‘Organizational Linkages: Understanding tho Productivity Paradox (1984) iptv np edioperoneDO09045042hra 15 Hl copy 1684, 2060 The Raa Acaseny of Seles igh ese 150 + _p. soorr siae ano cxoncs b. s\aTH mm. storage, retrieval, processing, and portrayal tools and techniques. Dixon ct al, (1990) have identified three phases that organizations are likely to go through on the read to improved performance measurement sys- tems: (1) tinkering with the existing measurement system (e.¢., the cost accounting system); (2) cutting the “Gordian knot” between account- ing and performance measurement, and (3) embracing change in strat- egies, actions, and measures. Building measurement systems to support continuous improvement and address the productivity linkage paradox is a significant depar- ture from the traditional orientation of organizational control. As such, some underlying issues and principles should be noted. Key Issues, Principles, and Assumptions ‘Many measurement problems and failings can be traced to atti- tudes about measurement that are based on paradigms of the past. Listed below are issues, principles, and assumptions associated with the de- velopment of measurement for world-class competition, many of which challenge existing paradigms: + ‘The goal is to design, develop, and implement successfully mea- surement systems that share information and thereby support and en- hance continuous performance improvement. * Organizations that learn faster than their competitors have little to fear. Continuous learning must be cultivated through strategies, actions, and measures and must evolve over time (Dixon et al., 1990). + ‘Control-oriented measurement systems often hinder continu- ous improvement efforts. It is important to distinguish who is doing the controlling to understand this issue fully. ‘The aim is to move to- ward control and improvement by those doing the work, to build qual- ity in versus inspecting it in. Itis the overreliance on external control that is hindering the rate of improvement. ‘+ Measurement is often resisted due to fear of negative conse- quences: Visibility of good performance might lead to diminished re- sources, Visibility of poor performance might lead, initially, to more resources but eventually to punishment, Visibility of performance might promote catering to crises, excessive measurement, and micromanage- ment. ‘+ Measurement biases and paradigms are dominated by disciplin- ary (industrial engineering, industrial psychology, accounting, corpo- rate finance, statistics, quality control) and often myopic thinking, ‘+ Measurement is complex. Once this is accepted, measurement, can become less difficult.