Traditional or contemporary? The prevalence of performance measurement system types

被引:25
作者
Burgess, T. F. [1 ]
Ong, T. S. [2 ]
Shaw, N. E. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Sch Business, Operat & Technol Management, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Putra Malaysia, Accounting, Serdang, Malaysia
[3] Univ Leeds, Sch Business, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
Performance measures; Performance management systems; Balanced scorecard;
D O I
10.1108/17410400710823633
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Purpose - The paper seeks to examine the prevalence of traditional versus contemporary (balanced) types of performance measurement system (PMS) in an emerging economy and link incidence to key organisational factors of size, age and ownership. Design/methodology/approach - Data on design and use of PMSs are collected through a questionnaire survey (n = 149) of electrical and electronic firms. Hierarchical cluster analysis identifies two PMS groups and assigns them to traditional and contemporary types, and then links them to key organisational factors via contingency tables. Findings - Use of contemporary PMS dominates the sample. PMS type is significantly associated with size and ownership, while age is not. Firms more likely to use contemporary PMSs are foreign-owned and large in terms of number of employees. Research limitations/implications - This survey-based research employs multivariate analysis and therefore standard limits for such statistical work apply. Results rely on hierarchical cluster analysis. Practical implications - If balanced approaches are more effective, as is argued by many, then a firm without such a style of PMS is at a competitive disadvantage given the high incidence of use. Originality/value - The paper establishes a framework for a contemporary type of PMS that integrates balanced scorecard and other balanced approaches, then collects data in an emerging economy. Links use of contemporary PMS type to key organisational factors.
引用
收藏
页码:583 / +
页数:22
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
Abdul H. A. S., 1995, VISION 20 20 SELANGO
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, MANAGEMENT RES INTRO
[3]  
Azzone G., 1991, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, V11, P77, DOI 10.1108/01443579110143412
[4]  
Barsky N. P., 1999, MANAGE FINANC, V25, P3, DOI DOI 10.1108/03074359910765885
[5]  
BERTHON P, 1999, EUR J MARKETING, V33, P772
[6]   Dynamics of performance measurement and organisational culture [J].
Bititci, Umit S. ;
Mendibil, Kepa ;
Nudurupati, Sai ;
Garengo, Patrizia ;
Turner, Trevor .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, 2006, 26 (11-12) :1325-1350
[7]   Integrated performance measurement systems: A development guide [J].
Bititci, US ;
Carrie, AS ;
McDevitt, L .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, 1997, 17 (5-6) :522-+
[8]  
Blenkinsop S. A., 1992, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, V12, P16, DOI 10.1108/01443579210017213
[9]  
Blonigen BA, 2000, J IND ECON, V48, P47
[10]   Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems [J].
Bourne, M ;
Mills, J ;
Wilcox, M ;
Neely, A ;
Platts, K .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, 2000, 20 (07) :754-771