation of the groups of methods from
the perspective of the principal components
The next step in the analysis was to map
the various methods identified within the framework
of each of the three major groups onto their
corresponding principal component spaces. The
results are presented in Figure 1.
The first dimension in the public value mana -
gement methods group differentiated most clearly
the methods focused on the environment of the
organisation – i.e. researching user expectations
(M1), coproduction of public value (M2), and
external communication (M3) – from the operations
management methods group (M4). The second
dimension, however, differentiated all the methods
to an equal degree. Figure 1. demonstrates that
methods of external communication (M3) at -
tracted high assessments on both axes and that
Figure 1. Groups of public value management methods in the global principal component analysis space
Source: Authors’ own work.
1. Public services 2. Environment 3. Results-based
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-4 -2 0 2
F2 (34.40%)
F1 (38.72%)
-3
-2,5
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
-5 05
F2 (36.85%)
F1 (63.15%)
-2,5
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
-4 -2 0 2 4
F2 (26.23%)
F1 (73.77%)
M1
M4
M2
M3
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 55
the evaluations of this method and the coproduction
of public value (M2) were similar. It was researching
user expectations (M1) that stood out the most
from other methods in this group. This difference
is explained by the second factor, i.e. the holistic
efficiency of the method, which in the case of
researching user expectations is without doubt
lower when compared to the remaining methods.
However, the positioning of methods with regard
to the ‘delivering significant social benefits’
factor adequately reflects the nature of operations
management, where the emphasis placed on this
aspect is weaker than in other methods.
The analysis conducted for the group of methods
associated with environment-focused management
indicated that both factors, i.e. the ef ficien cy of
the method applied and the delivery of value in
accordance with expectations, fully reflect and
describe – in the opinions of the respondents –
the specificity of political management (M5).
The first factor, however, corresponded with
the methods of organisational politics, while
the second one corresponded with the methods
of managing relationships with stakeholders. It
can be concluded that the respondents evaluate
the methods of political management and the
methods of organisational politics as more effective,
while they see the methods of political management
and the management of relationships with stake-
holders as enabling the swift creation as well as
the delivery of value relevant to the diagnosed
social needs.
In the results-based management methods
group, the factor associated with the effective
delivery of value for society differentiated me -
thods of planning for results from methods of
implementation and evaluation. However, the
second of the factors explaining the variation
in the presented dataset, namely the relevance
of overall value delivery, highlighted the differences
in perception between methods of planning and
evaluation for results on the one hand and methods
of monitoring for results on the other.
As has been presented above, such an approach
allowed us to examine the perception of individual
methods in the space of dimensions that were
identified in the first part of the analysis. We
emphasised that one of our objectives was to
investigate how the represented academic discipline
affected the perception of creating public value.
In the next section, we present how the opinions
of individual respondents were similar to each other
and how they differed with regard to the subject
under scrutiny.
Comparison of the respondents’ evaluations
Based on Figure 2, it is possible to specify
the degree of convergence of the respondents’
evaluations in relation to the various groups.
Especially with the second factor taken into account,
namely holistic efficiency, economists diverged
the most in their statements on the management
of public services. The evaluations made by
the exponents of management, political science,
and administrative law were relatively similar.
Based on the results of the analyses concerning
environment-focused management, it can be
stated that this group of methods best reflects
the evaluations of the exponents of management,
political science, and administrative law. While
the presence of management and political
science raises no major doubts with regard to
the environment-focused methods, the evaluation
of the represen tative of administrative law is
interesting. This can be explained by the fact
that, out of the features he indicated, the strongest
association was with the second factor – i.e.
adequacy with regard to requirements – which
fully corresponds with the feature indicated
by the representative of place marketing, i.e.
the identification of needs and wants.
With respect to the results-based management
methods group, we can conclude that the evaluations
of all the respondents were relatively similar
due to the ‘efficient tool’ factor. This similarity
can be explained by a comparatively similar
understanding of the effectiveness of the application
of the tool. In this group of assessed methods,
it is, nevertheless, necessary to point out that
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
56 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
the evaluations of the public policy representative
were noticeably different.
It is also worth noting that the obtained results
and differences in perception may result from
a conflict of interest. This can be the case in
connection with various goals of activity as
well as values which are most important from
the point of view of the disciplines represented
by the respondents.
Concluding remarks
With respect to both the respondents’ evaluations
and the groups of methods, the use of MFA made
it possible to collectively capture the obtained
results. The analysis shows that in the respondents’
perception, the public service management group
of methods delivers significant social benefits and
holistic effectiveness, and that this group is best
described primarily by the features formulated by
the representative of public policy. The second
group, i.e. that of environment-focused management
methods, is characterised by the effective ap -
plication of tools enabling rapid action as well as
the swift creation and delivery of value relevant
to the identified social needs. The features that
fit this group most fully are those formulated by
the representative of management sciences. The final
group of methods – results-based management – is
characterised by the effectiveness in delivering
value appropriate for society and the relevance
of overall value delivery. As in the case of the first
group, the strongest concordance here was shown
in the evaluation made by the representative
of public policy discipline. The representative
of management sciences occupied second place
in this respect.
What the analysis made possible to assess
was the extent to which the various groups of
methods display the characteristics – or meet
the expectations – articulated in the assessments
that had formed the base for the dimensions
describing the various groups. In the public-service-
management-methods group, then, the methods
of external communication were evaluated as
characterising the delivery of social benefit and
effectiveness to the greatest extent. In the envi-
ronment-focused management methods group,
the methods of political management were as-
sessed as most associated with, first, the effective
application of tools to facilitate a productive action
and, second, the delivery of value appropriate to
Legend: representatives from: economics (EK), administrative law (PA), place marketing (MT), public policy (PP), political
science (PO), and management (MA).
Figure 2. Projection onto the global space of the data tables of various respondents for groups of methods
of public value management
Source: Authors’ own work.
1. Public Services 2. Environment 3. Results
EK
PA
MT
PP
PO
MA
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
01
F2 (26.23%)
F1 (73.77%)
EK
PA
MT
PP
PO
MA
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
01
F2 (34.40%)
F1 (38.72%)
EK PA
MT
PP
PO
MA
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
01
F2 (36.85%)
F1 (63.15%)
0.5 0.5 0.5
1.5 1.5
Understanding Public Value Through Its Methods
Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020 57
the identified needs. In the results-based group,
in turn, planning for results was evaluated as
the method most likely to deliver a comparatively
relevant value appropriate to society.
As noted in the introduction, the term ‘public
value’, and thus the management of public value,
can be defined in a number of ways. The dimensions
the respondents used to describe the various
groups of methods made it possible to recognise
the similarities and differences in the perceptions.
Therefore, it became apparent that taking into
account the perspectives of different disciplines
results in a different perception of the methods used
to manage public value. We should emphasise that
using MFA allowed us to present an integrative
view of public-value tools. However, as this paper
shows, only a researcher’s/scholar’s point of view
and empirical perspective can be valuable.
The limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research
This article focuses on one of the interpretations
of PV referring to the active role of public manager
without including the civic engagement stream.
The reason for this results from thematic public
value management methods, which are associated
with public managers. Also, we discuss in a rather
limited manner the mandate of public managers
in terms of their possibilities to create public value
in different administrative arrangements. Moreover,
it should be noted that this is an exploratory
analysis and, as a consequence, the obtained results
cannot be treated as representative in the statistical
sense for the problem under investigation. It
should furthermore be stressed that although
all of the respondents were chosen as part of
a purposive sample, they all work for the same
university. Therefore, it would be cognitively and
methodologically stimulating to conduct research
among respondents from different universities
and research institutes in order to demonstrate
differences in understanding the meaning of public-
value tools. Moreover, the inclusion of scholars
from abroad would make it possible to capture
the differences in the perception and definition
of the investigated term in a variety of national
contexts. Additionally, a new line of enquiry
would be to investigate actual public managers,
i.e. persons who are more practice-oriented.
It would enable researchers to, first, confront
academics’ point of view with the individuals’
professional experience and, second, acquire data
about the actually used and preferable public-value-
management tools. Additionally, as was noted,
a conflict of interest may arise due to the different
values and ways of acting that are considered as
the most important in the public value creation
process by representatives of different disciplines. It
would be cognitively interesting to design research
that would focus on this issue, too.
References
Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2007). Multiple Factor
Analysis (MFA). In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Measurement and Statistics (pp. 657–663). Sage.
Abdi, H., Williams, L. J., & Valentin, D. (2013). Multiple
factor analysis: Principal component analysis for
multitable and multiblock data sets: Multiple
factor analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Computational Statistics, 5(2), 149–179. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wics.1246
Alford, J., Douglas, S., Geuijen, K., & ‘t Hart, P. (2017).
Ventures in public value management: Introduction
to the symposium. Public Management Review,
19(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903
7.2016.1192160
Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism
as the Next Phase of Public Management. The
American Review of Public Administration, 38(2),
130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203
Benington, J. (2015). Public Value as a Contested
Democratic Practice. In J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby,
& L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Creating Public Value
in Practice: Advancing the Common Good in a Multi-
Sector, Shared-Power,No-One-Wholly-in-Charge
World (pp. 29–48). CRC Press.
Blaug, R., Horner, L., Lekhi, R., & Kenyon, A. (2006).
Public value and local communities. The Work
Foundation.
Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values and Public Interest
Counterbalancing Economic Individualism.
Marek Ćwiklicki, Kamila Pilch
58 Zarządzanie Publiczne / Public Governance 1(51)/2020
Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from
http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.
aspx?p=547786
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2015).
Introduction. In J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby,
& L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Creating Public Value in
Practice: Advancing the Common Good in a Multi-
Sector, Shared-Power,No-One-Wholly-in-Charge
World (pp. 1–28). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Bryson, J. M., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen,
E. (2016). Towards a multi-actor theory of public
value co-creation. Public Management Review, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
Coats, D., & Passmore, E. (2007). Public Value: The
Next Steps in Public Service Reform. The Work
Foundation.
Ćwiklicki, M. (2016), Comparison of public value meas-
urement frameworks. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 1(35),
20–31. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2016.35.1.02.
Ćwiklicki, M. (2019), Metody zarządzania wartością
publiczną. Scholar.
Diefenbach, F. E. (2011). Entrepreneurship in the public
sector: When middle managers create public value
(1st ed). Gabler.
Farr, M. (2016). Co-Production and Value Co-Creation
in Outcome-Based Contracting in Public Services.
Public Management Review, 18(5), 654–672. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111661
Kalambokidis, L. (2014). Creating Public Value with
Tax and Spending Policies: The View from Public
Economics. Public Administration Review, 74(4),
519–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12162
Kelly, G., Muers, S., & Mulgan, G. (2002). Creating
Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public
Service Reform. The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit,
United Kingdom.
Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2014). Doing Good,
Public Good, and Public Value: Why the Differences
Matter. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
25(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21109
Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public Value Inside: What is
Public Value Creation? International Journal
of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 192–219. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic
management in government. CHarvard University
Press.
Nabatchi, T. (2018). Public Values Frames in Admi-
nistration and Governance. Perspectives on Public
Management and Governance, 1(1), 59–72. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx009
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A New
Theory for Public Service Management? Toward
a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. The Ameri-
can Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-
Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public
Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public
Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
Papi, L., Bigoni, M., Bracci, E., & Deidda Gagliardo,
E. (2018). Measuring public value: A conceptual and
applied contribution to the debate. Public Money &
Management, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.
2018.1439154
Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. (2007). The Limits to
Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible Government
from the Platonic Guardians. Australian Journal
of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x
Rutgers, M. R. (2015). As Good as It Gets? On the
Meaning of Public Value in the Study of Policy
and Management. The American Review of Public
Administration, 45(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0275074014525833
Smith, R. (2004). Focusing on public value: Something
new and something old. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 63(4), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8500.2004.00403.x
Spano, A. (2009). Public Value Creation and Management
Control Systems. International Journal of Public
Administration, 32(3–4), 328–348. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01900690902732848
Try, D., & Radnor, Z. (2007). Developing an under-
standing of results‐based management through
public value theory. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 7(20), 655–673.
Van der Wal, Z., Nabatchi, T., & de Graaf, G. (2015).
From Galaxies to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary
Review and Analysis of Public Values Publications
From 1969 to 2012. The American Review of
Public Administration, 45(1), 13–28. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0275074013488822
