我们提出这四种机制的目标，是鼓励更加深入的讨论以优化测量项的设计和选择，尤其是在奖励机制无法施行或者并不适用的时候。如果我们的思路是正确的，那么其中暗含的最重要的提示是，测量的开发者不仅要考虑测量本身的技术特点，还需要花费同样多的时间来考虑测量将被用于什么样的社会、文化和组织语境。
因篇幅所限，本文不可能就何种环境与何种测量的搭配提供具体建议。我们只能得出以下结论：在目标、因果关系、角色分工都清晰的情况下，基于绩效的问责系统不失为追踪和激励进步的一种有效途径，并能确保主要的行动者心无旁骛，尽管在这样的情况下，对环境因素的忽视仍会导致意料之外或事与愿违的结果。
然而，在常见于慈善领域的开拓性举措中，因为更广泛的组织背景，或者对类似“健康文化”这样的大局之变的兴趣，人们往往很难确认清晰的目标。在这种情况下，似乎更适合使用那些不会简化目标而是会激发讨论、吸引新的变革参与者、鼓励新的伙伴关系、促进共同探索活动的测量项。简而言之，就是要开启对话，而不是结束争论。
遗憾的是，在测量理论与实践中，测量和信息的社会制度语境，在大多数时候都沦为了边缘地带，人们往往仅关注准确性、有效性和可靠性的问题。诚然，必须坚持把有效而可靠的标准测量规范作为一切关于绩效测量之讨论的重点——毕竟，把系统的变革建立在对现实的错误认识之上，无疑是危险的。
然而，对作家约翰·西利·布朗和保罗·杜吉德所称的测量和信息的“社会外围”的忽视[16]可能会使测量的潜在功效大打折扣，而我们的社会对测量的开发和维护投入了如此之多的时间和精力。我们的目标之一是开启一场讨论，以探索如何将社会语境的影响问题从测量实践的边缘地带转移到核心位置。我们期待这场讨论能够热烈展开，并催生新的思想。
克里斯托弗·尼尔森（Christopher Nelson）
RAND公司的高级政治科学家和政策分析教授
安妮塔·钱德拉（Anita Chandra）
RAND公司的正义、基础设施和环境主管
卡罗琳·米勒（Carolyn Miller）
强生基金会高级项目官员
[1] https://transparency.org/research/cpi/overview; http://sgi-network. org/2016/; https://bls.gov/cpi/; http://nhspi.org/
[2] There are, of course, some notable but not widely known exceptions to this statement. For example:Robert Behn, “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures,” Public Administration Review, 63, no. 5, September/ October 2003; Thomas Krause, Kristin Bell, Peter Pronovost,and Jason Etchegaray, “Measurement as a Performance Driver: The Case for a National Measurement System to Improve Patient Safety,” Journal of Patient Safety, April 4, 2017; Jeannette A.Colyvas, “Performance Metrics as Formal Structures and through the Lens of Social Mechanisms: When Do They Work and How Do They Influence?” American Journal of Education, 118, no. 2.
[3] We reviewed existing literature on the system impacts of measurement, based on searches of the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Social Sciences Abstracts, EconLit, EBSCOhost Business Source, and JSTOR. Search terms are too numerous to list here, but they included phrases directly related to the impact of measurement (e.g., “role of data in social change” and “impact of performance measurement”) and to specific social and improvement movements (e.g., “women’s movement” and “clinical quality of care”). A complete list of search terms and articles is available from the authors. We thank Sarah Weilant for assistance in conducting the literature search.
[4] Jill Cannon, Gail Zellman, Lynn Karoly, and Heather Schwartz, “Quality Rating and Improvement Systems for Early Care and Education Programs: Making the Second Generation Better,” Santa Monica, Calif:RAND, 2017.
[5] The following articles summarize current evidence and gaps in knowledge on each of the Culture of Health Action Areas: Anita Chandra et al., “Drivers of Health asa Shared Value: Mindset, Expectations, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement,” Health Affairs, 35, no. 11, November 2016, pp. 1959-1963; Tamara Dubowitz et al., “Creating Healthier, More Equitable Communities by Improving Governance and Policy,”Health Affairs, 35, no. 11, November 2016, pp. 1970-1975; Laurie Martin et al., “Strengthening Integration of Health Services and Systems,” Health Affairs, 35, no. 11, November 2016, pp. 1976-1981; Vivian Towe et al., “Cross-Sector Collaborations and Partnerships: Essential Ingredients to Help Shape Health and Well Being,” Health Affairs, 35, no. 11, November 2016, pp. 1964-1969.
[6] Dan Ariely, Uri Gneezy, George Loewenstein, and Nina Mazar, “Large Stakes and Big Mistakes,” Reviewof Economic Studies, 76, no. 2, 2009, pp. 451–469.
[7] John Padgett and Walter Powell, The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012.
[8] Evidence comes from a series of laboratory and field studies summarized in the following articles: Gary Latham and Edwin Locke, “New Developments in and Directions for Goal-Setting Research,” European Psychologist, 12, no. 4, 2007, pp. 290–300; Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Set- ting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey,” American Psychologist, 57, no. 9, 2002,pp. 705–717; Gerard Seijts and Gary Latham, “The Effects of Goal Setting and Group Size on Performance in a Social Dilemma,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, no. 2, 2000, pp. 104–116.
[9] The following articles summarize evidence on framing: Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Choices,Values, and Frames,” American Psychologist, 39, no. 4, 1984, pp. 341- 50; Shanto Iyengar, “Television News and Citizens’ Explanations of National Affairs,” American Political Science Review, 81, no. 3,1987, pp. 815-832; Dietram Scheufele and David Tewksbury, “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models,” Journal of Communication, 57, no. 1, 2007, pp. 9-20.
[10] http://cultureofhealth.org/en/taking-action/making-health-a-shared-value/ mindsets-and-expectations.html
[11] US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey,” DOT HS 812 115, February 2015.
[12] Michael Bastedo and Nicholas Bowman, “U.S. News & World Report College Rankings: Modeling Institutional Effects on Organizational Reputation,” American Journal of Education, 116, no. 2, 2010, pp.163-183; Nicholas Bowman and Michael Bastedo, “Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation,Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report on Student Decisions,” Research on Higher Education, August 2009.
[13] 失能调整生命年（disability adjusted year）是世界卫生组织提出的衡量整体疾病负担的一种概念。一个失能调整生命年等同于健康生活损失的一年。——译者注
[14] Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, “Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems,” Journal of Politics,53, no. 4, 1991, pp. 1044-1074; Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
[15] Michael Sauder, “Interlopers and Field Change: The Entry of U.S. News into the Field of Legal Education,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, no. 2, 2008, pp. 209–234.
[16] John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, The Social Life of Information, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press, 2000.