Towards a definition of BPM systems

Prévia do material em texto

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system
Monica Franco‐Santos, Mike Kennerley, Pietro Micheli, Veronica Martinez, Steve Mason, Bernard Marr,
Dina Gray, Andrew Neely,
Article information:
To cite this document:
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, Vol. 27 Issue: 8, pp.784-801, https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570710763778
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710763778
Downloaded on: 24 October 2018, At: 13:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16869 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Managing through measures: a study of impact on performance", Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 373-395 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410380510594480">https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510594480</a>
(2002),"A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems",
International Journal of Operations &amp; Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 11 pp. 1222-1245 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450293">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450293</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478535 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
Towards a definition of a business
performance measurement
system
Monica Franco-Santos, Mike Kennerley, Pietro Micheli,
Veronica Martinez, Steve Mason, Bernard Marr, Dina Gray
and Andrew Neely
Cranfield School of Management, Centre for Business Performance,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Scholars in the field of performance measurement tend to use the term business
performance measurement (BPM) systems without explaining exactly what they mean by it. This lack
of clarity creates confusion and comparability issues, and makes it difficult for researchers to build on
one an each other’s work. The purpose of this paper is to identify the key characteristics of a BPM
system, by reviewing the different definitions of a BPM system that exist in the literature. This work
aims to open a debate on what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of a BPM system. It is also
hoped that a greater level of clarity in the performance measurement research arena will be
encouraged.
Design/methodology/approach – The performance measurement literature is reviewed using a
systematic approach.
Findings – Based on this research, a set of conditions of a BPM system has been proposed from
which researchers can choose those which are necessary and sufficient conditions for their studies.
Research limitations/implications – The analysis in this paper provides a structure and set of
characteristics that researchers could use as a reference framework to define a BPM system for their
work, and as a way to define the specific focus of their investigations. More clarity and precision
around the use of the BPM systems phrase will improve the generalisability and comparability of
research in this area.
Originality/value – By reviewing the different definitions of a BPM system that exist in the
literature this paper will hopefully stimulate a debate on the necessary and sufficient conditions of a
BPM system and encourage a greater level of clarity in the performance measurement research arena.
Keywords Business performance, Performance measurement (quality), Performance management
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The field of business performance measurement (BPM) lacks a cohesive body of
knowledge (Marr and Schiuma, 2003). Management researchers in areas as diverse as
strategy management, operations management, human resources, organisational
behaviour, information systems, marketing, and management accounting and control
are contributing to the field of performance measurement (Neely, 1999, 2002; Marr and
Schiuma, 2003; Franco-Santos and Bourne, 2005). While diverse and multi-disciplinary
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
The authors thank the EPSRC for support of this project through the research grants: Managing
through Measures (grant number GR/R56136/01) and Evaluating the Impact of Performance
Measurement Systems (grant number GR/S28846).
IJOPM
27,8
784
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 27 No. 8, 2007
pp. 784-801
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570710763778
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
research is appealing, it can also foster complications. These different approaches
towards performance measurement have led to numerous definitions of a BPM system,
and there is little consensus regarding its main components and characteristics
(Dumond, 1994).
The lack of agreement on a definition creates confusion and clearly limits the
potential for generalisability and comparability of research in this area. This point is
well illustrated by reviewing the BPM system definitions found in the literature. From
an operations perspective, a BPM system is mainly perceived as a “set of metrics used
to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions” (Neely et al., 1995); or as the
reporting process that gives feedback to employees on the outcome of actions (Bititci
et al., 1997). From a strategic control perspective, two different aspects of a BPM
system can be identified. On one hand, it reflects the procedures used to cascade
down those performance metrics used to implement the strategy within the
organisation (Gates, 1999). On the other hand, a BPM system is the system that not
only allows an organisation to cascade down its business performance measures, but
also provides it with the information necessary to challenge the content and validity of
the strategy (Ittner et al., 2003). From a management accounting perspective, a BPM
system is considered to be synonymous with management planning and budgeting
(Otley, 1999).
The main purpose of this paper is not to provide another definition; rather, it is to
define the key characteristics of a BPM system, based on a review of the definitions
found in the literature. To define a concept, it is crucial to identify the necessary and
sufficient conditions for its existence (Brennan, 2003). This paper, therefore, seeks to
encourage a debate in the academic and practitioner communities regarding the main
elements of BPM systems.This reflective dialogue will hopefully lead to a shared and
comprehensive definition of a BPM system.
In terms of more immediate implications for the research arena, we believe that
greater clarity on what a BPM system comprises could substantially improve the
comparability and generalisability of the research conducted in the field of BPM. As it
stands, scholars utilise the phrase “BPM system” without specifying which elements
they are focusing on, and which conditions are (or have to be) present in the empirical
contexts they study. In order to ensure greater understanding of the research carried
out in this field, and the possibility of comparing findings appropriately, it is important
that researchers make explicit statements of which conditions are considered
necessary and/or sufficient for the existence of BPM systems in each study.
Furthermore, we believe that comparability, based on thorough understanding of what
every piece of research entails, is a fundamental requirement to contribute to both
theory and practice, and ultimately lead to evidence-based management (Rousseau,
2006; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006).
This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive review and
analysis of the different definitions of BPM systems that can be found in performance
measurement literature. Secondly, based on our analysis of the definitions of BPM
systems, it shows the different elements that a BPM system may have. Thirdly, our
findings are discussed and a set of necessary and sufficient conditions of a BPM
system are presented. Finally, limitations and conclusions of our study are outlined.
Business
performance
measurement
785
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
Methodology
Definitions of BPM systems have been proposed by scholars coming from a number of
disciplines. This paper aims to report a review and synthesis of these. The paper
focuses on the phrase “business performance measurement systems” as the unit of
analysis. The paper focuses on “business” performance measurement systems, as
opposed to “organisational” performance measurement systems. The term “business”
is used as a boundary to exclude public and no-profit sector literatures. It is our
assumption that a BPM system is a unique combination of elements. It may be a
discrete or explicit system or a collection of existing sub-systems; however, it is the
combination of these sub-systems that makes it uniquely a BPM system. The term
“system” in this phrase is used inconsistently within the literature. Some of the
instances of the term may not be recognised as “systems” from some theoretical
perspectives. However, rather than attempt to address these semantic and theoretical
differences we have accepted all usages of the “system” term as valid in the contexts of
the definitions in which they are used. For a more comprehensive discussion and
definitions of the term “system” (Checkland, 1999; Klir, 1991; Marion, 1999). In order to
scope the literature review, we followed a systematic method. Firstly, we used two
different electronic databases to search for key references on the area of performance
measurement. These electronic databases were ABI-Proquest, and EBSCO. We
searched those databases using the keyword “performance measurement system *”[1].
In the former database, we found 2,041 references; in the latter, 239. Secondly, we
selected the relevant studies coming from these databases. Relevant studies were those
that fulfilled the following selection criteria:
. research looking at BPM;
. research published in peer reviewed scholarly journals;
. private sector research; and
. post-1980 research.
This last criterion was included because of the change in perspective that took place in
the 1980s, by which performance measurement moved away from having a pure
financial focus to include more comprehensive business characteristics (Kaplan, 1983;
Neely, 2005).
Out of the total number of journal articles found, 205 passed our selection criteria.
Subsequently, we read those articles looking for BPM system definitions. Whilst
reading those articles, notes were taken about potential cross-references that could be
relevant for our research. Through this process another 132 documents, including not
only journal articles but also books, books chapters, conference papers and working
papers, were identified and included. In total, more than 300 documents were reviewed,
but the research team came across only seventeen different definitions of BPM
systems.
In order to assess how widely known and relevant the definitions found in the
literature were, we conducted a citation analysis of the papers containing each
definition. We used three different databases to carry out this analysis: the social
science citation index, Scopus and Google scholar. Three databases were chosen in
order to enhance the rigour of our citation analysis. Scopus was selected because it
covers 14,200 publications (including conference proceedings); the social citation index
IJOPM
27,8
786
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
was selected because traditionally it has been the point of reference for this type of
research analysis; finally, the Google scholar was selected because it is the only
database that covers the citation of books. It must be noted that this type of analysis
has a random duplication effect. This means that the citation of a paper in one database
can be found in the other two databases; thus, the summary of citations per paper
across the three databases cannot be performed. Clearly the citation analysis we have
conducted can be criticised on the grounds that citations are made to papers rather
than definitions. However, we have assumed that the most frequently quoted articles
are amongst the most widely read and hence, if frequently cited papers contain
definitions, these too are likely to be reasonably well-known.
BPM system definitions
The definitions selected from the literature and the results of the citation analysis are
presented in Table I.
The definitions of BPM system extracted from the reviewed literature demonstrate
the diversity of the subject and the lack of consensus on a definition. Each definition
provides a different perspective on the concept, and no two definitions agree on
the precise characteristics. Each of the cited authors defines BPM system from a
different perspective, and does so using different types of characteristics to derive their
definition. Initial analysis of the definitions shows that the basis of the definitions is
one or a combination of the:
. features of the BPM system
. role(s) that the BPM system plays; and
. processes that are part of the BPM system.
To be more precise, the features of a BPM system are properties or elements which
make up the BPM system; the roles of a BPM system are the purposes or functions that
are performed by the BPM system; and the processes of a BPM system are the series of
actions that combine together to constitute the BPM system.
In order to identify the key characteristics of a BPM system, the seventeen
definitions found in the literature were content analysed. Therefore, we conducted
three different analyses. Firstly, the content of the seventeen definitions was examined
in order to identify the main features of a BPM system. Secondly, the content of the
definitions was examined to identify the roles that a BPM system plays in an
organisation. Finally, the content of the definitions was examined in order to clarify the
processes that take place within a BPM system. Each content analysis was conducted
by two different teams of researchers in order to increase the validity of the analysis.
The outputs from both teams were shared and discussed, and a definitelist of BPM
system characteristics was agreed.
Characteristics of a BPM system
The characteristics obtained as a result of the content analysis are presented in
Tables II-IV. The left hand column of each table describes the characteristic found in
the definitions with the columns showing in which of the definitions these
characteristics can be found.
Business
performance
measurement
787
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
C
it
at
io
n
an
al
y
si
s
A
u
th
or
an
d
d
at
e
D
efi
n
it
io
n
S
oc
ia
l
sc
ie
n
ce
ci
ta
ti
on
in
d
ex
S
co
p
u
s
G
oo
g
le
sc
h
ol
ar
A
tk
in
so
n
(1
99
8)
“S
tr
at
eg
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
d
efi
n
es
th
e
fo
cu
s
an
d
sc
op
e
of
m
an
ag
em
en
t
ac
co
u
n
ti
n
g
[.
..
]
T
h
e
p
ro
ce
ss
of
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
b
eg
in
s
w
it
h
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
ow
n
er
s
sp
ec
if
y
in
g
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
p
ri
m
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
[.
..
]
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
p
la
n
n
er
s
u
n
d
er
ta
k
e
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
la
n
n
in
g
ex
er
ci
se
s
to
id
en
ti
fy
h
ow
th
ey
w
il
l
p
u
rs
u
e
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
p
ri
m
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
[.
..
]
T
h
e
ch
os
en
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
la
n
re
su
lt
s
in
a
se
t
of
fo
rm
al
an
d
in
fo
rm
al
co
n
tr
ac
ts
b
et
w
ee
n
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
an
d
it
s
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s
[.
..
]
T
h
e
g
iv
e
an
d
ta
k
e
b
et
w
ee
n
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
an
d
it
s
cr
it
ic
al
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s
w
il
ld
efi
n
e
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
se
co
n
d
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
.
S
ec
on
d
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
d
er
iv
e
th
ei
r
im
p
or
ta
n
ce
fr
om
th
ei
r
p
re
su
m
ed
ef
fe
ct
on
th
e
ac
h
ie
v
em
en
t
le
v
el
of
p
ri
m
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
.S
ec
on
d
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
ar
e
cr
it
ic
al
b
ec
au
se
th
ey
ar
e
th
e
v
ar
ia
b
le
s
th
at
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
em
p
lo
y
ee
s
u
se
to
p
ro
m
ot
e
su
cc
es
s
–
d
efi
n
ed
as
d
es
ir
ed
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
on
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
p
ri
m
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
e
[.
..
]A
s
em
p
lo
y
ee
s
m
on
it
or
th
e
le
v
el
of
ac
h
ie
v
ed
p
ri
m
ar
y
an
d
se
co
n
d
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
,t
h
ey
ca
n
u
se
th
e
re
su
lt
in
g
d
at
a
to
re
v
is
e
th
ei
r
b
el
ie
fs
ab
ou
t,
or
m
od
el
of
,t
h
e
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
b
et
w
ee
n
th
e
se
co
n
d
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
es
an
d
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
’s
p
ri
m
ar
y
ob
je
ct
iv
e
–
a
p
ro
ce
ss
of
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
al
le
ar
n
in
g
[.
..
]
T
h
e
fi
n
al
st
ep
in
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
is
to
ti
e
in
ce
n
ti
v
e
p
ay
to
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
re
su
lt
s”
(p
.5
53
-5
55
)
0
4
14
A
tk
in
so
n
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
“O
u
r
ap
p
ro
ac
h
to
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
fo
cu
se
s
on
on
e
ou
tp
u
t
of
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
la
n
n
in
g
:
se
n
io
r
m
an
ag
em
en
t’
s
ch
oi
ce
of
th
e
n
at
u
re
an
d
sc
op
e
of
th
e
co
n
tr
ac
ts
th
at
it
n
eg
ot
ia
te
s,
b
ot
h
ex
p
li
ci
tl
y
an
d
im
p
li
ci
tl
y
,w
it
h
it
s
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s.
T
h
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
is
th
e
to
ol
th
e
co
m
p
an
y
u
se
s
to
m
on
it
or
th
os
e
co
n
tr
ac
tu
al
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s”
(p
.
26
)
25
0
12
8
B
it
it
ci
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
“A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
is
th
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
sy
st
em
w
h
ic
h
is
at
th
e
h
ea
rt
of
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
an
d
it
is
of
cr
it
ic
al
im
p
or
ta
n
ce
to
th
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
an
d
ef
fi
ci
en
t
fu
n
ct
io
n
in
g
of
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
an
ag
em
en
t
sy
st
em
”
(p
.
53
3)
15
3
57
B
ou
rn
e
et
a
l.
(2
00
3)
“A
b
u
si
n
es
s
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
re
fe
rs
to
th
e
u
se
of
a
m
u
lt
i-
d
im
en
si
on
al
se
t
of
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s
fo
r
th
e
p
la
n
n
in
g
an
d
m
an
ag
em
en
t
of
a
b
u
si
n
es
s”
(p
.
4)
–
a
0
11
F
or
za
an
d
S
al
v
ad
or
(2
00
0)
“A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
is
an
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
sy
st
em
th
at
su
p
p
or
ts
m
an
ag
er
s
in
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
m
ai
n
ly
fu
lfi
ll
in
g
tw
o
p
ri
m
ar
y
fu
n
ct
io
n
s:
th
e
fi
rs
t
on
e
co
n
si
st
s
in
en
ab
li
n
g
an
d
st
ru
ct
u
ri
n
g
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
b
et
w
ee
n
al
l
th
e
or
g
an
is
at
io
n
al
u
n
it
s
(i
n
d
iv
id
u
al
s,
te
am
s,
p
ro
ce
ss
es
,f
u
n
ct
io
n
s,
et
c.
)
in
v
ol
v
ed
in
th
e
p
ro
ce
ss
of
ta
rg
et
se
tt
in
g
.T
h
e
se
co
n
d
on
e
is
th
at
of
co
ll
ec
ti
n
g
,p
ro
ce
ss
in
g
an
d
d
el
iv
er
in
g
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
on
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
of
p
eo
p
le
,
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s,
p
ro
ce
ss
es
,
p
ro
d
u
ct
s,
b
u
si
n
es
s
u
n
it
s,
et
c.
”
(p
.
35
9)
1
4
4
(c
on
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table I.
Selected definitions of
BPM systems
IJOPM
27,8
788
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
C
it
at
io
n
an
al
y
si
s
A
u
th
or
an
d
d
at
e
D
efi
n
it
io
n
S
oc
ia
l
sc
ie
n
ce
ci
ta
ti
on
in
d
ex
S
co
p
u
s
G
oo
g
le
sc
h
ol
ar
G
at
es
(1
99
9)
“A
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
ent
sy
st
em
tr
an
sl
at
es
b
u
si
n
es
s
st
ra
te
g
ie
s
in
to
d
el
iv
er
ab
le
re
su
lt
s.
C
om
b
in
e
fi
n
an
ci
al
,s
tr
at
eg
ic
an
d
op
er
at
in
g
m
ea
su
re
s
to
g
au
g
e
h
ow
w
el
la
co
m
p
an
y
m
ee
ts
it
s
ta
rg
et
s”
(p
.
4)
–
–
6
It
tn
er
et
a
l.
(2
00
3)
“A
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
:(
1)
p
ro
v
id
es
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
th
at
al
lo
w
s
th
e
fi
rm
to
id
en
ti
fy
th
e
st
ra
te
g
ie
s
of
fe
ri
n
g
th
e
h
ig
h
es
t
p
ot
en
ti
al
fo
r
ac
h
ie
v
in
g
th
e
fi
rm
’s
ob
je
ct
iv
es
,
an
d
(2
)
al
ig
n
s
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
es
,
su
ch
as
ta
rg
et
se
tt
in
g
,
d
ec
is
io
n
-m
ak
in
g
,
an
d
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
ev
al
u
at
io
n
,
w
it
h
th
e
ac
h
ie
v
em
en
t
of
th
e
ch
os
en
st
ra
te
g
ic
ob
je
ct
iv
es
”
(p
.
71
5)
–
14
25
K
ap
la
n
an
d
N
or
to
n
(1
99
6)
A
b
al
an
ce
d
sc
or
ec
ar
d
b
is
a
co
m
p
re
h
en
si
v
e
se
t
of
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s
d
efi
n
ed
fr
om
fo
u
r
d
if
fe
re
n
t
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
p
er
sp
ec
ti
v
es
(fi
n
an
ci
al
,c
u
st
om
er
,i
n
te
rn
al
,a
n
d
le
ar
n
in
g
an
d
g
ro
w
th
)
th
at
p
ro
v
id
es
a
fr
am
ew
or
k
fo
r
tr
an
sl
at
in
g
th
e
b
u
si
n
es
s
st
ra
te
g
y
in
to
op
er
at
io
n
al
te
rm
s
(p
.
55
)
23
42
13
0
K
er
ss
en
s-
V
an
D
ro
n
g
el
en
an
d
F
is
sc
h
er
(2
00
3)
“P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
an
d
re
p
or
ti
n
g
ta
k
es
p
la
ce
at
2
le
v
el
s:
(1
)
co
m
p
an
y
as
a
w
h
ol
e,
re
p
or
ti
n
g
to
ex
te
rn
al
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s,
(2
)
w
it
h
in
th
e
co
m
p
an
y
,
b
et
w
ee
n
m
an
ag
er
s
an
d
th
ei
r
su
b
or
d
in
at
es
.
A
t
b
ot
h
le
v
el
s
th
er
e
ar
e
3
ty
p
es
of
ac
to
rs
:
(a
)
ev
al
u
at
or
s
(e
.g
.
m
an
ag
er
s,
ex
te
rn
al
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s)
,
(b
)
ev
al
u
at
e
(e
.g
.
m
id
d
le
m
an
ag
er
s,
co
m
p
an
y
),
(c
)
as
se
ss
or
,
w
h
ic
h
is
th
e
p
er
so
n
or
in
st
it
u
ti
on
as
se
ss
in
g
th
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
an
d
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
of
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
an
d
re
p
or
ti
n
g
p
ro
ce
ss
an
d
it
s
ou
tp
u
ts
(e
.g
.
co
n
tr
ol
le
rs
,
ex
te
rn
al
ac
co
u
n
ta
n
t
au
d
it
s)
”
(p
.
52
)
–
0
2
L
eb
as
(1
99
5)
“P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
is
th
e
sy
st
em
th
at
su
p
p
or
ts
a
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
h
il
os
op
h
y
”
(p
.
34
).
A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
in
cl
u
d
es
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s
th
at
ca
n
b
e
k
ey
su
cc
es
s
fa
ct
or
s,
m
ea
su
re
s
fo
r
d
et
ec
ti
on
of
d
ev
ia
ti
on
s,
m
ea
su
re
s
to
tr
ac
k
p
as
t
ac
h
ie
v
em
en
ts
,
m
ea
su
re
s
to
d
es
cr
ib
e
th
e
st
at
u
s
p
ot
en
ti
al
,
m
ea
su
re
s
of
ou
tp
u
t,
m
ea
su
re
s
of
in
p
u
t,
et
c.
A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
sh
ou
ld
al
so
in
cl
u
d
e
a
co
m
p
on
en
t
th
at
w
il
l
co
n
ti
n
u
ou
sl
y
ch
ec
k
th
e
v
al
id
it
y
of
th
e
ca
u
se
-a
n
d
-e
ff
ec
t
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s
am
on
g
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
–
0
39
L
y
n
ch
an
d
C
ro
ss
(1
99
1)
“A
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
is
b
as
ed
on
co
n
ce
p
ts
of
to
ta
l
q
u
al
it
y
m
an
ag
em
en
t,
in
d
u
st
ri
al
en
g
in
ee
ri
n
g
,
an
d
ac
ti
v
it
y
ac
co
u
n
ti
n
g
.
A
2-
w
ay
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
s
sy
st
em
is
re
q
u
ir
ed
to
in
st
it
u
te
th
e
st
ra
te
g
ic
v
is
io
n
in
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
.
M
an
ag
em
en
t
ac
co
u
n
ta
n
ts
sh
ou
ld
b
e
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
in
g
in
th
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
re
v
ol
u
ti
on
an
d
su
g
g
es
ti
on
s
on
h
ow
to
d
o
th
is
in
cl
u
d
e:
(1
)
p
ro
v
id
in
g
th
e
ri
g
h
t
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
at
th
e
ri
g
h
t
ti
m
e,
(2
)
sw
it
ch
in
g
fr
om
sc
or
ek
ee
p
er
to
co
ac
h
,
an
d
(3
)
fo
cu
si
n
g
on
w
h
at
co
u
n
ts
th
e
m
os
t.
In
te
rp
re
ti
n
g
th
e
fi
n
an
ci
al
an
d
n
on
-fi
n
an
ci
al
si
g
n
al
s
of
th
e
b
u
si
n
es
s
an
d
re
sp
on
d
in
g
to
th
em
ev
en
w
h
en
th
ey
d
o
n
ot
ag
re
e
is
a
m
an
ag
em
en
t
is
su
e,
n
ot
an
ac
co
u
n
ti
n
g
is
su
e.
”
–
–
49
(c
on
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table I.
Business
performance
measurement
789
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
C
it
at
io
n
an
al
y
si
s
A
u
th
or
an
d
d
at
e
D
efi
n
it
io
n
S
oc
ia
l
sc
ie
n
ce
ci
ta
ti
on
in
d
ex
S
co
p
u
s
G
oo
g
le
sc
h
ol
ar
M
ai
se
l
(2
00
1)
“A
B
P
M
sy
st
em
en
ab
le
s
an
en
te
rp
ri
se
to
p
la
n
,
m
ea
su
re
,
an
d
co
n
tr
ol
it
s
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
an
d
h
el
p
s
en
su
re
th
at
sa
le
s
an
d
m
ar
k
et
in
g
in
it
ia
ti
v
es
,
op
er
at
in
g
p
ra
ct
ic
es
,
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
te
ch
n
ol
og
y
re
so
u
rc
es
,
b
u
si
n
es
s
d
ec
is
io
n
,
an
d
p
eo
p
le
’s
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
ar
e
al
ig
n
ed
w
it
h
b
u
si
n
es
s
st
ra
te
g
ie
s
to
ac
h
ie
v
e
d
es
ir
ed
b
u
si
n
es
s
re
su
lt
s
an
d
cr
ea
te
sh
ar
eh
ol
d
er
v
al
u
e.
”
(p
.
12
)
–
0
2
M
cG
ee
(1
99
2)
“S
tr
at
eg
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
is
th
e
in
te
g
ra
te
d
se
tof
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
es
w
h
ic
h
li
n
k
st
ra
te
g
y
to
ex
ec
u
ti
on
”
(p
.B
6-
1)
.T
h
e
co
m
p
on
en
ts
of
a
st
ra
te
g
ic
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
ar
e:
“(
1)
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
et
ri
cs
–
d
efi
n
in
g
ev
al
u
at
io
n
cr
it
er
ia
an
d
co
rr
es
p
on
d
in
g
m
ea
su
re
s
th
at
w
il
l
op
er
at
e
as
le
ad
in
g
in
d
ic
at
or
s
of
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
ag
ai
n
st
st
ra
te
g
ic
g
oa
ls
an
d
in
it
ia
ti
v
es
.(
2)
M
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
al
ig
n
m
en
t
–
d
es
ig
n
in
g
an
d
re
en
g
in
ee
ri
n
g
co
re
m
an
ag
em
en
tp
ro
ce
ss
es
to
in
co
rp
or
at
e
n
ew
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
et
ri
cs
as
th
ey
ev
ol
v
e,
an
d
b
al
an
ci
n
g
th
e
v
ar
io
u
s
m
an
ag
em
en
t
p
ro
ce
ss
es
of
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
so
th
at
th
ey
re
in
fo
rc
e
on
e
an
ot
h
er
.T
h
e
p
ro
ce
ss
es
in
cl
u
d
e:
p
la
n
n
in
g
an
d
ca
p
it
al
al
lo
ca
ti
on
,p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
as
se
ss
m
en
t,
m
an
ag
em
en
t
co
m
p
en
sa
ti
on
an
d
re
w
ar
d
s,
an
d
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s.
(3
)
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
an
d
re
p
or
ti
n
g
in
fr
as
tr
u
ct
u
re
:e
st
ab
li
sh
in
g
p
ro
ce
ss
es
an
d
su
p
p
or
ti
n
g
te
ch
n
ol
og
y
in
fr
as
tr
u
ct
u
re
s
to
co
ll
ec
t
th
e
ra
w
d
at
a
n
ee
d
ed
fo
r
al
l
of
an
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
’s
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
et
ri
cs
an
d
to
d
is
se
m
in
at
e
th
e
re
su
lt
s
th
ro
u
g
h
ou
t
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
as
n
ee
d
ed
”
(p
p
.B
6-
2&
3)
–
0
0
N
ee
ly
(1
99
8)
A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
en
ab
le
s
in
fo
rm
ed
d
ec
is
io
n
s
to
b
e
m
ad
e
an
d
ac
ti
on
s
to
b
e
ta
k
en
b
ec
au
se
it
q
u
an
ti
fi
es
th
e
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
an
d
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
of
p
as
t
ac
ti
on
s
th
ro
u
g
h
th
e
ac
q
u
is
it
io
n
,
co
ll
at
io
n
,
so
rt
in
g
,
an
al
y
si
s,
in
te
rp
re
ta
ti
on
,
an
d
d
is
se
m
in
at
io
n
of
ap
p
ro
p
ri
at
e
d
at
a.
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s
m
ea
su
re
th
ei
r
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
in
or
d
er
to
ch
ec
k
th
ei
r
p
os
it
io
n
(a
s
a
m
ea
n
s
to
es
ta
b
li
sh
p
os
it
io
n
,
co
m
p
ar
e
p
os
it
io
n
or
b
en
ch
m
ar
k
in
g
,
m
on
it
or
p
ro
g
re
ss
),
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
e
th
ei
r
p
os
it
io
n
(a
s
a
m
ea
n
s
to
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
in
te
rn
al
ly
an
d
w
it
h
th
e
re
g
u
la
to
r)
,
co
n
fi
rm
p
ri
or
it
ie
s
(a
s
a
m
ea
n
s
to
m
an
ag
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
co
st
an
d
co
n
tr
ol
,
fo
cu
s
in
v
es
tm
en
t
an
d
ac
ti
on
s)
,
an
d
co
m
p
el
p
ro
g
re
ss
(a
s
a
m
ea
n
s
of
m
ot
iv
at
io
n
an
d
re
w
ar
d
s)
(p
p
.
5-
6)
–
–
29
(c
on
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table I.
IJOPM
27,8
790
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
C
it
at
io
n
an
al
y
si
s
A
u
th
or
an
d
d
at
e
D
efi
n
it
io
n
S
oc
ia
l
sc
ie
n
ce
ci
ta
ti
on
in
d
ex
S
co
p
u
s
G
oo
g
le
sc
h
ol
ar
N
ee
ly
et
a
l.
(1
99
5)
A
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
(P
M
S
)
is
“t
h
e
se
t
of
m
et
ri
cs
u
se
d
to
q
u
an
ti
fy
b
ot
h
th
e
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
an
d
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
of
ac
ti
on
s”
(p
.
81
).
A
P
M
S
ca
n
b
e
ex
am
in
ed
at
th
re
e
d
if
fe
re
n
t
le
v
el
s.
(1
)
A
t
th
e
le
v
el
of
in
d
iv
id
u
al
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s,
th
e
P
M
S
ca
n
b
e
an
al
y
se
d
b
y
as
k
in
g
q
u
es
ti
on
s
su
ch
as
:
W
h
at
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s
ar
e
u
se
d
?
W
h
at
ar
e
th
ey
u
se
d
fo
r?
H
ow
m
u
ch
d
o
th
ey
co
st
?
W
h
at
b
en
efi
t
d
o
th
ey
p
ro
v
id
e?
(2
)
A
t
th
e
n
ex
t
h
ig
h
er
le
v
el
,
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
as
an
en
ti
ty
,c
an
b
e
an
al
y
se
d
b
y
ex
p
lo
ri
n
g
is
su
es
su
ch
as
:
H
av
e
al
l
th
e
ap
p
ro
p
ri
at
e
el
em
en
ts
(i
n
te
rn
al
,e
x
te
rn
al
,fi
n
an
ci
al
,n
on
-fi
n
an
ci
al
)
b
ee
n
co
v
er
ed
?
H
av
e
m
ea
su
re
s
w
h
ic
h
re
la
te
to
th
e
ra
te
of
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
b
ee
n
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
?
H
av
e
m
ea
su
re
s
w
h
ic
h
re
la
te
to
b
ot
h
th
e
lo
n
g
an
d
th
e
sh
or
t
te
rm
ob
je
ct
iv
es
of
th
e
b
u
si
n
es
s
b
ee
n
in
tr
od
u
ce
d
?
H
av
e
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
b
ee
n
in
te
g
ra
te
d
,b
ot
h
v
er
ti
ca
ll
y
an
d
h
or
iz
on
ta
ll
y
?
D
o
an
y
of
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
co
n
fl
ic
t
w
it
h
on
e
an
ot
h
er
?
(3
)
A
n
d
at
th
e
le
v
el
of
th
e
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
b
et
w
ee
n
th
e
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em
an
d
th
e
en
v
ir
on
m
en
t
w
it
h
in
w
h
ic
h
it
op
er
at
es
.A
t
th
is
le
v
el
th
e
sy
st
em
ca
n
b
e
an
al
y
se
d
b
y
as
se
ss
in
g
:W
h
et
h
er
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
re
in
fo
rc
e
th
e
fi
rm
’s
st
ra
te
g
ie
s;
w
h
et
h
er
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
m
at
ch
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
’s
cu
lt
u
re
;w
h
et
h
er
th
e
m
ea
su
re
s
ar
e
co
n
si
st
en
t
w
it
h
th
e
ex
is
ti
n
g
re
co
g
n
it
io
n
an
d
re
w
ar
d
st
ru
ct
u
re
;
w
h
et
h
er
so
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
fo
cu
s
on
cu
st
om
er
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
;
w
h
et
h
er
so
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
fo
cu
s
on
w
h
at
th
e
co
m
pet
it
io
n
is
d
oi
n
g
(p
)
42
10
7
23
4
R
og
er
s
(1
99
0)
B
P
M
sy
st
em
s
ca
n
b
e
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
ze
d
as
“a
n
in
te
g
ra
te
d
se
t
of
p
la
n
n
in
g
an
d
re
v
ie
w
p
ro
ce
d
u
re
s
w
h
ic
h
ca
sc
ad
e
d
ow
n
th
ro
u
g
h
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
to
p
ro
v
id
e
a
li
n
k
b
et
w
ee
n
ea
ch
in
d
iv
id
u
al
an
d
th
e
ov
er
al
l
st
ra
te
g
y
of
th
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
.”
(i
n
S
m
it
h
an
d
G
od
d
ar
d
,
20
02
,
p
.
24
8)
–
0
24
O
tl
ey
(1
99
9)
“S
y
st
em
th
at
p
ro
v
id
es
th
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
th
at
is
in
te
n
d
ed
to
b
e
u
se
fu
l
to
m
an
ag
er
s
in
p
er
fo
rm
in
g
th
ei
r
jo
b
s
an
d
to
as
si
st
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
s
in
d
ev
el
op
in
g
an
d
m
ai
n
ta
in
in
g
v
ia
b
le
p
at
te
rn
s
of
b
eh
av
io
u
r.
A
n
y
as
se
ss
m
en
t
of
th
e
ro
le
of
su
ch
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
re
q
u
ir
es
co
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
of
h
ow
m
an
ag
er
s
m
ak
e
u
se
of
th
e
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
b
ei
n
g
p
ro
v
id
ed
to
th
em
”
(p
.
36
4)
.
M
ai
n
co
m
p
on
en
ts
of
a
P
M
S
:
(1
)
ob
je
ct
iv
es
,
(2
)
st
ra
te
g
y
,
(3
)
ta
rg
et
s,
(4
)
re
w
ar
d
s,
(5
)
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
fl
ow
s
(f
ee
d
b
ac
k
an
d
fe
ed
-f
or
w
ar
d
)
–
50
13
6
N
o
te
s
:
a
T
h
e
m
ar
k
“-
”
m
ea
n
s
th
at
th
e
ar
ti
cl
e
d
oe
s
n
ot
ap
p
ea
r
in
th
is
d
at
ab
as
e;
b
a
b
al
an
ce
d
sc
or
ec
ar
d
is
co
n
si
d
er
ed
to
b
e
a
B
P
M
sy
st
em
b
y
m
an
y
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
(A
tk
in
so
n
,
19
98
;
It
tn
er
et
a
l.,
20
03
;
N
ee
ly
et
a
l.,
20
00
;
O
tl
ey
,
19
99
)
Table I.
Business
performance
measurement
791
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
A
tk
in
so
n
(1
99
8)
A
tk
in
so
n
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
it
it
ci
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
ou
rn
e
et
a
l.
(2
00
2)
F
or
za
an
d
S
al
v
ad
or
(2
00
0)
G
at
es
(1
99
9)
It
tn
er
et
a
l.
(2
00
3)
K
ap
la
n
an
d
N
or
to
n
(1
99
6)
K
er
ss
en
s-
V
an
D
ro
n
g
el
en
an
d
F
is
sc
h
er
(2
00
3)
L
eb
as
(1
99
5)
L
y
n
ch
an
d
C
ro
ss
(1
99
1)
M
ai
se
l
(2
00
1)
M
cG
ee
(1
99
2)
N
ee
ly
(1
99
8)
N
ee
ly
et
a
l.
(1
99
5)
O
tl
ey
(1
99
9)
R
og
er
s
(1
99
0)
T
ot
al
p
er
ce
n
ta
g
e
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
ea
su
re
s
(i
n
cl
u
d
in
g
fe
at
u
re
s
su
ch
as
M
u
lt
i-
d
im
en
si
on
al
,
le
ad
in
g
/l
ag
g
in
g
,
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
/e
ff
ec
ti
v
en
es
s,
in
te
rn
al
/e
x
te
rn
al
,
v
er
ti
ca
ll
y
an
d
h
or
iz
on
ta
ll
y
in
te
g
ra
te
d
,
m
u
lt
i-
le
v
el
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
53
O
b
je
ct
iv
es
/g
oa
ls
(o
ft
en
re
fe
rr
in
g
to
st
ra
te
g
ic
ob
je
ct
iv
es
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
S
u
p
p
or
ti
n
g
in
fr
as
tr
u
ct
u
re
(w
h
ic
h
ca
n
in
cl
u
d
e
d
at
a
ac
q
u
is
it
io
n
,
co
ll
at
io
n
,
so
rt
in
g
,
an
al
y
si
s,
in
te
rp
re
ta
ti
on
,
an
d
d
is
se
m
in
at
io
n
(N
ee
ly
,
19
98
))
X
X
X
X
X
29
T
ar
g
et
s
X
X
X
X
24
C
au
sa
l
m
od
el
s
X
X
12
H
ie
ra
rc
h
y
/c
as
ca
d
e
X
X
12
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
co
n
tr
ac
t
X
X
12
R
ew
ar
d
s
X
X
12
N
o
te
:
“X
”
is
in
cl
u
d
ed
if
th
e
d
efi
n
it
io
n
p
ro
v
id
ed
re
fe
rs
to
th
e
fe
at
u
re
in
th
e
fi
rs
t
co
lu
m
n
Table II.
Main features of BPM
systems
IJOPM
27,8
792
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
A
tk
in
so
n
(1
99
8)
A
tk
in
so
n
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
it
it
ci
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
ou
rn
e
et
a
l.
(2
00
2)
F
or
za
an
d
S
al
v
ad
or
(2
00
0)
G
at
es
(1
99
9)
It
tn
er
et
a
l.
(2
00
3)
K
ap
la
n
an
d
N
or
to
n
(1
99
6)
K
er
ss
en
s-
V
an
D
ro
n
g
el
en
an
d
F
is
sc
h
er
(2
00
3)
L
eb
as
(1
99
5)
L
y
n
ch
an
d
C
ro
ss
(1
99
1)
M
ai
se
l
(2
00
1)
M
cG
ee
(1
99
2)
N
ee
ly
(1
99
8)
N
ee
ly
et
a
l.
(1
99
5)
O
tl
ey
(1
99
9)
R
og
er
s
(1
99
0)
T
ot
al
p
er
ce
n
ta
g
e
S
tr
at
eg
y
im
p
le
m
en
ta
ti
on
/e
x
ec
u
ti
on
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
59
F
oc
u
s
at
te
n
ti
on
/p
ro
v
id
e
al
ig
n
m
en
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
In
te
rn
al
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
(c
om
m
u
n
ic
at
in
g
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
an
d
p
ri
or
it
ie
s/
ob
je
ct
iv
es
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
M
ea
su
re
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
/p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
ev
al
u
at
io
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
M
on
it
or
p
ro
g
re
ss
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
P
la
n
n
in
g
X
X
X
X
29
E
x
te
rn
al
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
X
X
X
24
R
ew
ar
d
s
X
X
X
18
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
X
X
18
M
an
ag
in
g
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s
X
X
12
F
ee
d
b
ac
k
X
X
12
D
ou
b
le
-l
oo
p
le
ar
n
in
g
X
X
12
S
tr
at
eg
y
fo
rm
u
la
ti
on
X
6
B
en
ch
m
ar
k
in
g
X
6
C
om
p
li
an
ce
w
it
h
re
g
u
la
ti
on
s
X
6
C
on
tr
ol
X
6
In
fl
u
en
ce
b
eh
av
io
u
r
X
6
N
o
te
:
“X
”
is
in
cl
u
d
ed
if
th
e
d
efi
n
it
io
n
p
ro
v
id
ed
re
fe
rs
to
th
e
ro
le
st
at
ed
in
th
e
fi
rs
t
co
lu
m
n
Table III.
Main roles of BPM
systems
Business
performance
measurement
793
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
A
tk
in
so
n
(1
99
8)
A
tk
in
so
n
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
it
it
ci
et
a
l.
(1
99
7)
B
ou
rn
e
et
a
l.
(2
00
2)
F
or
zaan
d
S
al
v
ad
or
(2
00
0)
G
at
es
(1
99
9)
It
tn
er
et
a
l.
(2
00
3)
K
ap
la
n
an
d
N
or
to
n
(1
99
6)
K
er
ss
en
s-
V
an
D
ro
n
g
el
en
an
d
F
is
sc
h
er
(2
00
3)
L
eb
as
(1
99
5)
L
y
n
ch
an
d
C
ro
ss
(1
99
1)
M
ai
se
l
(2
00
1)
M
cG
ee
(1
99
2)
N
ee
ly
(1
99
8)
N
ee
ly
et
a
l.
(1
99
5)
O
tl
ey
(1
99
9)
R
og
er
s
(1
99
0)
T
ot
al
p
er
ce
n
ta
g
e
In
fo
rm
at
io
n
p
ro
v
is
io
n
(f
ee
d
-f
or
w
ar
d
an
d
fe
ed
b
ac
k
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
53
M
ea
su
re
s
d
es
ig
n
/s
el
ec
ti
on
X
X
X
X
X
29
D
at
a
ca
p
tu
re
X
X
X
X
X
29
T
ar
g
et
se
tt
in
g
X
X
X
18
R
ew
ar
d
s
X
X
X
18
Id
en
ti
fy
st
ak
eh
ol
d
er
s
n
ee
d
s
an
d
w
an
ts
X
X
12
S
tr
at
eg
ic
ob
je
ct
iv
es
sp
ec
ifi
ca
ti
on
X
X
12
D
at
a
an
al
y
si
s
X
X
12
D
ec
is
io
n
m
ak
in
g
X
X
12
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
ev
al
u
at
io
n
X
X
12
In
te
rp
re
ta
ti
on
X
6
R
ev
ie
w
p
ro
ce
d
u
re
s
X
6
P
la
n
n
in
g
X
N
o
te
:
“X
”
is
in
cl
u
d
ed
if
th
e
d
efi
n
it
io
n
p
ro
v
id
ed
re
fe
rs
to
th
e
p
ro
ce
ss
st
at
ed
in
th
e
fi
rs
t
co
lu
m
n
Table IV.
Main processes of BPM
systems
IJOPM
27,8
794
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
Discussion
This research has examined a set of BPM system definitions found in the literature on
performance measurement in the private sector. The main purpose of looking at BPM
system definitions was to identify the characteristics that are seen as necessary and/or
sufficient for the existence of a BPM system. A “necessary” condition is one without
which something cannot be what it is. For example, if something is not a plant, it
cannot be a flower. So being a plant is a necessary condition for being a flower.
A “sufficient” condition specifies one way of being that thing. For example, a daisy is
one type of flower; however, not being a daisy does not mean that something is not a
flower, it could be a rose. So being a “daisy” could be a sufficient condition for being a
flower (Brennan, 2003). As such, if anything is to be defined, its necessary and
sufficient conditions must be specified.
After conducting a methodical literature review and reading over 300 documents
(including journal articles, books, conference papers and working papers), we found
only seventeen definitions of the BPM system concept. This finding has critical
implications for the performance measurement literature. It suggests that the majority
of researchers in this field do not explicitly define what they are referring to when they
use the phrase BPM system. This means that it is difficult for readers to know exactly
what these researchers are investigating, and hence compare different studies,
generalise and draw conclusions about the body of research in the field.
Clear understanding and comparability of research is important due to the diversity
of approaches used to look at performance measurement in organizations. This
heterogeneity is reflected in the variety of characteristics extracted from the set of
definitions analysed. BPM systems have been described according to their features,
roles and processes, but none of the definitions has a common or consistent set of
characteristics. Thus, although researchers may assume that there is a common
understanding of what is and is not a BPM system, this study suggests that this
assumption is flawed. As a result, it could be argued that if the performance
measurement field is to develop and become more relevant to theory and practice, then
researchers need to be more specific and explicit about the characteristics of the
systems they are studying. Otherwise, generalisability and comparability of research
will be difficult to judge, and this has strong implications regarding the development of
this field of research and its impact on practice.
As previously mentioned, there is little agreement concerning the characteristics of
a BPM system. However, we found some consensus about two features of BPM
systems: 53 per cent of the authors mention “performance measures”; and 35 per cent
suggest “objectives/goals” as features of BPM systems. There is also some consensus
regarding five roles of BPM systems: 59 per cent consider “strategy
implementation/execution”; 41 per cent suggest “focus attention/provide alignment”
“internal communication” and “measure performance/performance evaluation”; and
35 per cent of authors mention “progress monitoring” as roles of BPM systems. Finally,
there is some agreement concerning one process of BPM systems. That is “information
provision” which has been cited by 53 per cent of the authors. The remaining
characteristics found in the definitions are used by five or fewer people. It is interesting
to note that the majority of the authors concentrate on only a few elements from
the list. Neely (1998) is the only author to cover many of the elements together
(citing 51 per cent of the elements in his definition).
Business
performance
measurement
795
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
As discussed in the introduction, in order to define something it is necessary to
specify its necessary and sufficient conditions. As we have stated, the main intention of
this paper is not to create a new definition, but to identify the characteristics that
researchers might include as necessary or sufficient conditions when defining the BPM
systems they are going to use in their investigations. Thus, which characteristics of a
BPM system could be considered key or necessary and which elements of a BPM
system could be considered sufficient? This question is addressed in the next three
sections, building on our findings, and on the knowledge and experience we have in the
field of performance measurement.
Features of a BPM system
Following the analyses of the definitions of a BPM system, we could argue that there are
only two necessary features: “performance measures” and “supporting infrastructure”.
That measures (also referred to as metrics or data in the definitions) are a necessary
requirement for a BPM system to exist is clearly a tautology. This perhaps explains why
so many authors neglect to mention them in their definitions. Although the existence of
measures is taken as a given, there is no such agreement on the nature and design of those
measures. There has long been a discussion about the need to include other dimensions of
performance than just financial (Drucker, 1954; Ghalayini and Noble, 1996; Goold and
Quinn, 1990; Fitzgerald, 1988; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987); however, there is no consensus
on what the other dimensions should be, and in fact the evidence that there should be
“balance” in the measures used is far from conclusive (Kennerley and Bourne, 2003).
As such, it is impossible to define generic types or characteristics of measures that should
be included in any definition of a BPM system.
A supporting infrastructure can vary from very simplistic manual methods of
recording data to sophisticated information systems and supporting procedures which
might include data acquisition, collation, sorting, analysis, interpretation, and
dissemination (Neely, 1998; Rolstadas,1998), and the human resources required to
support them (Kerssens-Van Drongelen and Fisscher, 2003). A supporting infrastructure
may be an explicit and instantly recognisable system or a set of processes that have been
implemented as part of a discrete BPM system. It could also be separate activities within
other performance management processes that help to perform the roles of a BPM system.
Taking into account these two conditions, it could be argued that if a piece of research only
used performance measures and supporting infrastructure as necessary features of a BPM
system, then a computerised balanced scorecard IT system would be enough evidence of
the existence of the necessary features, and hence a PMS.
One feature that could be problematic as regards to its necessary or sufficient nature
is “goals” (often referred to as “strategic goals”). A common purpose for implementing
a BPM system is to achieve some organisational goals and, very often, this relates to
strategic goals. For example, one of the stated objectives of implementing a balanced
scorecard-based measurement system is often to achieve an organisation’s strategic
objectives. This could be expected, given the relationship between goals and
organizational viability (Deming, 1982; Feurer and Chaharbaghi, 1995). Given the
recent emphasis on strategic performance measurement systems, it is not surprising
that many of the definitions talk about linking measures to strategy or strategic
objectives. However, there are measurement systems within businesses that will only
have operational goals, which may or may not be implicitly or explicitly linked
IJOPM
27,8
796
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
to strategy. Furthermore, a set of financial accounts is undoubtedly a business
performance report, and hence the system that produced it is a BPM system.
Nevertheless, there is no specific performance objective, strategic or otherwise, to
which these accounts are necessarily linked.
Roles of BPM systems
Of a BPM system, 17 different roles have been identified. However, we argue that the only
necessary role is the use of BPM systems to “measure performance”. The consideration of
this role as necessary is again a tautology. This is probably the reason why many authors
do not mention it in their definition. We accept this despite the fact that a number of studies
argue that significant value is gained from the process of designing performance
measures, regardless of the implementation and data collection phases (Neely et al., 2000,
1995, 1997). The rest of the roles extracted from our analysis can be considered context
specific. Therefore, it is extremely important that researchers clarify in their studies the
different roles that the BPM system plays in the firms they are investigating.
It is interesting to note that organizational learning (Senge, 1990) is not directly
quoted as a BPM system role, although several definitions refer to some elements of the
learning process. This is surprising, given the centrality of the learning perspective in
the balanced scorecard (Sim and Koh, 2001) and in many other management areas such
as strategy (Feurer and Chaharbaghi, 1995). Our opinion is that, although it is possible
to design, maintain and use a BPM system without organizational learning occurring,
such an outcome is extremely unlikely. One of the primary effects of the kind of
“self-analysis” undertaken during system design is improved knowledge of the
organization, and given the iterative and cumulative impact of experience with a BPM
system, it is highly likely that learning will occur (Neely et al., 2000).
In order to help researchers in the process of identifying and selecting the roles of
BPM systems that will be the focus of their investigations, we propose five different
categories of BPM system roles. These are:
(1) “measure performance” this category encompasses the role of monitor progress
and measure performance/evaluate performance;
(2) “strategy management” this category comprises the roles of planning, strategy
formulation, strategy implementation/execution, and focus attention/provide
alignment;
(3) “communication” which comprises the roles of internal and external
communication, benchmarking and compliance with regulations;
(4) “influence behaviour” this category encompasses the roles of rewarding or
compensating behaviour, managing relationships and control; and
(5) “learning and improvement” that comprises the roles of feedback, double-loop
learning and performance improvement.
Processes of BPM systems
Based on our analysis, BPM systems include 12 different processes, out of which we
believe that only three could be considered necessary. These are: “information
provision” “measure design and selection” and “data capture” (regardless of how the
data capture is done). If a company does not have a specific process for selecting the
measures it is going to use to assess its performance (even if those measures are imposed
Business
performance
measurement
797
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
by external stakeholders); if it does not have a process for capturing the data to calculate
its selected performance measures; and if it does not have a process to distribute the
results of the performance measurement exercise (even if it is with a simple Excel
spreadsheet); then, it could be argued that this company does not have a BPM system.
It is important to highlight that even though we consider these three processes as
the only necessary processes, it is highly unlikely that some kind of “data analysis” or
manipulation will not be done to sort the data into a meaningful and usable format.
Without even limited manipulation the measurement process will be of no value
whatsoever. In our opinion, the rest of the processes included in Table IV cannot be
considered necessary as they are not critical for the functioning of a BPM system. They
are probably beneficial for the effectiveness of a BPM system, but this discussion is out
of the scope of this paper.
To further the analysis, we have grouped the processes into five categories:
(1) “selection and design of measures” this category comprises the processes of
identifying stakeholders needs and wants, planning, strategic objectives
specification, measures design and selection and target setting;
(2) “collection and manipulation of data” this category includes the processes of
data capture and data analysis;
(3) “information management” this category encompasses the processes of
information provision, interpretation, decision making;
(4) “performance evaluation and rewards” this category includes the processes of
evaluating performance and linking it to rewards; and
(5) “system review” this category includes the different review procedures (these
procedures will ensure that there is a feedback loop within the system).
All these processes can take place at either organisational, team or individual levels.
Researchers need to bear in mind that when they specify the features, roles and
processes present in the BPM system they are studying, these specifications will define
the boundaries of the system, and hence, the research being undertaken. The greater
the number of features, roles or processes to be included in the definition, the more
difficult it will be to distinguish performance measurement from other management
processes, especially performance management.
Limitations
This research has looked at aspects of BPM systems that researchers have explicitly
mentioned in their definitions, and it has been conducted by a team of eight
researchers, all of whom have recognised knowledge and experience in the field of
BPM. However, using this type of method for identifyingthe main characteristics of a
BPM system also creates some limitations. Firstly, we have only looked at explicit
definitions of BPM systems. Although we cannot claim to have developed the complete
list of features, roles and processes that a BPM system comprises, we have developed a
very comprehensive list of BPM system characteristics that researchers could use to
define the boundaries of their studies and make their work more transparent and
comparable. Secondly, by only considering the definitions created by authors, rather
than the meaning of their work as a whole, we missed many of the nuances provided
by each paper. A more holistic approach, albeit necessarily more subjective, may
IJOPM
27,8
798
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
provide greater insights. Further, research on this area could improve the robustness of
our results.
Conclusions
Issues related to comparability and generalisability of research have to be addressed if we
want to make the field of performance measurement more relevant to theory and practice.
As we have shown in this paper, researchers have been looking at BPM systems, often
without explicitly describing the specific aspects of the BPM system under study. In the
literature, it is somehow assumed that the phrase BPM system is univocal. However, as we
have shown, there is no consensus about the meaning of this phrase, and this situation
creates confusion and inhibits the development of the field. Therefore, we suggest that
researchers need to be more specific and explicit about the characteristics of the
performance measurement systems they investigate. To start doing so, we have reviewed
a number of definitions of BPM systems found in the literature, and we have discussed
several characteristics of a BPM system from which researchers can choose for their
studies. With this list of conditions, we hope to encourage a central debate within the
performance measurement field, and to achieve greater level of clarity in future studies.
Note
1. A truncation character, * is used to find articles containing words with the same root.
Therefore, a search for performance measurement system * will find articles containing the
words “performance measurement system” and “performance measurement systems”; but
also “business performance measurement systems” “strategic performance measurement
systems”, etc.
References
Atkinson, A.A. (1998), “Strategic performance measurement and incentive compensation”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 552-61.
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H. and Wells, R.B. (1997), “A stakeholder approach to strategic
performance measurement”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 25-37.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and Mcdevitt, L. (1997), “Integrated performance measurement systems:
a development guide”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 17 Nos 5/6, pp. 522-34.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Platts, K. and Mills, J. (2002), “The success and failure of performance
measurement initiatives – perceptions of participating managers”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1288-310.
Bourne, M.C.S., Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F. and Platts, K.W. (2003), “Implementing performance
measurement systems: a literature review”, International Journal of Business Performance
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Brennan, A. (2003) in Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), Necessary and Sufficient Conditions, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/
entries/necessary-sufficient/
Checkland, P. (1999), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, New York, NY.
Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position, MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Drucker, P.F. (1954),ThePractice ofManagement, Harper and Row Publishers, Inc, New York, NY.
Business
performance
measurement
799
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
Dumond, E.J. (1994), “Making best use of performance-measures and information”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 16-31.
Feurer, R. and Chaharbaghi, K. (1995), “Dynamic strategy formulation and alignment”, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 76-90.
Fitzgerald, L. (1988), “Management performance measurement in service industries”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 109-16.
Forza, C. and Salvador, F. (2000), “Assessing some distinctive dimensions of performance
feedback information in high performing plants”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 359-85.
Franco-Santos, M. and Bourne, M. (2005), “An examination of the literature relating to issues
affecting how companies manage through measures”, Production, Planning and Control,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 114-24.
Gates, S. (1999), Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Results, The Conference Board,
New York, NY.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), “The changing basis of performance measurement”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 63-80.
Goold, M. and Quinn, J.J. (1990), “The paradox of strategic controls”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Ittner, C., Larcker, D. and Randall, T. (2003), “Performance implications of strategic performance
measurement in financial service firms”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28
Nos 7/8, pp. 715-41.
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 manufacturing performance: a new challenge for accounting
research”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 58, pp. 686-705.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy (reprinted from
the balanced scorecard)”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79.
Kennerley, M. and Bourne, M. (2003), “Assessing and maximising the impact of measuring
business performance”, Proceedings of the POMS/EurOMA Conference, Cernobbio, Lake
Como, Italy, 16-18 June, pp. 493-502.
Kerssens-Van Drongelen, I.C. and Fisscher, O.A.M. (2003), “Ethical dilemmas in performance
measurement”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-63.
Klir, G.J. (1991), Facets of Systems Science, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Lebas, M.J. (1995), “Performance measurement and performance management”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 41 Nos 1-3, pp. 23-35.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure Up – The Essential Guide to Measuring Business
Performance, Mandarin, London.
McGee, J.V. (1992), What is Strategic Performance Measurement?, Ernst & Young Center for
Business Innovation, Boston, MA.
Maisel, L.S. (2001), Performance Measurement Practices Survey Results, AICPA, New York, NY.
Marion, R. (1999), The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social
Systems, Sage, New York, NY.
Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2003), “Business performance measurement – past, present, and
future”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 680-7.
Neely, A. (1999), “The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-28.
IJOPM
27,8
800
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
Neely, A.D. (1998), Measuring Business Performance: Why, What and How, The Economist and
Profile Books Ltd., London.
Neely, A.D. (2002), Business Performance Measurement: Theoryand Practice, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Neely, A.D. (2005), “The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the
last decade and a research agenda for the next”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1264-77.
Neely, A.D., Gregory, M.J. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design:
a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A.D., Richards, H., Mills, J.F., Platts, K. and Bourne, M. (1997), “Designing performance
measures: a structured approach”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 Nos 11/12, pp. 1131-52.
Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F., Platts, K.W., Richards, A.H., Gregory, M.J., Bourne, M.C.S. and Kennerley,
M.P. (2000), “Performance measurement systems design: developing and testing a process
based approach”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 10, pp. 1119-46.
Otley, D.T. (1999), “Performance management: a framework for management control systems
research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-82.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2006), Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-truths, and Total Nonsense,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Rogers, S. (1990), Performance Management in Local Government, Longman, London.
Rolstadas, A. (1998), “Enterprise performance measurement”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 18 Nos 9/10, pp. 989-99.
Rousseau, D.M. (2006), “Is there such a thing as ‘evidence based management’”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 256-69.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Sim, K.L. and Koh, H.C. (2001), “Balanced scorecard: a rising trend in strategic performance
measurement”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 18-27.
Smith, P.C. and Goddard, M. (2002), “Performance management and operational research:
a marriage made in heaven?”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 247-55.
Further reading
Franco-Santos, M., Bourne, M. and Neely, A. (2003), “Understanding strategic performance
measurement systems and their impact on organisational outcomes: a systematic review”,
working paper, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield.
Corresponding author
Monica Franco-Santos can be contacted at: monica.franco@cranfield.ac.uk
Business
performance
measurement
801
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
This article has been cited by:
1. Kwee Keong Choong. 2018. Use of mathematical measurement in improving the accuracy (reliability) &
meaningfulness of performance measurement in businesses & organizations. Measurement 129, 184-205.
[Crossref]
2. YuliansyahYuliansyah, Yuliansyah Yuliansyah, JermiasJohnny, Johnny Jermias. Strategic performance
measurement system, organizational learning and service strategic alignment. International Journal of Ethics
and Systems, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Costa Ferreira JuniorSilas, Silas Costa Ferreira Junior, FleuryAfonso Carlos Corrêa, Afonso Carlos
Corrêa Fleury. 2018. Performance assessment process model for international manufacturing networks.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38:10, 1915-1936. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
4. M. Akram, M. Goraya, Aneela Malik, Amer Aljarallah. 2018. Organizational Performance and
Sustainability: Exploring the Roles of IT Capabilities and Knowledge Management Capabilities.
Sustainability 10:10, 3816. [Crossref]
5. MarchandMarie, Marie Marchand, RaymondLouis, Louis Raymond. 2018. Performance measurement
and management systems as IT artefacts. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 67:7, 1214-1233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Ryan Armstrong. 2018. Elaborating a Critical Realist Approach to Soft Systems Methodology. Systemic
Practice and Action Research 41. . [Crossref]
7. Michel Stella Ravelomanantsoa, Yves Ducq, Bruno Vallespir. 2018. A state of the art and comparison
of approaches for performance measurement systems definition and design. International Journal of
Production Research 38, 1-21. [Crossref]
8. SevergniniElizandra, Elizandra Severgnini, VieiraValter Afonso, Valter Afonso Vieira, Cardoza
GaldamezEdwin Vladimir, Edwin Vladimir Cardoza Galdamez. 2018. The indirect effects of performance
measurement system and organizational ambidexterity on performance. Business Process Management
Journal 24:5, 1176-1199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. José Marcelo Almeida Prado Cestari, Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Fernando Deschamps, Eileen Morton
Van Aken, Fernanda Treinta, Louisi Francis Moura. 2018. A case study extension methodology for
performance measurement diagnosis in nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Production
Economics 203, 225-238. [Crossref]
10. Christian Nitzl, MariaFrancesca Sicilia, Ileana Steccolini. 2018. Exploring the links between different
performance information uses, NPM cultural orientation, and organizational performance in the public
sector. Public Management Review 12, 1-25. [Crossref]
11. Afy-ShararahMohamed, Mohamed Afy-Shararah, RichNicholas, Nicholas Rich. Operations flow
effectiveness: a systems approach to measuring flow performance. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Berend van der Kolk, Wesley Kaufmann. 2018. Performance measurement, cognitive dissonance and coping
strategies: exploring individual responses to NPM-inspired output control. Journal of Management Control
29:2, 93-113. [Crossref]
13. Vamsi Vallurupalli, Indranil Bose. 2018. Business intelligence for performance measurement: A case based
analysis. Decision Support Systems 111, 72-85. [Crossref]
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 1
3:
43
 2
4 
O
ct
ob
er
 2
01
8 
(P
T)
14. Simon Okwir, Sai S. Nudurupati, Matías Ginieis, Jannis Angelis. 2018. Performance Measurement and
Management Systems: A Perspective from Complexity Theory. International Journal of Management
Reviews 20:3, 731-754. [Crossref]
15. Haley Allison Beer, Pietro Micheli. 2018. Advancing Performance Measurement Theory by Focusing on
Subjects: Lessons from the Measurement of Social Value. International Journal of Management Reviews
20:3, 755-771. [Crossref]
16. Matteo Mura, Mariolina Longo, Pietro Micheli, Daniela Bolzani. 2018. The Evolution of Sustainability
Measurement Research. International Journal of Management Reviews 20:3, 661-695. [Crossref]
17. NgoyeBenard, Benard Ngoye, SierraVicenta, Vicenta Sierra, YsaTamyko, Tamyko Ysa. Assessing
performance-use preferences through an institutional logics lens. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Mike Bourne, Monica Franco-Santos, Pietro Micheli, Andrey Pavlov. 2018. Performance measurement
and management: a system of systems perspective. International Journal of Production Research 56:8,
2788-2799. [Crossref]
19. Mohammed KamilNaail, Naail Mohammed Kamil, SubramaniamMuthaloo, Muthaloo Subramaniam,
AliHalane Elmi, Halane Elmi Ali, MusahMohammed Borhandden, Mohammed Borhandden Musah,
AlexAcheampong, Acheampong Alex. 2018. Factors influencing the selection of unit trust funds among
Malaysian retail investors. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 9:2, 155-170. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
20. Domingos Sávio Viana de Sousa, Luis Felipe