See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275659514

An Overview of Organizational Performance Index: Definitions and

Measurements

Research · May 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4298.3849

CITATIONS READS
7 50,689

1 author:

Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi

University of Malaya
73 PUBLICATIONS   677 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The electrochemical capacitive behavior of polymer-based nanocomposites View project

Household Quality of Life and Children’s Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi on 02 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Overview of Organizational Performance Index: Definitions and Measurements

Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi

Department of Science and Technology Studies
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
salarzadeh@um.edu.my
+60178777662

Abstract

Estimating the performance of the organization has always been of interest to management teams and
researchers. In this regard, some researchers focused on determining definitions and how to measure
organizational performance. The main objective of this study is to overview of organizational performance
index definition and performance measurement. The history of performance is classified into six different
subcategories. Various ideas and opinions on each of the performance subcategories are discussed. This
review paper is applicant for researcher and student to better to understand definition and modelling of
performance in organizational studies.

Keyword: organizational performance index, organizational theory, performance measurement, efficiency,

effectiveness

Introduction

Performance is one of the most argued concepts about which there has never been an agreement among
various researchers and theorists. This index with different definitions have been used in various disciplines
like airline [1-5], education [6, 7], management [8-13], and computer science [14, 15]. Cameron [16] refers
to an absence of sufficient understanding or clarification in the definition of the concept of performance. In
the absence of any operational definition of performance upon which the majority of the relevant scholars
agree, there would naturally be different interpretations and inferences opined by various people according
to their own perceptions. This discord and lack of agreement is partly due to the lack of a significant attempt
to theoretically or practically account for and define the concept. As a result, a commonly accepted
definition of the concept faces various problems, which means that the possibility of any definitions and
deriving some norms to arrive at the desired definition is still questionable.

Organizations perform various activities to accomplish their organizational objectives. It is these repeatable
activities that utilize processes for the organization to be successful that must be quantified in order to
ascertain the level of performance and for management to make informed decisions on where, if needed,

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2599439

within the processes to initiate actions to improve performance. Therefore, it can be claimed that there is a
close relationship between the organizational objective and the concept of organizational performance.
Therefore, all companies probably attempt to achieve certain pre-determined objectives with the help of
available resources. Hence, the two aspects of the concept, i.e., the organizational objective, and the
organizational inputs or resources can be considered in the definition of organizational performance.

Some researchers, such as Thompson [17], and Friedlander and Pickle [18] consider performance as a theme
that repeatedly occurs in paradigms of management. Strategic and operations management are also included
in performance, a feature that attracts the interest of both practicing managers and academic scholars.
Performance, therefore, can be defined as the evaluation of the constituents that try to assess the capability
and ability of a company in achieving the constituents’ aspiration levels using efficiency, effectiveness, or
social referent criteria, which are briefly explained below.

Effectiveness, refers to the maximum extent production functions are able to fulfil and meet the demands
and requirements of the customer. Efficiency, on the other hand, is assessing and evaluating how the
resources of an organization are economically utilized through the accomplishment of functions to achieve
its objectives. Quantitatively, performance and the dimension of scale are interrelated, i.e., it is generally
quantifiable in different dimensions. As an example, the performance level can be expressed as a percentage
or an absolute value in a way that makes it easy to understand for directors. According to Macleod et al.
[19], the quantitative expression of performance targets is the only way to render them meaningful.
Furthermore, performance refers to the nature and quality of an action performed in an company to achieve
the accomplishment in its primary functions and tasks to produce profit [20].

Literature of Organizational performance index

The history of performance is classified into six different subcategories. Various ideas and opinions on each
of the performance subcategories are discussed in this part. A fairly clear statement on the concept of
organizational performance was issued by Etzioni [21], in which he believed that frequent assessments of
organizations have been carried out in relation to the achievement or non-achievement of the set objectives
and goals. However, in Etzioni’s suggestion, the resources that an organization needs to achieve its
objectives and aspirations were not taken into consideration. Some other researchers, such as Chandler [22]
and Thompson [17] apparently nurtured an idea of organizational performance similar to that of Etzioni.
Researchers like these argue that the ultimate criterion of organizational performance is its growth and long-
term survival. In other words, continuous improvement of organizational performance forms its vital
objective. What these definitions had in common was the "effectiveness” or realization of the objective
component of organizational performance.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2599439

In contrast, Lorsch [23] has a different suggestion for measuring organizational performance based on two
factors, i.e., good fit between the organization and its environments; and good fit between the organization
and its individual contributors. Lorsh believed that the performance of an organization is expected to be
more successful if there are efficient operations between the organization and its environment and its staff
are content with and aspire to contribute to its success and development.

However, the statements of Lawrence and Lorsch [24] do not answer whether there is confusion
concurrently between the organization and its environment and between the organization and its staff, and
in case of the existence of such a confusion, how the company is able to retrieve its workable balance. The
arguments of the above researchers provided the organizational performance concept with a new dimension,
i.e., "relevancy" (client satisfaction), despite its inability to resolve the discord in the concept.

Some researchers believe that in the 1970s the concept of performance dealt with both organizational means
and ends [25]. Performance is defined as the extent to which a company, as a social system with certain
resources, is able to fulfil its goals without being obliged to incapacitate its resources and means or putting
excessive strain on its employees. Lupton [26] treated the concept of organizational performance in the
most careful and explicit manner in comparison with other researchers in the same period. According to
Lupton, in an effective organization, the productivity rate and levels of satisfaction and motivation of its
members are high, while rates of turnover, costs, labour unrest are low or absent. However, according to
Katz and Kahn [27], the efficiency (ratio of outputs to input) and effectiveness of an organization were
parallel, both vital components of the overall organizational performance, which can be assessed through
maximizing the total returns of all kinds. In summary “effectiveness,” “efficiency,” and “relevancy” are
three dimensions of organizational performance that have been used as common elements in the above-
mentioned definitions.

In the 1980s, performance is defined as the extent to which an organization, as a social system, could
consider both its means and ends [28]. This definition is in line with the earlier one suggested by
Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum [25]. Nevertheless, Cherrington [29] defined organizational performance
as a concept of success or effectiveness of an organization, and as an indication of the organizational manner
that it is performing effectively to achieve its objectives successfully.

In the following decade, the 1990s, Adam[30] considered organizational performance as heavily dependent
on the employees’ performance quality. He believed that in order to ensure a high quality organizational
performance, it is vital to have regular exposure of the staff of the company to new and up-to-date
knowledge and skills, which would, in turn, help them keep up with the new changes happening in the
market, and, ultimately, enhance the quality of organizational performance. In a "Note on Organizational

3
Effectiveness", Harrison and Freeman [31], and Adam [30], confirmed that an effective organization with
high standard of performance level is the one that keeps its stakeholders’ (shareholders, customers, and its
own) demands satisfied. These definitions also support the “relevancy” dimension of organizational
performance stated in the earlier definitions above.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the definition of organizational performance mostly focused
on the capability and ability of an organization to efficiently utilize the available resources to achieve
accomplishments consistent with the set objectives of the company, as well as considering their relevance
to its users [32]. In this definition, the three general elements of OP, i.e., “efficiency,” “effectiveness,” and
“relevancy” have been taken into consideration. Conversely, the performance of an organization is believed
to be able to cover broader areas including the connection between performance and organizational goals
(effectiveness); organizational resources (efficiency); and, satisfaction of the stakeholders (relevancy).

Performance Measurement

Organizational performance has always had a significant influence on the actions of companies. One of the
consequences of this influence is the increase in the number and variety of the means and methods to
accurately measure the performance and, gradually establishing an important research field for both
companies and academics. The last twenty years have, in effect, witnessed performance measurement (PM)
[33] gaining the interest of the academics in an ever-increasing number of research fields [34]. Neely
[35]believed that in the two years between 1994 and 1996, the number of the published academic articles
on PM amounted to about 3,615, which, ultimately, resulted in the appearance of one relevant book on the
topic every fortnight in the US alone in 1996. Some researchers’ attempts, like Marr and Schiuma [36], in
different functional fields, have made available a wide variety of basically different information on PM,
which has contributed to the field being well known as a vital part in the literature of the manufacturing
strategy [37]. However, PM does not specifically belong to any specific discipline or academics. This
feature of PM has rendered the researchers from various backgrounds and disciplines to be reluctant in
removing and widening the traditionally set functional boundaries in their studies on the topic [35].

Facing new conditions and organizational realities and due to the upcoming challenge for industrial
supremacy, the concept of PM has been developing and evolving drastically in recent years. However, the
new environment is apparently turning into a new frontier for PM. More expectedly, in the near future,
inter-organizational PM will experience a significant development in fields, such as supply chain as well
as extended enterprise. Jagdev and Browne [38] described the extended enterprise PM to be a closer
formation of co-ordination in the design, development, co-ordination of the relative plans of manufacturing
and co-operating independent manufacturing enterprises and related suppliers schedules, and costing. This

4
can also be regarded as a consequence of a deviation from the traditional perspective of manufacturing
firms that operate within specific and pre-set boundaries, being restricted to limited connection areas and
relationships with other organizations and firms, and the excessive focus on internal effectiveness and
efficiency of the company alone [39]. This trend is expected to have a significant impact on the PM practices
in different companies in the near future. The depth of such an influence is sensible in the literature on PM.

Despite the popularity of the topic of PM and its wide fame among relevant scholars and researchers, very
few of them have ever attempted to define it in practice [40]. Some researchers defined PM as the process
of evaluating performance "relative to a defined goal"[41],"in terms of explicit short-, medium-, and long-
term objectives and reporting the results to management"[42], and "efficiency and effectiveness" [43].In
the words of Gunasekaran et al. [44], PM is the process of transferring the complex reality of performance
into a sequence of limited symbols that can be communicated and reproduced under similar circumstances.

From the above definitions and the ones suggested by some other researchers, it can be concluded that PM
is a progressive language that classifies the current and future status of performance. PM allows a
continuous advancement towards the established goals and identification of the stagnations and
shortcomings [45]. Concisely, it can be claimed that PM is a progressive and steady movement towards the
achievement of the set objectives. However, observation of PM is not only on the past performance, but it
also concentrates on the realization of collective aspirations and the assurance of an effective and efficient
future performance.

PM is also considered as a metric employed to measure performance. Therefore, it can be regarded as an

analytical tool that records measures, shows outcomes, and determines subsequent actions in the process of
the PM [41]. Overall, Man [46] determined that measures of performance are divided into four categories,
i.e., financial; non-financial; tangible like quality[47]; or intangible like experience [48]. The focal point of
financial performance measures is generally on the resulting impact on production activities and financial
characteristics, such as logistics activities. Non-financial performance values, however, have their focal
point directly on actual production activities, such as defect ration, investment turnover, and lead time [49].

Business PM has attracted increasing attention both among managers and academics, and has always been
a managerial priority. Measuring business performance, as well as asking for information related to
performance, forms one of the major responsibilities and requirements of various managers in different
companies. PM can be claimed to be an integral and essential requirement for the achievement of success
in executive managerial tasks. As Lebas puts forth, in effect, PM can be defined as the complex reality
transferral of performance into a range of communicable symbols that are reproduced in similar conditions
[50].

5
As mentioned above, performance itself is composed of two essential parts, namely, one part tends to deal
with achievements and accomplishments in the past resulting from past actions, while the other looks at the
predictions or inferences of future performance based on current actions. The role of PM is connecting these
two parts through discovering accomplishments and measurements from which future performance can be
inferred or predicted [51].

Sink [20] believed that “measurement is complex, frustrating, difficult, challenging, important, abused and
misused,” nevertheless, in the words of Das[52] “if we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it”. Since the
1980s, when literature on PM first emerged, it has been continuously evolving and expanding. In the
traditional context, small companies’ operations were simple and the most important PM focused on cash
flow. As a result of the expansion of the size of organizations during the post-Industrial Revolution, the
measures of productivity were extensively used in various production phases. In a span of time from the
late nineteenth-century to the 1930s, both practical and theoretical management accounting methods were
set up and widely used [53]. Later, traditional management accounting was included as part of PM for
distribution operations and their manufacturing plants. As research on PM developed and expanded more,
some scholars, like Pursell [54], shifted their focus on the PM of the whole business unit (typically plant
level and division level) and attempted to investigate the standards, criteria, and measures of performance.
Nevertheless, after all these studies, there seems to be no cohesion in the traditional literature on PM [55].

Some drastic and dramatic changes have occurred in the corporate world in the past few decades in terms
of the introduction of national and international awards, improvement initiatives organizational roles, work
maturity, external demands, increased competition and advanced technology. These changes have resulted
in companies encountering dramatic competition resulting from the improvements occurring in product
quality, enhancement of flexibility and reliability, the expansion of product variety, and emphasis on
innovation [56]. The critical business features for corporate success are emphasized more than mere
financial reporting [57]. In view of the new challenges and changes happening in the corporate world,
organizational managers are required to consider appropriate PM paradigms if promotion of managerial
improvement is desired.

Roles of Performance Measurement

Management can hardly exist without PM [50]. However, a poor methodology of measurement can be a
major factor that contributes to frustration of the advancement of a firm [53]. In contrast, a well-designed
performance management system is an essential and fundamental factor contributing to the enhancement
of effective planning and control of management. In fact, it can be claimed that PM allows business
management to excel through motivation enhancement, performance monitoring, improvement of

6
communication, and problem diagnosis [58, 59]. Furthermore, PM can provide an effective approach to
study and identify the management strategy, as well as enabling a proper perception of prosperous and
present circumstances that influence the progress of a company. The significant roles of PM are briefly
presented in the following subsections.

Monitoring business progress: this can be done using the output to observe the progress of a firm in respect
of the achievement of its set goals, which makes identification of the future and current status of the
company possible. PM can generate a shared understanding, and demonstrate the extent to which the
planned expansions have essentially taken place.

Monitoring the effect of strategies and plan: outputs enable testing the impact and possibility of strategies
and plans. It is through them that the implementation can be observed and controlled. Therefore, the
successful achievement of long-term goals can be ensured by the choice of right measures.

Diagnosis: if a business fails or is in decline, the output can show the failure symptoms, and encourages
identification of the probable causes that have led to the failure [58]. As a result, a company can search for
the problems and their reasons to enhance their protection against the potential future misfortunes and
failings.

Supporting decision making: PM enables an organization to search and identify the causes that have led to
its success and the potential chances that the company can use for further development and advancement
in future. Moreover, PM enables the organization to determine whether it has been able to gain the
satisfaction of its customers and achieved its desired goals. Actually, in addition to indicating where and
how to act, these measurements also monitor the performance efficiency. Further details of identification
of potential and actual problems are provided by feedback. PM is also an essential requirement for the
justification of more investment of effort by companies. PM ensures that the decisions are made on the facts
instead of assumptions and suppositions. Consistent objective-oriented operations and timely corrections
can only be achieved through a direct guide to operations and accurate and timely feedback on operational
performance.

Facilitation of motivation and communication: PM indicates the rate of progress of a company and
highlights its present and future performance status. The motivation and clarity of the PM provides the
company with an increase in the overall rate of operation including communication among its staff and
managers. Performance management both precedes and follows PM in a virtual spiral in order to establish
a suitable setting for measurement [50]. In brief, PM is claimed to be a vital and powerful tool for effective
management. In the case of supply chain management, PM significantly leads to the development and

7
improvement of performance and feedback of comprehensive performance supports the design and
improvement of the supply chain systems.

References

1. Ismail, N.A. and H.S. Jenatabadi, The Influence of Firm Age on the Relationships of Airline
Performance, Economic Situation and Internal Operation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 2014.
2. Jenatabadi, H.S., Impact of Economic Performance on Organizational Capacity and Capability: A
Case Study in Airline Industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 2013. 8(17): p.
p112.
3. Jenatabadi, H.S., Introduction Latent Variables for Estimating Airline Assessment. International
Journal of Business and Management, 2013. 8(18): p. p78.
4. Jenatabadi, H.S. and N.A. Ismail, A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON MODELING OF AIRLINE
PERFORMANCE. 3rd International Conference on Business and Economic Research, March 12-
13 2012, Bandung, Indonesia., 2012.
5. Jenatabadi, H.S. and N.A. Ismail, Application of structural equation modelling for estimating
airline performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2014. 40: p. 25-33.
6. Hui, H., et al., Principal's leadership style and teacher job satisfaction: A case study in China.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2013.
7. Dadkhah, V., H. Hui, and H.S. Jenatabadi, An Application of Moderation Analysis: the Situation of
School Size in the Relationship among Principal's Leadership Style, Decision Making Style, and
Teacher Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Research in Business and Technology, 2014.
5(3): p. 724-729.
8. Hui, H., H.S. Jenatabadi, and S. Radu. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning in
Food Manufacturing Industry. in International Conference on Economic, Finance and
Management Outlooks (ICEFMO 2013). October 5-6 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2013. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
9. Hui, H., et al., Influence of Organizational Learning and Innovation on Organizational
Performance in Asian Manufacturing Food Industry. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2013.
3(8): p. 962-971.
10. Hui, H., et al., The Impact of Firm Age and Size on the Relationship Among Organizational
Innovation, Learning, and Performance: A Moderation Analysis in Asian Food Manufacturing
Companies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 2013. 5(3).
11. Jasimah, C.W., et al., Explore Linkage between Knowledge Management and Organizational
Performance in Asian Food Manufacturing Industry. International Journal of Asian Social Science,
2013. 3(8): p. 1753-1769.
12. Jenatabadi, H.S., Situation of Innovation in the Linkage between Culture and Performance: A
Mediation Analysis of Asian Food Production Industry. Contemporary Engineering Sciences,
2014. 7(7): p. 323-331.
13. Radzi, C.W.J.W.M., et al., The Relationship among Transformational Leadership, Organizational
Learning, and Organizational Innovation: A Case Study in Asian Manufacturing Food Industry.
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2013. 3(8): p. 1051-1060.
14. Jenatabadi, H.S., An Application of Moderation Analysis in Structural Equation Modeling: A
Comparison Study between MIS and ERP. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 2014. 8(37): p. 1829 -
1835.
15. Jenatabadi, H.S., et al., Impact of supply chain management on the relationship between enterprise
resource planning system and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and
Management, 2013. 8(19): p. p107.

8
16. Cameron, K.S., Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational
effectiveness. Management science, 1986. 32(5): p. 539-553.
17. Thompson, J.D., Organization in Action, 1967, New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Friedlander, F. and H. Pickle, Components of effectiveness in small organizations. Administrative
science quarterly, 1968. 13(2): p. 289-304.
19. Macleod, M., et al., The MUSiC performance measurement method. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 1997. 16(4): p. 279.
20. Sink, D.S., The Role of Measurement In Achieving World Class Quality and Productivity
Management. 1991.
21. Etzioni, A., Two approaches to organizational analysis: A critique and a suggestion.
Administrative science quarterly, 1960. 5(2): p. 257-278.
22. Chandler, A.D., Strategy and structure, 1962, MIT Press, Cambridge.
23. Lorsch, J.W., Introduction to the structural design of organizations. Organizational structure and
design, 1970: p. 1-16.
24. Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and
Integration. Boston: Division of research, Graduate Scholl of Business Administraion, Harvard
University Press., 1969.
25. Georgopoulos, B.S. and A.S. Tannenbaum, A study of organizational effectiveness. American
Sociological Review, 1957. 22(5): p. 534-540.
26. Lupton, T., Organizational Behavior and Performance, 1977, London: The Macmillan Press.
27. Katz, D. and R.L. Kahn, The social psychology of organizations. 1978.
28. Robbins, S.P., Organizational Theory: Structure, Design, andApplication, 1987, San Diego:
Prentice-Hall.
29. Cherrington, D.J., Organizational behavior: The management of individual and organizational
performance. 1989: Allyn and Bacon.
30. Adam, E.E., Alternative quality improvement practices and organization performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 1994. 12(1): p. 27-44.
31. Harrison, J.S. and R.E. Freeman, Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical
evidence and theoretical perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 1999. 42(5): p. 479-
485.
32. Peterson, W., G. Gijsbers, and M. Wilks, An organizational performance assessment system for
agricultural research organizations: concepts, methods, and procedures. ISNAR Research
Management Guidelines, 2003. 7.
33. Metzger, T.J., Evaluating Capacity Development. 2007: University of Guelph.
34. Folan, P. and J. Browne, A review of performance measurement: towards performance
management. Computers in Industry, 2005. 56(7): p. 663-680.
35. Neely, A., The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1999. 19(2): p. 205-228.
36. Marr, B. and G. Schiuma, Business performance measurement–past, present and future.
Management Decision, 2003. 41(8): p. 680-687.
37. Dangayach, G.S. and S.G. Deshmukh, Manufacturing strategy: literature review and some issues.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2001. 21(7): p. 884-932.
38. Jagdev, H.S. and J. Browne, The extended enterprise-a context for manufacturing. Production
planning and control, 1998. 9(3): p. 216-229.
39. Browne, J. and J. Zhang, Extended and virtual enterprises–similarities and differences.
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 1999. 1(1): p. 30-36.
40. Neely, A., M. Gregory, and K. Platts, Performance measurement system design. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1995. 15(4): p. 80-116.
41. Rose, K.H., A performance measurement method. Quality progress, 1995. 28(2): p. 63–66.
42. Cook, T.J., et al., Performance measurement: lessons learned for development management. World
Development, 1995. 23(8): p. 1303-1315.

9
 43. Neely, A., et al., Performance measurement system design: Should process based approaches be
adopted? International Journal of Production Economics, 1996. 46: p. 423-431.
44. Gunasekaran, A., C. Patel, and E. Tirtiroglu, Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain
environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 2001. 21(1/2): p.
71-87.
45. Rose, K.H., A performance measurement model. Quality progress, 1995. 28(2): p. 63-68.
46. Man, Y.S., Performance Measurement and Management of Third Party Logistics: An
Organizational Theory Approach, 2006, Hong Kong Baptist University.
47. Tangen, S., Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 2004. 53(8): p. 726-737.
48. Delios, A. and P. Beamish, Survival and profitability: The roles of experience and intangible assets
in foreign subsidiary performance. 2002.
49. Polakoff, J.C., How to design a performance measurement program. Corporate Controller, 1992.
4(3): p. 49–53.
50. Lebas, M.J., Performance measurement and performance management. International Journal of
Production Economics, 1995. 41(1-3): p. 23-35.
51. Meyer, M.W., Rethinking Performance Measurement:: Beyond the Balanced Scorecard. 2002.
52. Das, L., Performance Measurement Takes Center Stage at Johnson Space Center, 1994.
53. Maskell, B.H., Performance measurement for world class manufacturing: A model for American
companies. 1991: Productivity Pr.
54. Pursell, R.B., Administering divisional incentive compensation. Compensation & Benefits Review,
1980. 12(1): p. 15.
55. Lockamy, A. and M.S. Spencer, Performance measurement in a theory of constraints environment.
International Journal of Production Research, 1998. 36(8): p. 2045-2060.
56. Fry, T., K. Karwan, and W. Baker, Performance measurement systems and time-based
manufacturing. Production planning & control, 1993. 4(2): p. 102-111.
57. Hazell, M. and M. Morrow, Performance measurement and benchmarking. MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTING-LONDON-, 1992. 70: p. 44-44.
58. Rolstadås, A., Performance management: A business process benchmarking approach. 1995:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59. Waggoner, D.B. and A.D. Neely, The forces that shape organisational performance measurement
systems::: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Production Economics, 1999. 60:
p. 53-60.

10

View publication stats