Search results

Performance measurement is a subject that has been high on the agenda for over two decades. This article proposes making a contribution to this field by discussing how to deal systematically with all the requirements a performance measurement system (PMS) should fulfil.

Different requirements suggested in the performance measurement literature from the past 20 years have been analysed in order to structure the different tasks to conduct when designing a PMS.

The article explains how to separate requirements that can be linked to a PMS and to an individual performance measure. It also suggests three system classes depending on what requirements a PMS fulfils. Finally a three‐step procedure is proposed that describes how to evaluate and improve an existing PMS in a company.

In practice, it is difficult to deal with numerous requirements simultaneously when designing a PMS. The article supplies measurement practitioners with tools to identify any priority important requirements.

Several new ideas to the field of performance measurement are introduced and explained: the concept of system classes, classification of requirements and a simple three‐step procedure to evaluate and improve PMS.

Performance measures are often used to increase the competitiveness and profitability of manufacturing companies through the support and encouragement of productivity improvements. This paper reviews the most frequently used performance measures to identify their strengths and weaknesses and the situations in which they are most appropriately deployed. The performance measures under review are compared in terms of how easily they are derived from strategic objectives, how easy they are to understand and whether they help form a long‐term view of performance. Suggests that it is important to select performance measures to match the situation in which they are to be used; more importantly, it is necessary to combine various types of performance measure to provide a fair complete and balanced view of a company or the operations under evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how to design an individual performance measure, which usually means the measurement practitioner must deal with many requirements other than the ones that can be found when designing a complete performance measurement system.

Different requirements suggested in the performance measurement literature from the past 20 years have been sorted out in order to structure the different tasks to conduct when designing a measure.

Explains how to form or select a formula that fulfils the purpose of a measure. Defines 15 parameters that fully specify a measure. Clarifies positive and negative measure properties.

Measurement regimes are often built without a clear understanding of what is being measured. The article includes several practical tools that can be used when designing a performance measure.

Discusses the question “how to measure?”, while most of past research in the field has been aimed at solving “what to measure?”.

Even though remarkable progress has been made over recent years in the design of performance measurement frameworks and systems, many companies are still primarily relying on traditional financial performance measures. This paper presents an overview of the more common, more modern approaches to performance measurement and attempts to identify whether they have in fact addressed the limitations of traditional ways of measuring performance. The paper suggests that the modern frameworks have indeed addressed the underlying conceptual issues, but have rarely addressed the practicalities of measurement in ways that render them meaningful to practitioners. What is needed is further work to explore how these conceptual frameworks can be translated and tailored to fulfil the unique measurement needs of a specific company, especially at the operational level.

Examines the ways in which the concepts of “productivity” and “performance” are dealt with in the literature, demonstrating that terms used within these fields are often vaguely defined and poorly understood.

Reviews related performance literature from the past 30 years (of both an academic and a practical nature).

Clarifies the meaning of five terms (productivity, performance, profitability, efficiency, effectiveness) and shows how they are inter‐related.

The creation of a common grammar is not an easy task; one must therefore still accept the fact that people will continue to interpret the terms described in this paper in slightly various ways.

Measurement and improvement regimes are often built without a clear understanding of what is being measured or improved. This can be regarded as simply a pragmatic approach to improvement, or a missed opportunity to fully understand and then optimise important factors relating to competitiveness and success.

The paper creates a terminology that reduces the existing confusion within the field. Certainly, within academia and industry, a shared vocabulary and grammar are helpful in ensuring rigorous and robust development of shared understanding.

This paper seeks to compare different national PR histories in order to unfold the degree of abstract reflection in PR history writing. It aims to provide some suggestions for a future PR historiography, based on this comparison.

The paper compares British, German, and US American PR historiography. The study is based on a comparison of 36 PR histories. A triple matrix of theoretization is used in order to differentiate the histories.

Within the comparison American PR historiography accounts for 24 public relations history approaches, whereas Great Britain (1) and Germany (11) offer fewer histories. However, this richness in quantity does not lead to theoretical diversification. Owing to the paradigmatic obligation to a progressivist understanding, American PR historiography actually entails only one theoretic approach, while its German equivalent includes three different theoretic approaches and British PR historiography – being at its start – at least contains one explicitly non‐progressivist, methodologically well‐informed, fact‐oriented example. Paradoxically, the prevailing American PR historiography, on the one hand, conceptualizes PR as a modern phenomenon but, on the other hand, claims even ancient beginnings.

The corpus of analysis contains only studies that attempt to supply an encompassing overview of (national) PR history.

Public relations managers may use these findings to achieve a more nuanced critical understanding of the history of their occupation, and thereby reflect on its current state, which may lead to intensified ethical endeavours.

The paper presents a pioneer systematic comparison of the three national PR histories, which may lead to enhanced national and general PR historiography. Another value is the establishment of a theoretically informed comparative measuring instrument, which (in future) can also be applied in order to compare and improve other national PR historiographies.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize lessons from the agricultural value chain models and their associated financing mechanisms in China and India as to provide policy recommendations on how best to facilitate development of efficient and inclusive value chains.

The paper builds on a review of the existing literature on agricultural value chains and their financing mechanisms, and draws lessons from it for strengthening interface between product and financial markets in order to enable smallholders capture benefits of the value addition.

From the comparative review of value chain financing mechanisms and current policy contexts the authors find dominance of internal financing of value chains (in terms of provision of inputs, technology and services) in both the countries. Value chain finance from commercial banks and other financial institutions is limited and mainly through tripartite agreements among the financing institutions, lead firms and farmers.

The lessons drawn from various value chain models and their financing mechanisms provide feedback to financial institutions and policymakers to take measures to strengthen value chain finance in smallholder agriculture.

The paper undertakes a rigorous review of the existing value chain models and their financing mechanisms in light of the most recent research on emerging innovations and development strategies, in order to glean key lessons for policy recommendations on strengthening linkages between financial and product markets.