Business Process Management Journal

Performance measurement and management frameworks: Research trends of the last

two decades
Neetu Yadav Mahim Sagar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Neetu Yadav Mahim Sagar , (2013),"Performance measurement and management frameworks", Business
Process Management J ournal, Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 947 - 971
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ -01-2013-0003
Downloaded on: 06 October 2014, At: 12:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 85 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2842 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andr de Waal, Karima Kourtit, (2013),"Performance measurement and management in practice:
Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use", International J ournal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 62 Iss 5 pp. 446-473
Stefan Tangen, (2004),"Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice", International J ournal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 Iss 8 pp. 726-737
Suwit Srimai, J ack Radford, Chris Wright, (2011),"Evolutionary paths of performance measurement: An
overview of its recent development", International J ournal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 60 Iss 7 pp. 662-687
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173748 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Performance measurement
and management frameworks
Research trends of the last two decades
Neetu Yadav, Sushil and Mahim Sagar
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is toprovide anintegratedframeworkof performance management
area showcasing research trends in performance measurement and management frameworks developed
and discussed by revisiting the literature of the last two decades from 1991 to 2011.
Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a comprehensive review (excluding
management control systems) of the performance measurement and management frameworks/
systems/models developed in the last two decades, which helps to highlight the research trends related
to performance management frameworks. The methodology for literature review is chronological
review where it is divided into two periods 1991-2000 and 2001-2011.
Findings This paper portrays the developments that happened in performance measurement and
management via looking at performance management frameworks and an analysis that reveals the
research trends carried out in the last two decades, indicating paradigm shifts such as from a nancial
perspective to an integrative perspective (era 1991-2000), from an operational perspective to a strategic
perspective, the utilization of systems and simulation techniques (era 2001-2011), etc. These shifts have
led to the development of effective, integrated, and dynamic performance measurement systems.
Research limitations/implications The frameworks/models related to management control
systems and the trends related to performance control systems have not been discussed here and they
require further research in future studies.
Originality/value There is very limited work available in the literature that discussed specically
the performance management and measurement (PMM) frameworks/models and systems; most of the
previous work talks about developments only till 2000. This paper gives a snapshot of the researchers
in the eld of PMMregarding the developments and transformations in the frameworks for enterprises
for the period 1991-2011, thus incorporating recent developments as well.
Keywords Performance measurement, Performance management,
Performance management frameworks, History of performance measurement
Paper type Literature review
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is
the one that is the most adaptable to change (Charles Darwin).
Introduction
It is a common agreement that business environment is constantly changing.
According to Huyett and Viguerie (2005), the combined pressure of global competition,
technological advancements, interconnectivity and economic liberalization have made
the life of organizations tougher than ever before. Changes in business ecology
emphasize the need for value creation and developing and sustaining competitive
advantages, in turn transforming the way enterprise performance measurement
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Received 7 January 2013
Revised 8 April 2013
Accepted 7 May 2013
Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 19 No. 6, 2013
pp. 947-970
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-01-2013-0003
Research trends
of the last
two decades
947
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
was done. In this dynamically changing business environment, the adoption of
appropriate performance management and measurement (PMM) framework has been
realized as one of the major challenges. The product manufacturers and service
providers are largely service operations; so traditional accounting measures, as cost
schedules, variance reports, prot and loss statements, etc. and the static view of costs
are no longer appropriate in modern business environment (Quinn et al., 1990). The
words of Eccles (1991, p. 131) in his article Performance measurement manifesto
seem true: Within the next ve years, every company will have to redesign how it
measures its business performance.
Traditional nancial performance measures have been highly criticized in the
literature (Hayes and Abernathy, 1980; Dixon et al., 1990; Bititci, 1994) and researchers
have identied the need to integrate other non-nancial perspectives, such as strategic,
operational, quality perspectives, as complementary to the nancial perspective. As
per the MORI (1996) survey, 72 per cent of business leaders agree that a successful
business will better serve its shareholders by focusing on the needs of its customers,
employees, suppliers and wider community.
This paper is an attempt to understand and analyze the historical developments made
in terms of PMM frameworks in the last two decades, as also delving into the trends
presented in research and the changes in these trends observed in this period. The
authors have chosen a timeline of the last two decades, i.e. from 1991 to 2011, due to the
performance measurement revolution that came in this era, thereby changing the nature
of work, increasing competition, bringing about specic improvement initiatives as well
as national and international quality awards, changing organizational roles, changing
external demands, and highlighting the power of information technology (IT), all of
which have dramatically changed the way enterprise performance was measured (Neely,
1999). The rationale for selecting these two particular decades, i.e. 1991-2000, and
2001-2011, is that revolutionary changes in the PMM framework had taken place post
1990s before that enterprise performance was only restricted to annual reports and
nancial gures. The research interest in performance measurement and management
has notably increased in the last two decades (Taticchi, 2008).
This piece of work presents a comprehensive view (excluding management control
systems) about the developments as well as transformations done in the last two
decades and will be helpful for future researchers to understand better about the area
of performance measurement and management for enterprises. The objective of this
paper can be summarized as follows:
The objective of the study is to provide an integrated framework of performance management
through understanding the research trends in the last two decades by reviewing the literature
of PMM frameworks/models and systems[1].
The rest of this paper is structured in four main parts. The rst part deals with the
methodology for carrying out the literature review for selecting research works for this
paper. Before discussing about frameworks, there is a discussion about the history
of PMM; dealing with transitions has been put under the second part. The third part
explores research trends of PMM frameworks developed in 1991-2000. The fourth part
exhibits the research trends of PMM for the period 2001-2011. This review explores
research trends and transformations made in the last two decades and helps to
delineate future research prospects related to PMM.
BPMJ
19,6
948
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Methodology of literature review
Before leading to the methodology of literature review, it is imperative to clarify some
important terms, i.e. performance, performance measurement and performance
management. Lebas (1995) stated that performance is about capability, performance is
about future. He attempted to dene performance: performance is about deploying
and managing well the components of causal model(s) that lead to the timely
attainment of stated objectives within constraints specic to rm and to situation
(Lebas, 1995, p. 29). Thus, performance is case-specic and decision-maker-specic.
Now, the question posed here is whether performance measurement and performance
management are separate. The literature highlights some different denitions related
to these two terms: as per Neelys (1995) denition, performance measurement is a
process of quantifying the efciency and effectiveness of action, whereas Bititci et al.
(1997) dened performance management as a process by which the company manages
its performance in line with its corporate and functional strategies and objectives. But
here the argument given by Lebas (1995), which is: performance management
precedes and follows performance measurement, in a virtuous spiral and performance
management creates the context for measurement, so they are not separable (Lebas,
1995, p. 34). As this paper is highlighting performance management frameworks
presented in the literature, these two terms have been used collectively.
For this paper, the literature of the last two decades, i.e. 1991-2011, was explored[2]
and chronological literature review methodology was adopted. The developments in
the era before the 1990s have been presented in the section related to history of
performance measurement and management. The purpose of dividing the study in two
periods, i.e. 1991-2000 and 2001-2011, is that it will be helpful to understand the
developments/transformations in trends of PMM over a period of time.
Electronic research database, such as EBSCO host, Proquest Science, Emerald
Full-text, and Elseviers Science Direct, were reviewed with keywords including
performance management frameworks/models/systems, updates in performance
management systems and updates in balanced scorecard (BSC). During the selection of
the literature, it was found that it covered many disciplines, such as operations
management, management accounting, strategic management, organizational
management, etc. and the journals coverage was very diverse. The abstracts of the
papers were reviewed to identify whether the study had discussed new issues related
to performance management frameworks/systems and whether they had been
incorporated in the study. The nal list of frameworks/models/systems for reviewwas
purposefully selected with the agreement of some of the classical and recent literature
(Ghalayini and Noble, 1996; Neely et al., 2000; Marr and Schiuma, 2003; Yeniyurt, 2003;
Tangen, 2004; Garengo andBititci, 2005; Taticchi andBalachandran, 2008; Srimai et al.,
2011). There were many articles discussing variants of performance management
frameworks/models/systems (e.g. rst, second, and third generation of BSC) but those
have not been included in the scope of this paper. Only those articles discussing the
original work related to framework/model/system are considered here. The literature
related to management control frameworks/system is not in the scope of study.
History of performance measurement and management
Performance measurement has its own history that dates back to the early nineteenth
century. This section provides a snapshot of the history and transitions made in
Research trends
of the last
two decades
949
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
performance measurement practices for an enterprise. This snapshot deals largely with
the pre-1990s era. Figure 1 shows an integrated view of history and transitions of PMM.
It has been clearly stated that early nineteenth century traditional management
accounting-based performance measures and cost accounting were considered to measure
the performance. But cost management practices proved inadequate and misleading as
they did not trace the cost of products, activities, processes and cost of quality, and instead
focused on controlling processes in isolation (Bititci, 1994). Early activity in the 1920s was
the workof DuPont Corporationindevelopingreturnoninvestment (ROI) calculations that
led the pyramid of nancial ratios (Groppelli and Ehsan, 2000) which are still extensively
used as a diagnostic tool for the measurement of the nancial health of an enterprise.
Gradually executives realized that nancial accounting measures such as ROI and
earning per share gave misleading signals to innovation and continuous improvement
activities which are demanded by todays competitive environment. Tableau de bord,
an innovation by French engineers, emphasized a marriage between nancial and
non-nancial measures, thereby taking more care of daily operations and less of
strategic issues (Epstein and Manzoni, 1997).
Some other initiatives such as social accounting (process of communicating social
and environmental effects of organizations economic actions to society at large;
Gray et al., 1987), strategic management accounting (incorporating longer term outlook
and a generic approach to accounting for strategic positioning; Simmonds (1981)),
activity-based costing (determining the product cost on the basis of activities exist to
support production and delivery of goods and services; Cooper and Kaplan (1988)), had
supported the importance of other aspects of performance beyond nancial and
accounting measures.
Figure 1.
Transitions of
performance measurement
and management
1900 1914 1950
2000
2002 1995
1992
1970
1981
1987
1988
Accounting
Standards
Cost
Accounting
DuPont
Financial Ratio
Tableau De
Bord
Social
Accounting
Strategic
Management
Accounting
Quality
Award &
Business
Excellence
Model
Activity
Based
Costing
BSC
Triple
Bottom Line
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act
Financial Perspective
Management
Accounting
Integrative Perspective
complementing strategy, quality,
excellence to financial perspective
BPMJ
19,6
950
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Post 1985, some quality and excellence awards such as Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award (1987), European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (1988)
and Deming Prize have driven organizations to bring quality and excellence as a
measure of higher performance since these awards were made for contribution to
quality and dependability of products (Deming, 1986).
Revolution has been brought by Kaplan and Norton (1992) by introducing BSC
which proved to be complementary to nancial measures by bringing operational and
strategic measures of performance. Although many researchers (Skinner, 1974; Banks
and Wheelwright, 1979; Hayes and Abernathy, 1980) have analyzed to think beyond
nancial measures, Kaplan and Norton identify nancial performance as a lagging
indicator which depends on leading factors (customer satisfaction, quality, innovation,
excellence and improvement activities) of performance. The integration of
non-nancial measures, such as quality, innovation activities, strategic orientation
and business excellence models, with traditional nancial measures has brought the
integrative perspective of performance management, which is an important phase of
revolution of PMM for enterprise.
The three transition phases management accounting perspective, nancial
perspective and integrative perspective have been shown explicitly in Figure 1. The
important milestones of revolution can be identied as quality awards, business
excellence models and BSC. These have made drastic changes in the way enterprise
performance was traditionally measured and they have received considerable discussion
in PMM literature.
The concern of sustainability for the corporations, impact on society and
environment, economic growth, social progress and environmental health has brought
out a concept named triple bottom line (TBL). The TBL is a framework for measuring
and reporting corporate performance against economic, social and environmental
parameters (Elkington, 1997). This framework concerns people, planet and prot (PPP)
related to the performance of an enterprise. It emphasizes that prot is not the only
concern of any enterprise; environmental and social obligations also form vital driving
factors for higher performance.
Thus, some of those incremental developments happened before the 1990s
Tableau de bord, Du Pont nancial ratio, activity based costing and revolutionary
developments which were largely happened post 1990s in the form of BSC, PPP, some
business excellence awards brought drastic changes in the way performance
measurement was done for an enterprise. The following sections discuss trends of
measurement and management exclusively for the era post 1990s.
Research trends of performance measurement and management
frameworks: 1991-2000
What gets measured gets done portrays the half-truth of measurement. In the 1990s,
the focus shifted to: how to manage what is measured. The main objective of any
performance measurement system is to encourage proactive rather than reactive
management (Bititci, 1994). The need for relevant, integrated, balanced, strategic
improvement orientation has been realized in numerous publications ( Johnson and
Kaplan, 1987; Drucker, 1990; Russell, 1992). The introduction of new management
techniques like just-in-time ( JIT), business process reengineering (BPR) and total
Research trends
of the last
two decades
951
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
quality management (TQM) have brought momentum for developing new performance
measurement systems ( Johnson, 1992; Watson, 1993).
This section highlights details about PMM frameworks developed in the period
1991-2000, where the discussion is related to issues highlighted, contribution(s) as well
as limitation(s) of the frameworks selected. A summary of PMM frameworks/
models/systems of the period 1991-2000 has been presented in Table I.
The incorporation of non-nancial measures has been a great topic of interest
throughout the 1990s (Medori and Steeple, 2000). Not only were non-nancial measures
considered, the qualityof nancial measures was also examined(Ittner andLarcker, 1998).
Keeping some of these issues in mind, numerous developments were made in this era.
Results and determinants framework (Fitzergald et al., 1991) took a lead by
incorporating leading and lagging indicators of performance. It was based on the
assumptions that there are two types of performance measures in any organization
one is related to results and other is determinants of results, where they are lagging
indicators whereas determinants are leading indicators. Very specic framework
measures for time-based competition (Azzone et al., 1991) considered some measures to
pursue the strategy of time-based competition, but it failed to incorporate other
non-nancial performance measures.
To demonstrate a clear link between performance measures at different hierarchical
levels of business processes and functional levels of any company, a performance
pyramid, i.e. strategic measurement analysis and reporting technique (SMART)
system, was proposed by Lynch and Cross (1991). The development of a framework
starts with dening corporate vision and then translating business unit objectives.
Operational measures and key performance measures are used to bridge the gap
between the top level and operation oor. According to Ghalayini et al. (1997), its
strength is that it integrates corporate objectives with operational indicators but it fails
to provide a mechanism to identify key performance indicators (KPI).
Nanni et al. (1992) introduced the concept of integrated performance measurement
where the emphasis has been put on service-oriented approach rather than
product-oriented methods of traditional management accounting. This work has
realized and re-emphasized to expansion of understanding of eld of management
accounting and to integrate it with strategic and operational perspectives to meet the
needs of changing business environment.
The introduction of many quality awards is one of the major reasons for
performance measurement revolution (Neely, 1999). The EFQM award is based on nine
criteria related to enablers and results for self-assessment of any company. The
popularity of the award is evident from the fact that there are around 529,000
references available on the web. So, these quality awards came up to bring substantial
improvements in enterprise performance.
A revolutionary development in the 1990s was the introduction of BSC (Kaplan and
Norton, 1992), which was listed as one of the 75 most inuential ideas of the twentieth
century by Harvard Business Review (Bible et al., 2006). This framework proposed
that the company should use a balanced set of performance measures incorporating
nancial and non-nancial perspectives. This framework has been adopted by
different types of organizations (Lucianetti, 2010) and several companies have reported
improved operational efciency and protability as a result of using BSC (Atkinson
and Epstein, 2000; Gumbus and Lyons, 2003). Kaplan and Norton (1996) have
BPMJ
19,6
952
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
N
a
m
e
o
f
P
M
M
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
u
t
h
o
r
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
I
s
s
u
e
(
s
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
F
i
t
z
e
r
g
a
l
d
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
I
d
e
n
t
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
a
g
g
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
I
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
r
e
l
a
g
g
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
l
e
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
n
o
n
-

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
t
i
m
e
-
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
A
z
z
o
n
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
I
d
e
n
t
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
i
m
e
a
s
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
o
f
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
R
&
D
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
,
s
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
o
r
d
e
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
l
e
a
d
t
i
m
e
I
t
r
e

e
c
t
s
t
h
e
e
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
u
f

c
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
y
r
a
m
i
d
L
y
n
c
h
a
n
d
C
r
o
s
s
(
1
9
9
1
)
I
d
e
n
t
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
,

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
,
c
y
c
l
e
t
i
m
e
,
w
a
s
t
e
I
t
t
i
e
s
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
i
c
a
l
v
i
e
w
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
v
i
e
w
I
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
y
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
k
e
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
(
K
P
I
)
a
n
d
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
v
a
l
u
e
a
d
d
e
d
S
t
e
w
a
r
t
(
1
9
9
1
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
o
f
w
e
a
l
t
h
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
I
t
g
i
v
e
s
a
n
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
o
v
e
r
R
O
I
a
s
i
t
a
l
i
g
n
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
w
e
a
l
t
h
I
t
i
s
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
f
o
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
o
a
l
s
E
F
Q
M

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
m
o
d
e
l
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
9
9
1
)
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
e
l
f
-
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
,
p
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
,
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
k
e
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
I
t
i
s
a
n
o
n
-
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
n
i
n
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
e
n
a
b
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
s
e
l
f
-
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
I
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
K
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
o
n
(
1
9
9
2
)
C
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
n
-

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
M
o
s
t
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
l
y
u
s
e
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
w
h
i
c
h
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
n
o
n
-

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
o
m
p
l
i
m
e
n
t
t
o

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
T
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
c
a
u
s
e
-
a
n
d
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
s
t
a
t
i
c
n
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
a
j
o
r
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table I.
Review of PMM
frameworks/
models/systems for the
period 1991-2000
Research trends
of the last
two decades
953
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
N
a
m
e
o
f
P
M
M
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
u
t
h
o
r
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
I
s
s
u
e
(
s
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
I
n
p
u
t
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
-
o
u
t
p
u
t
-
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
B
r
o
w
n
(
1
9
9
6
)
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
s
a
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
_
a
I
t
i
d
e
n
t
i

e
s
t
h
e
i
n
p
u
t
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
o
u
t
p
u
t
,
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
T
h
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
l
y
v
e
r
y
a
p
p
e
a
l
i
n
g
b
u
t
i
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
o
f
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
F
l
a
p
p
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
6
)
D
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
(
P
M
S
)
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
a
l
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
_
a
I
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
t
h
e
s
t
e
p
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
P
M
S
b
y
d
e

n
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
(
P
I
)
,
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
P
I

s
a
n
d
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
t
a
r
g
e
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
P
I

s
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
u
s
e
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
G
h
a
l
a
y
i
n
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
o
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
c
y
c
l
e
t
i
m
e
,
d
e
f
e
c
t
r
a
t
e
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
I
t
h
e
l
p
s
f
o
r
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
l
y
f
o
r
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
d
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
t
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
R
a
p
p
a
p
o
r
t
(
1
9
9
8
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
w
e
a
l
t
h
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
I
t
g
i
v
e
s
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
f
o
r
v
a
l
u
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
h
e
l
p
s
a
n
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
t
o
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
i
t
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
T
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
s
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
B
i
t
i
t
c
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
T
o
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
_
a
I
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
T
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
,
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
l
o
o
p
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
w
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
o
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
i
n
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
M
e
d
o
r
i
a
n
d
S
t
e
e
p
l
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
A
u
d
i
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
c
o
s
t
,

e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
i
m
e
,
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
a
u
d
i
t
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
t
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
F
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
S
,
v
e
r
y
f
e
w
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
f
o
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
S
u
w
i
g
n
j
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
Q
u
a
n
t
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
n
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
C
o
s
t
(

x
e
d
,
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
t
o
t
a
l
)
p
e
r
u
n
i
t
I
t
u
s
e
s
t
h
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
t
h
i
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
h
a
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
Table I.
BPMJ
19,6
954
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
purported it as a strategic management system. The balance in BSC is supported by
considering nancial and non-nancial measures, leading and lagging indicators and
short- and long-term measures (Ahn, 2001).
Although it has got popularity, the literature highlights many shortcomings of
BSC, such as a lack of stakeholder focus, static nature, lack of cause-effect
relationships, clustering of performance measures, a closed system approach,
difculties in double loop learning, etc. (Atkinson et al., 1997; Norreklit, 2000; Ahn,
2001; Akkermans and van Oorschot, 2005). Furthermore, Neely and Bourne (2000,
p. 3) point out that 70 per cent implementation of BSC fail due to inappropriate
design and implementation failure. Norreklit (2000) extensively criticized BSC for its
poor guidance on causality in terms of relationships between different measures.
Mooraj et al. (1999, p. 481) state that:
[. . .] although surrounded by much publicity in both professional and academic circles, few
organizations are yet in a position to quantify its benets, therefore investing time and money
for unquantiable results.
But no doubt, it has drastically changed the way performance was measured and still it
is one of the most dominant performance management frameworks. Now, performance
is linked to the companys vision, objectives and strategies a shift in performance
measurement from an operational perspective to a strategic perspective.
Seminal work has been done by many scholars to provide consistent, integrated
and dynamic performance management systems (PMS) for enterprises. Flapper et al.
(1996) presented a systematic method for designing a consistent PMS for
practitioners. This system claimed to cover all aspects of performance that are
relevant for an organization as a whole. Thus, it emphasized at (re)designing an
effective, consistent PMS but the applicability of the framework in practice has not
been widely recognized.
The major developments related to PMS were largely done in the context of
manufacturing companies. Ghalayini et al. (1997) presented an integrated performance
measurement system where the focus was to relate strategic areas of success with the
performance of the company and allow dynamic updating of its general areas of
success and associated performance measures. Thus, the concern for integrated
approach and dynamism was incorporated in this development.
Bititci et al. (2000) argued that PMS needed to be dynamic enough to deploy changes
in the internal objectives while being critical and sensitive to changes in the external
and internal environment of the organization. Therefore, they proposed that dynamic
PMS should have an external monitoring system, internal monitoring system, review
system and internal deployment system. This framework emphasized the use of IT
based systems, articial intelligence and neural network technology to facilitate
closed-loop control system. In this way, the research related to performance
management framework led towards an integrated and dynamic approach.
One of the classical works related to auditing and enhancing PMS was carried out
by Medori and Steeple (2000). They provided a six-stage plan for developing integrated
performance measurement framework. The unique feature of the framework was that
it could aid to set up a new PMS and had audit capability which could aid in examining
the existing PMS. The major shortcoming highlighted was that the framework did not
provide a mechanism to integrate dynamic and competitive dimensions.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
955
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Out of the various developments related to PMS which highlighted different
mechanisms/steps for designing, auditing and enhancing performance measurement
systems that took place during the 1990s, there was one set of research that highlighted
different methods/tools for PMS. Suwignjo et al. (2000) looked into different techniques
such as cognitive maps, cause-and-effect diagrams, tree diagrams and analytic
hierarchy process for developing quantitative models for PMS. The benets of this
approach were that the factors affecting performance can be identied and quantied.
The quantitative model wouldbe validas longas internal andexternal environments are
stable. As for subjective performance measures, the study had a very limited discussion.
It can very well be stated that the era of 1991-2000 has witnessed numerous
developments andtransformations inperformance management frameworks/models. It is
worth noting that these developments were largely done in the context of manufacturing
companies since operational measures have paramount importance for them. Similarity
the selected frameworks implies that most of the frameworks major concern is to provide
a process or mechanism which helps management for competitiveness and long-term
focus towards achievement of organizational objectives. The dimensions of performance
measures covered by these frameworks are largely focus on nancial measures, quality,
people-relatedissues, customer satisfaction, competitiveness, etc. These measures witness
a shift from purely nancial perspectives to integrated perspective which is a major
contribution of this era. As already mentioned, PMS needs to be proactive rather than
reactive in nature; the concern to bring dynamic PMS has been highlighted very well in
this decade. BSC has contributed to integrate strategic perspective with PMS, leading to
the fulllment of long-term objectives and the vision of the enterprise.
This decade provided revolutionary movements for enterprises to shift towards
measurement and management from merely measurement and control. Researchers
realized that an effective performance management is one which brings an entire
organization in alignment with the purpose of creating business values (Aguilar, 2003;
Kaplan and Norton, 2006). Literature has highlighted the application of quantitative
and mathematical modeling techniques for the development of PMS. Figure 2 exhibits
Figure 2.
Research trends of PMM
for the period 1991-2000
1991 1995
2000
Leading and Lagging
performance indicators
Financial and non-
financial performance
measures
Continuous
improvement and
Dynamics
Consistency
in
performance
measurement
system
Incorporating
Dynamics in
performance
measurement systems
Identification of financial
and non-financial and leading
and Lagging Indicators
Identification of brining consistency,
integration and dynamics in
performance measurement systems
BPMJ
19,6
956
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
research trends highlighted in this decade in terms of the concerns and issues
discussed by different frameworks/models.
There were still many issues which were at the back of the mind of researchers
but not very explicitly highlighted in literature related to PMM. The concern for
stakeholders like customers and employees had been taken care of in many
frameworks but other stakeholders were still not being addressed very well. While
concern for dynamism in this era was part of the research, there was a limited study on
its scope in the future. It has been very well stated that now research related to PMM
has reached the second generation where the diffusion and exploration of proactive
PMS is the agenda. Criticisms and shortcomings of the BSC approach was also highly
discussed in this research and its way forward in the era post 2000 was examined,
as discussion for the next section.
Research trends of performance measurement and management
frameworks: 2001-2011
The era post 2000 witnessed the opening up of broader avenues for researchers who were
updating BSC as well as discussing other prime issues related to PMS to develop
effective PMS for any enterprise. As the perspectives shifted fromnancial to integrated,
some other issues were integrated in performance management frameworks. Table II
summarizes the developments of the last one decade of PMM frameworks, their
contributions, limitations and the issue(s) highlighted.
Literature argues that BSChas failed to consider manyother important stakeholders in
its framework(Sureshchandar andLeisten, 2005). Also, Neelyet al. (2001) have arguedthat
the only reason the organizations have strategy is to deliver value to a set of stakeholders.
Performance prism (Neely et al., 2001) integrates stakeholder perspective under ve
facets stakeholder satisfaction, stakeholder contribution, strategies, capabilities and
processes. Thus, the shift frommerely looking for shareholders (nancial perspective) to a
set of stakeholders provides PMSa long-termfocus. Literature highlights that a number of
organizations have integratedsocial andenvironmental perspectives withtheir traditional
perspectives, thereby thinking beyond merely making prots (Figge et al., 2002;
Lansiluoto and Jarvenpaa, 2008). Some of the emergent management terms like corporate
social responsibility (CSR), sustainability reports and international bodies such as
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) compelled the companies to
incorporate all stakeholders perspectives into performance measures.
The era post 2000 brought out many developments updating the BSC approach. As it
is well known that BSC is well used and often abused all over the world, many scholars
have developed updated BSC frameworks. Kanjis business scorecard (Kanji and Sa,
2002), a highly discussed framework in literature, argues that BSC approach should be
consistent with business excellence and TQM and companies need to consider:
.
maximizing shareholder value;
.
achieving process excellence;
.
improving organizational learning; and
.
delighting the stakeholders.
Which, in turn, would help to extend an understanding of the four BSC perspectives.
This initiative integrated stakeholder approach but its emphasis was mainly on
Research trends
of the last
two decades
957
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
N
a
m
e
o
f
P
M
M
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
u
t
h
o
r
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
I
s
s
u
e
(
s
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
T
h
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
-
p
r
o

t
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
m
o
d
e
l
E
p
s
t
e
i
n
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
r
o
o
k
(
2
0
0
1
)
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
a
l
l
i
n
k
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o

t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
I
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
o
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
p
r
o

t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
T
h
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
d
e
l
i
s
n
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
r
i
s
m
N
e
e
l
y
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
1
)
T
h
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
I
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
a
n
d
n
e
w
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
(
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
a
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
r
i
e
s
)
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
I
t
g
i
v
e
s
l
i
t
t
l
e
w
a
y
a
b
o
u
t
h
o
w
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
n
d
h
a
r
d
l
y
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
g
i
v
e
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
M
S
K
a
n
j
i

s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
K
a
n
j
i
a
n
d
S
a
(
2
0
0
2
)
O
v
e
r
c
o
m
i
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
a
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
B
S
C
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
d
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
I
t
l
o
o
k
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
T
h
i
s
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
f
o
c
u
s
e
s
m
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
B
e
y
o
n
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
i
n
g
H
o
p
e
a
n
d
F
r
a
s
e
r
(
2
0
0
3
)
D
e
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
_
a
I
t
g
i
v
e
s
a
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
o
d
e
v
o
l
v
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r

e
x
i
b
l
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
T
h
e
m
a
i
n
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
i
s
o
n
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
,
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Review of PMM
frameworks/models/
systems for the period
2001-2011
BPMJ
19,6
958
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
N
a
m
e
o
f
P
M
M
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
u
t
h
o
r
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
I
s
s
u
e
(
s
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
u
l
t
i
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
M
a
l
t
z
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
T
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
b
e
y
o
n
d
B
S
C
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
I
t
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
w
i
t
h
B
S
C
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
T
h
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
T
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
c
h
a
i
n
N
e
e
l
y
a
n
d
J
a
r
r
a
r
(
2
0
0
4
)
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
f
r
o
m
d
a
t
a
_
a
I
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
f
r
o
m
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
I
t
i
s
j
u
s
t
a
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
g
i
v
e
n
,
n
o
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
H
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
S
u
r
e
s
h
c
h
a
n
d
a
r
a
n
d
L
e
i
s
t
e
n
(
2
0
0
5
)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
f
o
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
I
t
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
s
i
x
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
T
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
e
r
s
a
d
(
2
0
0
5
)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
,
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
I
t
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
w
i
t
h
P
D
C
A
(
p
l
a
n
,
d
o
,
c
h
e
c
k
,
a
c
t
)
c
y
c
l
e
,
t
a
l
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
K
o
l
b

s
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
c
y
c
l
e
T
h
e
i
n
s
i
g
h
t
s
a
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
f
r
o
m
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
,
n
o
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
H
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
H
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
,
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
h
a
i
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
v
a
l
u
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
I
t
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
d
i
v
e
r
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
n
e
e
d
t
o
p
l
a
y
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
t
o
g
i
v
e
f
u
l
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
o
f
p
i
l
o
t
s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
t
e
s
t
e
d
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
959
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
N
a
m
e
o
f
P
M
M
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
A
u
t
h
o
r
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
I
s
s
u
e
(
s
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
g
a
m
e
-
c
a
r
d
S
u
s
h
i
l
(
2
0
1
0
)
D
u
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
S
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
v
a
l
u
e
i
n
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
n
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
,
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
w
h
i
c
h
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
h
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
d
u
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
i
.
e
.
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
R
e
c
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
n
e
e
d
s
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
-
b
a
s
e
d

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
B
a
r
n
a
b
e
(
2
0
1
1
)
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
S
C
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
w
i
t
h
s
y
s
t
e
m
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
I
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
t
o
o
l
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
m
a
p
T
h
e
f
o
c
u
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
o
l
i
s
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
b
a
s
e
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
v
e
r
y
d
i
f

c
u
l
t
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
s
c
o
r
e
c
a
r
d
C
h
y
t
a
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
1
)
U
s
i
n
g
f
u
z
z
y
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
m
a
p
(
F
C
M
)
a
n
d
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
_
a
I
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
f
B
S
C
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
c
o
m
i
n
g
i
t
b
y
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
,
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
k
e
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
I
t
n
e
e
d
s
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
S
e
a
r
c
y
(
2
0
1
1
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
P
M
S
_
a
I
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
a
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
T
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
:
a
S
p
e
c
i

c
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
r
e
n
o
t
d
e

n
e
d
Table II.
BPMJ
19,6
960
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
external stakeholders. The other developments updating BSC approach, as holistic
scorecard (Sureshchandar and Leisten, 2005) extended BSC perspectives by integrating
intellectual capital perspective, employee perspective, and social perspective, and thus
addressed the need to integrate all stakeholders.
Total performance scorecard (Rampersad, 2005) integrated personal and
organizational scorecard with the plan do check act (PDCA) cycle, talent development
cycle and Kolbs learning cycle and thus integrated the personal ambitions with shared
ambitions, leading towards higher performance and continuous learning and
improvement. The conceptual insights were built on experience but no validation of the
frameworkwas discussedinliterature. Some recent developments highlightedapplication
of systems methodology and fuzzylogic to better utilize the BSCapproach. Barnabe (2011)
utilized the system dynamics methodology to develop BSC and realized that feedback
loop learning, dynamic strategy maps and management ight simulators help to provide
better support for decision-makers facing complex and dynamic domains. The fuzzy logic
view for proactive BSC (Chytas et al., 2011) proposes the methodology to draw causal
representation of key performance indicators (KPI), simulates the KPIs and quanties
the impact of eachKPI to adjust the performance targets. Thus, these initiatives trigger the
decision-making process by integrating simulation techniques, and help to test the
feasibility of policies by showcasing future results.
Some researchers emphasized to go beyond the BSC approach and looked forward
to new frameworks. Maltz et al. (2003) presented a dynamic multi-dimensional
performance framework which looks at ve performance dimensions nancial
performance, customer/market, process, people development and future and provides
guidance to management in the process of developing useful success metrics for
different situations and environment. The other recent development looking beyond
the scorecard to game-card is exible strategy game-card (Sushil, 2010) that highlights
the dual perspectives of performance, i.e. enterprise perspective and customer
perspective. All major stakeholders are covered under enterprise perspectives, and as
customers are the center point for strategy development, they are kept as an independent
perspective. In view of dynamic environment and changing economy, these
developments emphasize to go beyond the BSC approach. The only shortcoming
highlighted is that there is no empirical validation available of these frameworks.
Looking towards integrated and holistic approach to performance management, some
developments emphasized for providing structure and theoretical development of holistic
PMS. Anderson et al. (2006) presented a generic framework considering stakeholders,
organization, market, values and culture to integrate diverse areas to play together and lead
to give full effect to organization. Incorporatingthe concernfor sustainability, sustainability
performance measurement system(Searcy, 2011) describes phases of evolutionof corporate
sustainable PMS. Thus, the concern for an effective, integrated, holistic, dynamic and
sustainable PMS development was on the agenda for the era post 2000.
Integrating all the issues and concerns highlighted in the period 2001-2011, the
research trends in performance management frameworks can be exhibited and
summarized in some trends which are shown in Figure 3.
In this period, BSC was again in the discussion but this time, the discussion was largely
related to update the BSC approach and many researchers had expanded four perspectives
to add all other stakeholders which were not considered in BSC. Thus, the shift froma set of
stakeholders to all stakeholders can be noted as a major contribution of this era.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
961
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
The methodological rigor to develop effective PMS is another major discussion of this
period. The researchers realizedthat criticismof lackingcausalityinBSCcouldbe overcome
by using systems methodology, where one of the appropriate methodologies is system
dynamics methodology. The applicationof simulationtechniques to knowthe likelyfuture
of policy interventions can help to set and adjust targets for performance measures.
The other major concern highlighted in this period was to think beyond BSC and
provide the framework/structure or mechanism to develop dynamic, integrated PMS for
enterprises. The concept of game-card, holistic performance management framework
and PMS framework are now leading performance management research to new
paradigms by opening the doors to a way beyond BSC. No doubt, with the development
of Performance Prism and highlighting some other issues, this set of researchers from
the UK has gained a reputed place in performance measurement research.
One of the most remarkable developments noticed in this era is implementation of
PMS in service sector. Due to structural changes in industrial economies, as
globalization and privatizations, service sector took a boom and development and
implementation of PMS for service sector, as holistic scorecard for software industry
(Sureshchandar and Leisten, 2005); development of BSC for assessing effectiveness of
online courses (Strang, 2010); development of BSC for education (Schobel and Scholey,
2012), etc. had taken place. The implementation of PMSs for public sector was also one
of the interests of researchers post 2000.
Discussions and key learning
The transformations and developments researched in the performance management
framework reveal its multidisciplinary aspects. Researchers have realized the need to
Figure 3.
Research trends of PMM
for the period 2001-2011
2001 2005 2011
Stakeholder
orientation
Overcoming
weakness of BSC
Integrated scorecard for
measuring and managing
performance
Holistic view
of performance
System Dynamics,
sustainability and
simulation based view of
performance
Inclusion of stakeholders Updates in BSC approach
Holistic, dynamic, system
dynamics and simulation
based view of PMS
Methodological rigor
in performance
measurement
BPMJ
19,6
962
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
look beyond merely scoring the performance and integrating the whole cycle of
strategic management. The development of an integrated and truly balanced PMM
system has been a transformation in the past one decade spanning 1991-2000, along
with the inclusion of dynamism and multi-stakeholder perspective that have been
widely discussed in 2001-2011 period. The methodological rigor supports in an
effective execution of the performance measurement systems for an enterprise.
After an analysis and understanding of the trends of the PMM frameworks
developed in last two decades, an attempt is made here to classify these frameworks on
the basis of some broad themes.
1. Classical and dominant PMM frameworks
This theme includes those frameworks that have been very popular in literature as
well as dominantly used by practitioners. Their contributions to the knowledge base
are related to the incorporation of non-nancial performance measures, quality,
self-assessment and inclusion of most of the stakeholders. These can be listed as follows:
.
balanced scorecard;
.
performance pyramid;
.
EFQM excellence model; and
.
performance prism.
2. Holistic and integrated PMM frameworks
As discussed, to fulll the need for a holistic and integrated framework for enterprise
performance, researchers have highlighted the following developments, which primarily
discuss aligning performance with the future, brining individual performance with
enterprise performance, and integrating operational, functional and strategic aspects of
enterprise performance:
.
consistent PMS;
.
integrated dynamic performance measurement system;
.
dynamic performance measurement system;
.
integrated performance measurement framework;
.
dynamic multi-dimensional performance framework; and
.
holistic performance management framework.
3. Frameworks updating BSC approach
There has been a very wide discussion in literature about incorporating and updating
the BSC approach keeping in mind organizational view, system dynamics
methodology and modelling, fuzzy cognitive maps, intellectual and social
perspectives, etc. The frameworks that update the BSC approach may be listed as:
.
Kanjis business scorecard;
.
holistic scorecard;
.
total performance scorecard;
.
system dynamics based BSC; and
.
proactive BSC.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
963
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
4. Context-specic PMM frameworks
This category includes frameworks discussing specic contexts of performance, such
as economic value, social values, quantitative factors, performance value chain, etc.
These PMM frameworks can be further clustered on the basis of underlying driving
factors, as process-based frameworks (input-process-output-outcome framework, the
performance planning value chain); nancial performance drivers (shareholder value,
economic value added); criticism of traditional control mechanism (beyond budgeting).
Context-specic frameworks are:
.
measures for time-based competition;
.
economic value added;
.
input-process-output-outcome framework;
.
shareholder value;
.
quantitative models for performance measurement systems;
.
the action-prot linkage model;
.
beyond budgeting; and
.
the performance planning value chain.
5. Recently developed PMM frameworks
Here, the frameworks which have been developed in the last three to four years and
discuss about the major issues related to enterprise performance are taken into
account, such as:
.
exible strategy game-card; and
.
sustainability performance measurement system.
This study gives a comprehensive view (excluding management control
system/frameworks) of existing performance management frameworks where the
contribution(s) as well as limitation(s) are highlighted. The conclusion drawn from this
study shows many paradigm shifts which have taken place in the research of PMM
frameworks in the last two decades. Shift from nancial measures to integrated
measures, operational perspectives to strategic perspectives and consideration of a set
of stakeholders to all stakeholders have been the major visible changes. The ndings
from this literature review are validated with the work of Srimai et al. (2011) who had
presented evolutionary paths of performance measurement and showed four paths of
performance measurement from operations to strategy, measurement to
management, static to dynamic and economic-prot to stakeholder focus.
This study has culled out these trends by specically concentrating on the
developments in the form of PMM frameworks/systems. This gives a small contribution
to the knowledge base by collectively framing the history of research done in PMM
frameworks in the past two decades. As business environment and conditions are more
rapidly changing, the researchers and practitioners are always involved to look for
future research prospects, giving way to further explore research opportunities related
to PMM.
In these last two decades, industrial economies have experienced structural changes
and so as the changes have been experienced in PMM research. In 1991-2000, the major
developments of PMM frameworks were related to manufacturing operations, and the
BPMJ
19,6
964
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
performance measures were largely related to productivity, waste, cycle time, response
time, cost, quality, delivery time, processes and technology. Since the shift has taken
place from manufacturing to services, new developments have incorporated some new
performance measures, such as leadership, training, education, innovation,
capabilities, knowledge, personal improvement, etc. which can be seen explicitly in
the era post 2000. In the last one decade, the development and implementation of PMS
for public sector is also one of the major transformations observed in the literature.
Thus, shifts in research trends in PMM framework has been observed as per the
structural changes in industrial economies.
Looking forward
As already stated, the PMM research continues rapidly on the path of evolution and
diffusion as now it is led towards the second generation of scholars who are
contributing in this area by exploring multi-dimensions of performance management
issues (Taticchi et al., 2010). This paper is an attempt in this direction. It discusses and
analyzes the PMM frameworks that have been developed and discussed in the last two
decades to identify the opportunities which need to be explored in future.
The research agenda delineating through this study has been discussed in this
section. It has been observed that enormous developments related to performance
management frameworks have been made that highlight the plethora of issues related
to an organization. But a large number of frameworks have been discussed solely on a
conceptual ground and still require validation by way of an empirical testing.
Researchers can take this challenge by further applying these issues in a practical
context, attempting to build a mechanism for effective, integrated and holistic
performance management framework.
Theoretical developments such as a resource-based view of rm (Barney, 1991) and
core competence of a corporation (Hamel and Prahalad, 1990) provide a trigger to link
the dynamic capabilities view to enterprise performance and thus, help explore the
theoretical basis of existing performance management frameworks to open new
avenues of research.
The effectiveness of PMM models/frameworks are still a big question mark
(Taticchi et al., 2010). There is a very limited mechanism available to help transform
information into value-adding activities for an organization. Therefore, organizations
need PMS to align performance targets and measures with companys vision and
objectives, and to provide feedback on the existing measures and make corrective
actions when required. The cause-and-effect relationships, feedback loop learning and
systems approach can be some of the remedies which can help to make double loop
learning and thus develop an effective PMS. This will, in turn, help overcome the
existing PMS criticism of being retrospective and bring dynamism to the system.
Bititci (1995) asserted that PMM should be viewed as a key business process which
is central to the prosperity of any enterprise. PMS needs to be considered as an integral
component of business process management, as it leads to dene strategies and targets
for any enterprise. The new developments highlighted in last two to three years
capture the dynamic view of enterprise performance, and thus gives an opportunity to
develop new business plans, and processes as per changing business dynamics.
A wide research interest related to the PMM frameworks has been identied as is
evident from the 434,000 results available with this keyword on Google Scholar.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
965
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
The wider application of IT, simulation techniques and qualitative and quantitative
research methodologies can be helpful to trigger in testing the feasibility of different
policy parameters and performance targets and thus help to avoid failure of existing
PMS.
The researchers in the eld of performance measurement and management need to
look beyond the scorecard and utilize these avenues of research to develop holistic,
integrated, dynamic and effective PMSs that can help an enterprise to compete and
succeed in turbulent and competitive business environment. The structural changes in
industrial economies which has led from manufacturing to services to now highly
innovative web-based services, the dynamism in PMM frameworks can be considered as
a crucial element, where they need not only to measure and manage the enterprise
performance, but also to simulate the expected results to get high performance in future.
Notes
1. The terms performance measurement and management frameworks, models, systems or
techniques are used widely and sometimes interchangeably in performance measurement
and management literature (Ittner and Larcker, 1998; Bjoornenak and Olson, 1999; Ax and
Bjoornenak, 2005; Modell, 2009). In this view, they have been used as integrative here.
2. The justication of using this time period is already explained in the introduction section.
References
Aguilar, O. (2003), How strategic performance management is helping companies create
business value, Strategic Finance, Vol. 84 No. 7, pp. 44-49.
Ahn, H. (2001), Applying the balanced scorecard concept: an experience report, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 34, pp. 441-461.
Akkermans, H.A. and van Oorschot, K.E. (2005), Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced
scorecard development using system dynamics, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 931-941.
Anderson, B., Henriksen, B. and Aarseth, W. (2006), Holistic performance management: an
integrated framework, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 55 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-78.
Atkinson, A. and Epstein, M. (2000), Measure for measure, CMA Management, Vol. 74,
September, pp. 22-28.
Atkinson, A.A., Banker, R.D., Kaplan, R.S. and Young, S.M. (1997), Management Accounting,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ax, C. and Bjoornenak, T. (2005), Bundling and diffusion of management accounting
innovations-the case of balanced scorecard in Sweden, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Azzone, G., Masella, C. and BerteleA

, U. (1991), Design of performance measures for time-based

companies, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 77-85.
Banks, R.L. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979), Operations versus strategy trading tomorrow for
today, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 112-120.
Barnabe, F. (2011), A system dynamics-based balanced scorecard to support strategic decision
making, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60
No. 5, pp. 446-473.
BPMJ
19,6
966
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Barney, J.B. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bible, L., Kerr, S. and Zanini, M. (2006), The balanced scorecard: here and back, Management
Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-23.
Bititci, U.S. (1994), Measuring your way to prot, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 16-24.
Bititci, U.S. (1995), Performance measurement for performance management, paper presented
at IFIP WG5.7 Working Conference, Seattle, USA.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and McDevitt, L. (1997), Integrated performance management systems:
a development guide, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 522-534.
Bititci, U.S., Trevor, T. and Begemann, C. (2000), Dynamics of performance measurement
systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 692-704.
Bjoornenak, T. and Olson, O. (1999), Unbundling management accounting innovations,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 325-338.
Brown, M. (1996), Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World Class Performance,
Quality Resources, New York, NY.
Chytas, P., Glykas, M. and Valiris, G. (2011), A proactive balanced scorecard, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31, pp. 460-468.
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. (1988), Measure costs right: make the right decisions, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 106-111.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge Measuring
Operations for World-Class Competition, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Drucker, P.F. (1990), The emerging theory of manufacturing, Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 94-102.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Business Review,
January/February, pp. 131-137.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
Epstein, M.J. and Manzoni, J. (1997), The balanced scorecard and the tableau de bord:
translating strategy into action, Management Accounting, August, pp. 28-36.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2002), The sustainability balanced
scorecard linking sustainability management to business strategy, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 269-284.
Fitzergald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, S. and Voss, C. (1991), Performance Measurement in Service
Business, CIMA, London.
Flapper, S.D.P., Fortuin, L. and Stoop, P.P.M. (1996), Towards consistent performance
measurement systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 27-37.
Garengo, P. and Bititci, U.S. (2005), Performance measurement systems in SMEs: a review for
a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-47.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), The changing basis of performance measurement,
International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 63-80.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
967
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S. and Crowe, T.J. (1997), An integrated dynamic performance
measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness, International
J. Production Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 207-255.
Gray, R., Owen, D. and Maunders, K. (1987), Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting and
Accountability, Prentice-Hall, London.
Groppelli, A.A. and Ehsan, N. (2000), Finance, 4th ed., Barrons Educational Series, Inc.,
Hauppauge, NY.
Gumbus, A. and Lyons, B. (2003), A three-year journey to organizational and nancial health
using the balanced scorecard: a case study at a Yale New Haven health system hospital,
Journal of Business and Economic Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 54-65.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1990), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980), Managing our way to economic decline, Harvard
Business Review, July/August, pp. 67-77.
Hope, J. and Fraser, R. (2003), Beyond Budgeting: How Managers Can Break Free from the
Annual Performance Trap, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
Huyett, W.I. and Viguerie, S.P. (2005), Extreme competition, McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1.
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), Innovations in performance measurement: trends and
research implications, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 205-238.
Johnson, H.T. (1992), Relevance Regained: From Top-down Control to Bottom-up Empowerment,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kanji, G.K. and Sa, P.M. (2002), Kanjis business scorecard, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive
performance, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 71-90.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006), Alignment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lansiluoto, A. and Jarvenpaa, M. (2008), Environmental and performance management forces,
Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 184-206.
Lebas, M.J. (1995), Performance measurement and performance management, Int. J. Production
Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 23-35.
Lucianetti, L. (2010), The impact of the strategy maps on balanced scorecard performance,
International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure up The Essential Guide to Measuring Business
Performance, Mandarin, London.
Maltz, A.C., Shenhar, A.J. and Reilly, R.R. (2003), Beyond the balanced scorecard: rening
the search for organizational success measures, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 187-204.
Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2003), Business performance measurement past, present and
future, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 680-687.
Medori, D. and Steeple, D. (2000), A framework for auditing and enhancing performance
measurement systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 520-533.
BPMJ
19,6
968
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Modell, S. (2009), Bundling management control innovations, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 59-90.
Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. and Hostettler, D. (1999), The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or
unnecessary evil?, European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 481-491.
MORI (1996), Attitudes of Captains of Industry, MORI, London.
Nanni, A.J., Dixon, J.R. and Vollmann, T.E. (1992), Integrated performance measurement:
management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities, Journal of
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 4, Fall, pp. 1-19.
Neely, A. (1999), The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?,
International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-228.
Neely, A. and Bourne, M. (2000), Why measurement initiatives fail?, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 3-6.
Neely, A. and Jarrar, Y. (2004), Extracting value from data-the performance planning value
chain, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 506-509.
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Crowe, P. (2001), The performance prism in practice, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), Performance measurement system design:
a literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Operations &Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M. and Kennerley, M. (2000),
Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based
approach, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 10,
pp. 1119-1145.
Norreklit, H. (2000), The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its
assumptions, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, pp. 65-88.
Quinn, J.B., Thomas, L.D. and Penny, C.P. (1990), Beyond products: service-based strategy,
Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 58-68.
Rampersad, H.K. (2005), Total performance scorecard: the way to personal integrity and
organizational effectiveness, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-35.
Rappaport, A. (1998), Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Russell, R. (1992), The role of performance measurement in manufacturing excellence, paper
presented at the BPICS Conference, Birmingham, UK.
Schobel, K. and Scholey, C. (2012), Balanced scorecards in education: focusing on nancial
strategies, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 17-28.
Searcy, C. (2011), Updating corporate sustainability performance measurement system,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 44-56.
Simmonds, K. (1981), Strategic management accounting, Management Account (UK), Vol. 59
No. 4, pp. 26-29.
Skinner, W. (1974), The decline, fall, and renewal of manufacturing, Industrial Engineering,
October, pp. 32-38.
Srimai, S., Radford, J. and Wright, C. (2011), Evolutionary paths of performance measurement:
an overview of its recent development, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 662-687.
Stewart, G.B. (1991), The Quest for Value: The EVA Management Guide, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Research trends
of the last
two decades
969
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)
Strang, K.D. (2010), Education Balanced Scorecard for online courses: Australia and US
best-practices, Journal of Cases on Information Technology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 45-61.
Sureshchandar, G.S. and Leisten, R. (2004), Holistic scorecard: strategic performance
measurement and management in software industry, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 12-29.
Sushil (2010), Flexible strategy game-card, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. iii-iiv.
Suwignjo, P., Bititci, U.S. and Carrie, A.S. (2000), Quantitative models for performance
measurement system, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 64 Nos 1-3,
pp. 231-241.
Tangen, S. (2004), Performance management from philosophy to practice, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 726-737.
Taticchi, P. (2008), Business performance measurement and management: implementation of
principles in SMEs and enterprise networks, PhD thesis, University of Perugia, Perugia.
Taticchi, P. and Balachandran, K.R. (2008), Forward performance measurement and management
frameworks, International Journal of Accounting Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 104-154.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Cagnazzo, L. (2010), Performance measurement and management:
a literature review and a research agenda, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 4-18.
Watson, G.H. (1993), Strategic Benchmarking: How to Rate Your Companys Performance
Against the Worlds Best, Wiley, New York, NY.
Yeniyurt, S. (2003), A literature review and integrative performance measurement framework
for multinational companies, Marketing Intelligence &Planning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 134-142.
Further reading
EFQM (1991), The Business Excellence Model, EFQM Publication, Brussels.
About the authors
Neetu Yadav is a Research Scholar at the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi, New Delhi. Her current research interests are strategic management,
enterprise performance management, system dynamics and its applications. Neetu Yadav is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: neetuyadav@hotmail.com
Sushil is a Professor of strategy, exible systems and technology management at the
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi.
He has over 200 publications in various journals and conferences. He is Editor-in-Chief of Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management.
Mahim Sagar is an Assistant Professor in the area of marketing management and strategy
at the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi.
His interest areas are brand management, product development, strategic management and
telecom policy and marketing.
BPMJ
19,6
970
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

H
o
u
s
t
o
n

A
t

1
2
:
2
1

0
6

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(
P
T
)