Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com/locate/lrp
Strategic Performance
Measurement: Benefits,
Limitations and Paradoxes
Pietro Micheli and Jean-Francois Manzoni
Strategic Performance Measurement (SPM) can be both functional and dysfunctional for
organisations. SPM can help organisations define and achieve their strategic objectives,
align behaviours and attitudes and, ultimately, have a positive impact on organisational
performance. However, SPM has also been criticised for several reasons, such as encour-
aging perverse behaviours, stifling innovation and learning, and having little effect on
decision-making processes. If both perspectives are valid, how can organisations make
SPM more of an asset and less of a liability?
In this article, we argue that the design of an SPM system (SPMS) and the definition of its
roles are fundamental factors determining its success and impact on business perfor-
mance. Indeed, only by carefully considering characteristics and roles will managers reap
the full benefits, and SPMSs make a substantial contribution to the achievement of
organisations’ strategic goals.
Building on the papers selected for this Special Issue, we draw conclusions that are
relevant for both the theory and the practice of SPM. First, the benefits and limits of
SPM depend on the very definition of what SPM should be, and on whether the mea-
surement of performance is linked to both formulation and implementation of strategy.
Secondly, the types of behaviour promoted by the SPMS are determined primarily by
the uses of the system, particularly whether it is adopted for control or learning
purposes. Thirdly, organisations should regard their SPMS as a means of fostering
alignment to an existing strategy, but also of supporting empowerment and the
continuous adaptation of strategy and tactics. Finally, in order for SPM to support
The design of an SPM system and the definition of its roles are
fundamental factors determining its success
0024-6301/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.004
decision-making processes and positively impact on organisational performance, targets
and indicators have to be linked to strategy and considered in strategic reviews.
Following an introductory section on the theme of SPM, we examine the benefits, limits
and paradoxes of SPM. We conclude by arguing for intelligent and purposeful designs of
performance measurement systems, and for research that breaks the barriers of academic
silos and puts an end to sterile contrapositions between advocates and critics of SPM.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Since the early 1990s, organisations have invested increasing amounts of money and resources in mea-
suring their performance. Recent reports suggest that an average company with $1 billion sales spends
over 25,000 person-days per year planning and measuring performance.1 In the public sector, following
the recent introduction of ‘New Public Management’ reforms in a number of OECD countries, consider-
able attention has been paid to strategic performance measurement by governments. UK government
departments recently estimated they spend over £150 million per year solely to monitor progress on na-
tional targets. This excludes the cost of front-line organisations gathering, analysing and providing data.2
A number of studies have found SPM generally productive and helpful in improving organisa-
tional performance.3 Specifically, research has shown that, through appropriate measurement and
management of performance, organisations can benefit in the following areas:
Other studies, however, show that despite the substantial resources invested by organisations, SPM-
related initiatives such as the implementation of scorecards can often fail to bring the intended benefits.
Worse, if done poorly, they can be very expensive, and not only ineffective but harmful and indeed de-
structive.7 Therefore, if organisations are to realise value and become more sustainable in the longer
term, it is crucial to understand how appropriate SPM practices deliver improved performance.
In spite of decades of research in this area, evidence on the benefits and limits of SPM is still
inconclusive. Indeed, authors from areas as diverse as strategy management, human resources,
management accounting and control, operations management, public administration, organisa-
tional behaviour, information systems and marketing have paid considerable attention to strategic
performance measurement. However, lack of cross-disciplinary studies has resulted in the fragmen-
tation of this field e as well as the polarisation of the debate e among advocates of specific tools
and techniques, and critical investigators of behavioural and cultural implications.
Conflicting research findings and lack of agreement over the benefits and limits of SPM prompted
the development of a call for papers on the theme of SPM. The purpose of this Special Issue was to
examine the state of the art and identify directions for the development of SPM as a field of research.
The second paper, by Dossi and Patelli, examines the inclusion of non-financial indicators in
PMSs used in relationships between headquarters and subsidiaries. The distinction e and, often,
contraposition e between financial and non-financial indicators has already been studied by a num-
ber of scholars. However, the authors consider performance measurement as a means of establish-
ing a dialogue between headquarters and subsidiaries, looking at the changes in emphasis placed by
headquarters on financial indicators to control subsidiaries, depending on subsidiaries’ perfor-
mance. After analysing the results of a survey conducted among the Italian subsidiaries of foreign
companies, Dossi and Patelli conclude that, for headquarters, non-financial indicators have incre-
mental but not superior information content to financial indicators.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of non-financial indicators is positively associated with subsidiary
profitability, subsidiary participation in the design of PMSs and their interactive use. Importantly,
Discussion
Strategic performance measurement
Our understanding of the benefits and limitations of SPM depends on the very definition of what SPM
is. The results of the study conducted by Gimbert et al., and their operational definitions of strategic
performance measurement systems (SPMS) and PMS, are in line with recent contributions in this
area,9 showing how crucial it is to differentiate between strategic and operational PMSs. Far from being
solely a difference in terminology, the strategic connotation of certain PMSs has fundamental impli-
cations for their use at different organisational levels and their impact on strategy. In particular, the
inclusion of multi-perspective indicators and cause-effect linkages in the design of the SPMS are fac-
tors of primary importance, if we focus on the links between performance measurement and strategy
reviews. This conclusion also has relevant implications on future studies in the field of SPM. In order to
have comparability and generalisability of research findings, authors will have to clarify what type of
PMS they are considering, rather than examining ‘generic’ performance measurement systems.
SPM can be used to gather data about past performance, but also to
implement strategic objectives
SPMS can be used in relationships between headquarters and subsidiaries, and between corporate
and business unit levels. In their study of Italian subsidiaries of foreign multinationals, Dossi and
Patelli show how non-financial indicators are still treated as complementary and not substitute
measures of performance. Although increasing emphasis has been placed on the importance of
using non-financial indicators, this is not necessarily a negative finding. As previous studies dem-
onstrate, it is fundamental for organisations to decide which type of SPMS to introduce, in line with
their approach to strategic control.12 Indeed, if the headquarters of a multinational company wants
to exert financial control over its subsidiaries and keep the learning generated within those
subsidiaries, the inclusion of predominantly financial indicators would be appropriate. However,
if headquarters want to stimulate knowledge flows and the diffusion of good practices across
subsidiaries, then mere financial control would be insufficient.
SPM is a means by which to establish a dialogue between different functions within an organi-
sation; between headquarters and subsidiaries; and between an organisation and its environment. In
the context of multinationals, the participation of subsidiaries in designing an SPMS is likely to re-
sult in the inclusion of a higher number of non-financial indicators. Therefore, headquarters seek-
ing dialogue with local managers should design measurement systems that are not there solely for
‘diagnostic’ purposes, but also include more ‘interactive’, non-financial indicators. Moreover,
although the ‘diagnostic’ use of SPMSs could work against deploying certain capabilities, it would
not necessarily have a negative impact on performance. In fact, it could make a positive contribu-
tion by monitoring performance against goals, providing boundaries for action, restricting risk-
taking, and monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of processes and activities.13 It is the lack
of clarity over these issues and inconsistencies (e.g., efforts to promote communication and diffuse
good practices across a group of firms using mostly financial indicators) that create considerable
problems and may eventually lead to the failure of the whole SPMS.
The paper by Melnyk et al. sheds light on this apparent contradiction. In the organisation con-
sidered, the authors find that SPM supported the development of particular capabilities and the
crystallisation of a specific organisational culture, linked to process improvement driven by
a cost leadership strategy. When the organisation tried to change its strategic focus to differentia-
tion through radical innovation, the capabilities that SPM had contributed to create became core
rigidities and the SPMS subverted this movement into a shift to incremental innovation.
Other studies have also emphasised how measurement systems, particularly if used for ‘diagnos-
tic’ purposes, could have a negative effect on innovation and the capacity of the organisation to
transform itself.13 On the other hand, the ‘interactive’ use of SPMSs could foster capabilities of en-
trepreneurship, market orientation, organisational learning and innovation. As Dossi and Patelli
suggest, they could be used as a means to generate and disseminate new strategic objectives and
knowledge across the organisation. Therefore, as previously remarked, the different roles of SPM
should be considered, especially when organisations are involved in processes of substantial
transformation.
A purposeful design
The design of an SPMS is fraught with difficulties and, to date, many measurement initiatives can
be considered outright failures.22 This paper shows not only how performance measurement
systems can differ from each other in nature, but also how they can be developed for different pur-
poses. The plurality of roles of SPM indicates the importance of defining from the outset the roles
of every performance indicator and the SPMS as a whole. In this sense, we could argue that the
design of such systems should be an intelligent and purposeful creation. Key questions managers
should ask themselves include:
Answers to these questions should then determine the number and kind of performance indica-
tors, the type of reviews that will be conducted, and the main features of the SPMS as a whole. In
particular, the organisation will have to decide the degree of flexibility it wants to embed in the
system, according to its envisaged use in both the short and the long term. The balance between
alignment and empowerment, and the frequency of reviews and audits will determine the dyna-
mism of the system. Also, the design of the SPMS will have to depend on the environment in which
the organisation operates, its strategy, its links with key stakeholders, and the implications the mea-
surement system may have in maintaining the current, or shaping the future, organisational culture.
Indeed, in a world where the pace of change has increased markedly over the last few years, firms
will increasingly need their SPMS not only to help get alignment to an existing strategy, but also to
support the empowerment and continuous adaptation of strategy and tactics. And this will be valid
not only for successful subsidiaries and operations, but for all operations, particularly for less well-
performing ones. We believe that the papers presented in this Special Issue offer some very helpful
suggestions on how to achieve this, and how to embed a strategic performance measurement system
in organisations.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks and appreciation go to Professor Charles Baden-Fuller, Editor-in-Chief of Long Range
Planning, for his kind invitation to be Guest Editors of this Special Issue and his support and en-
couragement during the process. Special thanks also to all authors, reviewers and colleagues at
Cranfield’s Centre for Business Performance for making this publication possible.
References
1. A. Neely, M. Bourne, Y. Jarrar, M. Kennerley, B. Marr, G. Schiuma, A. Walters, M. Sutcliff, H. Heyns,
S. Reilly and S. Smythe, Delivering value through strategic planning and budgeting, Report by Accenture
and Cranfield School of Management, London (2001); see also A. Papalexandris, G. Ioannou and G. P.
Prastacos, Implementing the Balanced Scorecard in Greece: a software firm’s experience, Long Range Plan-
ning 37(4), 351e366 (2004).
2. A. Neely, P. Micheli, and V. Martinez, Acting on information: lessons from theory and practice, Report pre-
pared for the National Audit Office. Publication sponsored by the Advanced Institute of Management
(2006).
Biographies
Pietro Micheli is a Lecturer at Cranfield School of Management’s Centre for Business Performance, and Fellow of
the Advanced Institute of Management, UK. His research and consulting interests focus on organisational per-
formance, particularly in the areas of strategic performance measurement and continuous improvement. He has
carried out extensive research on the design, use and impact of performance measurement systems, and on the
introduction of performance improvement initiatives in both private and public sector organisations. As
a founding member of the Evidence-Based Management collaborative and an organiser of events that bring to-
gether academics and practitioners, he is a keen advocate of original research that influences management practice.
Jean-Francois Manzoni is Professor of Leadership and Organisational Development at IMD (Lausanne,
Switzerland). His research, consulting and teaching activities are focused on the management of change at the
individual and organisational level. At the organisational level, he studies the content of change (including the use
of levers such as strategy, structure and systems), the management of the change process and the role of leaders
therein. At the inter-personal level, he focuses on helping management teams to improve their effectiveness and
performance. His work in these areas has appeared in a number of articles, cases and books.