Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empirically establish an indigenously developed model for measuring organizational performance and organizational excellence, and to examine the relationship between organizational performance and organizational excellence.

The paper presents a model based on seven variables, at the overall and work unit level, for measuring organizational performance and organizational excellence – tested by using a large sample. A structured questionnaire is developed for collecting data from 407 respondents from 230 organizations. Summated scale average method is used for calculation of organizational performance and a total correlation method is used for the calculation of organizational excellence.

It is established that organizational performance and organizational excellence could be measured by consolidating performance variables, using two different methods: performance can be measured by averaging the performance variable scores, and excellence can be measured by averaging the correlations of performance variable scores. Based on the study, a new general definition for organizational excellence is proposed, as “the outstanding measure of relationship of all performance variables influencing an organization's functioning”.

The model, developed and tested for measuring performance and excellence, can be used by small and medium enterprises to evaluate their performance and excellence separately and periodically. The study helps managers to recognize organizational excellence as a measure needing special attention instead of taking it as an outstanding value of organizational performance.

The definition and model developed and tested for measuring excellence can contribute significantly to existing literature on excellence measurement. This will help researchers to study organizational excellence as a separate organizational behavior, instead of limiting it as a terminal value of organizational performance.

This paper seeks to measure in a quantitative way the degree of alignment among a set of performance measures between two organizations.

This paper extends Venkatraman's test of coalignment to assess the alignment of a set of performance measures governing a contractual inter‐organizational relationship. The authors applied the test and present coefficients of misalignment across three sets of measures: those used by a service provider involved in the research, those used by customers contracting the services, and those documented in 11 contracts studied.

Results confirmed a high degree of alignment between target and actual operational performance in the contracts. The alignment of customers' financial objectives and contracts' operational metrics was low. Calculations show poor alignment between the objectives of the provider and the contribution received from the contracts.

Some limitations of the conclusions include the small sample of contracts used in the calculations. Further research should include not only actual contracts, but also failed ones.

It is possible that misaligned goals, represented in misaligned performance measures, lead to tensions in intra‐firm relationships. If these tensions are not addressed properly the relationship could be unstable or terminated prematurely. This method of measuring alignment could detect early potential dangers in intra‐firm relationships.

This paper extends Venkatraman's test of coalignment to assess the alignment of a set of performance measures governing a contractual inter‐organizational relationship. Management researchers and business professionals may use this methodology when exploring degrees of alignment of performance measures in intra‐functional and inter‐firm relationships.

The traditional cost accounting‐based business performance measures used today fail to provide adequate support to allow the use of modern management techniques and development of optimum business and functional strategies. Although these traditional techniques have a certain value they must be supported by alternative non‐financial performance measures which promote organizational integration by ensuring that all strategic and operational activities are streamlined towards common objectives. Describes, with case studies, a methodology which leads to development of an integrated set of performance measures on which measurable business and functional strategies may be developed. The methodology described has been proven through a number of industrial consultancy assignments and results in considerable benefits.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a survey study on quality performance measurement practices in the Turkish top 500 manufacturing companies. The study evaluates both financial and non‐financial aspects of quality performance measures in Turkish manufacturing companies.

The methodology of the study was a postal questionnaire survey. The survey was conducted with the top 500 industrial enterprises in Turkey specified by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ICI) for the year 2005. These firms are selected and ranked by ICI according to production‐based sales.

Two major findings of the study are: Turkish manufacturing companies utilize non‐financial measures more frequently than financial measures; and Turkish managers perceive non‐financial measures to be more effective than financial measures.

The sample is restricted to the top 500 industrial enterprises in Turkey. As the data in this study were collected from the manufacturing companies, the findings should not be generalized to other sectors.

The study is unique in reflecting the general practices and perceptions of manufacturing companies on quality performance measures across Turkey.

A common justification for state term commodity contracts is that they are beneficial to taxpayers because of savings that result from the price concessions expected from volume purchasing. With the growing popularity of performance based budgeting in state legislatures, there is a clear need for performance measures to document these taxpayer benefits. Based on a survey of state purchasing offices and a review of the major purchasing associations and the academic literature, this paper develops guidelines and a set of performance measures for evaluating the financial benefits of state term commodity contracts.

As a result of the changing environment, business organizations need to redefine their goals and strategies and adopt new practices. The success of these changes greatly depends on the company’s ability in development and use of an effective set of performance measures. The traditional financial measures are often inappropriate and insufficient; and management faces some obstacles in their efforts to develop new non‐financial measures. This article discusses three main obstacles: What to measure? How to collect data? And, how to get managers to use the new measures? Some guides to overcoming these obstacles are presented.

The problem of using management accounting techniques to measure managers' performance in the service sector is examined. The essence of the problem, it is argued, is that organisations are being judged externally on one set of criteria while the internal control system measures a different set of criteria. Using a management accounting perspective the article identifies the dominance of accounting measures in performance measurement and demonstrates how this has led to dysfunctional behaviour of managers. It is then proposed that a control system be developed that aims to achieve organisational control by the specification of a range of control measures. Measures of finance, customer service, resource utilisation, employee attitudes and service development should be included. Furthermore, no one set of measures can be expected to satisfy all organisations, the exact set and relative weighting of each component being determined by the particular organisation's objectives.

Discusses the need for measurement within the management process, specifically the need for performance indicators. Examines the management process relating to performance to construct an action plan for defining performance indicators. Surmises that the important thing is to construct performance measures which are recognized as fair and enable the organization to look for improvements and evaluate progress.

This chapter seeks to contribute to a better understanding of Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) use of practices for the purpose of organizational sustainability by highlighting the need for conducive performance measures and standards attached to NPO funding sources.

A review of literature for the UK Non-profit organization sector and NPO performance measures. The review structures literature as it relates to the non-profit sector and their relation to societal impact of human social service (HSS) non-profit organizations, non-profit performance measures, and processes of knowledge sharing in application of organizational evaluation.

This chapter provides a review of gaps in the literature referring suitable performance measurement and assessments suitable for the unique culture and approaches to performance measures of non-profit organizations. Future research implications suggest research in order to comprehend processes and procedures of performance measures inclusive of knowledge sharing and the processes of how non-profit learn, share, and evaluate internal and external to the NPO sector.

The value of this chapter is relevant for the public, government, and corporations to support efficient and effective ways in appropriating funds and defining successful NPO’s for external funders to invest.

This study examines the links between financial performance and executive compensation for high-performance companies (HPC). HPC display sustained and superior cash flow returns, asset growth, and total shareholder returns. In previous empirical analysis, HPC companies displayed specific identifiable financial performance drivers and measures when compared to companies in the S&P 500 (Needles et al., 2004). Most recently, HPC sustained their high performance when compared to the S&P 500 over varied economic periods. Further, the research identified operating asset management characteristics of these companies, especially as they relate to the cash cycle (Needles et al., 2004). Continuing this stream of research, this study first identifies the financial and non-financial performance measures related to compensation of top management of HPC as reported in the companies’ public disclosures. Then, these findings for HPC are matched to a set of comparable non-HPC. Finally, we evaluate the stated performance measures for executive compensation in light of the performance drivers and measures identified by previous research to be distinguishing characteristics of HPC. We hypothesize that HPC will more closely align stated performance measures for executive compensation with performance characteristics that have been shown to be characteristics of HPC. We find that HPC are more focused and unambiguous in their use of both financial and non-financial performance measures in executive compensation.