PBO originated with data from a federally funded survey of almost 700 American police forces which discovered 37 forces in which MBO had been used or was being implemented. Weaknesses in PBO may be consequences of basing the system on case studies of how some police forces had actually adapted MBO. Instead of receiving broad guidance from the higher level as with MBO, the police unit manager receives cumbersome documents containing goal statements, which were drawn up by a committee. PBO produces more paperwork compared to MBO because PBO demands that its mission statement and goals statements serve multiple purposes, not the least of which is to sell the budget. MBO demands setting a few goals at a time, while PBO assumes that numerous goals can be pursued concurrently. PBO requires that objectives be set and then indicators of effectiveness be chosen. In MBO, this process is reversed. Adaptations in the use of quantitative objectives when applying MBO to policing are likely to be in the direction of less reliance on traditional statistical measures. In policing, the way that results are achieved are often as important as the actual results. A system of PBO must set objectives in regard to means, just as other organizations are expected to set some objectives in regard to training, accounting procedures, etc. Principal questions to consider in assessing an organization's readiness to implement PBO are noted. Nine references are included.