I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

20
Introduction
R
esearchers have been developing per-
formance measurement theories on the
basis of a new theoretical approach since
the early 1990s. According to Eccles (1991), we
are talking about a new philosophy of perform-
ance measurement that regards it as an ongoing,
evolving process (p. 137). Initially focused on
for-prot organizations (Kaplan and Norton,
1992; Simons, 1995), the performance measure-
ment approach was later applied to not-for-prot
organizations (Forbes, 1998; Kaplan, 2001).
The cultural sector is now beginning to be
considered as part of the focus on not-for-prot
organizations (Gilhespy, 1999; Paulus, 2003;
Soren, 2000; Voss and Voss, 2000). Turbide and
Laurin (2009) argue that while the literature
reveals a broad theoretical framework for per-
formance measurement in cultural organizations,
there is still a need to develop empirical analyses
on the subject. Indeed, an apparent dichotomy
has emerged between what is stated in the litera-
ture and the application of performance meas-
urement in cultural organizations.
This article analyzes whether this situation
applies in the case of World Heritage Sites
(WHSs) inscribed on the World Heritage List
(WHL) by the United Nations Educational,
Scientic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
to preserve and protect the outstanding value of
important cultural and natural sites around the
world. During the 2000s, UNESCOs periodic
Operational Guidelines emphasized the need for
a management plan for each property inscribed
on the List, in order to specify how the outstand-
ing universal value of a property should be pre-
served (UNESCO, 2005, p. 26). A planning,
control and monitoring system should be a key
factor in the management plan. Therefore, a
performance measurement system plays a fun-
damental role in the management plan of a WHS.
From a theoretical point of view, this tool should
be considered a strategic plan. However, in this
article we use the term management plan, con-
sistent with UNESCO ofcial documents.
We carried out an empirical analysis in order
to verify the consistency between the literature
on performance measurement and the applica-
tion of performance measurement in the man-
agement practices of WHSs. The research
focused on Italian WHSs. Italy is the country
most represented on the WHL; as of 2012 Italy
had 47 recognized WHSs.
Starting from this premise, the article focuses
on three research topics: (1) consistency between
the theoretical framework of the performance
measurement approach in the cultural sector
and the emerging evidence from the empirical
research applied to WHSs; (2) the peculiarities
of performance measurement systems, due to
the conditions of WHSs; and (3) the conditions
necessary for an effective performance measure-
ment system in WHSs.
The article is structured as follows. In the
rst two sections we present a literature review
Francesco Badia, PhD
(Business Administration), is
Researcher, Department of
Economics and Management,
TekneHub Laboratory, and
Lecturer, Economics of
Cultural Organizations and
Business Administration,
University of Ferrara, Italy.
Fabio Donato is Professor,
Business Administration,
Department of Economics
and Management, and
Director, International
Masters Course in Cultural
Management (MuSeC),
University of Ferrara, Italy.
He is also a board member
of the European Network
of Cultural Administration
Training Centres (ENCATC).
Performance Measurement at World Heritage Sites:
Per Aspera ad Astra
Francesco Badia, Fabio Donato
Measurement of Cultural Organization Performance
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
21
and a theoretical analysis of performance
measurement in cultural organizations and in
WHSs. In the next two sections we describe
the empirical research into the implementation
of performance measurement systems in Italian
WHSs and the emerging evidence. In the nal
section we attempt to answer the research
questions arising from the three topics.
Performance Measurement in Cultural
Organizations: From Theory to Practice
P
erformance measurement is a managerial
process, linked to strategic planning and con-
trol, whose aim is to support the decision-making
process and assess organizational effectiveness in
every performance dimension, whether nancial
or non-nancial. According to Simons (2000),
the purpose of any performance measurement
and control system is to convey information. These
systems focus on data nancial and nonnancial
information that inuences decision making and
managerial action (p. 4). Over the past two dec-
ades, performance measurement in for-prot
organizations has been developed (Atkinson,
Waterhouse and Wells, 1997; Edvinsson and
Malone, 1997; Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Lynch
and Cross, 1991; Simons, 1995, 2000; Sveiby,
1997). Lynch and Crosss (1991) Performance
Pyramid was the rst attempt to combine the
hierarchical view of performance measurement
with the business process view. Kaplan and Norton
(1992) created the most successful performance
measurement model, the well-known Balanced
Scorecard (BSC). They developed a multidimen-
sional performance measurement system based
on four perspectives: nancial, customer, internal
business processes, and learning and growth. One
of the basic elements of these new performance
measurement systems was their strong link with
the strategy to be implemented or, more generally,
with the companys vision (Kaplan and Norton,
1993; Simons, 1995).
Further development of these theories con-
sidered the need to visualize and manage the
intangible resources of the companies. This led
to models such as the Skandia Business Navigator
(Edvinsson and Malone, 1997) and the Intangible
Asset Monitor (Sveiby, 1997). Other authors
highlighted some critical points of the BSC
model, mainly addressing the needs of internal
stakeholders (Atkinson, Waterhouse and Wells,
1997; Ittner and Larcker, 2001). In general, they
favoured a broadening of perspectives through
a stakeholder approach (Atkinson, Waterheouse
and Wells, 1997), which integrated the perspec-
tives arising from a multiplicity of external sub-
jects, relevant for the company.
Later, these theories were applied to non-prot
organizations (NPOs). The role of performance
measurement was tied to organizational effective-
ness. Sheehan (1996) and Forbes (1998) attempted
to identify the peculiarities of organizational
effectiveness in NPOs. They highlighted the dif-
culties of measurement processes, which were
also analyzed by Letts, Ryan and Grossman (1999)
and Herman and Renz (1999). The BSC authors
took these critical factors into account and adapted
the BSC to the features of NPOs (Kaplan, 2001;
Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Theories of perfor-
mance measurement for NPOs were also inves-
tigated in the eld of public sector management.
This was particularly true in the European con-
text, where there was the inuence of a historically
more developed welfare state. Indeed, studies of
NPOs often regarded public sector organizations
on the European scene. Let us rst consider the
studies that dene performance measurement in
the public sector (Buschor and Schedler, 1994;
Cave, Kogan and Smith, 1990; Mayston, 1985).
These examine the particularities of performance
measurement for public sector organizations and
The authors analyze the degree of development of performance measurement systems at World Heritage Sites
(WHSs), properties recognized as of outstanding universal value by UNESCO. Regarding the role of perform-
ance measurement in arts and cultural organizations, the literature review indicates a wide gap between theory
and practice. The authors conduct an empirical survey of Italian WHSs and their management plans. The results
suggest that performance measurement and monitoring systems are not being suciently implemented. New
strategies need to be developed in order to promote more eective management systems for WHSs. Participatory
governance, though perhaps dicult to achieve, would be a suitable solution.
Performance measurement, management plan, world heritage sites, cultural heritage
A B S T R A C T
K E Y W O R D S
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
22
show the similarities with and differences from
organizations in the private sector. An important
branch of performance measurement theory in
public sector organizations concerns ways to
develop an effective panel of performance indica-
tors (PIs). Some scholars consider the difculties
of applying the value for money approach to
PIs (Johnsen, 2005; Lapsley, 1996; Smith, 1995);
others outline recurring problems and myths in
the implementation of performance measurement
in the public sector (Modell, 2004; Sanderson,
1998) and discuss ways to make these systems
more effective (Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; Krug
and Weinberg, 2004).
A case of applying performance measurement
in the public sector was the Best Value initiative
(Boyne et al., 2002), promoted by the British
government (from 2000 to 2008) to assess the
overall performance of local authorities. That
initiative evolved into the National Indicator Set
(NIS) system (Department for Communities
and Local Government, 2008), which ran until
2011, managed by the Audit Commission. The
British government is now beginning to apply a
new performance assessment method for local
authorities, to promote more direct involvement
of municipalities in the outcome denitions and
assessment processes.
An analysis of these sources leads to some
evidence on NPOs. Firstly, in NPOs the strategy
is more indenite and more inuenced by factors
and subjects than in for-prots. Secondly, it is
extremely hard to dene a hierarchy in the mul-
tidimensional goals of an NPO; the nancial
perspective is important and must be measured,
but it can hardly be considered the foundation
of the measurement system. Finally, customer
(or user) satisfaction is measurable only with
great difculty in the absence of a market system
(Colbert, 1994).
These aspects have also been considered in
specic analyses concerning arts and cultural
organizations. A review of these studies conrms
what has been stated for NPOs in general. A
distinctive feature of this literature is analysis of
the impact of cultural organizations on their
visitors, audiences or customers (Soren, 2000;
Voss and Voss, 2000). Gilhespy (1999) makes
an important effort towards dening a frame-
work for performance measurement in cultural
organizations. He considers specically the de-
nition of PIs for museums offered by Ames (1991)
and Jackson (1991). Gilhespys analysis is par-
ticularly interesting because his purpose is to
turn the multidimensionality of performance
measurement into an effective system for cultural
organizations. He draws up performance dimen-
sions both for management (maximization of
access, attendance, economy, revenue, service
quality; diversity/multiculturalism; education;
excellence; innovation; social cohesion) and for
external stakeholders (economic impact, prestige,
quality of life). He also considers the indicators
for each dimension, related to the objectives of
effectiveness, efciency, economy and equity.
Paulus (2003) takes a similar approach. She
focuses on museums, through the specication
of a performance measurement indicators system,
and applies this system to 14 museums in France
and the United States. Her empirical analysis
shows that quantitative indicators are easier to
obtain and measure than qualitative indicators
and are therefore more widespread.
Another group of authors has tried to adapt
existing tools to arts and cultural organizations.
There have been attempts to apply the Baldrige
Assessment method (Weinstein, Paul and
Williams, 2007) and the BSC to theatres
(Weinstein and Bukovinsky, 2009) and museums
(Zorloni, 2012). The difculties of dening an
intrinsically complex system, which must
Cet article vise dterminer le degr de dveloppement des systmes de mesure de la performance concernant les sites
du patrimoine mondial reconnus par lUnesco pour leur valeur universelle exceptionnelle. La premire partie de larticle
examine, travers une revue de la littrature, le rle de la mesure de la performance dans les organisations artistiques et
culturelles. Selon les rsultats qui y sont rapports, il existe actuellement un cart important entre la thorie et les applica-
tions. La deuxime partie comprend une tude empirique portant sur les sites italiens inscrits au patrimoine de lUnesco
et sur leurs plans de gestion. Les rsultats de cette tude indiquent que la mesure de la performance et les systmes de
contrle ne sont pas susamment implants. Il est alors ncessaire dtablir lavenir de nouvelles stratgies an de pro-
mouvoir des systmes de gestion plus ecaces pour les sites du patrimoine mondial. Ainsi, une gouvernance participative
pourrait constituer une solution adquate, bien quelle soit dicile mettre en uvre.
Mesure de la performance, plan de gestion, sites du patrimoine mondial, hritage culturel
R S U M
M O T S C L S
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
23
consider the particularities of both the not-for-
prot sector and the arts sector, are highlighted
by Schuster (1997), who points out the risks of
an inadequately congured performance meas-
urement system. This topic is also taken up by
Lampel, Lant and Shamsie (2000), who describe
the conict between artistic and nancial aims.
An overview of these contributions leads to a
denition of a theoretical framework for arts and
cultural organizations wishing to implement
performance measurement. Starting from this
framework, the conguration of a performance
measurement system for cultural organizations
can be developed. The role of visitors or audiences
is the rst consideration. This element is crucial
yet hard to dene (Turbide and Laurin, 2009).
Indeed, quality is characterized by subjective
features, which are particularly difcult to meas-
ure. These reections are common in the litera-
ture on theatres (Boerner and Renz, 2008;
Radbourne et al., 2009) and museums (Raajpoot,
Koh and Jackson, 2010). Another important point
is the relationship between measurement systems
and accountability regarding the use of public
funds or the contributions of patrons and donors
(Towse, 2001). A third factor is the bureaucratic
inexibility of public sector cultural organiza-
tions, which can create barriers to the adoption
of an effective performance measurement system
(Chatelain-Ponroy, 2001; Zan, 2006).
However, the main difculty with implement-
ing performance measurement in the cultural
sector is not the theoretical framework itself but
rather its application. The empirical research on
this subject shows that consistent application of
performance measurement models is a complex
matter for arts and cultural organizations (Donato,
2008; Lafortune, Rousseau and Bgin, 1999;
Turbide and Laurin, 2009; Zorloni, 2012). In this
sense, there is a long way to go, coherent with
the discourse of the missing link (Turbide and
Hoskin, 1999) between management accounting
tools, like performance measurement, and their
implementation in arts management.
More specically, Lafortune, Rousseau and
Bgin (1999) analyze a sample of Canadian arts
organizations and report a lack of coherence
between managers declarations of the impor-
tance of management control systems (including
performance measurement) and the actual use
of those systems. Similarly, Donato (2008)
reports that managers of Italian cultural organi-
zations consider intangible resources to be impor-
tant tools for directing managerial choices yet
do not develop an appropriate system for measur-
ing them. Turbide and Laurin (2009) carried
out an empirical survey of 300 performing arts
organizations in Canada. Their ndings also
contrast with what would be expected consider-
ing the literature on the subject. Their sample
paid more attention to the measurement of nan-
cial dimensions, yet the managers of those
organizations considered artistic dimensions
more relevant. Finally, Zorloni (2012) argues
that, in museums, performance measurement
systems are less implemented in practice than
adopted in theory.
Overall, the problems with implementing
performance measurement seem to be linked to
managerial culture, difculty in dening aims,
the complex link between nancial and artistic
goals, and practical problems with measurement
(in particular, the measurement of artistic goals).
In arts management disciplines, there is a wide
gap between theory and practice. Theoretical
frameworks are well established, although
improvements are still possible, whereas in prac-
tice there are several difculties with implemen-
tation processes and in some cases real gaps and
inconsistencies with respect to theoretical
En este artculo se tiene como propsito analizar el nivel de desarrollo de los sistemas de medicin del desempeo de los sitios
del Patrimonio de la Humanidad, sitios reconocidos por la UNESCO por su valor universal excepcional. El papel de la medicin
del desempeo en el mbito de las organizaciones culturales y artsticas se aborda en la primera parte del artculo basndose
en una resea de la documentacin pertinente. Los resultados de esta parte indican que actualmente queda un buen trecho
entre la teora y la prctica. En la segunda parte, se presenta una encuesta emprica llevada a cabo sobre los sitios del Patrimonio
de la Humanidad en Italia. Los resultados de la misma muestran que los sistemas de monitoreo y de medicin del desempeo
se aplican de manera insuciente. Ser necesario desarrollar estrategias futuras para promover sistemas ms ecaces de gestin
de los sitios del Patrimonio de la Humanidad. La gobernanza participativa, aunque no fcil de implementar, podra ser una
solucin adecuada.
Medicin del desempeo, plan de gestin, sitios del patrimonio de la humanidad, patrimonio cultural
R E S U M E N
P A L A B R A S C L A V E
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
24
statements. Even less attention has been given
to performance measurement systems for more
complex contexts such as cultural and natural
heritage sites. These cases reveal not only a gap
between theory and practice, but also a less
dened theoretical framework. This issue is of
concern for WHSs and is discussed below.
Measuring Complexity
at World Heritage Sites
W
orld Heritage Sites are cultural and/or
natural heritage properties that UNESCO
has deemed to be of outstanding universal value
and therefore worthy of being preserved as part
of the world heritage of mankind as a whole
(UNESCO, 1972, p. 1). They are included on
the World Heritage List (WHL), created in 1972
under the Convention Concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(UNESCO, 1972). UNESCOs World Heritage
Committee has designated 962 heritage sites
(745 cultural, 188 natural and 29 mixed) in 153
countries. Each year 20 to 30 new properties are
added to the List. The WHS categories
(UNESCO, 1972, p. 2) for cultural heritage are
monuments, groups of buildings and sites,
which is the broadest category and comprises
works of man or the combined works of nature
and of man, and areas including archaeological
sites; cultural landscapes are included in this
denition. The categories for natural heritage
are natural features consisting of physical and
biological formations or groups of such forma-
tions, geological and physiographical forma-
tions and precisely delineated areas which
constitute the habitat of threatened species of
animals and plants and natural sites or precisely
delineated natural areas. When a site falls under
both cultural and natural heritage, it is classied
as a mixed property.
Management of WHSs appears to be even
more complex than that of cultural and natural
heritage sites in general. There are indeed some
elements of complexity that are typical of the
cultural and natural sites included on the WHL.
First, WHSs are recognized as part of human
heritage on a worldwide scale, not only on a local
or national scale. Therefore, their management
bears a responsibility to the world community.
Second, inscription on and removal from the
WHL are managed by an international/supra-
national organization, UNESCO, which does
not have prescriptive powers with respect to the
individual properties but relates to the single
State parties of the Convention, which relate in
turn to every individual WHS. This mechanism
tends to make responsibility for WHS preserva-
tion, management and development rather vague
and unclear. A third element of complexity is
the fact that the management of a WHS is typi-
cally assigned to a multiplicity of entities for
example, the state and other public bodies, local
authorities, cultural preservation agencies and
park management authorities. This requires a
high level of cooperation among different bodies
that is not always easy to achieve, since those
involved in the management system could have
interests that are not fully in accord. Matching
different priorities can be considered a fourth
element of complexity in WHS management.
More specically, conict between the aims of
preservation and those of tourism development
seems to be emerging.
Analysis of the conditions of WHS complexity
is not fully developed in the management litera-
ture. Most contributions consider management
of cultural and natural heritage sites from the
perspective of tourism promotion (Abfalter and
Pechlaner, 2002; McIntosh, Hinch and Ingram,
2002; Petr, 2002), sometimes also in the context
of WHSs (Hall and Piggin, 2002; Marcotte and
Bourdeau, 2006).
Such a complex management situation requires
special managerial tools. Over the years, therefore,
UNESCO has developed the document
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention (latest version:
UNESCO, 2011). The 1994 guidelines
(UNESCO, 1994) was the rst document to state
the need for management plans (page 6, point
6.v.) in order to coordinate protective legislation,
management mechanisms, and administrative
practices linked to the preservation and develop-
ment of every WHS. The 2005 guidelines
(UNESCO, 2005) strongly recommend the draw-
ing up of a management plan specifying how
the outstanding universal value of a property
should be preserved, preferably through participa-
tory means (p. 26, point 108). In the succeeding
sections of the document, UNESCO provides
further indications about the nature and meaning
of the management plan for a WHS. Its aim is
to ensure protection of each inscribed site for
both present and future generations (point 109).
There are many possible models for the plan,
since it is expected to change according to the
type of inscribed property, national or regional
cultural traditions, administrative practices and
protective legislation (point 110). Nevertheless,
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
25
a management plan should have six main elements
(point 111): a) a thorough shared understanding
of the property by all stakeholders; b) a cycle of
planning, implementation, monitoring, evalua-
tion and feedback; c) the involvement of partners
and stakeholders; d) the allocation of necessary
resources; e) capacity-building; and f) an account-
able, transparent description of how the manage-
ment system functions.
All six of these points are essential for an
effective management plan. The overall picture
seems to be consistent with the classical theory
of planning and control systems (Anthony, 1965).
Fundament to this theory is the need for moni-
toring processes aimed at the evaluation of results
and characterized by the application of feedback
mechanisms. All three of these elements are
present in the UNESCO statement. As stated
above, the management literature has demon-
strated over the years that the most effective tool
for a good monitoring and assessment process
is a performance measurement system.
Consequently, a complete and effective perfor-
mance measurement system is a necessary part
of the implementation process for a WHS man-
agement plan. Similarly, the management plan
should contain a specic section regarding PIs
capable of implementing the performance meas-
urement system.
However, the literature on cultural and natural
heritage systems in general contains few contribu-
tions on management control and performance
measurement. Finocchiaro Castro and Rizzo
(2009) attempt to deal with the subject but do
not adopt the most common models described
in the management literature, focusing only on
efciency criteria. With reference to the specic
content of the WHS management plans, some
authors and/or institutions have tried to dene
basic points or guidelines (Karpati, 2008;
Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturali
[MiBAC], 2004, 2005; Ringbeck, 2008) but have
not been sufciently focused on the denition
processes of monitoring systems and PIs. The rst
approach to the subject of performance measure-
ment for WHSs can be found in Badia (2011).
For these reasons, there are still some points
to be developed, and this article is intended to
shed light on these. The implementation of a
performance measurement system in a WHS
should take some of the above-mentioned com-
plexities into consideration. First, a WHS often
comprises several administrations or organiza-
tions involved in the management of the inscribed
cultural or natural heritage site. Therefore, a
performance measurement system, traditionally
designed for a single organization, should be
modied to t a more complex context. Second,
as a consequence of the previous point, and
unlike the traditional model, many entities are
responsible for the measurement process. Finally,
whereas measurement is normally applied to the
actions of one authority, in the case of WHSs
the results have to be applied to the whole man-
agement system, even when only one reference
organization can be identied.
Hence, the performance measurement system
for a WHS has some complex and unique fea-
tures. Any empirical analysis should take this
complexity into account and adopt a multi-
layered, step-by-step approach, verifying the
following requirements:
a multidimensional system of objectives,
divided into concrete actions in order to imple-
ment the strategies (Kaplan and Norton, 2001)
a system for measuring the objectives of per-
formance monitoring (Turbide and Laurin, 2009)
a system of indicators for measuring the
achievement of objectives (Gilhespy, 1999)
clear timing of the measurement processes
and assignment of data-collection responsibilities
(Donato, 2008)
a system for assessing the collected data
(Badia, 2011)
The empirical analysis attempted to verify
the implementation of management plans and
the presence of performance measurement in
the plans themselves and in their application,
with specic reference to the Italian situation.
Empirical Analysis:
Aims and Research Method
T
he empirical analysis examined attempts to
implement performance measurement sys-
tems in Italian WHSs, highlighting the degree
of consistency between theory and practice. The
complexity of the eld of application of WHSs
was a fundamental assumption and a starting
point for the analysis.
A qualitative research method was adopted
(Berg, 1989). This method allows for a focus on
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
26
the features of the subject of analysis and for
discussion of the different approaches adopted
in the cases. Furthermore, the statistical popula-
tion was small (47 WHSs) and a quantitative/
statistical approach could be biased. Data were
collected through analysis of published manage-
ment plans and through interviews with WHS
managers. In-depth interviews were carried out
for those management plans with a comprehensive
monitoring system. Most of these interviews were
face to face but in some cases they were conducted
by phone or online. The interviewees responded
to both open-ended and closed questions.
The research was carried out in four steps.
The rst step was selection of the eld of inves-
tigation. We focused on Italian WHSs. Italy is
the country most represented on the List. The
largest number of WHSs was the rst element
of interest for the empirical analysis. The second
was diversity of typology. Italy is represented by
all the categories for cultural sites and also has
some natural sites. Moreover, Italian WHSs
feature a wide variety of governance systems:
sites consisting of one monument and managed
by a single institution, sites managed by two or
more institutions, sites consisting of several
monuments and managed by several institutions
(serial sites) and so on. In addition, the study
of the specic situation in a single country pre-
sents an opportunity to analyze a situation cov-
ered by common legislation and a homogeneous
institutional context.
The second step was gathering and analyzing
the management plans (when existing) for each
WHS. In some cases data collection required
direct contact with one or more organizations
responsible for managing the site; in other cases
we analyzed the information available on the
Web site of the WHS. This phase lasted two
months, from October to December 2011. The
initial part of this step was, therefore, determining
the number of management plans to be assessed
within the 47 Italian WHSs on the List in 2011.
The third step was an exhaustive analysis of
the management plans with special attention to
their monitoring systems. We veried the pres-
ence of some important requirements in each
monitoring system. These resulted from the
literature review and dene the rate of complete-
ness of the monitoring system. They are:
R1. Is the general strategy of the WHS formalized
within a clear and multidimensional system of
objectives, divided into actions to be taken?
R2. Is there a specic section of the management
plan on the monitoring system of these objectives?
R3. Has the management of the WHS chosen some
indicators for measuring the results of any actions
taken and the achievement of any objectives?
R4. Can the measurement system be considered
complete, in terms of the timing of the measurement
process and the assignment of data-collection
responsibilities?
R5. Does the monitoring system include any pro-
posal/tool for performance assessment?
The fourth and nal step was direct contact
with the organizations responsible for managing
those WHSs with a management plan meeting
the second requirement (R2). These interviews
were carried out from February to May 2012.
Most were face to face but some were conducted
by phone or online. The interviews were not
recorded but detailed notes were taken. In each
case, a report was prepared and sent to the
respondent after one week. Feedback was always
received within one month. The aim of these
direct contacts was to analyze the ability to apply
theory (as suggested in the management plan)
in practice (measurement system). We have sum-
marized this last research step, assessing the
presence of a nal requirement:
R6. Is the monitoring system, as set out in the man-
agement plan, in operation and functioning
effectively?
Findings: The Missing Link
N
otwithstanding the importance of a man-
agement plan and its highly recommended,
if not mandatory, use in the management of
Italian WHSs, only 25 of the 47 sites (53.19%)
had completed a plan. Of the other 22 sites, in
six cases a plan was being developed and in 16
there was a plan in draft form or no plan at all.
This shows a signicant obstacle to the oppor-
tunity to demonstrate how performance meas-
urement tools are used in Italian WHSs. It also
highlights an inability to develop formalized
systems to manage the heritage site. This does
not necessarily mean that the 22 cases without
a management plan do not manage the site well;
however, it seems likely that in these cases the
management is unsystematic, not integrated,
and lacking a vision of joint economic and
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
27
cultural development in the medium and long
terms. In these cases, the management plan was
not adopted because it was considered not for-
mally binding and perhaps of no utility. It was
therefore considered neither a necessary tool for
improving the cultural and economic perfor-
mance of the site nor a useful means of enhanc-
ing the territory in terms of cultural knowledge,
social belonging, promotion of tourism and
entrepreneurial development.
In Figure 1, which summarizes the results of
the rst ve requirements, some elements are
immediately evident. First, the number of sites/
plans that meet the requirements decreases
gradually but then drops dramatically at R5,
which relates to the presence of an evaluation
system in the plan.
The most signicant result of this analysis
is the managers interpretation of the manage-
ment plan as a formal and insubstantial tool.
One manager stated: We do not have enough
time and people to draw up a management plan.
We have so many legal mandates to full that a
management plan has low priority. Another inter-
viewee highlighted even more the interpretation
of the management plan as a formal tool: We
issued a document in 2005 and do not think that
a new version is now needed.
Not surprisingly, the competencies of these
managers related mainly to the characteristics
of the heritage site (whether cultural or natural)
and to urban and territorial planning. The mind-
set that guides the management of Italian WHSs
is shaped by disciplines such as architecture,
urban planning, the humanities and, sometimes,
the natural sciences. This theoretical background
tends to underestimate the role and importance
of a performance measurement system. One
manager said, Im sorry, could you explain the
meaning of performance measurement? Another
asked, When you speak of our monitoring system,
are you referring to the state of preservation of the
monuments? These managers envisaged their role
as mainly oriented to preservation and mainte-
nance, and less to promotion and communication
of the values of cultural heritage.
Indeed, it was rare to meet a WHS manager
with an education in economics and manage-
ment. The main obstacle therefore appears to
be lack of the economic and managerial skills
necessary to view the management plan as a
means to address management processes and
territorial development.
The absence of an economic and managerial
culture also emerges from the empirical data. As
shown in Figure 1, fewer than half of the plans
PRESENCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
IN ITALIAN WORLD HERITAGE SITES
F I G U R E 1
47
25
18
12
10
8
1
Presence of the requirements
of the empirical analysis
Overall number
of WHSs
Overall number
of management plans
Presence of R1 =
38.3% / 72.0%
Presence of R2 =
25.5% / 48.0%
Presence of R3 =
21.3% / 40.0%
Presence of R4 =
17.0% / 32.0%
Presence of R5 =
2.1% / 4.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Note: The first percentage relates to the overall number of WHSs, the second to the overall number
of management plans.
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
28
(and only one quarter of WHSs) included a sec-
tion on monitoring processes in spite of
UNESCOs requirement of a management plan.
Furthermore, in only eight cases the measure-
ment system was adequate, consistent and useful
for monitoring the results and in only one case
a process of evaluation of the obtained results
had been established.
The prevalence of a bureaucratic culture
in other words a culture of compliance with
formal procedures is also evident from another
point of view. Since 2004 the Italian ministry
of cultural heritage has published ad hoc guide-
lines for the implementation of WHS manage-
ment plans (MiBAC, 2004). These guidelines
focus on the need to identify objectives and
related actions. As a consequence, the vast major-
ity of approved plans (18 out of 25) devoted a
section to the denition of objectives and to the
identication of necessary actions.
These guidelines are less precise with respect
to the methods required for implementing the
monitoring systems. The empirical analysis shows
that only 12 cases out of 25
1
had included a sec-
tion devoted to the monitoring system (R2) and
only 10 out of 12 had identied performance
indicators (R3). Surprisingly, in two cases the
management plan had a monitoring system but
without any consistent indicator.
2
Furthermore,
the guidelines did not focus on the methods to
move from a static management plan (includ-
ing only objectives and indicators) to a dynamic
management plan (including measurement and
assessment processes). As a result, it is evident
why in only eight cases out of 25 a measurement
system had been implemented (R4). Similarly,
it is evident why in only one case out of 25 an
evaluation system was in place (R5).
The absence of both systems is critical since
they are fundamental to support internal deci-
sions and external reporting. This leads to a lack
of the transparency and accountability necessary
for the involvement of stakeholders and the local
community. Summing up the previous points,
there is clearly a need to improve the economic
and managerial culture at different levels: WHS,
region, state agency, local authority and the min-
istry of cultural heritage.
Analysis of the results of R6 highlights the
need to improve the economic and managerial
culture. This analysis entailed in-depth study of
the 12 sites that included a monitoring section
in their management plan. The interviews were
aimed at ascertaining whether the planned
measurement processes were in place. In this
respect we should note that the interview results
could be biased since the respondents were asked
to judge their own work.
For each WHS, at least one member of the
team responsible for drawing up the management
plan was interviewed. In order to determine
compliance with R6, we asked the following
questions:
1. Are the performance measurement processes
in place?
2(a). If yes (or partially), what are the difculties?
Who is in charge of collecting data and assessing
the results?
2(b). If no, why is the process not in place? Can
you foresee when the monitoring system will be
implemented?
The overall analysis of the interviews showed
three recurring situations.
Six WHSs answered no to question (1) above.
Of these, the majority stated that the organiza-
tion responsible for managing the site was not
interested in proceeding with implementation
of a management plan. Once again, the plan
(and the monitoring system) was considered a
formality with no real impact on decision-mak-
ing. Some of these respondents stated that they
had not implemented the monitoring system for
various reasons, such as lack of financial
resources, insufcient staff, or responsibility for
measurement and assessment not yet assigned.
However, they declared their intention to take
it forward as soon as possible. None of these
interviewees was able to estimate when the moni-
toring system would be implemented.
Four WHSs answered partially. These inter-
viewees declared their intention to establish a
monitoring system completely consistent with
what was stated in the management plan as soon
as possible. So far, not all of the measurements
outlined in the plan had been implemented. As
with the previous group, some difculties were
cited, such as lack of funds and personnel. A
further problem, which applied in the case of a
single WHS managed by multiple partners, was
the complexity of coordination. Moreover, two
WHSs in this group used other measurements
that had not been delineated in the management
plan since they were considered more appropriate
given the urgency of the situation. All of the
interviewees in this group, however, recognized
the importance of applying the monitoring
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
29
consistent with the management plan statements
within a short time. Similar to the previous
group, nobody in this group was able to anticipate
a starting date for the process.
Two WHSs answered yes. One of these was
the WHS that was found to comply with R5
the presence of an assessment system for the
collected data. Both of these WHSs had begun
the measurement process as stated in the man-
agement plan, although the evaluation process
had not yet been completed. These two sites
were therefore the only ones where the managers
attempted effective implementation of a monitor-
ing system consistent with the performance
measurement approach. Nonetheless, this imple-
mentation process had not been completed. It
is notable that both of these WHSs were man-
aged by a single organization.
The picture emerging from the analysis can
be summarized as follows (see Figure 2):
Six sites had not yet implemented the planned
monitoring system and had not carried out sig-
nicant measurement of the outcomes.
Four sites had carried out measurements, but
inconsistent with what was stated in their man-
agement plan.
Only two sites had begun the measurement
processes consistent with what was stated in their
management plan, and the evaluation process
had not yet been completed. However, it should
be pointed out that in these two cases the man-
agement of the WHS was entrusted to a single
organization, which made implementation of
the monitoring system easier.
The outcomes of the overall analysis underline
an evolving scenario that needs to be improved.
Only two of the 12 cases could be considered
almost fully operative while another four cases
were just partially effective. In addition, the 12
cases were not randomly chosen among many
available cases but were selected as cases repre-
senting best practices.
Conclusions
T
his section will offer some concluding
remarks on the basis of the ideas outlined
above. We will rst provide a summary of the
main results of the empirical research and then
attempt to match the outcomes with the research
questions presented in the introduction.
Only 25 out of 47 WHSs (53%) delivered a
management plan as recommended by UNESCO.
Of the 25 plans, only 18 (72%) formalized the
general strategy of the WHS in a clear and mul-
tidimensional system of objectives, divided into
actions to be taken, and only 12 (48%) included
a specic section on the monitoring system for
these objectives. There were measurable indicators
in 10 cases out of 25 (40%), and responsibilities
as well as clear timing for the data collection were
formalized in eight cases out of 25 (32%). Only
in one case out of 25 (4%) did the monitoring
system include a system for assessing the results
achieved by the organization.
The results of the in-depth interviews allow
for a better understanding of the consistency
between the formal documents and the activi-
ties in place. Only those respondents who had
IS THE MONITORING SYSTEM IN OPERATION AND FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY?
F I G U R E 2
Monitoring system not working
6
2
4
Inconsistency between measurement
processes and monitoring system
Consistency but lack of evaluation processes
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
30
included a monitoring system in their manage-
ment plans were interviewed. The aim was to
assess whether or not the monitoring system
was in operation and functioning effectively.
Only two WHSs had begun the measurement
process consistent with what was stated in their
management plan and the evaluation process
had not yet been completed. Four WHSs had
carried out measurements but not fully consist-
ent with what was stated in their management
plan, and six WHSs had not yet implemented
the monitoring system nor carried out any
measurement of the outcomes.
The interview data also allow us to better
understand the strengths and weaknesses of
the management plans in place and to highlight
what is critical in developing a WHS manage-
ment plan consistent with UNESCO guidelines
and with the literature on the subject.
We will discuss the results in light of the
research questions presented in the Introduction.
Regarding the connection between the theoreti-
cal framework and its practical application, our
analysis shows a wide gap between theory and
practice. Certainly, the complexity of the manage-
ment system of a WHS makes the introduction
of a performance measurement system compli-
cated. However, our ndings demonstrate that
there are many opportunities for improvement.
This leads to the second topic addressed in
our study, the peculiarities of applying a per-
formance measurement system in a WHS. For
this, one must match the theoretical framework
and the empirical evidence arising from the
work. Indeed, the presence of different subjects
in the governance and management of most
WHSs is a critical factor for the introduction
of an effective performance measurement sys-
tem. In fact, the implementation of a perfor-
mance measurement system should match
different interests, allow for the measurement
of variables related to many perspectives and
collect data from several subjects. It is not acci-
dental that the two cases that had begun a
measurement process consistent with their
management plan were WHSs entrusted to a
single organization.
The complexity of WHSs is mirrored in the
construction of adequate PIs. Difculty in den-
ing PIs is common to the not-for-prot sector
and it might be unwise to add complexity to an
already problematic situation. Therefore, the
introduction of PIs should follow the criteria of
prioritization, selectivity and factual measurabil-
ity. Furthermore, the measurement system should
effectively support the decision-making pro-
cesses. Finally, the measurement system should
aim for accountability and transparency, as
clearly set out in the UNESCO guidelines.
The third topic addressed in the introduction
is how an effective performance measurement
system might be implemented in a WHS. Our
analysis reveals the absence of a managerial cul-
ture in WHSs. Indeed, the empirical evidence
shows that accountability, effective governance,
and consistent planning, monitoring and control
are far from being achieved. As for the imple-
mentation of a performance management system,
only the introduction of a managerial culture
can reduce the distance between theory and
practice. It is urgent that education and training
programs be set up to develop competencies,
skills and a managerial mindset among the key
actors in WHSs. Specic managerial competen-
cies are needed in order to set up effective tools,
to consider all the relevant variables and to pro-
mote a systemic vision among all WHSs.
Finally, our research reveals a striking lack of
accountability in WHSs. We recommend the
implementation of participatory processes for
dening the objectives that WHSs expect to
achieve. The adoption of participatory policies
would require WHSs to involve their stakeholders
in the planning processes as well as the monitoring
processes. The promotion of different forms of
participatory governance for WHSs is a difcult
proposition, but, if successful, it could achieve
results that now seem elusory. Per aspera ad astra.
In conclusion, we would like to point out the
limitations of the study and mention the future
research agenda. The limitations are mainly related
to the choice of analyzing the WHSs of a single
country. This approach allowed us to better focus
on the correlation between the institutional frame-
work and the degree of development of the adopted
management plans. However, the focus on a single
country prevented us from gaining a comparative
picture regarding the characteristics of the WHSs
management plans in different countries, the
competencies of the main actors, and the presence
or absence of a managerial culture. This calls for
further in-depth analysis in the eld of WHS
management plans, especially from a comparative
perspective. Comparing WHSs in different coun-
tries will enable us to better understand the inu-
ence of national peculiarities in managing WHSs
and the critical factors for developing effective
management plans.
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
31
Notes
1. The 12 WHSs that had completed a management plan that
included a monitoring system are as follows: (1) Archaeological
Area of Agrigento, (2) Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and
Other Franciscan Sites, (3) City of Verona, (4) Genoa: Le
Strade Nuove and the System of the Palazzi dei Rolli, (5) Isole
Eolie (Aeolian Islands), (6) Longobards in Italy, Places of Power
(568774 AD), (7) Mantua and Sabbioneta, (8) Prehistoric
Pile dwellings around the Alps, (9) Rhaetian Railway in the
Albula/Bernina Landscapes, (10) Rock Drawings in
Valcamonica, (11) Syracuse and the Rocky Necropolis of
Pantalica, (12) The Trulli of Alberobello.
2. As per our agreement with the interviewees, from this
point on we will not indicate which WHSs correspond to
the cases cited.
References
Abfalter, D., and H. Pechlaner. 2002. Strategic
Management and Cultural Heritage Sites: New
Entrepreneurial Challenges for Private Owners of
Castles and Stately Homes. International Journal
of Arts Management, Vol. 4, n 3, p. 818.
Ames, P. 1991. Measuring Museums Merits. In The
Museums Profession: Internal and External Relations,
G. Kavanagh, ed. (p. 5968). Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
Anthony, R.N. 1965. Planning and Control Systems:
A Framework for Analysis. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Atkinson, A.A., J.H. Waterhouse and R.B. Wells. 1997.
A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Performance
Measurement. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38,
n 3, p. 2537.
Badia, F. 2011. Contents and Aims of Management
Plans for World Heritage Sites: A Managerial
Analysis With a Special Focus on the Italian
Scenario. ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management
and Policy, Vol. 1, n 1, p. 4049.
Berg, B.L. 1989. Qualitative Research Methods for the
Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Boerner, S., and S. Renz. 2008. Performance
Measurement in Opera Companies: Comparing the
Subjective Quality Judgements of Experts and Non-
experts. International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 10, n 3, p. 2137.
Boyne, G.A., J.S. Gould-Williams, J. Law and R.M.
Walker. 2002. Best Value Total Quality
Management for Local Government? Public Money
and Management, Vol. 22, n 3, p. 916.
Buschor, E., and K. Schedler, eds. 1994. Perspectives
on Performance Measurement and Public Sector
Accounting. Berne: Paul Haupt.
Cavalluzzo, K.S., and C.D. Ittner. 2004. Implementing
Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence
From Government. Accounting Organisations and
Society, Vol. 29, n 34, p. 243267.
Cave, M., M. Kogan and R. Smith, eds. 1990. Output
and Performance Measurement in Government:
The State of the Art. London: Kingsley.
Chatelain-Ponroy, S. 2001. Management Control
and Museums. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 4, n 1, p. 3847.
Colbert, F. 1994. Marketing Culture and the Arts.
Montreal: Gatan Morin Editeur.
Department for Communities and Local Government.
2008. National Indicators for Local Authorities and
Local Authority Partnerships: Handbook of Denitions.
London: Author.
Donato, F. 2008. Managing IC by Antennae: Evidence
From Cultural Organizations. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 9, n 3, p. 380394.
Eccles, R.G. 1991. The Performance Measurement
Manifesto. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, n 1,
p. 131137.
Edvinsson, L., and M.S. Malone. 1997. Intellectual
Capital: Realizing Your Companys True Value by
Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York:
HarperCollins.
Finocchiaro Castro, M., and I. Rizzo. 2009. Performance
Measurement of Heritage Conservation Activity in
Sicily. International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 11, n 2, p. 2941.
Forbes, D.P. 1998. Measuring the Unmeasurable:
Empirical Studies of Nonprot Organization
Effectiveness From 1977 to 1997. Nonprot
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 27, n 2,
p. 183202.
Gilhespy, I. 1999. Measuring the Performance of
Cultural Organizations: A Model. International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 2, n 1, p. 3852.
Hall, C.H., and R. Piggin. 2002. Tourism Business
Knowledge of World Heritage Sites: A New Zealand
Case Study. International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 4, n 5, p. 401411.
Herman, R.D., and D.O. Renz. 1999. Theses on
Nonprot Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprot
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 28, n 2,
p. 107126.
Ittner, C.D., and D.F. Larcker. 2001. Assessing Empirical
Research in Managerial Accounting: A Value-Based
Management Perspective. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Vol. 32, n 13, p. 349410.
Jackson, P.M. 1991. Performance Indicators: Promises
and Pitfalls. In Museum Economics and the Community,
S. Pearce, ed. (p. 4164). London: Athlone.
Johnsen, A. 2005. What Does 25 Years of Experience
Tell Us About the State of Performance Measurement
in Public Policy and Management? Public Money
and Management, Vol. 25, n 1, p. 917.
Kaplan, R.S. 2001. Strategic Performance Measurement
in Nonprot Organizations. Nonprot Management
and Leadership, Vol. 11, n 3, p. 353370.
Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced
Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, n 1, p. 7179.
Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton. 1993. Putting the
Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71, n 5, p. 134142.
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
32
Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton. 2001. Transforming
the Balanced Scorecard From Performance
Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I.
Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, n 1, p. 87104.
Karpati, T.H. 2008. Management of World Heritage
Sites: The Management Plan as an Effective Tool for
the Safeguarding of Heritage. Saarbrcken: VDM.
Krug, K., and C.B. Weinberg. 2004. Mission, Money
and Merit: Strategic Decision Making by Nonprot
Managers. Nonprot Management and Leadership,
Vol. 14, n 3, p. 325342.
Lafortune, A., J.-G. Rousseau and L. Bgin. 1999. An
Exploration of Management Control in the Arts
and Cultural Sector. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 2, n 1, p. 6476.
Lampel, J., T. Lant and J. Shamsie. 2000. Balancing
Act: Learning Fom Organizing Practices in Cultural
Industries. Organization Science, Vol. 11, n 3,
p. 263269.
Lapsley, I. 1996. Reflections on Performance
Measurement in the Public Sector. In Accounting
and Performance Measurement, I. Lapsley and
F. Mitchell, eds. (p. 109128). London:
Paul Chapman.
Letts, C.W., W.P. Ryan and A. Grossman. 1999. High
Performance Nonprot Organizations: Managing
Upstream for Greater Impact. New York: John Wiley.
Lynch, R.L., and K.F. Cross. 1991. Measure Up: The
Essential Guide to Measuring Business Performance.
London: Mandarin.
Marcotte, P., and L. Bourdeau. 2006. Tourists
Knowledge of the UNESCO Designation of World
Heritage Sites: The Case of Visitors to Quebec
City. International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 8, n 2, p. 413.
Mayston, D.J. 1985. Non-prot Performance Indicators
in the Public Sector. Financial Accountability and
Management, Vol. 1, n 1, p. 5174.
McIntosh, A.J., T. Hinch and T. Ingram. 2002.
Cultural Identity and Tourism. International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 4, n 2, p. 3949.
Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit Culturali [Ministry
for Cultural Heritage and Activities]. 2004. Il mod-
ello del piano di gestione dei beni culturali iscritti alla
lista patrimonio dellumanit. Linee guida. Paestum,
2526 May.
Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit Culturali [Ministry
for Cultural Heritage and Activities]. 2005. Progetto
di denizione di un modello per la realizzazione dei
Piani di Gestione dei siti UNESCO, Ernst & Young
Financial Advisor, S.p.A., January.
Modell, S. 2004. Performance Measurement Myths
in the Public Sector: A Research Note. Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 20, n 1,
p. 3955.
Paulus, O. 2003. Measuring Museum Performance:
A Study of Museums in France and the United
States. International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 6, n 1, p. 5063.
Petr, C. 2002. Tourist Apprehension of Heritage:
A Semiotic Approach to Behaviour Patterns.
International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 4,
n 2, p. 2538.
Raajpoot, N., K. Koh and A. Jackson. 2010.
Developing a Scale to Measure Service Quality:
An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 12, n 3, p. 5469.
Radbourne, J., K. Johanson, H. Glow and T. White.
2009. The Audience Experience: Measuring
Quality in the Performing Arts. International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 11, n 3, p. 1629.
Ringbeck, B. 2008. Management Plans for World
Heritage Sites: A Practical Guide. Bonn: German
Commission for UNESCO.
Sanderson, I. 1998. Beyond Performance Measurement?
Assessing Value in Local Government. Local
Government Studies, Vol. 24, n 4, p. 125.
Schuster, J.M. 1997. The Performance of Performance
Indicators in the Arts. Nonprot Management and
Leadership, Vol. 7, n 3, p. 253269.
Sheehan, R. 1996. Mission Accomplishment as
Philanthropic Organization Effectiveness: Key
Findings From the Excellence in Philanthropy
Project. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
Vol. 25, n 1, p. 110123.
Simons, R. 1995. Levers of Control: How Managers Use
Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Simons, R. 2000. Performance Measurement and Control
Systems for Implementing Strategy. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, P. 1995. Performance Indicators and Outcome
in the Public Sector. Public Money and Management,
Vol. 15, n 4, p. 1316.
Soren, B.J. 2000. The Learning Cultural Organization
of the Millennium: Performance Measures and
Audience Response. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 2, n 2, p. 4049.
Sveiby, K.E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth:
Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Towse, R. 2001. Quis custodiet? Or Managing the
Management: The Case of the Royal Opera House,
Covent Garden. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 3, n 3, p. 3850.
Turbide, J., and K. Hoskin. 1999. Managing Non-
prot Arts Organizations Through Management
Accounting Systems: Mission Possible? International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 1, n 2, p. 6881.
Turbide, J., and C. Laurin. 2009. Performance
Measurement in the Arts Sector: The Case of the
Performing Arts. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 11, n 2, p. 5670.
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization. 1972. Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(16 November). Paris: Author.
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 1 FALL 2013
33
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization. 1994. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
WHC/2/Revised (February). Paris: World Heritage
Centre.
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization. 2005. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(2 February). Paris: World Heritage Centre.
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organisation. 2011. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(November). Paris: World Heritage Centre.
Voss, G.V., and G.B. Voss. 2000. Exploring the
Impact of Organizational Values and Strategic
Orientation on Performance in Not-for-Prot
Professional Theatre. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 3, n 1, p. 6276.
Weinstein, L., and D. Bukovinsky. 2009. Use of the
Balanced Scorecard and Performance Metrics to
Achieve Operational and Strategic Alignment in
Arts and Culture Not-for-Prots. International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 11, n 2, p. 4255.
Weinstein, L., R. Paul and S. Williams. 2007. Use of
Baldrige Assessment Techniques in Strategic
Planning and Assessment for Arts Administration
in Higher Education. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 9, n 3, p. 3449.
Zan, L. 2006. Managerial Rhetoric and Arts Organization.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Zorloni, A. 2012. Designing a Strategic Framework
to Assess Museum Activities. International Journal
of Arts Management, Vol. 14, n 2, p. 3147.
I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
34
QUESTIONS POSED IN THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Open-ended questions second step in the empirical research: Data collection
The following questions were used as a draft in the interviews. The interviewees could not read them in advance
and not all the questions were posed to all interviewees.
Have you completed the process of drawing up a management plan?
If yes, when did you complete it? Have you considered the possibility of drawing up a new or revised version?
If no, when do you think the process will be completed?
What competencies have been involved in producing the document? What professionals are involved in the process
(e.g., architects, art historians, city planners, economists, engineers, jurists, landscape architects, sociologists)?
Who is the supervisor of the management plan? What is his/her scientic background?
Have you included a performance measurement system in the management plan?
Closed questions fourth step in the empirical research: Analysis of the monitoring systems
These questions were posed to all 12 interviewees involved in this research step.
1. Are the performance measurement processes in place?
2(a). If yes (or partially), what are the diculties? Who is in charge of collecting and assessing the data?
2(b). If no, why is the process not in place? Can you foresee when the monitoring system will be implemented?
A p p e n d i x 1