Bititci1997 PDF

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide

Umit S. Bititci Allan S. Carrie Liam McDevitt
Article information:
To cite this document:
Umit S. Bititci Allan S. Carrie Liam McDevitt, (1997),"Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp. 522 - 534
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579710167230
Downloaded on: 18 November 2014, At: 23:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9084 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andy Neely, Mike Gregory, Ken Platts, (1995),"Performance measurement system design: A literature review and
research agenda", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 80-116 http://
Downloaded by UPPSALA UNIVERSITY At 23:28 18 November 2014 (PT)
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622
Mike Bourne, John Mills, Mark Wilcox, Andy Neely, Ken Platts, (2000),"Designing, implementing and updating performance
measurement systems", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 Iss 7 pp. 754-771 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010330739
NONE, Andy Neely, Mike Gregory, Ken Platts, (2005),"Performance measurement system design: A literature review and
research agenda", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 Iss 12 pp. 1228-1263 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633639
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 232583 []
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.

IJOPM
17,5 Integrated performance
measurement systems: a
development guide
522
Umit S. Bititci, Allan S. Carrie and Liam McDevitt
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Introduction
Business performance improvements arising from increased manufacturing

integration continues to be one of the primary competitive issues of the 1990s.
Recent research into manufacturing systems integration (Carrie and Macintosh,
1992) has identified the need for effective deployment of business objectives
down through the organization and the subsequent measurement of
performance in critical areas as key elements of sustainable competitive
advantage.
The objective of the current research and development programme at the
University of Strathclyde’s manufacturing systems group is to provide industry
with a comprehensive and rigorous set of tools, techniques and procedures to
allow auditing of existing performance measurement systems against a
reference model and consequently design more robust, flexible and integrated
performance measurement systems. It is envisaged that a correctly structured
and designed performance measurement system would provide the basis for a
rigorous and effective performance management system which could be used as
a management tool by strategic, tactical and operational levels of management.
The objective of this paper is to introduce and develop the concept of
performance management as a key business process and focus on the criticality
of the performance measurement system embedded within. It presents a
reference model for the performance measurement system which is based on
industry best practice. Figure 1 illustrates the concepts and objectives of the
work presented in this paper.
Background
The hypothesis behind the research described in this paper was borne directly
from the previous research aimed at developing integrating methods based on
analysis of information, material flow and organizational systems (Carrie and
Macintosh, 1992). This previous programme identified the value of using
performance measurement to deploy business objectives and to pinpoint and
monitor performance improvements. Other researchers have also noted the
International Journal of Operations
links between performance measures and strategic plans and/or critical success
& Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, 1997, pp. 522-534.
factors of the business. The research by Grady (1991) and Eccles and Pyburn
© MCB University Press, 0144-3577 (1992) supports the same conclusions drawn in the earlier research programme.
Performance
measurement
systems
523
Figure 1.
Concept and objectives
of the R&D programme
at the University of
Strathclyde
In summary, the need for an integrated set of performance measures which

supports rather than contradicts business objectives is now clearly established
(Bititci, 1994).
In addition, considerable work is already being carried out by the accounting
profession on performance measurement. Indeed, most manufacturing
organizations have extensive performance measurement systems based on cost
and financial accounting practices. However, because these techniques are often
based on old-fashioned overhead absorption methods, they fail to support the
current business objectives and do not enable continuous improvement (Bititci,
1993). More recent innovations such as activity-based costing improve
allocation methods but still do not promote continuous improvement and
strategic orientation. Notable work has been carried out by Kaplan (1983 and
1990) and Johnson and Kaplan (1987) in recognition of these weaknesses. Neely
(1993) summarizes the shortcomings of the current accounting practices with
respect to performance measurement in manufacturing enterprises.
Because financial measures that are currently in place are not supporting the
change process, there is a case for new styles of measurement systems that are
appropriate to the needs of the modern manufacturing industry. McNair and
Masconi (1987), Drucker (1990) and Russell (1992) show that there is a need for
alignment of financial and non-financial measures that fit within a strategic
framework.
Furthermore, based on research carried out by Bititci and Swenson (1993),
Blenkinsop and Burns (1991) and Gelders et al. (1993), there is evidence that,
even in companies where quality-oriented performance measures are employed,
these are still being used in a manner which do not promote integration. Several
IJOPM cases have been cited where the companies strategy, improvement projects and
17,5 performance measures were in conflict.
A paper by Bititci (1995) asserted that performance management should be
viewed as a key business process which is central to the future wellbeing and
prosperity of any manufacturing enterprise. In this paper this view is further
elaborated and a clear distinction is made between performance measurement
524 and performance management. The performance measurement system is seen
as the information system which enables the performance management process
to function effectively and efficiently.
The performance management process

The performance management process is the process by which the company
manages its performance in line with its corporate and functional strategies
and objectives. The objective of this process is to provide a proactive closed loop
control system, where the corporate and functional strategies are deployed to
all business processes, activities, tasks and personnel, and feedback is obtained
through the performance measurement system to enable appropriate
management decisions (Figure 2).
In essence, the performance management process defines how an
organization uses various systems to manage its performance. These systems
include, but are not limited to: strategy development and review; management
accounting; management by objectives; non-financial performance measures –
informal; non-financial performance measures – formal; incentive/bonus
scheme; personnel appraisal and review.
At the heart of the performance management process, there is an information
system which enables the closed loop deployment and feedback system. This
information system is the performance measurement system, which should
integrate all relevant information from the relevant systems (as listed above). In
this context integration means that the performance measurement system
D
E Vision
P
L Business
O objectives
Y F
M Strategic E
E goals E
N D
Figure 2. T Critical B
The closed loop success factors A
deployment and C
feedback system for the Critical tasks K
performance action plan
management process Performance measures
should enable the correct deployment of the strategic and tactical objectives of Performance
the business as well as providing a structured framework to allow the relevant measurement
information to feed back to the appropriate points to facilitate the decision and systems
control processes.
This information system, i.e. the performance measurement system, to be
effective in achieving its objectives as described above, should take account of
the strategic and environmental factors relating to the business as well as 525
considering the structure of the organization, its processes, functions and their
relationships. Similarly the effectiveness of the performance management
process which makes use of this information system depends on how this
information is used to manage the performance of the business. Thus, it is
critical that it gives consideration to soft factors such as culture, behaviour and
attitudes as well as harder factors such as reporting structures, responsibilities

and the use of information technology. Figure 3 summarizes this view of the
performance management process.
The performance
management process
Behavioural Information
issues technology
The performance
measurement system
What is
Cultural measured?
issues Strategy
Environment The
Structure information
Processes system
Attitudes Relationships Who uses the Figure 3.
measures? The performance
Reporting Responsibilities managment process and
structure How systems are the postion of the
used to manage performance
performance measurement system
In this context the structure and configuration of the performance

measurement system becomes critical to the efficiency and effectiveness of the
performance management process. Therefore, the remainder of this paper
focuses on the performance measurement system.
The structure and configuration of the performance measurement

system
The research work undertaken at the University of Strathclyde revealed two
critical considerations with respect to the structure and configuration of
performance measurement systems. These are: integrity of the system; and
deployment.
IJOPM Integrity of the system
17,5 Integrity refers to the ability of the performance measurement system to
promote integration between various areas of the business. Previous research
on manufacturing systems integration undertaken by the same consortium
identified the value of the viable systems model (Beer, 1979; Blenkinsop, 1993)
as a framework for assessing a systems integrity. The theory behind the viable
526 systems model (VSM) is that for any system to be viable it must have five
subsystems. The VSM identifies these five subsystems as System 1, System 2,
System 3, System 4, System 5 and the Meta System which is a combination of
Systems 3, 4 and 5. These systems are discussed in the following paragraphs.
System 1 is the operational units which produce the goods or services. In other
words it represents the productive function of the organization. It could be
interpreted that system 1 consists of business processes such as order fulfilment,

product development, get order, and so on. From a performance measurement
systems perspective system 1 will consist of performance measures which
objectively measure the performance of an individual business process.
System 2 is the supervisory system which co-ordinates the activities of
operational units. This system represents the business process which co-
ordinates the activities of system 1.
System 3 represents the tactical management system which manages the
operations of systems 1 and 2 by setting targets and priorities. Also, in terms of
the meta system it would be the system which would implement change. This
is the operations management system which is responsible for the performance
of business processes and activities in line with the requirements of the higher
level systems. From a performance measurement systems perspective this is
the system which deploys the strategic policies and priorities. It is therefore
responsible for deploying targets and priorities to the measures under systems
1 and 2.
System 4 is the developmental system which concerns itself with the
external environment and therefore the future. Its focus is on improvement. In
terms of the meta system this is the system which identifies the changes
necessary to the lower level systems, i.e. systems 1, 2 and 3. This effectively is
the benchmarking system which by focusing externally identifies the
improvement gaps. The performance measures used in this system tend to be
externally focused and comparative, e.g. delivery performance with respect to
the competitors or market requirements. In addition to measuring the
performance gaps with respect to the external environment, one other key
function of this system is the prioritization of the these gaps in line with the
corporate and strategic objectives set by the higher level system 5.
It would be appropriate to combine the external focus of this system with the
results category of the EFQM model for TQM where the focus is on customer
satisfaction, people satisfaction, business results and society satisfaction. From
a reference model point of view it may be appropriate to expect externally
oriented measures corresponding to each one of the four areas.
System 5 is the boss. This system sets the direction, the policy and strategy
the organization would be adopting in the future. With respect to performance
measurement system, this system sets the high level priorities and targets by Performance
relating the performance gaps, from system 4, to business objectives and measurement
priorities. systems
The Meta System is a combination of systems 5, 4 and 3 which is responsible
for identifying and managing change. System 5 sets policy and direction,
system 4 identifies the necessary changes and system 3 implements these
changes. 527
According to VSM these five systems represent the core of any viable
system. However, within VSM, there are other concepts which are of critical
importance to performance management. These concepts are further explained
in the following paragraphs.
Amplification is the concept which refers to the deployment of objectives
from higher level systems to lower level systems. For example, the meta system
will set the strategic objectives and deploy these down to the operational
systems (i.e. system 1s).
Trunsduction is the concept used to describe the translation process required
during Amplification. That is, as higher level objectives are deployed down to
lower levels, the objectives are translated into locally meaningful terms.
Attenuation is the concept which describes the upward communication
process where lower level systems provide feedback to the higher level systems
by filtering the large variety of information to a critical few.
Recursion is the concept which describes the repetitive nature of systems
thinking. In VSM each operational system must exist as a viable system in its
own right. Therefore, each viable system should have its own five subsystems.
Figure 4 illustrates the levels of recursion in the VSM architecture developed by
the research group. This architecture identifies three levels of recursion. At the
first level of recursion the business is considered as a whole with its own
management and with its own system 1s as the business units. Each business
unit consists of its own local management (i.e. systems 2, 3, 4 and 5) and own
system 1s as the key business processes. Similarly each business process
consists of its own management processes (i.e. systems 2, 3, 4 and 5) and own
system 1s as the key activities.
The readers should note that the concepts of amplification, trunsduction and
attenuation apply within each level of recursion as well as between these levels
of recursion.
Deployment
Deployment refers to the deployment of business objectives and policies
throughout the hierarchical structure of the organization as illustrated earlier in
Figure 2. The objectives of deployment, in this context, are to ensure that:
performance measures used at various levels of the organization reflect the
business objectives and policies; deployment is consistent through the
hierarchy of the organization; and deployment is relevant and correct with
respect to the impact and influence of individual business areas (i.e. processes,
functions and activities).
IJOPM
17,5
528
Figure 4.
Levels of recursin and
the VSM architecture of
an enterprise
A reference model
The reference model developed by the research team at the University of
Strathclyde is based on the two facets of the performance measurement
systems as identified above. These are: integrity; and deployment.
Although, in the above section, integrity and deployment have been
discussed as if they are mutually exclusive, in practice deployment is a function
of integrity.
However, VSM itself does not clearly establish the exact requirements for
correct deployment but, when it is combined with the three basic objectives
specified with respect to deployment, a complete reference model is developed.
A pictorial view of this reference model is provided in Figure 5.
A reference model has been developed following a study of best practices.
The viable systems model (Beer, 1979) has been adopted to provide the basic
structure of the reference model which consists of the following four levels:
Corporate, Business units, Business processes and Activities. At each level of
the structure five key factors are considered; these are: Stakeholders, Control
criteria, External measures, Improvement objectives and Internal measures.
The reference model places emphasis on the amplification, trunsduction and
attenuation of performance objectives between these levels.
Performance
measurement
Stakeholders systems
Control
measures
Corporate level
External
environment Environmental 529
positioning EFQM model, financial
models, RONA tree etc.
Improvement
objectives
Internal performance
measures
Stakeholders
Control
measures
Business unit level
External
environment Environmental
positioning BU classification, PM classification
competitive criteria, ABC checklist
Improvement
objectives
measures
Stakeholders
Control
measures
Business process level
External
positioning
Improvement
objectives
Process classification, PM measures
classification ABC checklist
Stakeholders
Control
measures Activity level
External
positioning
Improvement Figure 5.
objectives
A reference model for
Internal performance integrated performance
measures measurement systems
IJOPM The reference model uses this basic structure to integrate the following
17,5 concepts into a single framework:
• Policy deployment. The deployment of corporate and stakeholders’
objectives throughout the organization.
• Competitive criteria and benchmarking. The definition of key
530 competitive factors and position of the business and the business units
within its competitive environment.
• Process orientation. Focusing on key business processes to manage
business performance.
• Normative planning. The measurement methodology which
differentiates between actuality, capability and potentiality.

• Active monitoring. The use of proactive performance measures rather
than reactive measures.
Within the framework created, the reference model uses the following models to
ensure completeness and integrity of the performance measurement system:
• The European model for business excellence (EFQM, 1995);
• Business classification model (Hill, 1993; Puttick and Gillis, 1993);
• Systems classification model;
• Performance measures classification model (Dixon et al., 1990).
The audit method

Having identified and defined the key characteristics of an integrated
performance measurement system (i.e. integrity and deployment), the
researchers at the University of Strathclyde have developed and tested a
method for auditing the integrity and deployment of the performance
measurement system as defined in the reference model. The audit process
consists of three phases. These are: data collection; integrity audit; and
deployment audit.
Data collection phase

The data collection phase, using a workbook developed by the research team,
collects all information relevant to the performance management process of the
business. The information collected includes:
• Identification of business units (BU) within the business.
• The market requirements in terms of qualifiers and differentiators for
each BU.
• The development plans or objectives for the business or each of its BUs.
• The performance measures used and reviewed by the executive
management team within the business, i.e. the strategic performance
measures.
• The performance measures used and reviewed within each function of Performance
the business, i.e. the functional or operational performance measures. measurement
• Personal objectives and any associated incentive scheme for the systems
executives, managers, supervisors and operational personnel.
• Review, reporting and performance responsibilities associated with
measures used at all levels. 531
Once the data are collected they are then analysed to conduct the integrity and
deployment audits respectively.
Integrity audit
In order to conduct the integrity audit in a comprehensive, rigorous and
repeatable manner, the research team has compiled a checklist to search for
objective evidence supporting the existence of all five systems within the VSM.
Following the analysis of these data against this checklist various gaps are
identified with respect to the completeness and integrity of the performance
measurement system. An extract from the results of the integrity audit carried
out on a collaborating organization illustrates the nature of the conclusions
obtained from such an audit (Table I).
The deployment audit

During the early stages of the research programme it became apparent that
most businesses, large or small, consist of discrete business units which in turn
may be treated as stand-alone businesses. The common terminology applied to
System 5
• A policy-making system is in place where the business objectives and strategy are stated in
the form of a business plan.
• There is no evidence of the business plan and objectives being based on external competitive
position and actual performance of the business.
System 4
• There is no evidence of a formal or informal mechanism for identifying the company’s
current performance with respect to the external environment.
• The strategic objectives are not expressed in measurable terms with associted targets, with
the exception of the objective relating to reduction of material costs.
System 3
• There is no evidence of a system which prioritizes and deploys the business objectives to
system 2 and 1 – any deployment seems to be random (see deployment audit results).
System 2
• There is no evidence of a system 2/co-ordination type measures.
• There is no evidence of the recognition of the key business processes.
System 1
• There are numerous measures at this level; however, none of these is linked in any way to the
business objectives. Table I.
• Measures at this level do not have targets associated with them. Extracts from a
• Measures at this level are not prioritized. integrity audit
IJOPM these business units are strategic business units (SBUs). The configuration of
17,5 SBUs within an organization could vary dramatically. In one organization it
could be very much product-driven; in others it could be market-driven, and in
some it may be a hybrid of market and product characteristics.
In the first instance the deployment audit requires the identification of the
individual SBUs and their strategic requirements in terms of the qualifiers and
532 the differentiators. The performance measurement system should ensure that
the priorities between the above two criteria are balanced and appropriately
managed in a dynamic environment.
In order to audit the deployment of the performance measurement system a
three-stage audit method has been developed:
• Stage one focuses on to the requirements of each SBU environment and

through a series of matrices assesses the deployment of environmental
requirements through business objectives to strategic and functional
performance measures.
• Stage two focuses on to the business objectives and through a series of
similar sets of matrices assesses their deployment through the strategic
performance measures to functional levels.
Stage 1: BU 1 – market requirements

• Differentiator production flexibilty is:
• not deployed as business objective
• not deployed as a strategic performance measure
• marginally deployed within the manufacturing function with no measure of performance
and associated target.
• Qualifier production functional performance is:
• partially deployed as business objective
• not deployed as a strategic performance measure
• is marginally deployed at the manufacturing function and is not deployed in any other
function. Expected deployment path for this measure would have included
manufacturing and technical functions.
Stage 2: BU 1 – business objectives
• Business objective reduce production and inventory costs by range rationalization is:
• not deployed as a strategic measure
• partially deployed in the manufacturing function. Expected deployment path for this
measure would have been the technical function.
Stage 3: BU 1 – strategic measures
• Strategic measure cost is strongly deployed across all functions. Expected deployment path
for this measure would have included all functions.
Terminology:
Strongly deployed – deployment is measurable with an associated target.
Partially deployed – deployment is measurable with no target or priority.
Table II. Marginally deployed – deployment is indirect.
Extracts from a Expected deployment path – identifies the functions where the reference model would expect to
deployment audit see a strong deployment.
• Stage three focuses on the deployment of strategic performance measures Performance
to the functional levels, again through the use of similar matrices. measurement
The audit process is designed to be rigorous in order to ensure repeatability. systems
A scoring system has been devised to measure the strength of deployment
which results in a rigorous approach and repeatable conclusions. An extract
from the results of the Deployment Audit carried out on a collaborating
organization illustrates the nature of the conclusions obtained from such an 533
audit (Table II).
Summary and conclusions

The research and development effort at the University of Strathclyde is aimed
at development of practical tools and techniques to facilitate more scientific and
precise management of business performance. To this end, the first stage of the
work produced an audit method designed to assess the integrity and relevance
of the performance measurement system used in an organization.
More specifically the research and development work presented in this paper
may be summarized as follows:
• The research project carried out at the University of Strathclyde
as part of a larger project focusing on performance measurement
systems identified the need to study performance management as a
process.
• The performance management process is seen as a closed loop control
system which deploys policy and strategy, and obtains feedback from
various levels in order to manage the performance of the business.
• The performance measurement system is the information system which
is at the heart of the performance management process and it is of
critical importance to the effective and efficient functioning of the
performance management system.
• Research identified two critical elements with respect to the content and
structure of the performance measurement system these are: integrity
and deployment.
• The viable systems model (VSM) provides a framework for assessing the
integrity of the performance measurement system.
• Within the VSM framework, deployment is an integral element which
largely corresponds to system 3.
• The reference model developed for integrated performance measurement
systems provides a framework against which performance measurement
system can be designed and audited.
• The audit methods developed to assess the integrity and deployment of
the performance measurement system provide simple but rigorous and
repeatable tools which may be used to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the performance management process.
IJOPM References
Beer, S. (1979), The Hart of Enterprise, John Wiley & Sons, London.
17,5
Bititci, U.S. (1993), “Integrated performance measures: the key to business integration and
improvement”, 9th NCMR, September.
Bititci, U.S. (1994), “Measuring your way to profit”, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 6.
Bititci, U.S. (1995), “Performance measurement for performance management”, IFIP WG5.7
Working Conference, Seattle, USA, August.
534
Bititci, U.S. and Swenson, H. (1993), “Use of performance measures at strategic and operational
levels”, unpublished research report, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Blenkinsop, S.A. (1993), “Organizational aspects of information processing systems”, PhD thesis,
University of Loughborough.
Blenkinsop, S. and Burns, N.D. (1991), “Performance measurement as an integrating factor in
manufacturing enterprises”, 7th NCMR, pp. 231-6.
Carrie, A.S. and Macintosh, R. (1992), “UK research in manufacturing systems integration”,
Integration in Production Management Systems, Pels and Worthman, Elsevier, pp. 323-36.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge – Measuring
Operations for World-class Challenge, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Drucker, P.E. (1990), “The emerging theory of manufacturing”, Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 94-102.
Eccles, R.G. and Pyburn, P.J. (1992), “Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance”,
Management Accounting, October, pp. 41-4.
EFQM (1995), Self assessment based on the European Model for Total Quality, The European
Foundation for Total Quality , Brussels.
Gelders, L., Mannaerts, P. and Maes, J. (1993), “Manufacturing strategy and performance
indicators”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Production, Mons, Belgium, June.
Grady, M.W. (1991), “Performance measurement, implementing strategy”, Management
Accounting, June 1991, pp. 49-53.
Green, F.B. (1991), “Performance measures and JIT”, Management Accounting, February, pp. 50-3.
Hill, T.J. (1993), Manufacturing Strategy, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost – The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
Kaplan, R.S. (1983), “Measuring performance – a new challenge for managerial accounting
research”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 58 No. 4,1983, pp. 686-705.
Kaplan, R.S. (1990), Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
McNair, C.J. and Mosconi, W. (1987), “Measuring performance in advanced manufacturing
environment”, Management Accounting, July, pp. 28-31.
Neely, A.D. (1993), Performance Measurement System Design, Theory and Practice,
Manufacturing Engineering Group, University of Cambridge, April.
Puttick, J. and Gillis, J. (1993), Factory of the Future Report, DTI Publications, London.
Russell, R. (1992), “The role of performance measurement in manufacturing excellence”, 27th
Annual BPICS Conference, Birmingham, UK, November.
This article has been cited by:
1. Falconer Mitchell, Hanne Nørreklit, Francesca Francioli, Lino Cinquini. 2014. Exploring the blurred nature of strategic
linkages across the BSC. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 10:4, 486-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Umit S. Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Aylin Ates, Sai S. Nudurupati. 2014. Value of maturity models in performance measurement.
International Journal of Production Research 1-24. [CrossRef]
3. Jaakko Tätilä, Pekka Helkiö, Jan Holmström. 2014. Exploring the performance effects of performance measurement system
use in maintenance process. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 20:4, 377-401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Robert A. Paton, Richard Wagner. 2014. Management Education makes a Difference: Enhancing German Engineering
Performance. Long Range Planning 47, 277-298. [CrossRef]
5. Kwee Keong Choong. 2014. The fundamentals of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management 63:7, 879-922. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Xenophon Koufteros, Anto (John) Verghese, Lorenzo Lucianetti. 2014. The effect of performance measurement systems on
firm performance: A cross-sectional and a longitudinal study. Journal of Operations Management 32, 313-336. [CrossRef]
7. Dr Sugumar Mariappanadar and Professor Robin Kramar, Suparak Suriyankietkaew, Gayle C. Avery. 2014. Leadership
practices influencing stakeholder satisfaction in Thai SMEs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 6:3, 247-261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Kwee Keong Choong. 2014. Has this large number of performance measurement publications contributed to its better
understanding? A systematic review for research and applications. International Journal of Production Research 52, 4174-4197.
[CrossRef]
9. Stephen M. Famurewa, Matthias Asplund, Matti Rantatalo, Aditya Parida, Uday Kumar. 2014. Maintenance analysis for
continuous improvement of railway infrastructure performance. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1-13. [CrossRef]
10. Steven A. Melnyk, Umit Bititci, Ken Platts, Jutta Tobias, Bjørn Andersen. 2014. Is performance measurement and
management fit for the future?. Management Accounting Research 25, 173-186. [CrossRef]
11. Arturo Haro-de-Rosario, Mª del Carmen Caba-Pérez, Leonardo Cazorla-Papis. 2014. Efficiency of venture capital firms:
evidence from Spain. Small Business Economics 43, 229-243. [CrossRef]
12. Sidnei Vieira Marinho, Cristiano Cagnin. 2014. The roles of FTA in improving performance measurement systems to enable
alignment between business strategy and operations: Insights from three practical cases. Futures 59, 50-61. [CrossRef]
13. Stefania Veltri, Giovanni Mastroleo, Michaela Schaffhauser-Linzatti. 2014. Measuring intellectual capital in the university
sector using a fuzzy logic expert system. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12, 175-192. [CrossRef]
14. Mohammad Munir Ahmad, Osama Alaskari. 2014. Development of assessment methodology for improving performance in
SME's. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:4, 477-498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Carl Marcus Wallenburg, Thorsten Schäffler. 2014. The Interplay of Relational Governance and Formal Control in Horizontal
Alliances: A Social Contract Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50, 41-58. [CrossRef]
16. François Galasso, Yves Ducq, Matthieu Lauras, Didier Gourc, Mamadou Camara. 2014. A method to select a successful
interoperability solution through a simulation approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing . [CrossRef]
17. Marius Pantea, Delia Gligor, Cecilia Anis. 2014. Economic Determinants of Romanian Firms’ Financial Performance. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 124, 272-281. [CrossRef]
18. Shelby Danks, Jeff Allen. 2014. Performance-Based Rubrics for Measuring Organizational Strategy and Program
Implementation. Performance Improvement Quarterly 27:10.1002/piq.v27.1, 33-49. [CrossRef]
19. N.E. Myeda, S.M. Zaid, R. Sulaiman, N. Mahyuddin, M.A. Othuman Mydin, N.A. Agus Salim. 2014. The Implementation
of Performance Measurement System (PMS): Malaysian Facilities Management (FM) Industry. MATEC Web of Conferences
15, 01014. [CrossRef]
20. Ben Clegg, Jillian MacBryde and Prasanta Dey, Mattias Elg, Klara Palmberg Broryd, Beata Kollberg. 2013. Performance
measurement to drive improvements in healthcare practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
33:11/12, 1623-1651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Ben Clegg, Jillian MacBryde and Prasanta Dey, Mike Bourne, Andrey Pavlov, Monica Franco-Santos, Lorenzo Lucianetti,
Matteo Mura. 2013. Generating organisational performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
33:11/12, 1599-1622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Kwee Keong Choong. 2013. Understanding the features of performance measurement system: a literature review. Measuring
Business Excellence 17:4, 102-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Neetu Yadav, , Mahim Sagar. 2013. Performance measurement and management frameworks. Business Process Management
Journal 19:6, 947-971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Luisa D. Huaccho Huatuco, Jairo Rafael Montoya-Torres, Nicky Shaw and Anisoara Calinescu, Hendrik Reefke, Mattia
Trocchi. 2013. Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and development guidelines. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 62:8, 805-826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Stephen M. Famurewa, Matthias Asplund, Diego Galar, Uday Kumar. 2013. Implementation of performance based
maintenance contracting in railway industries. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 4,
231-240. [CrossRef]
26. Lamia Berrah, Laurent Foulloy. 2013. Towards a unified descriptive framework for industrial objective declaration and
performance measurement. Computers in Industry 64, 650-662. [CrossRef]
27. Andrew Taylor, Margaret Taylor. 2013. Antecedents of effective performance measurement system implementation: an
empirical study of UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research 1-14. [CrossRef]
28. Louis Raymond, Marie Marchand, Josée St-Pierre, Louise Cadieux, François Labelle. 2013. Dimensions of small business
performance from the owner-manager's perspective: a re-conceptualization and empirical validation. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 25, 468-499. [CrossRef]
29. Kwee Keong Choong. 2013. Are PMS meeting the measurement needs of BPM? A literature review. Business Process
Management Journal 19:3, 535-574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Claire Moxham. 2013. Measuring up: examining the potential for voluntary sector performance measurement to improve
public service delivery. Public Money & Management 33, 193-200. [CrossRef]
31. Patrizia Garengo, Stefano Biazzo. 2013. From ISO quality standards to an integrated management system: an implementation
process in SME. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24, 310-335. [CrossRef]
32. Aylin Ates, Patrizia Garengo, Paola Cocca, Umit Bititci. 2013. The development of SME managerial practice for effective
performance management. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 20:1, 28-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Ibrahim Cil, Yusuf S. Turkan. 2013. An ANP-based assessment model for lean enterprise transformation. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 64, 1113-1130. [CrossRef]
34. Luliya Teeratansirikool, Sununta Siengthai, Yuosre Badir, Chotchai Charoenngam. 2013. Competitive strategies and
firm performance: the mediating role of performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 62:2, 168-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Laura Grosswiele, Maximilian Röglinger, Bettina Friedl. 2013. A decision framework for the consolidation of performance
measurement systems. Decision Support Systems 54, 1016-1029. [CrossRef]
36. Ingrid Guerra-López, Alisa Hutchinson. 2013. Measurable and Continuous Performance Improvement: The Development
of a Performance Measurement, Management, and Improvement System. Performance Improvement Quarterly 26:10.1002/
piq.v26.2, 159-173. [CrossRef]
37. Gabriela Chmelíková. 2013. Performance factors of Czech brewing industry companies. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et
Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61, 353-365. [CrossRef]
38. Wenbin B. Liu, Wei Meng, John Mingers, Ning Tang, Wei Wang. 2012. Developing a performance management system
using soft systems methodology: A Chinese case study. European Journal of Operational Research 223, 529-540. [CrossRef]
39. Nicola Burgess, Nicholas Wake. 2012. The applicability of the Viable Systems Model as a diagnostic for small to medium sized
enterprises. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:1, 29-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Marten Schläfke, Riccardo Silvi, Klaus Möller. 2012. A framework for business analytics in performance management.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:1, 110-122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Bunjongjit Rompho, Sununta Siengthai. 2012. Integrated performance measurement system for firm's human capital building.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:4, 482-514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Toomas Haldma, Salme Näsi, Giuseppe Grossi, Tomislav Hernaus, Mirjana Pejić Bach, Vesna Bosilj Vukšić. 2012. Influence of
strategic approach to BPM on financial and non‐financial performance. Baltic Journal of Management 7:4, 376-396. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
43. Manoochehr Najmi, Mohammad Etebari, Samin Emami. 2012. A framework to review Performance Prism. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:10, 1124-1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Umit Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Viktor Dörfler, Sai Nudurupati. 2012. Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow*.
International Journal of Management Reviews 14:10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-3, 305-327. [CrossRef]
45. Noor Azlina Mohd. Salleh, Salmiah Kasolang, Hj Ahmed Jaafar. 2012. Review study of developing an integrated TQM with
LM framework model in Malaysian automotive industry. The TQM Journal 24:5, 399-417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Ricardo Chalmeta, Sergio Palomero, Magali Matilla. 2012. Methodology to develop a performance measurement system in
small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25, 716-740. [CrossRef]
47. Nopadol Rompho, Sakun Boon‐itt. 2012. Measuring the success of a performance measurement system in Thai firms.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:5, 548-562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Robert A. Paton, Richard Wagner, Robert MacIntosh. 2012. Engineering education and performance: the German machinery
and equipment sector. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:7, 796-828. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
49. Monica Franco-Santos, Lorenzo Lucianetti, Mike Bourne. 2012. Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review
of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research 23, 79-119. [CrossRef]
50. Paolo Taticchi, Kashi Balachandran, Flavio Tonelli. 2012. Performance measurement and management systems: state of the
art, guidelines for design and challenges. Measuring Business Excellence 16:2, 41-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Nelson Waweru, Gary Spraakman. 2012. The use of performance measures: case studies from the microfinance sector in
Kenya. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 9:1, 44-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. J Brocklesby. 2012. Using the Viable Systems Model to examine multi-agency arrangements for combatting transnational
organised crime. Journal of the Operational Research Society 63, 418-430. [CrossRef]
53. Huimin Li, David Arditi, Zhuofu Wang. 2012. Transaction-related issues and construction project performance. Construction
Management and Economics 30, 151-164. [CrossRef]
54. Tuija Virtanen, Mari Tuomaala, Emilia PenttiChallenges in Energy Efficiency Performance Measurement in the Process
Industry 139-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
55. Patrizia Garengo, Stefano Biazzo. 2012. Unveiling strategy in SMEs through balanced scorecard implementation: A circular
methodology. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23, 79-102. [CrossRef]
56. Klaus Möller, Ramin Gamerschlag, Finn Guenther. 2011. Determinants and effects of human capital reporting and
controlling. Journal of Management Control 22, 311-333. [CrossRef]
57. Gilberto Miller Devós Ganga, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2011. A fuzzy logic approach to supply chain performance
management. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 177-187. [CrossRef]
58. Sven Berg, Ulf Jungmar, Jan Lundberg, Pekka Vähäoja. 2011. Investigation of the measurement precision of oil analysis
instruments, using fully formulated oils. Part 1: spectroscopic instruments. Industrial Lubrication and Tribology 63:6, 404-411.
59. Suwit Srimai, Jack Radford, Chris Wright. 2011. Evolutionary paths of performance measurement. International Journal of
60. Payyazhi Jayashree, Syed Jamal Hussain. 2011. Aligning change deployment: a Balanced Scorecard approach. Measuring
Business Excellence 15:3, 63-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin. 2011. A systematic benchmarking perspective on performance management of global
small to medium‐sized organizations. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:4, 543-562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Beata Kollberg, Mattias Elg. 2011. The practice of the Balanced Scorecard in health care services. International Journal of
63. Danilo Hisano Barbosa, Marcel Andreotti Musetti. 2011. The use of performance measurement system in logistics change
process. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 60:4, 339-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Christoph Rosenkranz, Roland Holten. 2011. The variety engineering method: analyzing and designing information flows
in organizations. Information Systems and e-Business Management 9, 11-49. [CrossRef]
65. Michael Markos Glykas. 2011. Effort based performance measurement in business process management. Knowledge and Process
Management 18:10.1002/kpm.v18.1, 10-33. [CrossRef]
66. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2011. Performance measurement practices in manufacturing firms
revisited. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:1, 5-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Andrey Pavlov, Mike Bourne. 2011. Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 31:1, 101-122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Ljubica Glavan. 2011. Understanding Process Performance Measurement Systems. Business Systems Research 2. . [CrossRef]
69. Gabriela Chmelíková. 2011. Framework of performance measurement system for Czech small breweries. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 59, 167-176. [CrossRef]
70. Jack C.P. Cheng, Kincho H. Law, Hans Bjornsson, Albert Jones, Ram D. Sriram. 2010. Modeling and monitoring of
construction supply chains. Advanced Engineering Informatics 24, 435-455. [CrossRef]
71. Huan Yang, John F.Y. Yeung, Albert P.C. Chan, Y.H. Chiang, Daniel W.M. Chan. 2010. A critical review of performance
measurement in construction. Journal of Facilities Management 8:4, 269-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Graham Manville, Richard Greatbanks, Richard Greatbanks, Graham Elkin, Graham Manville. 2010. The use and efficacy
of anecdotal performance reporting in the third sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
59:6, 571-585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Anna Sidorova, Oyku Isik. 2010. Business process research: a cross‐disciplinary review. Business Process Management Journal
74. Ahim Kim, David Arditi. 2010. Performance of MBE/DBE/WBE Construction Firms in Transportation Projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 136, 768-777. [CrossRef]
75. Viara Popova, Alexei Sharpanskykh. 2010. Modeling organizational performance indicators. Information Systems 35, 505-527.
[CrossRef]
76. Qi Wang, Mohamed El-Gafy, Jingmin ZhaBi-Level Framework for Measuring Performance to Improve Productivity of
Construction Enterprises 970-979. [CrossRef]
77. Jan Lundberg, Aditya Parida, Peter Söderholm. 2010. Running temperature and mechanical stability of grease as maintenance
parameters of railway bearings. International Journal of Automation and Computing 7, 160-166. [CrossRef]
78. Jingfeng Yuan, Miroslaw J. Skibniewski, Qiming Li, Lei Zheng. 2010. Performance Objectives Selection Model in Public-
Private Partnership Projects Based on the Perspective of Stakeholders. Journal of Management in Engineering 26, 89-104.
[CrossRef]
79. R.M. Chandima Ratnayake, Tore Markeset. 2010. Technical integrity management: measuring HSE awareness using AHP
in selecting a maintenance strategy. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 16:1, 44-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Winnie O'Grady, Paul Rouse, Cathy Gunn. 2010. Synthesizing management control frameworks. Measuring Business Excellence
81. Paolo Taticchi, Flavio Tonelli, Luca Cagnazzo. 2010. Performance measurement and management: a literature review and a
research agenda. Measuring Business Excellence 14:1, 4-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Zeynep Isik, David Arditi, Irem Dilmen, M. Talat Birgonul. 2010. The role of exogenous factors in the strategic performance
of construction companies. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17:2, 119-134. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
83. Claire Moxham. 2010. Help or Hindrance?. Public Performance & Management Review 33, 342-354. [CrossRef]
84. Jussi Lehtinen, Tuomas Ahola. 2010. Is performance measurement suitable for an extended enterprise?. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 30:2, 181-204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Al Bento, Lourdes Ferreira WhiteAn exploratory study of strategic performance measurement systems 1-26. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
86. Selena AureliThe introduction of innovative performance measurement and management control systems: the role of financial
investors and their acquired companies 81-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
87. Zeynep Isik, David Arditi, Irem Dikmen, M. Talat Birgonul. 2010. Impact of Resources and Strategies on Construction
Company Performance. Journal of Management in Engineering 26, 9-18. [CrossRef]
88. Rafael Henrique Palma Lima, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2010. Proposal of a method for performance measurement system
design and implementation of a software application in SMEs. International Journal of Business Performance Management 12,
182. [CrossRef]
89. Veronica Martinez, Andrey Pavlov, Mike Bourne. 2010. Reviewing performance: an analysis of the structure and functions of
performance management reviews. Production Planning & Control 21, 70-83. [CrossRef]
90. Luis E. Quezada, Felisa M. Cordova, Pedro Palominos, Katherine Godoy, Jocelyn Ross. 2009. Method for identifying strategic
objectives in strategy maps. International Journal of Production Economics 122, 492-500. [CrossRef]
91. Manoochehr Najmi, Rahim Ehsani, Ahmad Sharbatoghlie, Mohammad Saidi‐Mehrabad. 2009. Developing an integrated
dynamic model for evaluating the performance of research projects based on multiple attribute utility theory. Journal of
Modelling in Management 4:2, 114-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Isidoro Guzmán, Narciso Arcas, Rino Ghelfi, Sergio Rivaroli. 2009. Technical efficiency in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector:
a comparison study of Italian and Spanish firms. Fruits 64, 243-252. [CrossRef]
93. Claire Moxham. 2009. Performance measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:7,
740-763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Vittorio Chiesa, Federico Frattini, Valentina Lazzarotti, Raffaella Manzini. 2009. Performance measurement of research and
development activities. European Journal of Innovation Management 12:1, 25-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Patrizia Garengo. 2009. A performance measurement system for SMEs taking part in Quality Award Programmes. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 20, 91-105. [CrossRef]
96. Louis Raymond, Josee St Pierre, Marie Marchand. 2009. A taxonomic approach to studying the performance of manufacturing
SMEs. International Journal of Business Performance Management 11, 277. [CrossRef]
97. Paolo Taticchi, Kashi R. Balachandran. 2008. Forward performance measurement and management integrated frameworks.
International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 16:2, 140-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Robert Johnston, Panupak Pongatichat. 2008. Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping
strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:10, 941-967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Baofeng Huo, Willem Selen, Jeff Hoi Yan Yeung, Xiande Zhao. 2008. Understanding drivers of performance in the 3PL
industry in Hong Kong. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:8, 772-800. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
100. Alberto Grando, Valeria Belvedere. 2008. Exploiting the balanced scorecard in the Operations Department: the Ducati Motor
Holding case. Production Planning & Control 19, 495-507. [CrossRef]
101. Marie Marchand, Louis Raymond. 2008. Researching performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 28:7, 663-686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. V. Kumar, D. De Grosbois, F. Choisne, U. Kumar. 2008. Performance measurement by TQM adopters. The TQM Journal
103. Dr Adam Lindgreen, Dr Martin Hingley, Jacques Trienekens, Ruud van Uffelen, Jeremy Debaire, Onno Omta. 2008.
Assessment of innovation and performance in the fruit chain. British Food Journal 110:1, 98-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
104. Cory Searcy, Stanislav Karapetrovic, Daryl McCartney. 2008. Application of a systems approach to sustainable development
performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57:2, 182-197. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
105. Juhani Ukko, Jarkko Tenhunen, Hannu Rantanen. 2008. The impacts of performance measurement on the quality of working
life. International Journal of Business Performance Management 10, 86. [CrossRef]
106. J. Ukko, J. Tenhunen, H. Rantanen. 2007. Performance measurement impacts on management and leadership: Perspectives
of management and employees. International Journal of Production Economics 110, 39-51. [CrossRef]
107. T.F. Burgess, T.S. Ong, N.E. Shaw. 2007. Traditional or contemporary? The prevalence of performance measurement system
types. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:7, 583-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Vittorio Chiesa, Federico Frattini. 2007. Exploring the differences in performance measurement between research and
development: evidence from a multiple case study. R&D Management 37:10.1111/radm.2007.37.issue-4, 283-301. [CrossRef]
109. Mike Bourne, Steven Melnyk, Norman Faull, Monica Franco‐Santos, Mike Kennerley, Pietro Micheli, Veronica Martinez,
Steve Mason, Bernard Marr, Dina Gray, Andrew Neely. 2007. Towards a definition of a business performance measurement
system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:8, 784-801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Lusine H. Aramyan, Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink, Jack G.A.J. van der Vorst, Olaf van Kooten. 2007. Performance
measurement in agri‐food supply chains: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12:4, 304-315.
111. Veronica Martinez, Zoe Radnor, Patrizia Garengo, Giovanni Bernardi. 2007. Organizational capability in SMEs. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:5/6, 518-532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Mattias Elg. 2007. The process of constructing performance measurement. The TQM Magazine 19:3, 217-228. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
113. Henry Quesada‐Pineda, Rado Gazo. 2007. Best manufacturing practices and their linkage to top‐performing companies in
the US furniture industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 14:2, 211-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Gongbo Lin, Qiping Shen. 2007. Measuring the Performance of Value Management Studies in Construction: Critical Review.
Journal of Management in Engineering 23, 2-9. [CrossRef]
115. Umit S. Bititci, Kepa Mendibil, Sai Nudurupati, Patrizia Garengo, Trevor Turner. 2006. Dynamics of performance
measurement and organisational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26:12, 1325-1350.
116. Nagarajah Lee. 2006. Measuring the performance of public sector organisations: a case study on public schools in Malaysia.
Measuring Business Excellence 10:4, 50-64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Aditya Parida, Uday Kumar. 2006. Maintenance performance measurement (MPM): issues and challenges. Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering 12:3, 239-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2006. Performance measurement practices in manufacturing firms: an
empirical investigation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17:2, 144-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. Ebrahim Soltani, Robert van der Meer, Terry M. Williams. 2005. A Contrast of HRM and TQM Approaches to Performance
Management: Some Evidence*. British Journal of Management 16:10.1111/bjom.2005.16.issue-3, 211-230. [CrossRef]
120. Macarena Sacristán Díaz, María José Álvarez Gil, José A. Dominguez Machuca. 2005. Performance measurement systems,
competitive priorities, and advanced manufacturing technology. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
121. Simon Beatham, Chimay Anumba, Tony Thorpe, Ian Hedges. 2005. An integrated business improvement system (IBIS) for
construction. Measuring Business Excellence 9:2, 42-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Mike Bourne, Mike Kennerley, Monica Franco‐Santos. 2005. Managing through measures: a study of impact on performance.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16:4, 373-395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
123. Manoochehr Najmi, John Rigas, Ip‐Shing Fan. 2005. A framework to review performance measurement systems. Business
Process Management Journal 11:2, 109-122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
124. Umit S. Bititci, Kepa Mendibil, Veronica Martinez, Pavel Albores. 2005. Measuring and managing performance in extended
enterprises. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:4, 333-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Beata Kollberg, Mattias Elg, Jan Lindmark. 2005. Design and Implementation of a Performance Measurement System in
Swedish Health Care Services. Quality Management in Health Care 14, 95-111. [CrossRef]
126. Patrizia Garengo, Stefano Biazzo, Umit S. Bititci. 2005. Performance measurement systems in SMEs: A review for a research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 7:10.1111/ijmr.2005.7.issue-1, 25-47. [CrossRef]
127. Monica Franco-Santos *, Mike Bourne. 2005. An examination of the literature relating to issues affecting how companies
manage through measures. Production Planning & Control 16, 114-124. [CrossRef]
128. Kit Fai Pun, Anthony Sydney White. 2005. A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation:
A review of systems and frameworks. International Journal of Management Reviews 7:10.1111/ijmr.2005.7.issue-1, 49-71.
[CrossRef]
129. M. Glykas. 2004. Workflow and process management in printing and publishing firms. International Journal of Information
Management 24, 523-538. [CrossRef]
130. Denis Borenstein, João Luiz Becker, Vaner José do Prado. 2004. Measuring the efficiency of Brazilian post office stores using
data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24:10, 1055-1078. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
131. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2004. A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and
measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
132. H. A. Bassioni, A. D. F. Price, T. M. Hassan. 2004. Performance Measurement in Construction. Journal of Management in
Engineering 20, 42-50. [CrossRef]
133. Stefan A. Seuring, Julia Koplin, Torsten Behrens, Uwe Schneidewind. 2003. Sustainability assessment in the German
detergent industry: from stakeholder involvement to sustainability indicators. Sustainable Development 11:10.1002/sd.v11:4,
199-212. [CrossRef]
134. Monica Franco, Mike Bourne. 2003. Factors that play a role in “managing through measures”. Management Decision 41:8,
698-710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
135. Dilanthi Amaratunga, David Baldry. 2003. A conceptual framework to measure facilities management performance. Property
136. P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp. 2003. Measuring teamwork culture: the use of a modified EFQM model. Journal of
Management Development 22:2, 149-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
137. Bin Wu. 2001. A unified framework of manufacturing systems design. Industrial Management & Data Systems 101:9, 446-469.
138. Mel Hudson, Andi Smart, Mike Bourne. 2001. Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 21:8, 1096-1115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. G.S. Dangayach, S.G. Deshmukh. 2001. Manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations & Production
140. Manoochehr Najmi, Dennis F. Kehoe. 2001. The role of performance measurement systems in promoting quality development
beyond ISO 9000. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21:1/2, 159-172. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
141. R. Van Landeghem, K. Persoons. 2001. Benchmarking of logistical operations based on a causal model. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 21:1/2, 254-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. A. De Toni, S. Tonchia. 2001. Performance measurement systems ‐ Models, characteristics and measures. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 21:1/2, 46-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Gideon Halevi110 manufacturing methods 59-310. [CrossRef]
144. Cipriano Forza, Fabrizio Salvador. 2000. Assessing some distinctive dimensions of performance feedback information in high
performing plants. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20:3, 359-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Umit S. Bititci, Trevor J. Turner, Peter D. Ball. 1999. The viable business structure for managing agility. International Journal
of Agile Management Systems 1:3, 190-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. R.G. Lee, B.G. Dale. 1998. Policy deployment: an examination of the theory. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
147. Alan Harrison. 1998. Investigating business processes: does process simplification always work?. Business Process Management
Journal 4:2, 137-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Bititci1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bititci1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Business performance improvements arising from increased manufacturing

In summary, the need for an integrated set of performance measures which

The performance management process

attitudes as well as harder factors such as reporting structures, responsibilities

In this context the structure and configuration of the performance

The structure and configuration of the performance measurement

interpreted that system 1 consists of business processes such as order fulfilment,

differentiates between actuality, capability and potentiality.

The audit method

Data collection phase

The deployment audit

• Stage one focuses on to the requirements of each SBU environment and

Stage 1: BU 1 – market requirements

Summary and conclusions

You might also like