Towards an understanding of the role of performance measurement in the integration processes required by the Integrated Development Planning (IDP) : a case study of the Hibiscus Coast Municipality.
Ngcobo, Samuel Sabelo.
MetadataShow full item record
In the years since its introduction, there has been criticism that the Integrated Development Planning (IDP) process is failing to achieve its main objective of bringing about an integrated approach to service delivery. Municipalities and government departments, on a national and provincial level, continue to deliver service in a fragmented manner. A number of factors have been cited as the reasons for the lack of integration in the IDP process. The aim of this dissertation was to investigate the role of performance measurement in the integration processes required by the IDP. The IDP process for the Hibiscus Coast Municipality (HCM) was chosen for study. The study investigated how performance measurement was affecting the integration with the IDP in programmes of the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development (DAEARD) and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) respectively. DAEARD is a KwaZulu Natal provincial department while DRDLR is a national department. Both of these departments participate in the HCM IDP Forum. The study looked at how performance measurement within each of the three organisations was affecting integration. The study began by investigating whether the different IDP stakeholders have a common understanding of what integration is, and what they were required to do for integration to succeed. Qualitative research methods were used in this study. The two main data collection techniques used were semi-structured interviews and document reviews. Participant observation played a small role as the third data collection technique. The interview subjects were officials from each of the three organisations in the IDP Forum of HCM. These were the officials who, through the IDP Forum, were responsible for the integration processes. Each of the three organisations (HCM, DAEARD and DRDLR) was represented by 2 (two) officials in the IDP Forum, hence the limited number of interviews. The main documents reviewed included the HCM IDP review documents, minutes of the IDP Forum meetings, strategic planning documents; performance management agreements, annual performance plans and the performance measurement documents for each of the three organisations. The study found that there was no common understanding among the stakeholders of what was meant by integration in relation to the IDP process. As a result, there was no clear process to measure the success of the IDP integration process. Secondly, the performance measurement systems which were being implemented in the individual IDP stakeholder components (HCM, DAERD and DRDLR) did not recognise integration as one of the performance indicators. Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, the kind of performance measurement systems being applied in each of the organisations were not conducive to the success of the IDP integration processes. The study concludes with a number of proposed areas for future investigation in order to improve the IDP integration process.