Measuring Business Excellence

The performance prism in practice

Andy NeelyChris AdamsPaul Crowe
Article information:
To cite this document:
Andy NeelyChris AdamsPaul Crowe, (2001),"The performance prism in practice", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 6 - 13
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040110385142
Downloaded on: 06 December 2014, At: 09:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7643 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Chris Adams, Andy Neely, (2000),"The performance prism to boost M&A success", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 4 Iss 3 pp.
19-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040010377818
Manoochehr Najmi, Mohammad Etebari, Samin Emami, (2012),"A framework to review Performance Prism", International Journal of
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 Iss 10 pp. 1124-1146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571211274486

Andy Neely, Mike Gregory, Ken Platts, (1995),"Performance measurement system design: A literature review and
research agenda", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 80-116 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 451335 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 THE PERFORMANCE PRISM IN PRACTICE

Andy Neely, Chris Adams and Paul Crowe

Andy Neely is Director of the Centre for Business Performance and Professor of Operations Strategy and Performance at
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK. He chaired the first and second international academic conferences on
performance measurement, in July 1998 and July 2000, respectively, and has authored over 100 books and articles on the
subject, including Measuring Business Performance, which was published by The Economist. He can be contacted at
A.Neely@Cranfield.ac.uk Chris Adams is a Senior Experienced Manager at Accenture (formerly known as Andersen
Consulting) in its UK practice. He has recently been responsible for leading the firm's ``Managing With Measures'' core
capability development initiative and is a member of its Finance and Performance Management service line. He can be
contacted at chris.g.adams@accenture.com Paul Crowe is a Manager in the Products Division of Accenture's UK
practice and has specialised in business process architecture and performance measurement over the last three years.
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

Abstract This article describes and illustrates the practical ``New Economy''. There is a need for a second
application of a new measurement framework ± The Performance generation of performance measurement framework
Prism ± which addresses the shortcomings of many of the traditional which addresses today's business issues so that long-
measurement frameworks being used by organisations today. The established corporations can update their scorecards and
Performance Prism, with its comprehensive stakeholder orientation, newly-formed organisations can develop scorecards that
encourages executives to consider the wants and needs of all the are appropriate to their business needs in today's
organisation's stakeholders, rather than a subset, as well as the business environment.
associated strategies, processes and capabilities. DHL's board for the
UK have used this framework to re-engineer their corporate The Performance Prism framework
measurement and reporting system and the article explains DHL The Performance Prism consists of five interrelated
and other firms' experiences with the Performance Prism. facets (see Appendix) The first facet ± Stakeholder
Satisfaction ± asks: ``Who are the stakeholders and what
Keywords Business excellence, Performance measurement, do they want and need?''. This facet is deliberately
Stakeholders broader than the balanced scorecard view of
stakeholders, which encompasses only shareholders and
customers. No mention is made in the balanced

T
he Performance Prism is a second generation scorecard of employees. No mention is made of
measurement framework designed to assist suppliers, alliance partners or intermediaries. And no
performance measurement selection ± the vital mention is made of regulators, the local community or
process of picking the right measures. It is a pressure groups. Yet all of these parties can have a
comprehensive measurement framework that addresses substantial impact on the performance and success of an
the key business issues to which a wide variety of organisation. In contrast, the first facet of the
organisations, profit and not-for-profit, will be able to Performance Prism, the stakeholder perspective,
relate. It explicitly asks critical questions and encourages explicitly asks: ``Who are the important stakeholders in
managers to think through the links between measures in your organisation and what do they want and need?''.
a way that other frameworks do not intuitively suggest. The second facet concentrates on Strategies.
Over the years, several other frameworks have been Traditionally it has been argued that measures should be
created or adapted to help deal with the problem of derived from strategy. In fact this is wrong. The only
deciding what performance measures to select for use reason an organisation has a strategy is to deliver value to
within organisations. The most popular of these is some set of stakeholders. The starting point has to be:
undoubtedly the balanced scorecard. It has been used ± ``Who are the stakeholders and what do they want and
and often abused ± across the world, whereas many need?''. Only when these questions have been answered
other frameworks have tended only to have regional is it possible to start to explore the issue of what
appeal. Although the balanced scorecard was undeniably strategies should be put in place to ensure the wants and
pioneering when it first appeared nearly a decade ago,
particularly because it addressed the need for a balance The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
between financial and non-financial measures, the world http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
has moved on and priorities are changing in the so-called

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001, pp. 6-12, # MCB University Press, 1368-3047
6
 needs of the stakeholders are satisfied. Therefore, the whether we are talking about suppliers, customers,
second facet of the Prism asks: ``What are the strategies employees, alliances, investors, or the local community.
we require to ensure the wants and needs of our All other measurement frameworks we have researched
stakeholders are satisfied?''. fail to recognise the reciprocal relationship between the
The third facet of the Performance Prism ± the stakeholder and the organisation. It is a critical and
Processes facet ± asks the question: ``What are the unique feature of the Performance Prism.
processes we have to put in place in order to allow our It should be noted that the Performance Prism is not
strategies to be delivered?''. Here we are talking about a prescriptive measurement framework. Instead, the
processes in the sense of the common generic business Performance Prism is a framework ± a tool ± which can
processes, which underpin the vast majority of be used by management teams to influence their
organisations. These are: develop new products and thinking about what the key questions are that they want
services, generate demand, fulfil demand, plan and to address when seeking to manage their business.
manage the enterprise. For each of these (normally
The Performance Prism experience
cross-functional) processes, it should be possible to
identify specific measures that allow management to So far, we have explored the Performance Prism from a
address particular questions associated with each one. theoretical perspective and explained its rationale,
For example, it might be necessary for an operations highlighting some of the issues it was designed to
executive to ask: ``Are the organisation's fulfil demand overcome. The question that remains, however, is how
processes working efficiently and effectively?'' and ``If does the Performance Prism work in practice and it is
not, how will I know which sub-components of it are the this question that the case examples that follow set out to
address.
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

cause of its inefficiency or ineffectiveness?'', and so on

through the other processes and their sub-sets.
The fourth facet of the Performance Prism, the The DHL case
Capabilities facet, is perhaps the least widely understood. One of the first applications of the Performance Prism
As we have seen, capabilities are a relatively new but took place at DHL International in the UK (DHL UK).
important management concept. Capabilities are the DHL is one of the world's most successful international
combination of people, practices, technology and express courier companies. Sales in the UK for 1999
infrastructure that together enable execution of the were in excess of £300 million, during which time the
organisation's business processes (both now and in the business employed almost 4,000 people, across 50
future). They are the fundamental building blocks of the locations. The board of DHL UK comprises a managing
organisation's ability to compete. Without the right director, a finance director, a commercial director, an
people, practices, technology and infrastructure in place, it operations director, a business process director, an HR
is impossible to execute or improve the processes. The key director, an IT director and three area directors. The
question associated with this facet becomes: ``What are the team meet on a quarterly basis to review DHL's
capabilities we require to operate our processes?''. As soon performance and have recently used the Performance
as this question has been answered, then it becomes Prism to establish what should be discussed at their
possible to identify measures that allow the organisation to quarterly performance reviews.
assess whether it has the required capabilities in place Previously, DHL's UK board used to meet on a
now, or has plans to implement them, and whether they monthly basis and review company performance data at
are being sufficiently nurtured and protected. a detailed level. They would look at the UK's operation
The fifth and final facet of the Performance Prism is in terms of its ability to achieve ``notional result'', DHL's
the Stakeholder Contribution facet. This facet has been internal measure of profitability. They would also review
included as a separate component since it recognises the operations performance. The number of definitions of
fact that not only do organisations have to deliver value operations performance is vast. Operations performance
to their stakeholders, but also that organisations enter can be reviewed in terms of packages shipped (volume of
into a relationship with their stakeholders which should packages), packages delivered on time, packages on time
involve the stakeholders contributing to the to particular destinations, DHL's service quality
organisation. Take employees, for example. Employees indicators, etc. There was growing frustration among
want from an organisation a safe, secure place to work. members of the board that on a monthly basis the group
They want a decent salary. They want recognition. They would meet and review very detailed performance data,
might also want an opportunity to influence the yet rarely did the outcome of these reviews have a
organisation. In return, the organisation itself wants its significant impact across the entire business. A symptom
employees to contribute to the business. It wants them of this process was the fact that the same issues arose at
to offer ideas and suggestions, to develop expertise, to each monthly performance review.
turn up for work and to remain loyal to the business ± The board began to explore the reasons for this and
training up replacement staff costs money. This decided that one of the most fundamental issues was
symbiotic relationship between the organisation and the that the meetings structure and review process in DHL
stakeholder is true for all classes of stakeholder ± was not right for a twenty-first century business.

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001

7
 Members of the board were unable, with the data they will enable us to assess whether or not our plans for the
were presented, to identify the root causes of shortfalls in business, as outlined in the success map, are being
terms of business performance. The board decided, realised?''. It was through this discussion that the DHL
therefore, to take a fundamental look at the role of the board began to identify the critical questions that they
performance review and clarify what its purpose was and wished to answer at their quarterly performance reviews
hence what data should be examined at it. This resulted (see Table I).
in the board recognising that they were holding their In turn, these questions were used to identify what
review meetings too frequently. Instead of meeting for measures might be appropriate for the organisation. In
one day on a monthly basis the board decided that they facilitating this discussion the theme was: ``What data do
should meet for two days on a quarterly basis, but take a you need access to in order to answer the questions you
more fundamental look at the strategic challenges facing have identified as crucial for the business?''.
the company. It was at this stage that the business In parallel to this, DHL analysts were trained in new
process director introduced the Performance Prism and measurement methodologies and techniques. These
suggested that the board might be able to use it as a analysts, each of whom reported directly to a board
framework to help guide their thinking. member, were tasked with the job of developing answers
A series of workshops were held in January through to to the key questions that the board felt they wished to
March 2000, at which the board began to examine the discuss at their quarterly performance review. The
Performance Prism and construct a success map for agenda for the June 2000 quarterly performance review
DHL. The success map encapsulated those things that was structured around the key questions and the board
the business had to deliver if it was to achieve its overall members were invited to present the analysis completed
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

financial goals. The success map reflected the strategic by their analysts in answers to the questions. By
thrusts of the business and the specific initiatives and September 2000 the board had decided to invite the
activities being undertaken within the business. In DHL analysts themselves to make the presentations, partly to
UK's case, the success map had three broad strands. provide these key individuals with personal development
The first was concerned with growing revenue volumes. opportunities. In the long run the aspiration is to develop
The second was concerned with revenue quality. The a structure which involves the analysts in DHL
third strand of the success map was concerned with cost developing a case that answers the key questions outlined
efficiency and ensuring that the business utilised its in Table I, in much the same way that a detective would
assets as efficiently as possible. develop a case to present to a judge and jury.
At this level, these three broad strategic strands are no Suddenly, DHL's performance reviews had moved
different to any other organisation. Almost every from being a rather staid discussion of detailed
organisation will want to increase sales, to improve the operational and financial performance into a true debate
quality of these sales and to control their costs. It is at about the fundamental challenges and issues facing the
the next level of detail that the success map becomes business. The HR director, for example, commented
organisation specific, for it is here that the success map that ``the June QPR was the best board meeting I have
starts to expose the specific wants and needs of DHL's ever attended, in this or any other company''. The
stakeholders and the strategies that are being put in Business Process director said that ``We have moved
place to ensure that these wants and needs are satisfied. from scrutinising lots of numbers that told us very little to
Take, for example, revenue volume. It has been decided asking pertinent questions about how we are doing and
in DHL that one of the ways of driving revenue volume where we are going''. While the MD felt that this
is to segment the market by customer wants and needs. approach ``encourages us to work together on the key
One such segment, the so-called ``advantage business issues rather than emphasising individual
customers'', will encompass those customers who want functional responsibilities''.
to build a strategic partnership with DHL. To service
these customers, DHL UK will have to put in place The London Youth case
specific business processes, e.g. consignment stock Charities of course are very different organisations. They
management processes. In turn, these processes will neither have shareholders nor do they seek to make a
have to be underpinned by specific organisational profit. Nevertheless, they do have benefactors who
capabilities that exist within DHL UK. donate funds and provide them with the financial
The start of the process of populating the Prism income that enables them to do their good works. These
therefore was to hold a series of externally facilitated benefactors expect to see their funding spent on projects
brainstorming sessions with DHL UK's board, during that have tangible benefits, and they are unlikely to part
which the success map for the organisation was with more cash unless they can see some evidence of
constructed (see Figure 1 for an extract of the DHL UK money well spent. So, from a conceptual business model
success map). point of view, the not-for-profit sector is not so
Once the success map had been constructed then the immensely different after all.
board began to ask themselves ± ``What questions should We worked with UK-based charity, London Youth,
we be asking at the quarterly performance review, which to help its senior management build a set of performance

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001

8
 Figure 1 Ð DHL UK success map
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

Table I Ð DHL key questions and measures ± stakeholder satisfaction facet

Stakeholders GCC Customers Employees Authorities
Stakeholder satisfaction Are we going to deliver How are our customers How are our people feeling? Are we able to meet all
against our NR target for the feeling? current external
year? requirements?
Strategies Are all of our strategies Are our revenue volume and Are our people management Are our compliance
working to enable us to quality strategies working? strategies working? strategies working?
achieve NR?
Processes Are the processes in place to Are processes in place to Do we have the processes in Do we have the processes in
support our cost support our revenue volume place to support our people place to ensure current and
management strategy? and quality strategies? strategy? future compliance?
Capabilities Do we have the capabilities Do we have the right product Do we have the capabilities Do we have the capability to
in place to exploit offering and the capability to in place to support our influence future legislation?
efficiencies through sustain growth? people strategy in both the
technology? short and long term?

measures appropriate to their needs. London Youth was ^ raise profile ± advocate for youth work provision;
formed by the recent merger of the London Federation ^ raise funds (reducing its dependency on grants);
of Clubs for Young People and the London Union of ^ ensure efficient and effective governance.
Youth Clubs. Its membership includes 460 youth clubs,
groups and projects made up of 75,000 young people Having developed the strategy, management were now
plus 5,000 adult leaders and committee members. Its seeking an appropriate set, and a manageable level, of
mission is to assist the development of children and performance measures. The Performance Prism
young people ± in their physical, mental and spiritual framework was applied in order to facilitate this
capacities ± so that they grow to full maturity as objective. The work was conducted in a series of four
individuals and as members of society. Its purpose (and workshops with London Youth's group director for
the means by which it achieves its mission) is to provide, strategic development.
support and improve the range and quality of informal The first session addressed who the charity's key
educational and social activities available to children and stakeholders were and what their respective wants and
young people in the Greater London area. needs were, plus simultaneously how they contributed to
The principal components of London Youth's the wants and needs of the organisation. The
strategy are to: organisation's highest priority stakeholders were
^ grow membership; identified as: young people (its ``beneficiaries''), youth
^ improve range of products and services offered; workers and youth club management committees,
^ provide affordable residential experiences; London Youth staff, and funders. Funders though fell

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001

9
 into two separate categories ± statutory/trusts and Table II shows a single example measure selected for
individual/corporate ± because they had distinctly each of the five facets.
different wants and needs. The final step, prior to implementation, for London
The next session then built on this context, Youth will be to create a performance measure record
identifying potential stakeholder satisfaction and sheet for each measure selected. This document details
contribution measures while noting how the business the purpose, metrics, targets, frequency of
strategies interfaced with these reciprocal stakeholder measurement, source of data and ownership of each
relationships. In the third session, the organisation's measure. We find that this is an important discipline to
principal business processes and capabilities were undertake when completing the measures selection
defined and relevant measures identified. During these process. It will help to flush out some of the key
two sessions we began to build a simplified ``success implementation issues and will engage both
map'' for London Youth, which was incrementally management and staff in a constructive discussion about
refined as we proceeded (see Figure 2). the purpose and use of the measure that would not
The final workshop was dedicated to refining the otherwise surface until much further downstream ±
measures selection and the process of converging on the when there might, for instance, be the opportunity for
``vital few'' measures that the organisation felt were employees to be derisive of the measures selected by
critically important and would be practically management without consideration of their real
implementable, especially given its staffing and practicalities. Clearly, this would not be conducive to a
information technology constraints. In order to ensure successful deployment.
that the right measures had been selected, a ``measures
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

tree'' was developed which identified the essential The House of Fraser case
linkages between the measures selected for each facet of One of the authors has helped to define measures for a
the Performance Prism framework. division of House of Fraser, the UK department store
There is not sufficient space here to describe the retail chain, with the aid of the Performance Prism
complete list of measures selected for each Performance framework and its associated catalogue of measures. In
Prism facet. For illustrative purposes only though, this case, for practical purposes, a more catalogue-based

Figure 2 Ð London Youth outline success map

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001

1 0
 Table II ÐSingle example measure
St. satisfaction Strategies Processes Capabilities St. Contribution
Youth workers Improve range Organise events People Funders
Youth worker satisfaction Number of new products Number of participants per ``Investors In People'' Level and per cent of cash inflow
+ needs survey trends and services offered event trend accreditation levels from each income source

method of selection was adopted as the starting point,

but each generic measure selected was then adapted to Table III Ð House of Fraser ± short-listed store
the context of a retail environment generally and a store development measures
development department specifically. This department Project delivery to time Milestone achievement (target vs actual)
was undergoing radical change with the introduction of a Number of schedule changes per project
new store development director while pursuing Project delivery to budget Construction cost per square foot
aggressive multi-store development and refurbishment Target cost vs actual cost
programmes to tight deadlines. New and experienced Team commitment Team satisfaction index
staff faced a number of new challenges and working Workload (overtime hours)
practices, but the department employed very few Project delivery to quality Number and severity of outstanding
relevant performance measures to quantify the success snags at store opening
of any of the changes. Fixture and fitting running costs (new vs
In this case, the key stakeholders were identified as: last new store or pre vs post
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

the store's customers, its trading board, external refurbishment)

contractors ± who build and/or fit-out new or refurbished Infrastructure running costs (new vs last
new store or pre vs post refurbishment)
stores ± and the store development team itself. A
comprehensive set of measures was developed for both Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction surveys
stakeholder satisfaction and stakeholder contribution. Contractor satisfaction Contractor satisfaction surveys
For example, among the measures identified for
customer satisfaction were their perceptions of store
quality, signage quality and the level of comfort within adopted and established, it will be possible to spread the
the store. On the reciprocal customer contribution front, concepts to other parts of the organisation and link the
measures of their willingness to return to the store departmental measures to the objectives of the company
(potential repeat business) and to recommend it to family as a whole.
and friends were identified. This data could all be Conclusion
collected and collated via customer surveys. The Performance Prism has now been applied in a
Appropriate measures were also identified relating to number of real-life situations, including at the above
the retailer's strategy, particularly in terms of its case example organisations. It has also been used as the
ambitions to improve quality, to achieve growth and to guiding framework for a White Paper seeking to suggest
be both cost efficient and effective. Process measures ways to improve the success rate of mergers and
were also identified which would address key outcomes ± acquisitions through improved measurement systems.
these were satisfied, loyal customers; higher return on The authors have also successfully applied it as the basis
investment; higher quality stores at lower cost; and of a survey on the uses of measures in e-businesses. It
adoption of best practice store development processes. has proved itself to be malleable to the various needs of a
Potential measures were then developed with a wide variety of different organisations and measures
particular emphasis on the specific Capabilities of the development conditions.
department's store development activities using the Its principal appeal ± so we are told ± lies in the
following six criteria: intrinsically logical juxtaposition of the five components
(1) putting the customer first; of the three-dimensional framework (which implies that
(2) best designs; there are interrelationships between them); its
(3) cost control excellence; comprehensiveness and adaptability, allowing different
(4) programme management excellence; entry points; the inherent ability to drill below the surface
to greater levels of detail when additional prompts are
(5) best store development methods;
needed; plus, finally, the fact that stakeholders are
(6) best people.
addressed in a wholly original and radical way. The
Finally, six key measures and their associated metrics feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.
were selected from the lists of potential measures drawn All organisations wishing either to implement a new
up and were recommended to form the core measures set of measures or to upgrade their existing scorecard
for House of Fraser's stores development operation (see should consider applying the Performance Prism to the
Table III). It is anticipated that once these have been measures selection process. MBE

Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001

1 1
 Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

Appendix

1 2
Measuring Business Excellence 5,2 2001
 This article has been cited by:

1. Matjaž Maletič, Damjan Maletič, Jens J. Dahlgaard, Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park, Boštjan Gomišček. 2014. Sustainability
exploration and sustainability exploitation: from a literature review towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner
Production 79, 182-194. [CrossRef]
2. Dr Luisa D. Huaccho Huatuco, Dr Claire Moxham, Dr Eleanor Burt and Dr Omar Al-Tabbaa, Billy Wadongo, Magdy Abdel-
Kader. 2014. Contingency theory, performance management and organisational effectiveness in the third sector. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:6, 680-703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Daniele Barone, Liam Peyton, Flavio Rizzolo, Daniel Amyot, John Mylopoulos, Omar Badreddin. 2014. Model-Based
Management of Strategic Initiatives. Journal on Data Semantics . [CrossRef]
4. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa, Michael H. Small. 2014. Discerning competitive strategy through an
assessment of competitive methods. The Service Industries Journal 1-25. [CrossRef]
5. Corentin Burnay, Ivan J. Jureta, Isabelle Linden, Stéphane Faulkner. 2014. A framework for the operationalization of
monitoring in business intelligence requirements engineering. Software & Systems Modeling . [CrossRef]
6. Dr Stefan Schaltegger, Prof Roger Burritt, Chunguang Bai, Joseph Sarkis. 2014. Determining and applying sustainable
supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3, 275-291. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

7. Junxiao Liu, Peter E.D. Love, Jim Smith, Michael Regan, Monty Sutrisna. 2014. Public-Private Partnerships: a review of
theory and practice of performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:4,
499-512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Junxiao Liu, Peter E. D. Love, Peter R. Davis, Jim Smith, Michael Regan. 2014. Conceptual Framework for the Performance
Measurement of Public-Private Partnerships. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 04014023. [CrossRef]
9. Mohammed Najeeb Shaik, Walid Abdul-Kader. 2014. Comprehensive performance measurement and causal-effect decision
making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Computers & Industrial Engineering 68, 87-103. [CrossRef]
10. Abhijeet K. Digalwar, Ashok R. Tagalpallewar, Vivek K. Sunnapwar. 2013. Green manufacturing performance measures:
an empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing industries. Measuring Business Excellence 17:4, 59-75. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
11. Neetu Yadav, , Mahim Sagar. 2013. Performance measurement and management frameworks. Business Process Management
Journal 19:6, 947-971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Luca Gnan, Alessandro Hinna, Fabio Monteduro, Danila Scarozza. 2013. Corporate governance and management practices:
stakeholder involvement, quality and sustainability tools adoption. Journal of Management & Governance 17, 907-937.
[CrossRef]
13. Margaret Taylor, Andrew Taylor. 2013. Performance measurement in the Third Sector: the development of a stakeholder-
focussed research agenda. Production Planning & Control 1-16. [CrossRef]
14. Zhigang Jin, Fei Deng, Heng Li, Martin Skitmore. 2013. Practical Framework for Measuring Performance of International
Construction Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139, 1154-1167. [CrossRef]
15. Elena Giovannoni, Maria Pia Maraghini. 2013. The challenges of integrated performance measurement systems. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:6, 978-1008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Thamaraiselvan Natarajan, Saraswathy R. Aravinda Rajah, Sivagnanasundaram Manikavasagam. 2013. Snapshot of Personnel
Productivity Assessment in Indian IT Industry. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management
2:10.4018/jitpm.20110101, 48-61. [CrossRef]
17. Suwit Srimai, Chris S. Wright, Jack Radford. 2013. A speculation of the presence of overlap and niches in organizational
performance management systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:4, 364-386.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin. 2013. An assessment of performance-related practices in service operational settings:
measures and utilization patterns. The Service Industries Journal 33, 73-97. [CrossRef]
19. Hee Song Ng, Daisy Mui Hung Kee. 2013. Organisational Culture can be a Double-edged Sword for Firm Performance.
Research Journal of Business Management 7, 41-52. [CrossRef]
20. Wenbin B. Liu, Wei Meng, John Mingers, Ning Tang, Wei Wang. 2012. Developing a performance management system
using soft systems methodology: A Chinese case study. European Journal of Operational Research 223, 529-540. [CrossRef]
 21. T. Watts, C.J. McNair‐Connolly. 2012. New performance measurement and management control systems. Journal of Applied
Accounting Research 13:3, 226-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Toomas Haldma, Salme Näsi, Giuseppe Grossi, Minna Saunila, Juhani Ukko. 2012. A conceptual framework for the
measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Baltic Journal of Management 7:4, 355-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Manoochehr Najmi, Mohammad Etebari, Samin Emami. 2012. A framework to review Performance Prism. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:10, 1124-1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. P.R.C. Gopal, Jitesh Thakkar. 2012. A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics: 2000‐2011. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:5, 518-547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Paolo Taticchi, Kashi Balachandran, Flavio Tonelli. 2012. Performance measurement and management systems: state of the
art, guidelines for design and challenges. Measuring Business Excellence 16:2, 41-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Mohammed Shaik, Walid Abdul‐Kader. 2012. Performance measurement of reverse logistics enterprise: a comprehensive and
integrated approach. Measuring Business Excellence 16:2, 23-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Chunguang Bai, Joseph Sarkis. 2012. Supply-chain performance-measurement system management using neighbourhood
rough sets. International Journal of Production Research 50, 2484-2500. [CrossRef]
28. Nelson Waweru, Gary Spraakman. 2012. The use of performance measures: case studies from the microfinance sector in
Kenya. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 9:1, 44-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Assistant, Professor Federica Cucchiella, Professor Lenny Koh, Chunguang Bai, Joseph Sarkis, Xiaopeng Wei, Lenny Koh.
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

2012. Evaluating ecological sustainable performance measures for supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 17:1, 78-92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen, Frantisek Sudzina. 2012. Which firms use measures?. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 32:1, 4-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Suwit Srimai, Jack Radford, Chris Wright. 2011. Evolutionary paths of performance measurement. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 60:7, 662-687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin. 2011. A systematic benchmarking perspective on performance management of global
small to medium‐sized organizations. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:4, 543-562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2011. IT and non‐IT factors influencing the adoption of BSC systems: a Delphi study from Bahrain.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 60:5, 474-492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Carlos Ferreira Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin. 2011. Toward the promotion of effective performance of entry‐level managers:
the case of Portugal. Competitiveness Review 21:3, 288-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. STEFAN CEDERGREN, CHRISTER NORSTRÖM, ANDERS WALL. 2011. PMEX — A PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION MATRIX FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE-
INTENSIVE PRODUCTS. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 08, 55-76. [CrossRef]
36. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2011. Performance measurement practices in manufacturing firms
revisited. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:1, 5-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Ali Divandri, Homayoun Yousefi. 2011. Balanced Scorecard: A Tool for Measuring Competitive Advantage of Ports with
Focus on Container Terminals. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 472-477. [CrossRef]
38. Krystin Zigan, Dia Zeglat. 2010. Intangible resources in performance measurement systems of the hotel industry. Facilities
28:13/14, 597-610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Huan Yang, John F.Y. Yeung, Albert P.C. Chan, Y.H. Chiang, Daniel W.M. Chan. 2010. A critical review of performance
measurement in construction. Journal of Facilities Management 8:4, 269-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Job P. Antony, Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya. 2010. Measuring organizational performance and organizational excellence of
SMEs – Part 2: an empirical study on SMEs in India. Measuring Business Excellence 14:3, 42-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Eric Kong. 2010. Analyzing BSC and IC's usefulness in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11:3, 284-304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Paula Linna, Sanna Pekkola, Juhani Ukko, Helinä Melkas. 2010. Defining and measuring productivity in the public sector:
managerial perceptions. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23:5, 479-499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Professor Joseph Sarkis, Sarah Shaw, David B. Grant, John Mangan. 2010. Developing environmental supply chain
performance measures. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:3, 320-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 44. M. Leseure, M. Hudson‐Smith, Marisa K. Smith, Peter D. Ball, Umit S. Bititci, Robert van der Meer. 2010. Transforming
mass production contact centres using approaches from manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
21:4, 433-448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Mahmoud M. Yasin, Carlos F. Gomes. 2010. Performance management in service operational settings: a selective literature
examination. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:2, 214-231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Paula Linna, Sanna Pekkola, Juhani Ukko, Helinä Melkas. 2010. Defining and measuring productivity in the public sector:
managerial perceptions. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23:3, 300-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Mar Vila, Gerard Costa, Xari Rovira. 2010. The creation and use of scorecards in tourism planning: A Spanish example.
Tourism Management 31, 232-239. [CrossRef]
48. Paolo Taticchi, Flavio Tonelli, Luca Cagnazzo. 2010. Performance measurement and management: a literature review and a
research agenda. Measuring Business Excellence 14:1, 4-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Jussi Lehtinen, Tuomas Ahola. 2010. Is performance measurement suitable for an extended enterprise?. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 30:2, 181-204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Murugesan Punniyamoorthy, R. Murali. 2010. Identification of benchmarking service units through productivity and quality
dimensions. International Journal of Business Performance Management 12, 103. [CrossRef]
51. Sarah Shaw, David B. Grant, John Mangan. 2010. Developing environmental supply chain performance measures.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 17, 320-339. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

52. Karen Fryer, Jiju Antony, Susan Ogden. 2009. Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public
Sector Management 22:6, 478-498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Claire Moxham. 2009. Performance measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:7,
740-763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Simmy M. Marwa, Mohamed Zairi. 2009. In pursuit of performance‐oriented civil service reforms (CSRs): a Kenyan
perspective. Measuring Business Excellence 13:2, 34-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Raul Rodriguez Rodriguez, Juan José Alfaro Saiz, Angel Ortiz Bas. 2009. Quantitative relationships between key performance
indicators for supporting decision-making processes. Computers in Industry 60, 104-113. [CrossRef]
56. Paolo Taticchi, Kashi R. Balachandran. 2008. Forward performance measurement and management integrated frameworks.
International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 16:2, 140-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Robert Johnston, Panupak Pongatichat. 2008. Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping
strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:10, 941-967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Chun-Yao Tseng, Hui-Yueh Kuo, Shou-Shiung Chou. 2008. Configuration of innovation and performance in the service
industry: evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal 28, 1015-1028. [CrossRef]
59. John Simmons. 2008. Employee significance within stakeholder‐accountable performance management systems. The TQM
Journal 20:5, 463-475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. S P Santos, V Belton, S Howick. 2008. Enhanced performance measurement using OR: a case study. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 59, 762-775. [CrossRef]
61. Tim Walker. 2008. Some alternative approaches to performance management for councils. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management 57:4, 339-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Panupak Pongatichat, Robert Johnston. 2008. Exploring strategy‐misaligned performance measurement. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 57:3, 207-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. David J. Bryde, Gillian H. Wright. 2007. Project management priorities and the link with performance management systems.
Project Management Journal 38, 5-11. [CrossRef]
64. Oliver H.M. Yau, Raymond P.M. Chow, Leo Y.M. Sin, Alan C.B. Tse, C.L. Luk, Jenny S.Y. Lee. 2007. Developing a scale
for stakeholder orientation. European Journal of Marketing 41:11/12, 1306-1327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2007. The dimensionality and utilization of performance measures in
a manufacturing operational context. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 14:4, 286-306. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
66. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2007. The effectiveness of hospitality service operations: measurement
and implementation concerns. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:7, 560-573. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
 67. T.F. Burgess, T.S. Ong, N.E. Shaw. 2007. Traditional or contemporary? The prevalence of performance measurement system
types. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:7, 583-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Mike Bourne, Steven Melnyk, Norman Faull, Richard Greatbanks, David Tapp. 2007. The impact of balanced scorecards in
a public sector environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:8, 846-873. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
69. Veronica Martinez, Zoe Radnor, Alberto Felice De Toni, Andrea Fornasier, Mattia Montagner, Fabio Nonino. 2007. A
performance measurement system for facility management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
56:5/6, 417-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. William Anderson. 2007. Speaking the Language of Management: Applying the Performance Prism to Public Relations
Assessment. Atlantic Journal of Communication 15, 120-133. [CrossRef]
71. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2007. An empirical investigation of manufacturing performance
measures utilization. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:3, 187-204. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
72. Shankar Purbey, Kampan Mukherjee, Chandan Bhar. 2007. Performance measurement system for healthcare processes.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:3, 241-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Suzanne Bergin-Seers, Leo Jago. 2007. Performance measurement in small motels in Australia. Tourism and Hospitality
Research 7, 144-155. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Monash University At 09:05 06 December 2014 (PT)

74. Alexander T. Mohr. 2006. A multiple constituency approach to IJV performance measurement. Journal of World Business
41, 247-260. [CrossRef]
75. Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa. 2006. Key performance factors of manufacturing effective performance.
The TQM Magazine 18:4, 323-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Stefan Tangen. 2005. Improving the performance of a performance measure. Measuring Business Excellence 9:2, 4-11.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Rodney McAdam, Shirley‐Ann Hazlett, Christine Casey. 2005. Performance management in the UK public sector.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 18:3, 256-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2005. An empirical analysis of lead benchmarking and performance measurement.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22:4, 354-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Chung-Leung Luk, Oliver H.M. Yau, Raymond P.M. Chow, Alan C.B. Tse, Leo Y.M. Sin. 2005. Stakeholder Orientation and
Business Performance: The Case of Service Companies in China. Journal of International Marketing 13, 89-110. [CrossRef]
80. Annabel Jackson. 2005. Falling from a Great Height: Principles of Good Practice in Performance Measurement and the Perils
of Top Down Determination of Performance Indicators. Local Government Studies 31, 21-38. [CrossRef]
81. Stefan Tangen. 2004. Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 53:8, 726-737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. L. Berrah, G. Mauris *, F. Vernadat. 2004. Information aggregation in industrial performance measurement: rationales, issues
and definitions. International Journal of Production Research 42, 4271-4293. [CrossRef]
83. Karen Anderson, Rodney McAdam. 2004. A critique of benchmarking and performance measurement. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 11:5, 465-483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Max Moullin. 2004. Evaluating a health service taskforce. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 17:5, 248-257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Mik Wisniewski, Derek Stewart. 2004. Performance measurementfor stakeholders. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 17:3, 222-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Paul Rouse, Martin Putterill. 2003. An integral framework for performance measurement. Management Decision 41:8, 791-805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Francis Gacenga, Aileen Cater-Steel, Mark Toleman, Wui-Gee TanMeasuring IT Service Management Performance 102-119.
[CrossRef]
88. Snapshot of Personnel Productivity Assessment in Indian IT Industry 220-234. [CrossRef]
89. Thamaraiselvan Natarajan, Saraswathy R. Aravinda Rajah, Sivagnanasundaram ManikavasagamSnapshot of Personnel
Productivity Assessment in Indian IT Industry 1094-1108. [CrossRef]