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

net/publication/228217148

Understanding Performance Measurement Through the Literature

Article  in  African Journal of Business Management · December 2011

DOI: 10.5897/AJBMX11.020

CITATIONS READS
20 15,872

2 authors:

Khurram Khan Attaullah Shah

Institute of Management Sciences Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan
1 PUBLICATION   20 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   966 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Momentum View project

PhD Thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Attaullah Shah on 12 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(35), pp. 13410-13418, 30 December, 2011
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
DOI: 10.5897/AJBMX11.020
ISSN 1993-8233 ©2011 Academic Journals

Review

Understanding performance measurement through the

literature
Khurram Khan* and Attaullah Shah
Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Accepted 6 November, 2011

Performance measurement has been defined and redefined over the years. Researchers have tried to
explain this important area of management control with respect to their area of specialty. However, very
few researches have tried to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach. This has resulted in a departure from
a generalist understanding of performance measurement to a specialty focus. This study tries to build a
general understanding of definition, characteristics and evolution of performance measurement
through the review of literature. It also points out some of the issues in the more recently developed
“integrated” performance measurement systems. The discussion is concluded by explaining briefly the
need for empirical studies in the area and extension in focus from strategy to performance
measurement at operational and lower level of the organization.

Key words: Performance measurement, frameworks, evolution, current issues.

INTRODUCTION

Garvin (1993) is of the opinion that if something cannot
be measured, it cannot be managed. Lebas (1995) went
to the extent to negate the existence of management
without performance measurement. Businesses have to
measure their performance to manage the activities of
their organizations. Moreover, it is instrumental for
businesses in providing feedback to employees,
allocating resources, adopting a long-term perspective,
continuously improving the organization, improving
communication and motivating employees (Sinclair and
Zairi, 1995).
Although the field of performance measurement has
evolved over a long period of time to adjust to changes in
the performance measurement needs of the business, it
has attracted great interest in the last two decades
(Taticchi et al., 2010). Performance measurement has its
roots in accounting since the middle ages, when traders
used it to settle transactions. After the industrial revo-
lution, till late twentieth century, financial measures of
performance were used. Changes in the global economy
made businesses realize that in order to be successful in
the highly competitive markets, they had to focus on
strategy. Consequently, a shift in focus took place,
changing the orientation from production to strategy.
Organizations needed performance measurement system
that was balanced and was derived from strategy.
In this context, a number of frameworks were sug-
gested, which addressed the criticism made against the
traditional measures. However, Tangen (2004) suggest
that despite the traditional performance measurement
system having a number of disadvantages, organizations
still use it. This is intriguing to see such a behavior by
organizations when criticism against traditional measures
has been well documented.
The objective of the study is to understand perfor-
mance measurement and its key characteristics, the
development phases through which it has passed and
most importantly, to identify the shortcomings in the
integrated performance frameworks that have inhibited its
adoption on full scale.
DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

*Corresponding author. E-mail: Performance measurement has been defined from

khurram.khan@imsciences.edu.pk. Tel: +92-91-5861024-5. different perspectives by different researchers. Neely at
Fax: +92-91-5861026. el. (1995) defined it as “the process of quantifying the

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1983404


efficiency and effectiveness of an action.” Otley (1999)
defined it as an information system that helps managers
performing their job and managing the behavior of the
organization. Gates (1999) defined it as the procedure to
implement strategy in an organization by translating
business strategy into deliverable results. Bititci et al.
(1997) defined it as an information system and a
reporting process through which the employees are given
feedback on the outcome of their actions. Bourne et al.
(2003) defined it as a set of multi-dimensional perfor-
mance measures used for planning and managing the
business. Maisel (2001) defined it as a system that
enables an organization to manage its performance and
ensures that all the functions and activities are in line with
the strategy to achieve the business results and create
shareholder’s value. There is a lack of agreement on a
single definition of performance measurement (Franco-
Santos et al., 2007).
Although researchers could not agree on a single
definition of performance measurement, there is ample
literature which underscores the characteristics of perfor-
mance measurement and performance measurement
system. Bourne et al. (2003) explained that “performance
measurement” means the following when referred to in
literature and practice: 1) a set of multi-dimensional
performance measures (financial/non-financial and
internal/external) that quantify the performance that has
been achieved and helps in forecasting the performance
which is going to be achieved in the future; 2)
performance measurement is relevant with respect to a
reference framework against which the results of action
can be judged. There is a consensus that the reference
framework is the organization’s strategy; 3) it is part of a
planning and control system which influences the
behavior of individuals and groups with the organization;
4) performance measurement is not only concerned with
measuring performance of the organization in terms of
the efficiency and effectiveness of its actions but also the
impact of its actions on its stakeholders.
In another study, Franco-Santos et al. (2007) reviewed
and analyzed the performance measurement definitions
from seventeen different studies in order to determine the
key characteristics of performance measurement. The
authors found consensus on two features of performance
measurement system: 1) performance measures which
can be defined as “a metric used to quantify the efficiency
and/or effectiveness of action” (Neely et al., 1995), are
necessary requirement for a performance measurement
system. However, there is no consensus on the nature
and design of the measures; 2) performance measure-
ment system is implemented to achieve certain
organizational goals and objectives, primarily strategic in
nature. In recent times, strategic performance measure-
ment systems are emphasized in which measures are
linked to strategy; however, performance measurement
system might exist in which measures achieve
operational goals and not linked to the strategy.
The study goes on to define the roles of performance
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1983404
Khan and Shah 13411
measurement system on which authors have consensus:
1) measuring performance of the organization by
monitoring and evacuating performance; 2) strategic
management of the organization by strategic planning,
strategy formulation and implementation and making the
organizational activities in alignment to the strategy; 3)
ensure communication with both internal and external
stakeholders; 4) influencing behavior of organizational
units by rewarding and 5) providing feedback for learning
and improvement.
EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
The origin of performance measurement can be traced
back to the late thirteenth century, when double-entry
accounting was introduced to settle transactions among
traders (Johnson, 1981). Although the origin of perfor-
mance measurement is centuries old, early accounting
systems research in the field has developed in two major
phases during the late nineteenth and twentieth century.
The first phases started in the late 1880s, which lasted
for almost a century; while the second phase started in
late 1980s (Ghalayini and Nobles, 1996).
Figure 1 explains the evolutionary stages of perfor-
mance measurement over the years. The first phase
started as a result of the industrial revolution in Europe
and America (Williams, 2002; Taylor, 1911). This phase
primarily had cost accounting orientation, in which
managers emphasized on operating costs of the firm
(Kurien and Qureshi, 2011). Cost variance analysis,
standard costing and flexible budgets are some of the
techniques that were used to measure performance in
that era (Bourne et al., 2003). The factors that contributed
to the development of the cost accounting performance
measures were: the change from piece-work payments to
wage system led to techniques that helped in deter-
mination of product cost and in motivating employees for
better performance who were no more concerned with
output (Johnson, 1981). Internal control systems were
created to manage firms that had multi-operation
production systems (Johnson, 1975, 1981), after the
emergence of organizations with more than one manu-
facturing facilities, divisional and departmental budgets
were introduced, in order to manage day-to-day
operations and compare production and cost between the
different divisions and departments (Johnson, 1978). This
was the time when scientific management approaches
and internal administrative processes were used to
implement management control.
Later in the same era during 1940s and 1950s, when
productivity concepts (quality control, variety reduction,
standardization, etc.) emerged in manufacturing
organizations, more emphasis was placed on financial
indicators such as sales, production, efficiency, ROI and
other ratios (Bititci, 2009). There onwards, financial
measures for the most part were used to develop cost
13412 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Figure 1. Evolutionary stages of performance measurement (modified from Gomes et al., 2004).
and management control systems (Kaplan, 1983;
Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Keegan at al, 1989).
In late 1980s, after globalization of trade and the emer-
gence of world economy, markets became competitive
and customers were more demanding, the focus shifted
from productivity to quality, time, cost, flexibility and
customer satisfaction (Hayes and Abernothy, 1980;
Slack, 1983; Kaplan, 1984). This was the time when
researchers highlighted the deficiencies in the traditional
financial measures and criticized it to be inappropriate for
measuring business performance. Johnson and Kaplan
(1987) were among the first to suggest a shift from cost
accounting based performance measurement approach
to a more integrated performance measurement
approach. The criticisms that were put forward were
called the traditional performance measures. They are as
follows:
i. They are historically focused (Dixon et al., 1990,
McNair et al., 1990) therefore they are lagged
performance indicators.
ii. They are results rather than the cause of management
action and organizational performance (Eccles and
Pryburn, 1992; Hazell and Morrow, 1992).
iii. They have failed to integrate factors critical for the
success of the business (Eccles, 1991).
iv. They are internally focused rather than external
focused (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
v. They encourage short-termism (Banks and
Wheelwright, 1979; Hayes and Garvin, 1982).
vi. Ignore organization’s strategy (Skinner, 1974).
vii. They shift manager’s focus from improvement to
variance minimization (Schmenner, 1988, Turney and
Anderson, 1989).
viii. They are inapplicable in modern manufacturing
(Drucker, 1990).
ix. They damage business and the economy (Hayes and
Abernothy, 1980).
x. They encourage dysfunctional behavior (Fry and Cox,
1989).
xi. They provide limited and misleading information about
organization performance (Tarr, 1995).
These shortcomings in traditional measures resulted in a
performance measurement crisis, which led to a revo-
lution in the existing performance measurement systems
(Eccles, 1991; Neely, 1999). The emergence of balanced
performance measurement frameworks marked the start
of the second phase of performance measurement evo-
lution. The term “balanced” refers to using measures that
gives a holistic view of the organization (Kaplan and
Norton, 1996). During this era, the need to use non-
financial measures for monitoring performance and moti-
vating employees was stressed (Santori and Anderson,
1987) because of the non-financial measure for being
timely, measurable, precise, meaningful, an aid to
continual improvement, consistent with company’s goal
and strategies, and flexibility (Medori and Steeple, 2000).

Table 1. Comparison of traditional and non-traditional performance measures.
Traditional performance measure
Based on outdated traditional accounting system
Mainly financial measures
Intended for middle and high managers
Lagging metrics (weekly or monthly)
Difficult, confusing and misleading
Lead to employee frustration
Neglected at the shop floor
Have a fixed format
Do not vary between locations
Do not change over time
Intended mainly for monitoring performance
Not applicable for JIT, TQM, CIM, FMS, RPR, OPT, etc.
Hinders continuous improvement
Source: Ghalayini and Noble (1996).
Moreover, researchers accentuated the importance of
aligning financial and non-financial measures with the
organization’s strategy (McNair and Mosconi, 1987). A
comparison of traditional and balanced measures has
been shown in Table 1.
Throughout 1990s, researchers were busy in
developing models and frameworks, as a result of which
a number of frameworks were developed such as
Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992), the
Performance Prism (Neely et al., 2002), SMART (Lynch
and Cross, 1991), the Results and Determinants
Framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991), the Performance
Measurement Matrix (Keegan et al., 1989) and Perfor-
mance Measurement Questionnaire (Dixon et al., 1990)
to name a few; these frameworks are further discussed.
Performance measurement frameworks
In response to the criticism of traditional performance
measurement and a call for a paradigm shift in the way
organization performance was measured, new, better
and balanced frameworks and methodologies were
designed to help implement the balanced sets of
measures. Some of the most well-known frameworks that
have been developed over time are reviewed here.
Performance measurement matrix was the first
performance measurement system that received
acceptance as a balanced and integrated frame to
measure business performance (Keegan et al., 1989). It
categorizes performance measures into four different
dimensions: cost, non-cost, internal and external (Figure
2). The structure of the framework reveals the need for a
balanced system, while its simplicity reflects its ability to
accommodate any measure of performance (Neely et al.,
1995). However, it does not establish a link between the
different performance dimensions (Neely et al., 2000).
Khan and Shah 13413
Non-traditional performance measure
Based on company strategy
Mainly non-financial measures
Intended for all employees
On-time metrics (hourly, or daily)
Simple, accurate and easy to use
Lead to employee satisfaction
Frequently used at the shop floor
Have no fixed format (depends on needs)
Vary between locations
Change over time as the need change
Intended to improve performance
Applicable
Help in achieving continuous improvement
Dixon et al. (1990) presented the performance
measurement questionnaire. The questionnaire helps the
organization to identify areas for improvement, to
determine the effectiveness of existing performance
measures and to improve the performance measures.
The questionnaire is distributed into four parts, the first
part collects general data about the company and the
respondent, in the second part employees rate the
importance of areas of the business that needs improve-
ment in comparison to the effectiveness of the existing
performance measures evaluates (Table 2), the third part
is concerned with performance indicators and the final
part asks the respondents to suggest performance
measures that best evaluate their own performance. The
responses are weighed up to determine alignment
(evaluates the alignment of performance measure with
the business strategy), congruence (evaluates the
support provided by the performance measurement
system to the business strategy), consensus (compares
the responses from different functions/levels of the
organization), and confusion (more detailed analysis of
consensus analysis by determining level of
disagreement).
Fitzgerald et al. (1991) developed the Result and
Determinant Framework, after a study in service industry.
The framework classifies measures into two categories:
results (measures that are outcome of certain actions for
example, competitiveness, financial performance) and
determinants (measures that measure actions that lead
to certain outcomes for e.g. quality, flexibility, resource
utilization and innovation) (Table 3). The framework
creates a link between present business performances as
reflected by results with the business performance of the
past as measured by the determinants. This helps in
identifying the performance drivers of future desired
future success.
The SMART (strategic management and reporting
13414 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Figure 2. The performance measurement matrix (Keegan et al., 1989).

Table 2. Section of part 2 of PMQ.

Long-run importance of Effect of current performance measures on

Improvement area
improvement improvement
None >>>> Great Inhibit >>>> Support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Labour efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Machine efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: Dixon et al. (1990).

Table 3. Results and determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991).

Results Competitiveness
Financial performance

Determinants Quality
Resource utilization
Innovation

technique) proposed by Lynch and Cross (1991) is a four
level performance pyramid that links the corporate
strategy with the operations through the hierarchy by
translating objectives from the top and measures from the
bottom (Figure 3). At the top of the pyramid is the
company’s strategy which is translated into business unit
objectives. At the second level, the business level
objectives can be defined in terms of short term financial
performance goals and long term market position and
growth goals. At the third level, the business unit goals
are linked to day-to-day operations of the business in
term of customer satisfaction, flexibility and productivity.
At the lowest level, department and work center
operational criteria (quality, delivery, process time and
cost) are used; which help the company to successfully
implement its strategy.
Balanced scorecard which was developed by Kaplan
and Norton (1992) is the most popular performance
measurement system. It is a balanced performance
measurement system that includes both financial and

Figure 3. The SMART system (Cross and Lynch, 1991).
non-financial measure. It views the business
comprehensively from four different perspectives
(financial, customer, innovation and learning, and internal
processes) (Figure 4). The financial measures of
performance are considered to be the lagged indicators
of performance (that is, they are the results of action
already taken) whereas the non-financial measures are
leading measures of performance (that is, they are cause
the business future performance). The balanced
scorecard emphasizes translating the organization’s
strategy into a set of objectives for each of the
perspective. Similarly, a performance measure is
specified to achieve a specific objective. This approach
allows the organization to align the business performance
with its strategy, enabling it to be successful in the market
place.
While presenting the Performance Prism, Neely et al.
(2001) rejected the widespread belief that the
performance measure should be derived from strategy
and suggested that even as designing performance
measurement system stakeholders should be taken into
consideration before a company’s strategy. The
Performance Prism adopts a stakeholders-centric of
performance measurement. It considers new
stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, and
intermediaries, which are often neglected in performance
measurement.
Khan and Shah. 13415
The framework is organized around five interrelated
perspectives: stakeholders satisfaction (who are our key
stakeholders and what do they want and need?),
strategies (what strategies do we have to put in place to
satisfy the wants and needs of these key stakeholders?),
processes (what critical processes do we need to operate
and enhance these processes), capabilities (what
capabilities do we need to operate and enhance these
processes?) and stakeholder contribution (what contribu-
tions do we require from our stakeholders if we are to
maintain and develop these capabilities?) (Figure 5).
Answers to the question leads to a performance
measurement system which can be used to create a
hierarchy of measures. The business has to select a
measure for each of the perspective as per its definition
of the perspective.
CURRENT ISSUES IN PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
Despite performance measurement having undergone
considerable changes which has resulted in a shift
towards more integrated approaches, there remain
issues in performance measurement that has hindered
companies to exploit its full potential. Further discussion
highlights some observations put against the integrated
13416 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Figure 4. The balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).

Figure 5. The performance prism (Neely et al., 2001).

systems. opinion that performance measures should be based on

The integrated performance measurement frameworks stakeholder’s needs and satisfactions rather than the
were developed with a premise that an organization’s company’s strategy. This is because, if a company satis-
performance measurement system should be derived fies its multiple stakeholders (which includes investors,
from its strategy. However, Neely et al. (2001) is of the customers, intermediaries, employees, suppliers,

regulators, communities, pressure groups, alliance
partners), only then could the long-term value of
shareholders be protected.
In another study, Neely et al. (2000) criticized the
different frameworks for having failed to give attention to
the actual design and implementation of the performance
measurement system. The advice provided by the
authors with regard to the selection of measure, in his
view is generic rather than specific. Nonetheless, he
asserted that though the designing task is challenging,
the implementation of the measures is even more
challenging.
Medori (1998) is of the opinion that the frameworks
give no or little consideration to the performance mea-
surement system that may have been already in place in
companies. Neely et al. (1994) claimed that managers
rarely want the performance measurement system to be
built from scratch; rather, they are more interested in
improving the existing system.
Tangen (2004) appreciated the new frameworks for
having academic and philosophical groundings; although
they provide companies the guidelines to develop their
unique performance measurement system but criticized
these frameworks for rarely explaining the practical steps
to be undertaken at the operational level.
Noci (1995) evaluated the integrated performance
measurement system and noted that they lack the ability
to objectively join the performance measures, they are
not capable of providing timely information and they do
not contribute towards creating shareholders value;
therefore, they are less effective decisional tool.
Ghalayini and Noble (1996) summarized some of the
limitations of the integrated performance measurement
system as: 1) they are monitoring and controlling tools
rather than improvement tools; 2) they do not give a
mechanism to specify a time horizon to meet objectives;
3) they are not dynamic system that allows revision of
performance measures, outcomes, decisions and critical
areas; 4) they are concerned with present and not with
future; 5) they do not provide mechanism to achieve
optimization at the operational level; 6) they do not
consider time to be an important performance measure
and 7) they do not monitor, control and improve activates
at the shop floor.
CONCLUSION
The need to measure business performance is not new
but the field of performance measurement has acquired
new importance, special interest and extraordinary
development in the last two decades. Performance
measurement systems have emerged as important
management tools for implementing strategy and
controlling the organization.
As performance measurement is common to many sub-
areas, authors have tried to define it in relationship to
their area of specialty. Even though no single definition
Khan and Shah 13417
can be agreed upon, there are certain characteristics of
performance measurement on which there is a wide
consensus among the authors and researchers. Perfor-
mance measurement is characterized as a system which
is based on multi-dimensional performance measures
that are derived from organization strategy with the
purpose to implement the strategy, evaluate business
performance, provide feedback and ensure commu-
nication, help in creating learning environment and
continuously improving the organization.
The development that performance measurement has
achieved in the present era has resulted from a general
discontent with traditional performance measures.
Traditional measures have been criticized for being
historic in nature and lagged indicators of performance
that are short term oriented and ignore organization’s
strategy. As a result of criticism and changes of global
economy, integrated performance measurement frame-
works were developed. The emergence of these
frameworks was welcomed with much enthusiasm; but
there are issues in them that need to be addressed to
enable these frameworks to reach their full potential.
Despite the great interest in the field apparent from the
number of publications, there is a lack of empirical
research in the area. Most of the studies that are
published are focused on development of different
frameworks or qualitative analysis of the theoretical
aspect of the various issues in the field. There is a great
need for quantitative studies that aim to test the linkages
between integrated performance measurement system
and organizational performance. Businesses would
venture to implement the integrated performance
measurement system only if they are convinced that
benefits they will achieve by implementing such a system
would be more than the cost and effort that they put in
designing the system. This can only be established by
conducting empirical studies.
Moreover, the integrated performance measurement
frameworks have much emphasis on the strategy and its
implementation from the strategic managers’ point of
view. The activities at the operational level and individual
employee level have been ignored to a great extent. The
activities at this level make it possible for the organization
to achieve long term goals and create a competitive
advantage. Researchers and authors have to come up
with ways to cascade down the performance measures
from strategy to operational level and employee level, so
that organizations can measure the performance of the
whole as well as in parts; thus making the performance
more manageable.
REFERENCES
Banks RL, Wheelwright SC (1979). Operation vs. strategy: trading
tomorrow for today. Harv. Bus. Rev., 57(3): 112-120.
Bititci U, Carrie AS, McDevitt L (1997). Integrated performance
measurement systems: a development guide. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage., 17(5): 522-534.
13418 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Bititci U, Garengo P, Dörfler V, Mendibil K (2009). Performance
measurement: questions for tomorrow. SIOM Research Paper
Series. (October). Retrieved from
www.strath.ac.uk/siom/research/researchpapers
Bourne M, Neely A, Mills J, Platts K (2003). Implementing performance
measurement systems: a literature review. Int. J. Bus. Perform.
Manage., 5(1): 1-24.
Dixon JR, Nanni AJ, Vollmann TE (1990). The New Performance
Challenge: Measuring Operations for World-class Competition.
Homewood, Ill: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Drucker PF (1990). The emerging theory of manufacturing. Harv. Bus.
Rev., 68(3): 94-102.
Eccles RG (1991). The performance measurement manifesto. Harv.
Bus. Rev., 69(1): 131-137.
Eccles RG, Pyburn PJ (1992). Creating a comprehensive system to
measure performance. Manage. Account., 74(4): 41–44.
Fitzgerald L, Johnston R, Brignall TJ, Silvestro R, Voss C (1991).
Performance Measurement in Service Businesses. London: The
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
Franco-Santos M, Kennerley M, Micheli P, Martinez V, Mason S, Marr
B, Gray D, Neely A (2007). Towards a definition of a business
performance measurement system. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.,
27(8): 784-801.
Fry TD, Cox JF (1989). Manufacturing performance: local versus global
measures. Prod. Inventory Manage. J., 30(2): 52–56.
Garvin DA (1993). Manufacturing strategic planning. Calif. Manage.
Rev., 35(4): 85-106.
Gates S (1999). Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Results.
New York: The Conference Board.
Ghalayini AM, Noble JS (1996). The changing basis of performance
measurement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 16(8): 63-80.
Gomes CF, Yasin MM, Lisboa JV (2004). A literature review of
manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an
organizational context: a framework and direction for future research.
J. Manuf. Tech. Manage., 15(6): 511-530.
Hayes RH, Abernathy WJ (1980). Managing our way to economic
decline. Harv. Bus. Rev., 62: 95-101.
Hayes RH, Garvin DA (1982). Managing as if tomorrow mattered. Harv.
Bus. Rev., 60(3): 70-79.
Hazell M, Morrow M (1992). Performance measurement and
benchmarking. Manage. Account., 70(11): 44-45.
Johnson HT (1975). Management accounting in an early integrated
industrial: eI duPont de nemours powder company, 1903-1912. Bus.
Hist. Rev., 49(2): 184-204.
Johnson HT (1978). Management accounting in an early multidivisional
organization: general motors in the 1920s. Bus. Hist. Rev., 52(4):
490–517.
Johnson HT (1981). Toward a new understanding of nineteenth-century
cost accounting. Account. Rev., 56(3): 510-518.
Johnson HT, Kaplan RS (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of
Management Accounting. Harvard Business School Press Boston
USA, p. 269.
Kaplan RS (1983). Measuring manufacturing performance: a new
challenge for managerial accounting research. Account. Rev., 58(4):
686–705.
Kaplan RS (1984). Yesterday’s accounting undermines production.
Harv. Bus. Rev., 62(4): 95-101.
Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992). The balanced scorecard – measures that
drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev., 70(1): 71-79.
Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a
strategic management system. Harv. Bus. Rev., 74(1): 75-85.
Keegan DP, Eiler RG, Jones CR (1989). Are your performance
measures obsolete? Manage. Account., 70(12): 45-50.
Kurien GP, Qureshi MN (2011). Study of performance measurement
practices in supply chain management. Int. J. Bus. Manage. Soc. Sci.
2(4): 19-34.
Lebas MJ (1995). Performance measurement and performance
management. Int. J. Product. Econ., 41(1-3): 23-35.
View publication stats
Lynch R, Cross K (1991). Measure Up! Yardstick for Continuous
Improvement. Oxford: Blackwell.
Maisel L (2001). Performance measurement practices survey results.
New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
McNair CJ, Lynch RL, Cross KF (1990). Do financial and non-financial
measures have to agree? Manage. Account., pp.28-36.
McNair CJ, Mosconi W (1987). Measuring performance in an advanced
manufacturing environment. Manage. Account., 69(1): 28-31.
Medori D, Steeple D (2000). A framework for auditing and enhancing
performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.,
20(5): 520-533.
Medori D (1998). The development and implementation of an integrated
performance measurement framework. Performance Measurement --
Theory and Practice: International Conference. University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, pp. 639-646
Neely A, Mills J, Platts K, Gregory M, Richards H (1994). Mapping
measures and activities: a practical tool for assessing measurement
systems. First International Conference of the European Operations
Management Association. University of Cambridge, Manufacturing
Engineering Group, Cambridge, pp. 313-318.
Neely A (1999). The performance measurement revolution: why now
and what next? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 19(2): 205-228.
Neely A, Adams C, Crowe P (2001). The performance prism in practice.
Measur. Bus. Excell., 5(2): 6-13.
Neely A, Adams C, Kennerley M (2002). Performance Prism: The
Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Relationships.
London: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.
Neely A, Gregory M, Platts K (1995). Performance measurement
system design: A literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 15(4): 1228-1263.
Neely A, Mills J, Platts K, Richards H, Gregory M, Bourne M, Kennerley
M (2000). Performance measurement system design: developing and
testing a process-based approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.
20(10): 1119-1145.
Noci G (1995). Accounting and non-accounting measures of quality-
based performances in small firms. Int. J. Operations Product.
Manage., 15(7): 78-105.
Otley DT (1999). Performance management: a framework for
management control systems research. Manage. Acc. Res. 10(4):
363-382.
Santori PR, Anderson AD (1987). Manufacturing performance in the
1990s: measuring for excellence. J. Accountancy, 164(5): 141-147.
Schmenner RW (1988). Escaping the black holes of cost accounting.
Bus. Horizons, 31(1): 66-73.
Sinclair D, Zairi M (1995). Effective process management through
performance measurement: Part III - An integrated model of
totalquality-based performance measurement. Bus. Process Manage.
J., 1(3): 50-65.
Skinner W (1974). The decline, fall, and renewal of manufacturing.
Harv. Bus. Rev., 47(3): 138-145.
Slack N (1983). Flexibility as a manufacturing objective. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage., 3(3): 4-13.
Tangen S (2004). Performance measurement: from philosophy to
practice. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage., 53(8): 726-737.
Tarr JD (1995). Developing performance measurement systems that
support continuous improvement. Hosp. Mater. Manage. Quart.
17(2): 59-67.
Taticchi P, Tonelli F, Cagnazzo L (2010). Performance measurement
and management: a literature review and a research agenda. Meas.
Bus. Excell., 14(1): 4-18.
Taylor, FW (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York:
Harper Brothers.
Turney PBB, Anderson B. (1989). Accounting for continuous
improvement. Sloan Manage. Rev., 30(2): 37-47.
Williams D (2002). Before Performance Measurement. Adm. Theory
Prax., 24(3): 457-486.