Search results

This study aims to examine the potential for the Performance Prism (Neely et al., 2001) to influence the perceived outcome of a planned organizational change. General Systems Theory (Ruben, 1979; Thayer, 1968; vonBertalanffy, 1975) is used to understand the differences in stakeholder perception throughout the institution.

Thirty-two participants from four educational support services departments and the senior leadership group of a university were interviewed. A grounded theory, constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) was used to generate themes and codes from transcripts.

Findings suggest that implementers failed to adequately assess all employees’ satisfaction and contributions prior to implementation. Using the Performance Prism could have been the key to perceptions of success about the change effort.

Research comparing the Performance Prism to implemented planned change efforts not using the Performance Prism is limited, especially in higher education. Also limited is research using the Performance Prism and General Systems Theory.

Understanding stakeholder satisfaction and contributions throughout the organizational system are vital to planned change efforts, especially in loosely coupled organizations (Gallivan, 2001; Neely et al., 2001; Ruben, 1979). Using the Performance Prism is valuable to further this understanding.

The study advances the literature about the use of the Performance Prism in higher education by providing an understanding of the implications of neglecting to consider all stakeholders at all levels of the system in planned change efforts.

This paper revisits the debate regarding myriad measurement bases and begins a new discussion within a public sector environment. It does this by considering the under‐researched technical aspect of measurement within Neely et al.'s measures design template framework.

Using the full population from Australia's largest state, New South Wales (NSW), the annual reports of all local councils were analysed over a seven‐year period. In addition, interviews were conducted with a sample of councils representing all geographical areas of the state.

Under the auspices of the modified Neely et al.'s measures design template, additivity problems associated with valuing infrastructure, property, plant and equipment (IPPE) were found to result in the production of unreliable performance indicators – in this case, the capital expenditure ratio (CER).

The limitations include the research using an untested model; local councils in only one Australian state and one performance indicator analysed. Future research will examine the behavioural aspects of local councils as a result of being judged on an inappropriate indicator.

This paper considers two research issues – the imposition of private sector ideas to public sector entities and problems associated with combining myriad measurement bases to produce performance indicators used for decision making in local government. By introducing the CER as an exemplar within Neely et al.' measures design template, problems associated with combining myriad measurement bases to produce performance indicators used for decision‐making provide an unique insight into local government reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the fundamentals of a performance measurement system (PMS) as discussed in the literature for the past 32 years in an attempt to provide a research agenda (RA) for future research.

The paper uses a systematic review of the business, public and non-profit sector literature in examining what constitutes the fundamentals of PMS, and how these fundamentals have influenced the use of data (especially on non-financial data), development of measuring methods, measuring attributes and measuring process.

The paper finds that there are a small number of articles providing that can be considered to have provided substantial discussion of the fundamentals of PMS. While there is no consensus on what constitute the fundamentals of PMS, using content analysis, citation analysis and on the strict criteria of necessary and/or sufficient for the existence of a PMS, this paper managed to characterize the fundamentals into six categories. This paper found that the field of PMS has not change much during the past 30 or more years, and there remains various pragmatic and research gaps that need to be addressed.

The results, outcomes, and analysis of this paper have both practical and academic implications. The gaps and recommendations for future research is consolidated into a RA that provides practitioners to evaluate existing PMS, avoid issues and seek ways to develop a conceptual (theoretical) PMS that is of greater practical significance.

The results of this study contribute toward providing an update of the current state of development and research into PMS; and managed to identify existing practical issues and research gaps of PMS, and provided a RA on which ongoing and future research efforts on this topic can be built upon.

This paper succinctly critiques the benchmarking literature and the performance measurement literature in regards to the novel concept of lead benchmarking as a possible means of achieving increased radical and innovative transformation in organizations. For the purposes of the paper, a working definition of lead benchmarking and performance measurement is: benchmarking and performance measurement, which focuses on analysing forward looking, predictive and future performance comparisons. This critique distinctly highlights that the currency of benchmarking and performance measurement needs a radical and indeed innovative transformation to adhere to the dynamics of the business environment. This critique raises various questions of interest. These issues will be investigated later through further research by conducting rich empirical research, whereby descriptions and explanations will be developed of the what, where, who, how and why of the benchmarking concept and the extent to which organizations carry out lead benchmarking

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature in the field of performance measurement and management (PMM) for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and large companies and propose a research agenda for the future.

This paper provides an update of Neely's work “The evolution of performance measurement research” The literature review has been carried out by using two different methodologies. Citation/co‐citation analysis has been used to explore “performance measurement” (PM) literature, while a chronological review of main frameworks/models developed both for large and small companies is presented in order to highlight “PMM” literature.

The paper analyzes the literature on the field and carries out the most cited works and the common characteristics of them based on the key words used. The results of the literature review reveal a certain maturity of the literature related to large companies and a significant lack of PMM literature for SMEs. Finally the paper argues the development and evolution of the research field that is now entering a phase of new directions. These new directions can be conceptualized in three ways – by context, by theme and by challenge.

The research presented in the paper is limited to work that is referred directly with performance measurement and management. Related research – such as literature on management control and accounting – has not been considered, even if future researches could include it.

The paper extends Neely's work under two dimensions: the research field evolution from 2005 to 2008 and the investigation of the “performance management” dimension. The paper will be valuable to scholars working in the field of business performance measurement and management, interested in the literature evolution and in identifying future areas of research.

This study investigates the use of performance measures and how performance measurement impacts performance.

This study was conducted through multiple case studies in a single organisation. Comparisons are made between performance measurement practices in comparable high and average‐performing business units.

The findings suggest that current research into the impact of performance measurement on performance may be too simplistic in its approach as much of the research relies on studying the physical and formal systems used, ignoring the types of factors found to be important in this study.

Being based on a single organisation, the wider applicability of the specific findings from this study should be questioned. However, if, as we suggest, the interactive nature of the use of the measurement system is important, future research will need to find ways of observing, measuring and quantifying this interactivity to allow a richer picture of the impact of performance measurement on performance to be developed.

The differences observed between the high and average‐performing cases was in the way they managed with the measures. Average‐performing business units used the performance measurement system as a simple control system, whereas, high performing business units were using the measurement system much more interactively.

This paper highlights the importance of using performance measures interactively and suggests further research into Simons' concept of “interactive control”.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an exclusive review framework for the Performance Prism.

An extensive literature survey on performance measurement is used to identify the main aspects of the review in such systems. Various dimensions related to the characteristics of Performance Prism are explored. All the findings are then rationally put together to develop the proposed conceptual framework.

The paper presents a conceptual model to review performance measurement systems (PMS) which are designed based on Performance Prism. The presented framework categorizes review processes and tools into two main categories; Business Performance Review (BPRw) and Performance Measurement System Review (PMSR). In BPRw, a loop is presented in three levels – with regards to the five facets of Performance Prism – which indicates the performance management process. PMSR deals with reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of the design and implementation of the PMS itself. Several methods and tools have been gathered from the literature (e.g. relevance test, measures profile, etc) in this section to examine the relevance of measures, and some have been introduced (including a method to determine inconsistencies in organization's performance trends between stakeholder, strategic and operational level) to study and challenge the validity of strategic assumptions and strategies, and appropriateness of infrastructure. Implications of various factors such as organizational culture, change management, and characteristics of the measures (level of the measure, managers who receive reports including the measure, and supporting infrastructure) are highlighted.

In contrast to PMS design and implementation, research on PMS review is limited. This is more evident in the literature concerning Performance Prism. The empirical evidence of usefulness is beyond the scope of this article.

The framework provides a procedural action for reviewing both business performance and PMS performance when applying the Performance Prism in practice and provides a foundation for further empirical research.

The paper adds to the body of literature, by proposing a comprehensive review framework to be used in Performance Prism.

This paper provides an update of Neely et al.'s (1995) literature review “Performance measurement system design”. It was commissioned to appear in a special issue of the International Journal of Operations & Production Management to celebrate the journal's 25th anniversary.

The paper employs a citation/co‐citation analysis of work in the field of performance measurement to explore developments in the field globally.

The paper argues that scholars working in the field of performance measurement agree about the key research questions despite the fact that they come from different disciplinary backgrounds. The paper identifies the key contributors to the field based on a citation/co‐citation analysis and argues that the field is now entering a phase of empirical investigation and theoretical verification of some core concepts.

The research reported in the paper is limited to work that deals directly with performance measurement. It excludes related research – such as literature on management control and performance management – and clearly could be extended to include these literatures.

The paper will be valuable to scholars working in the field of performance measurement who wish to understand how the field has developed and evolved and/or those who are interested in avenues for future research.

An interview with Professor Andy Neely who talks to editor Sarah Powell about the challenges of performance measurement, the role of the Centre for Business Performance, aims of the Performance Management Association and advantages of The Performance Prism.