Exploring Public Employee Performance Management Information System (PEPMIS) Practices in Managing Employee Performance at Arusha District Council

Jovin John; Ashura Mdee

doi:10.59645/tji.v6i1.763

Authors

Jovin John Institute of Accountancy Arusha
Ashura Mdee Arusha District Council

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59645/tji.v6i1.763

Keywords:

Employee Performance Management Information System, PEPMIS, performance management practices, Arusha District Council

Abstract

The Public Employees Performance Management Information System (PEPMIS) in Tanzania was introduced to promote fairness, transparency and accountability in performance management. At Arusha District Council, however, the use of PEPMIS remains challenging due to uneven employee awareness, limited infrastructure and technical difficulties that weaken monitoring and reporting. This study explored PEPMIS practices in managing employee performance at Arusha District Council, focusing on four areas: organisational settings, employees’ level of awareness, modalities used to manage performance, and weaknesses affecting the system's application. The study was guided by Management by Objectives (MBO) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). An interpretivist philosophy and qualitative case study design were used. Twenty (20) participants from management, human resources, technical and support staff were purposively selected. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and observation. The findings reveal four key aspects: leadership supports PEPMIS implementation, but infrastructure and training are inadequate; employees’ awareness varies across staff categories; the system enables structured performance management through goal setting and progress tracking; and its effectiveness is constrained by low user friendliness, weak data verification, and lack of real-time feedback. The study concludes that PEPMIS has potential but is constrained by technical and capacity-related limitations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baxter, P., and Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

Bevan, G., and Hood, C. (2006). What is measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x

Bostrom, R. P., and Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/249019

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Re-search in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., and Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Re-search and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., and Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). In-formation Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/books/building-the-virtual-state/

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal set-ting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201

Nowell, L., Norris, J., White, D., and Moules, N. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organisations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600

Pulakos, E. D., and O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x

Savveli, I., Rigou, M., and Balaskas, S. (2025). From e-government to AI e-government: A systematic review of citizen attitudes. Informatics, 12(3), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics12030098

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., and Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Venkatesh, V., and Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology ac-ceptance model. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Verma, D., Bach, K., & Mork, P. J. (2021). Application of machine learning methods on patient-reported outcome measurements for predicting outcomes: A literature re-view. Informatics, 8(3), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8030056