IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2013004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Proposing a taxonomy for performance measurement systems' failures

Author

Listed:
  • VAN CAMP, Jelle
  • BRAET, Johan

Abstract

Failures of business performance measurement (BPM) systems are dispersedly discussed in the abundance of literature written. Due to the multi-disciplinarity of stakeholders and researchers involved, the basis of literature is expanding but not converging. The added value of this paper is twofold. Firstly, the nomenclature used in the BPM field is aligned and represented visually. Secondly, this paper compiles and discusses 36 identified failures of performance measurement systems (PMS), thereby proposing an easy taxonomy. The classification draws upon three layers: metric level, framework level and management level, with respectively 13, 9 and 14 failures. This paper holds information for both academics and business people. The former can employ the literature overview for further referencing and can use it as a guideline to construct new BPM frameworks or systems, or adjust old ones. By reading this paper, people from the field create an awareness of risks involved when implementing a PMS. Alternatively, they can use it as a checklist in their current situation or tool for easy communication. Further research is necessary, both for tackling the problems listed and for looking into the correlation of the presented failures.

Suggested Citation

  • VAN CAMP, Jelle & BRAET, Johan, 2013. "Proposing a taxonomy for performance measurement systems' failures," Working Papers 2013004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2013004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/796a96/8a6b2358.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerd Islei & Geoff Lockett & Barry Cox & Steve Gisbourne & Mike Stratford, 1991. "Modeling Strategic Decision Making and Performance Measurements at ICI Pharmaceuticals," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 4-22, December.
    2. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Cedergren, Stefan & Wall, Anders & Norström, Christer, 2010. "Evaluation of performance in a product development context," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 359-369, July.
    4. Nilsson, Fredrik & Kald, Magnus, 2002. "Recent Advances in Performance Management:: The Nordic Case," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 235-245, June.
    5. Lazzarotti, Valentina & Manzini, Raffaella & Mari, Luca, 2011. "A model for R&D performance measurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 212-223, November.
    6. Peter C. Smith & Maria Goddard, 2008. "Performance Management and Operational Research: A Marriage Made in Heaven?," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Richard Thorpe & Jacky Holloway (ed.), Performance Management, chapter 9, pages 120-136, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Marc H. Meyer & Peter Tertzakian & James M. Utterback, 1997. "Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 88-111, January.
    8. Véronique Malleret & Annick Bourguignon & Hanne Norreklit, 2004. "The American balanced scorecard versus the French tableau de bord : the ideological dimension," Post-Print hal-00486648, HAL.
    9. Hauser, John R. & Katz, Gerald M. & International Center for Research on the Management of Technology., 1998. "Metrics : you are what you measure!," Working papers 172-98, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    10. Kostoff, Ronald N. & Geisler, Elie, 2007. "The unintended consequences of metrics in technology evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 103-114.
    11. Pawar, Kulwant S. & Driva, Helen, 1999. "Performance measurement for product design and development in a manufacturing environment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 61-68, April.
    12. Gregory G. Dess & Richard B. Robinson, 1984. "Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately‐held firm and conglomerate business unit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 265-273, July.
    13. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    14. Wang, Juite & Hwang, W.-L., 2007. "A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 247-257, June.
    15. Verworn, Birgit & Herstatt, Cornelius, 1999. "Approaches to the "fuzzy front end" of innovation," Working Papers 2, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    16. Hauser, John & Katz, Gerald, 1998. "Metrics: you are what you measure!," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 517-528, October.
    17. L. Wade, 1988. "Review," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 99-100, July.
    18. Bititci, U. S. & Suwignjo, P. & Carrie, A. S., 2001. "Strategy management through quantitative modelling of performance measurement systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 15-22, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cedergren, Stefan & Wall, Anders & Norström, Christer, 2010. "Evaluation of performance in a product development context," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 359-369, July.
    2. Moses Nyakuwanika & Huibrecht Margaretha van der Poll & John Andrew van der Poll, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework for Greener Goldmining through Environmental Management Accounting Practices (EMAPs): The Case of Zimbabwe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    4. Neil A. Morgan & Lopo Leotte Rego, 2006. "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 426-439, September.
    5. L. Berrah & V. Clivillé & J. Montmain & G. Mauris, 2019. "The Contribution concept for the control of a manufacturing multi-criteria performance improvement," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 47-58, January.
    6. Alina Almã?an & Cristina Circa & Mãdãlina Dumitru & Raluca Gina Gu?e & Drago? Marian Mangiuc, 2019. "Effects of Integrated Reporting on Corporate Disclosure Practices regarding the Capitals and Performance," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(52), pages 572-572, August.
    7. Silvestro, Rhian, 2014. "Performance topology mapping: understanding the drivers of performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 269-282.
    8. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    9. Giachetti, Ronald E. & Martinez, Luis D. & Saenz, Oscar A. & Chen, Chin-Sheng, 2003. "Analysis of the structural measures of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 47-62, October.
    10. Jan Mattsson & Helge Helmersson & Katarina Stetler, 2016. "Motivation Fatigue As A Threat To Innovation: Bypassing The Productivity Dilemma In R&D By Cyclic Production," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-23, February.
    11. Brooks, Mary R., 2006. "Chapter 25 Issues in Measuring Port Devolution Program Performance: A Managerial Perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 599-629, January.
    12. A. Heirman & B. Clarysse, 2004. "Do Intangible Assets and Pre-founding R&D Efforts Matter for Innovation Speed in Start-Ups?," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/238, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    13. Kaveh Asiaei & Nick Bontis & Omid Barani & Ruzita Jusoh, 2021. "Corporate social responsibility and sustainability performance measurement systems: implications for organizational performance," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 85-126, March.
    14. Chung, Shu-Hsing & Lee, Amy H. I. & Pearn, W. L., 2005. "Analytic network process (ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 15-36, April.
    15. Sarkis, Joseph, 2003. "Quantitative models for performance measurement systems--alternate considerations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 81-90, October.
    16. Lo Nigro, Giovanna & Morreale, Azzurra & Enea, Gianluca, 2014. "Open innovation: A real option to restore value to the biopharmaceutical R&D," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 183-193.
    17. Haluk Yoeruer, 2020. "The Role of Platform Architecture Characteristics in Flexible Decision-Making," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-28, January.
    18. L C Leung & K C Lam & D Cao, 2006. "Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process & the analytic network process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(6), pages 682-691, June.
    19. Giorgia Nigri & Mara Del Baldo, 2018. "Sustainability Reporting and Performance Measurement Systems: How do Small- and Medium-Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, November.
    20. Santos, Sérgio P. & Belton, Valerie & Howick, Susan & Pilkington, Martin, 2018. "Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 18-30.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Performance measurement; PMS; Nomenclature; Failures; Taxonomy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2013004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joeri Nys (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ftufsbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.