This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A measurement system for managing performance of industrial clusters
A conceptual model and research cases
´ Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti, EdwinVladimir Cardoza Galdamez and Mateus Cecilio Gerolamo
Department of Production Engineering, School of Engineering of Sao Carlos, ˜ ˜ University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to present and discuss a conceptual model for performance measurement and management of a cluster based on the concepts of the Balanced Scorecard and other models. Design/methodology/approach – This paper was based on a case research as the ﬁeld research methodology for theory testing and reﬁnement. Findings – The proposed model adequately captures the perspectives of performance management of a cluster, emphasizing the importance of measuring leading and lagging dimensions of performance such as collective efﬁciency and economic/social results. Research limitations/implications – Research is still at an early stage and applications of the model need to be carry on further so as to review and validate it. Practical limitations – Absence of a culture of decision making based on analysis of information and lack of resources may create some difﬁculty in using metrics for a cluster of SMEs. Originality/value – The paper proposes applying the concepts and techniques of business performance management and measurement to manage performance of clusters of companies, offering a new approach on how to improve the collective efﬁciency of a cluster. Keywords Performance measures, Performance management, Supply chain management, Statistical analysis, Small to medium-sized enterprises Paper type Research paper
Managing performance of clusters 405
Received August 2007 Revised March 2008 Accepted March 2008
Introduction Growing recognition of the fundamental importance of management systems has led, in recent decades, to considerable attention regarding design, implementation, and use of measurement systems (Radnor and Barnes, 2006; Neely, 1999; Kaplan and Norton, 1996). These provide needed information for decision makers who are then able to carry out regulatory actions upon the core system being managed. The purpose is to drive performance over time towards desired goals. Various performance measurement paradigms have been proposed over the last decades. Among the most widely recognized are the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) and the Performance Prism (Neely and Adams, 2000). Performance measurement has also been
The authors would like to thank FAPESP (Sao Paulo State Research Foundation) and CNPq (National Council for Science and Technology Development) for supporting this research project.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management Vol. 57 No. 5, 2008 pp. 405-419 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1741-0401 DOI 10.1108/17410400810881854
1991. which in turn leads to development of solutions that satisfy stakeholders. the main objective of this paper is to present and discuss a conceptual model for measuring and managing the performance of a cluster. The Performance Prism proposed by Neely and Adams (2000) is also based on interconnected perspectives of measurement. Delivering satisfaction depends upon capabilities. Other contributions to performance measurement system design include the dynamic performance measurement system proposed by Bititci et al. service providers. can contribute to the reduction of costs for clustered enterprises. Last. it emphasizes that the PM should be derived not only from customers’ and shareholders’ perspectives but also from other stakeholders such as employees. The following sections ﬁrst present a brief review of the performance measurement theory and practice. Next. the . especially SMEs (Krugman. 2000. there is often a deliberate joint action. illustrated by the facets of a prism. 1995. Performance measurement One of the most widely recognized performance measurement frameworks is the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton. easy access to suppliers of specialized inputs and services and the quick dissemination of new knowledge. Parallel to the evolving theory and practice on improvement and performance management. Identifying stakeholders’ requirements leads to strategic direction. standard agencies. Two research cases are presented. It is fundamentally based on recommendations such as deriving measures from strategic positioning and planning. Humphrey and Schmitz. for which the model is applied to deploy metrics and manage performance. specialized suppliers.. the concepts and techniques of performance management and measurement can be of great value in managing collective efﬁciency and performance improvement of the companies of the cluster. 1996). clustering has also been receiving growing attention as a means to boost growth and competitiveness of enterprises. trade associations) in a particular ﬁeld that compete but also cooperate (Porter.g. Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) point out that the agglomeration of enterprises engaged in similar or related activities brings advantages such as a pool of specialized workers. 2000). the proposed conceptual model is presented and discussed. Such advantages. (2000). called localized external economies. despite some limitations and a gap between theory and practices. as well as clustering of SMEs. regulators and communities. which proposes four interconnected perspectives of performance measurement in which measures of internal business process performance and learning and growth are derived from shareholders’ and customers’ views of performance. and balancing ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial measures derived from different perspectives of measurement and interconnected by a causal relationship among results and determinants. Schmitz. the paper discusses partial results and additional expected outcomes. and associated institutions (e. In this context. which in turn depend on stakeholders’ contributions. Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies. 1998).5 406 seen as an important issue for managing performance of SMEs. 2001). universities. (Hudson et al. ﬁrms in related industries. The authors also ascertain that external economies alone are not sufﬁcient to explain cluster development and that in addition to incidental external economies. Porter. However. They then propose the concept of collective efﬁciency deﬁned as the competitive advantage derived from external economies and joint actions.IJPPM 57. suppliers. Therefore.
(2006) also conclude that there is a gap between theory and practice in English SMEs. Analyzing the results of a implementation process. it seems common sense that implementing and maintaining a measurement system helps focusing on key performance factors and stimulate decision-making based on information analysis which beneﬁts performance management of any business including SMEs. 1996). clearly deﬁned metrics. Following basically the same assumptions. choosing to use only a few vital metrics is a particularly wise recommendation (Brown. explicit purpose. Few are the publications focusing speciﬁcally on performance measurement in small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). which link operations to strategic goals. leading and lagging metrics related to ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial dimensions of performance. (1990). Most of the literature on performance measurement system design treats the subject regardless of the size of the business. they are based on the idea of aligning measures with improvement priorities. Industrial clustering Although the term cluster is indiscriminately used for quite a wide range of business arrangements. Hudson et al. Again. and stimulating action and improvement. emergent. It is also plausible that a performance measurement system with metrics focusing on the key performance factors of an industrial cluster can help to manage performance so as to strengthen the competitive position of a cluster as a whole. In this context. 1991) and the performance measurement questionnaire proposed by Dixon et al. Souza et al. The main concepts of industrial clustering are brieﬂy reviewed in the next section in order to present a theoretical background and to support the model proposed by this paper. In a similar study. (2001) suggest that it may be required that the implementation process of a measurement system in SMEs be more resource effective. which audits existing measures based on their effect on improvement and the importance of improvement on different areas and factors. results from gap analysis in some English surveyed ﬁrms indicated that several of the characteristics listed in the typology were not present in the performance measurement systems of the ﬁrms such as: metrics derived from strategy. dynamic and ﬂexible so as to make it compatible with resource limitations and the informal.SMART performance pyramid (Lynch and Cross. with a clearly deﬁned. what makes clusters potentially beneﬁcial to the Managing performance of clusters 407 . (2001) present a study based on a survey and case study in which performance measurement practices in SMEs are evaluated against a typology developed by the authors that comprise recommendations on development process requirements. performance measurement characteristics and dimensions of performance. Sousa et al. accurate feedback. Maskell (1989) and Brown (1996) also present recommendations for performance measurement systems and metrics such as: derived from strategic objectives and key performance factors. However. strategy deﬁnition process of SMEs. in its broad sense it refers to a geographical concentration of certain economic activities. Hudson et al. and stimulate continuous improvement. focused on the vital few. (2005) propose a conceptual design of performance measurement and management system using a structured engineering approach. which provide fast. Wu (2006) proposes a framework for performance measurement in SMEs. In this paper. Despite all the constraints and pitfalls.
equipment and specialized services. development of suppliers. specialized suppliers. Examples of active collective efﬁciency include: organization of trade fairs. used by Krugman (1991) to explain why agglomeration can bring the beneﬁt of efﬁciency and competitiveness. ﬁrms in related industries.IJPPM 57.5 408 competitiveness of small ﬁrms are the opportunities for collective efﬁciency. this gives rise to the need of managing the collective efﬁciency of a cluster focusing on the concepts and practice of performance management. in his nearly centenary book Principles of Economics. 1999). was ﬁrst developed by Marshall (Schmitz. universities. and associated institutions (e. He noted that the agglomeration of ﬁrms working in similar or related activities generates advantages such as a pool of suppliers of raw material. information exchange between ﬁrms and institutions. linkages and information exchange among companies as well as develop a culture of continuous innovation. thus contributing to the development of the collective efﬁciency of the cluster. 1999). the existence of diversiﬁed institutional infrastructure supporting the activities of the cluster. Schmitz (1999) and Schmitz and Nadvi(1999) propose that deliberate cooperation in joint actions is an essential second component to explain the beneﬁts of clustering. 1999). and . Porter (2000) presents a deﬁnition of cluster as a geographic concentration of interconnected companies. They then deﬁne the concept of collective efﬁciency as the competitive advantage derived from the combination of local external economies and cooperative joint actions (Schmitz and Nadvi. Therefore. The concept of external economies. forward and backward linkages between ﬁrms inside the cluster. Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) argue that the results of external economies are not a sufﬁcient explanation for the growth of companies in a cluster. Altenburg and Meyer-Stamer (1999) list some characteristics that. They also differentiate the concept of passive and active collective efﬁciency. human resources or other resources required for production. service providers. a more appropriate deﬁnition of cluster should take into account external effects and interaction. . as discussed in the next section. and the development of actions aiming at mitigating social or environmental problems. Adding to the theory on industrial clustering.g. derived from external economies and joint actions (Schmitz and Nadvi. standard agencies. trade associations) in a particular ﬁeld that compete but also cooperate. While it is true that the concept of external economies remain valid to explain the growth of clustering today. which basically comprise the following points: . . Considering this theoretical frame. are said to be present in most deﬁnitions of cluster. The adoption of the concepts and practices of performance management and measurement to carry out joint actions among companies of a cluster can aid to consolidate cooperation. to express the fact that some beneﬁts require joint action to occur while others come from external economies. a pool of specialized workers and the dissemination of new knowledge. besides external economies and joint actions. a social and cultural identity made up of common values. Such active collective efﬁciency can be derived from horizontal cooperation (between competitors) or vertical cooperation (for instance between producer and supplier) either bilateral or multilateral (for instance groups of ﬁrms joining forces in business association or producer consortia). .
In the case of a cluster. Considering that. Measures related to cultural values such as trust and cooperation. Conceptual model of a performance measurement system of a cluster . especially among the entrepreneurs (whether competitors or not) of the cluster. in theory. expectations are related to growth and competitiveness of the cluster as a whole. as follows (Figure 1): (1) Economic and social results. shareholders. Measures related to the results in terms of growth and competitiveness of the ﬁrms and measured by ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial performance of the ﬁrms in the cluster. (2) Firms’ performance. (3) Collective efﬁciency. apart from the usual stakeholders (customers. Measures related to external economies and actions of cooperation among companies in the cluster. establishing a causal relationship among results and determinants. the conceptual framework proposed here is based on four perspectives of performance. For this stakeholder. suppliers and employees) a very important category of stakeholder is the institution (or institutions) governing the cluster. The adoption of this model can help the institutions governing the cluster to develop leading indicators focused on the factors of ﬁrms’ performance. Adoption of this model should be part of a process in which indicators are developed to monitor performance on objectives related to some key performance areas and stakeholders’ needs. measured by lagging indicators related to the perspective of economic and social results.Measuring and managing the collective efﬁciency of a cluster Measuring performance of a cluster. and (4) Social capital. social capital and collective efﬁciency that can bring about economic and social growth. it can be envisaged that a conceptual performance measurement system model for a cluster based on the concept of balanced perspectives of performance proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1996) should take into account measures of performance related to the concept of collective efﬁciency and its drivers. Therefore. workforce occupation and any result that brings economic and social beneﬁts. is similar to measuring performance of an enterprise. Measures related to local gross product. in which metrics are focused on key performance areas derived from objectives of performance and stakeholders’ needs and expectations. and he or she has a very important contribution to make: to promote cooperation among the other stakeholders. Evaluating the results of implementation of improvement actions by means of performance indicators gives feedback information upon which managers are able to Managing performance of clusters 409 Figure 1.
In order to test and analyze the applicability of the performance measurement system model proposed in Figure 1.5 act. there has been a growing interest in studying and supporting industrial clustering.5). 000 companies responsible for over 680. case study was adopted as the case research procedure.IJPPM 57. using a methodology based on location quotient (relative signiﬁcance of employment in a particular industrial sector in a region compared to its signiﬁcance in Brazil. Participation in the project promoted by FIESP/SEBRAE was used as an indicator of such an involvement. with the following main stakeholders (see Figure 2): 410 . furniture and ceramics. a city in the State of Sao Paulo with a population of around 50. 1999.. The ﬁrst cluster under study includes 586 SMEs ﬁrms whose activities are classiﬁed. 1999). pilot applications were carried out in two industrial clusters of SMEs. It is located in Ibitinga. have decided to participate in the project supported by FIESP/SEBRAE. agglomeration has led to the development of some advantages (external economies) such as: specialized labor force. as well as a local infrastructure for retailing. Before conducting the applications. according to the Brazilian National Classiﬁcation of Economic Activities. Puga (2003). made up of nearly 77.000 people. Two cases were selected.00 jobs and exports of over 3. Interviews were carried out during 2006 with the chair of the local association of entrepreneurs and other important stakeholders. 2002). Realizing the importance of industrial clusters for economic and social development.g. 42 clusters are in the State of Sao Paulo. which were going through a project funded by government agencies to improve productivity and results. textile.61-2). Most of the companies were established in the 1980s and nineties but agglomeration started in the early 1960s. as production of textiles. especially of small ﬁrms. mainly motivated by several successful cases reported in the specialized literature as well as in the press (e. Criteria for choosing the clusters were: the involvement of a governing body that promotes joint actions among the companies of the cluster. suppliers of materials and specialized services. mainly in the sectors of footwear. as described bellow. Schmitz. Case research was the general research methodology adopted for ﬁeld research (Voss et al. Of these. The project started in March 2004. greater than ﬁve) and the location Gini coefﬁcient (equal or greater than 0. For this ﬁrst part of the ﬁeld research. speciﬁcally bed linen (code 17. could identify 193 agglomerations in Brazil. the Federation of Industries of the State of Sao Paulo (FIESP) and the “SEBRAE” (a government agency for supporting small enterprises) have launched a project to promote cooperation among companies in several industrial clusters in Sao Paulo State. perceiving that the beneﬁts of agglomeration could be increased by means of cooperation.700 million US dollars. Case research In Brazil. The model presented in Figure 1 was applied in two clusters as described in the next section. 2005). Over the years. Altenburg and Meyer-Stamer. The local association of entrepreneurs. the clusters were studied so as to explore and better understand the process of performance management in a cluster and to reﬁne the theoretical background for performance measurement. in Sao Paulo State.. closing a positive control loop (Souza et al.
ﬁrst case . . the companies of the cluster participating in the project (19 companies when the project started. which congregates 88 companies. who beneﬁt from service demands. Figure 2 shows the stakeholders and the organizational structure involved in coordinating the project in this cluster.Managing performance of clusters 411 Figure 2. number which increased to 35 companies at the time this study was carried out). At the time of the project they had 1. . . which provides infrastructure. the local government. such as accountants and IT professionals. As one of the main .354 employees (which amounts to an average of 38. provides the local infrastructure for developing the activities of the project and manages the cluster jointly with the local representatives of FIESP and SEBRAE. the “FIESP”. the “SINDICOBI”. Stakeholders and organization for project coordination.7 employees per company). the university researchers. . which provides technical courses to prepare the local labor force. the local association of entrepreneurs. and the “SEBRAE”. who study the development of the project as well as provide some guidance regarding the methodology adopted. the “SENAI” – National Service for Training Industry Labor Force. The 35 companies participating in the project are classiﬁed as small enterprises. which coordinate the development of the project and provide ﬁnancial resources to support the initiative. and local consultants. . .
helped the project team and the companies’ employees to collect and display the metrics. Also. Following the deﬁnition of objectives. . planned and implemented. Analysis of the process of carrying on this project for performance improvement in this cluster reveals that there were indeed key stakeholders (such as the ﬁrms and institutional bodies) involved with deﬁning objectives of performance based on their needs and expectations and deploying actions to achieve their objectives. evaluation of results did not rely on objective measures. collective purchasing of raw material. the metrics chosen were some how inﬂuenced by the degree of difﬁculty in collecting data. which was to help deﬁne the objectives and actions and commit themselves to contributing to the project. frequency of measurement. one of the researchers. for each metric. . hired by FIESP. operations management. the research team proposed to provide some guidance in the process of implementing a performance measurement system. Also. equipping the association with a workshop for training the labor force. units of measure and form of display.IJPPM 57. the companies had a very important role.5 412 stakeholders of the project. Another important objective was to change the reputation for “poor quality” related to the products of the cluster. marketing and design. The main objectives deﬁned for the project were to increase productivity and market share and to reduce costs. and . Table I presents the metrics and associated objectives and perspectives. some improvement actions were deﬁned. . the metrics chosen are the ones whose data have already been collected and thus are easily calculated. . Therefore. . which involved 23 companies. registering a trade mark of the cluster. In the interviews with the people in charge of managing the project and with the governing institutions of the cluster it was consensus that performance measurement was an essential step in order to evaluate the beneﬁts of the actions. The program started in December 2005 with the organization of a workshop to present some characteristics that performance measurement should have and to gain commitment from participants. it could be seen that despite their contribution to support the activities of the cluster and the effort to implement the actions. establishing a cooperation program with a public technical school to offer technical courses focused on the needs of the cluster. not only by implementing or helping to implement the actions deﬁned by the project team but also by promoting the culture of cooperation among them. For this pilot application. That is. Interaction between the research team and the institutions governing the cluster started in January of 2005. However. . it was decided that only a few metrics would be adopted. the following points were deﬁned (as presented in Table II): . The main actions carried out by the governing institutions aiming at improving cooperation were: . some metrics were deﬁned based on the objectives of the project. During the workshops. organizing trade shows. formula of calculus. Considering that performance measurement was something unknown by the companies in the cluster. hiring consultancy services on ﬁnance.
by using metrics they were able to compare performance among the companies in a very objective way. . data collection started in January 2006. according to the Brazilian National Classiﬁcation of Economic Activities. The governance of the cluster is led by the local association of shoe makers (“Sindicalcados”) in cooperation with “SEBRAE” (the government agency for ¸ supporting small enterprises).31-3). The companies in the cluster employ around 8000 people and produce 100. Managing performance of clusters 413 Perspective Company’s performance Objective Market increase Improve productivity Reduce costs Increase proﬁt Improve employment opportunities Improve availability of specialized labor force Reduce costs. improve cooperation Increase number of participants Metric deﬁnition Average unit sale price Value added per employee Total cost Proﬁt Total labor force Total number of trained people Total amount of Collective acquisition of raw material Percentage of companies involved with cooperation Table I. target for the metric. For this pilot application. especially managers and shop ﬂoor workers.000 pairs of shoes a day. . marketing. which led to a further action: the development and pilot application of a benchmarking database as described in another paper. The main objectives of this project are to increase productivity and income by increasing sales volume and market value. the date the project started. Metrics and associated objectives and perspectives of performance. For instance. and responsibility for collecting data and calculating metrics. However. as manufacturing of leather shoes (code 19. Following this pilot application. collecting industrial residue. It is located in the State of Sao Paulo. the companies involved in it and the governing institutions realized the usefulness of having metrics to analyze results of actions and support decisions for further actions. which provides technical courses to prepare the local labor force and “Fatec” (a state faculty of technology). The second case under study is a cluster of women’s footwear manufacturers that includes 250 SMEs ﬁrms whose activities are classiﬁed. hiring consultancy services on product development. in a city with a population of around 90. which correspond to 2 percent of the demand for women’s shoes in Brazil. ﬁrst case Social/economic results Collective efﬁciency Social capital . The main cooperating actions carried out by the governing institutions were: . Since April 2005 they coordinate the development of a cooperation project very similar to the one presented in the ﬁrst case.. data had been retrieved since March 2004. two other educational institutions got ¸ involved in this project: “SENAI” (National Service for Training Industry Labor Force. production management and ﬁnancing. involving 50 small companies of the cluster. Apart from “Sindicalcados” and “SEBRAE”. training the workforce.000 people. .
taxes and investments over production employees Total cost over growth income % Semester Semester Semester Year Quarterly Year Responsible stakeholder Companies and local coordinator 3 percent reduction 8 percent increase 7 percent increase 300 people trained 30 ton 50 percent increase .414 IJPPM 57. Details of the metrics. administrative expenses. ﬁrst case Formulaa Unity 10 percent increase 15 percent increase Frequency Target Growth income over number of sold $/unit Semester units $/employee Semester Growth income minus total costs.5 Metric deﬁnition Average unit sale price Value added per employee Total cost Net proﬁt over growth income Number of people hired Number of trained persons Person Ton % Person % Proﬁt Total labor force Total number of trained people Total amount of collective acquisition of Acquisitions of raw material raw material Percentage of companies involved with Number of SMEs engaged in cooperation cooperation over total SMEs participating in the project Note: aPer company and average Table II.
as presented in Table IV: formula of calculus. frequency of measurement. it was deﬁned. environmental impact was included as a ﬁfth perspective of performance. Analysis of this case also reveals that there were key stakeholders. After that. targets and responsibility for collecting data. In this case. For each metric. Data collection for this case started in February 2007. the research team proposed to provide some guidance in the process of implementing a performance measurement system. improve cooperation Increase number of participants Increase collection of industrial residue Metric deﬁnition Average unit sale price Labor productivity Shoes sold Total labor force Total number of trained people Total amount of collective acquisition Percentage of companies involved with cooperation Collection of industrial residue Managing performance of clusters 415 Table III. units of measure and form of display. The program started in August 2006 with a workshop in which performance measurement characteristics were presented to the entrepreneurs and governing institutions. it was consensus that measuring the results of their actions was the missing part in the improvement management process. entrepreneurs and researchers to deﬁne perspectives of performance. . target for the metric and deadline for meeting the targets. responsibility for collecting data and calculating metrics. They have also shown the importance of an Perspective Company’s performance Social/economic results Collective efﬁciency Social capital Environmental impact Objective Increase market value Improve labor productivity Increase sales Improve employment opportunities Improve availability of specialized labor force Reduce costs. Table III presents the metrics and associated objectives and perspectives. some conclusions can already be made. the ﬁrms and institutional bodies. Also in this case. providing social assistant to the workers and their families. Final discussion Despite the fact that this research work is still in an early stage of development. as in the ﬁrst case. with the participation of the governance institutions. metrics. there were eight meetings from August to December 2006. Metrics and associated objectives and perspectives of performance. second case .. Again. The governance bodies of the cluster also realized the importance of having metrics to follow up performance. For this. formula of calculus. involved with deﬁning performance objectives based on their needs and expectations and deploying actions to achieve their objectives. and organizing visits to national and international trade shows. deploying actions and evaluating results so as to give feedback to further actions. a web based database was used to store the metrics so as to make it available for the project coordinators (“Sindicalcados” and “SEBRAE” as well as for ¸ benchmarking among the companies in the cluster. The cases have shown the applicability of the basic continuous improvement cycle for managing actions for improving performance of a cluster: deﬁning objectives of performance.
416 IJPPM 57. Details of the metrics.5 Metric deﬁnition Growth income over number of sold units in the period Units in the period over in the period Sold units in a period Number of people hired in the period Number of people trained in the period Acquisitions of raw material in the period Number of SMEs engaged in cooperation over total SMEs participating in the project in the period Amount industrial residue collected in the period $/unit Unit/employee Unit People People R$/unit of material % Ton Average unit sale price Labor productivity Shoes sold Total labor force Total number of trained people Total amount of collective acquisition Percentage of companies involved with cooperation Amount of industrial residue collected Table IV. second case Formula (per company and average) Unity Responsible Frequency Target stakeholder Month Month Month Semester Year Month Year Month 10% 15% 15% 5% 300 10% 75% 250 Companies and local coordinator .
the existence of trust. the key stakeholders should be actively involved. such as value added per employee and total cost. implementing and monitoring actions for improving collective efﬁciency of a cluster.institutional infrastructure to support and promote cooperation and development of actions to improve the collective efﬁciency of the cluster. emphasizing the importance of measuring leading and lagging dimensions of performance such as collective efﬁciency and economic/social results. metrics of importance to the governance agents of the cluster to evaluate performance on social/economic development and cooperation. it could be seen it helps to draw attention to relevant perspectives of performance management of the companies as well as the cluster itself. Also. 2001. The pilot implementations of the metrics have also proven the adequacy of closing the improvement management loop by reviewing performance by means of measurement. mutual understanding and shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make co-operative action among the stakeholders possible. Regarding the conceptual model proposed in Figure 1. such as total labor force hired and collective acquisition. In both cases there metrics related to performance of the companies. p. helping them to manage their performance. i. However.e. 4). and also metrics related to the performance of the cluster as a whole. Based of these case studies. which in turn depends on the existence of social capital (understood as “the stock of active connections among people” (Cohen and Prusak. Deployment and monitoring of improvement actions . a conceptual model as depicted in Figure 3 is thought to adequately capture the process of planning. additional perspectives of performance can be considered Managing performance of clusters 417 Figure 3.
could lead to the conclusion that the concepts shown in Figures 1 and 3 form a basic framework upon which performance of a cluster can be managed. References Altenburg. K. World Development. pp. (1999). 1. 32-3. Productivity. and Cross. in these pilot applications. Vol. J. (2001). . Brown. “Clusters and the new economics of competition”. pp. and Bourne. Vol. Vol. “Performance measurement for world class manufacturing”. “The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?”. “Theory and practice in SME performance measurement system”. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. (2001) could be seen in both applications: difﬁculty in deploying metrics from key performance factors. Lynch. Bititci. Neely. participation in this project. and Norton. Cohen. Homewood. (1990). L. J. pp. Boston. (1999). 692-704. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. in Bourne. Geography and Trade. (1991). A. MIT Press. H. even considering that there is a lack of maturity for performance measurement and management to be overcome. and Prusak.5 418 depending on the application. “Dynamics of performance measurement systems”. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Maskell.. and Adams.G. (2000). the managers and entrepreneurs have started to realize the importance of deploying actions by analyzing objectives and different perspectives of performance and using metrics in order to access performance and review improvement actions. Management Accounting. (Ed.IJPPM 57. (1996). “How to promote clusters: policy experiences from Latin America”. T. (2000). pp. OR.F. and Meyer-Stamer. Smart. London. D. Harvard Business Review. A. Despite that.E. 77-90. 27 No. (1996). 34 No. MA. 1096-115. 19 No. 75-85. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work.R. Hudson. both as an observer and also by implementing the metrics and having the opportunity to exchange experiences with the entrepreneurs. (1989). 21 No. 1693-713. B. absence of a culture of decision-making based on analysis of information and ﬁnally a lack of resources. T. A. and Schmitz. Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World-class Performance. Dixon. Humphrey. The Journal of Development Studies. D. 2. (1991). 32-61.P. M. 76 No. “Trust and inter-ﬁrm relations in developing and transaction economies”. (1998). Measure Up – The Essential Guide to Measuring Business Performance. P. Kaplan. 8. 6. “Perspectives on performance: the performance prism”.R. Therefore. M. Portland. Vol. MA. IL.. M. 6. Gee Publishing. Mandarin.J. Vol. 205-28. T. U. Neely. C. 4. (2000). “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”. (2001). Harvard Business Review. Cambridge. Nanni. 74 No. May. pp. pp. pp. M. Handbook of Performance Measurement. and Turner. such as the perspective related to environmental sustainability used in the second case. Harvard Business School Press. London. Dow Jones-Irwin. tendency to measure cost and ﬁnancial results. and Vollmann. L. The New Performance Challange – Measuring Operations for World Class Competition. pp. 20 No. Limitations in the implementation of the measurement system similar to those described by Hudson et al. R. Vol. Krugman.S. A.). 9. M. Porter. Vol. J.
A. (2003) Vol. 4. E. pp. Vol. 120-34. “Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management”. H. 12. pp. Carpinetti. “Alternativas de apoio a MPMES localizadas em arranjos produtivos locais”. 25-28 July. Vol. 385-99. A. do?id ¼ 6 (accessed 12 November 2004). Sousa. “Performance measurement in English small and medium enterprises: survey results”. 54 Nos 5/6. Vol.. pp.emeraldinsight.. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. “Performance measurement frameworks – a review. (1999). Souza.br Managing performance of clusters 419 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. 1. Vol. M. Voss. Further reading Kennerley. L. “Clustering and industrialization: introduction”. London. (2006). Wu.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. 465-83.org. (2006). (2000). M. Corresponding author Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti can be contacted at: carpinet@sc. “Conceptual design of performance measurement and management system using a structured engineering approach”. Van Aken.usp. 1. G.com/reprints . Vol. (2005). Schmitz. 1503-14. Vol. D.Puga. Cambridge. C. Tsikriktsis. (2002). and Neely. H.anprotec.. Proceedings of the Peformance Measurement Association Conference – PMA 2006. 529. 24 No. 27 No. Aspinwall. “Performance measurement in SMEs. N. R. Radnor. World Development.” in Proceedings of the Performance Measurement Conference. (1995). Vol. 195-219. 13 Nos 1/2. (1999). Schmitz. pp. F. in Proceedings of the Performance Measurement Association Conference – PMA 2006. London. and Groesbeck. 19-21 July. 31 No. “Collective efﬁciency and increasing return”. pp. 25-28 July. 2. Z. and Frohlich. Vol. pp. available at: http://redeincubar.. D. 817-24. and Rodrigues. a new approach”. The Journal of Development Studies. “Collective efﬁciency: growth path for small-scale industry”. pp. 22 No. p. 4. S.br:8280/portal/baixaFcdAnexo. “Case research in operations management”. and Nadvi. H. and Barnes. K. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 9. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 817-24. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. E. Schmitz. (2006).
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.