Introduction The subject of performance measurement is encountering increasing interest in both the academic and managerial worlds.

This, for the most part, is due to the broadening spectrum of performances required by the present-day competitive environment and the new production paradigm known as Lean Production or World Class Manufacturing (Hall et al., 1991). In addition there is the need to support and verify the performance improvement programmes such as Just-in-Time, Total Quality Management, Concurrent Engineering, etc. (Ghalayini and Noble, 1996). These programmes are characterised by their ability to pursue several performances at the same time, for example the increase in the product quality together with the lowering of the production costs and the lead times, following the reduction in discards, waste, reworks, and controls. Performance measurement is how organisations, both public and private, measure the quality of their activities and services. An influential 1982 book, "In Search of Excellence," sparked interest in measuring performance. Since then, business, government and other organisations have sought to measure the extent to which they meet organisational goals. Performance measurement may sound simple, but is often a complicated process that requires deep strategic thinking and assessment. Performance measurement systems (PMS), such as Kaplan and Nortons (1992, 1996a) Balanced Scorecard, focus on organisational performance and, although the impacts of these systems on organisational performance is a much debated question, they may be considered as a means of reaching performance objectives, thus the interest in these systems and their use. Considering their support role in both tactical and strategic decision making (Kueng et al., 2001), PMS are
1

designed for executives, although not exclusively, and thus have an executive information system (EIS) component (Turban et al., 2002, 2007). PMS can be used collectively by the managers of the organisation (Kaplan and Norton, 1996b). As internal systems, they have either been acquired as packaged software or developed for the specific needs of the firm (Kueng, 2000; Sharif, 2002). As external systems, they are accessible in the form of external diagnostic tools (Cagliano et al., 2001; Delisle and St-Pierre, 2006), with or without a benchmarking function, and are used on an ad hoc and discretionary basis. Since the early 1990s, a number of researchers have shown interest in PMS that support organisational and managerial development in both large and small business enterprises (Bourne et al., 2000; Garengo et al., 2005), and in public or government organisations (Ho and Chan, 2002).

Literature Review Definition, History and Formulation There has been an evolution in the conceptualisation and definition of these systems since they first appeared as objects of management research. In conjunction with the evolution of information technologies, including web-based technologies, PMS can be enriched with new system functionalities that allow them to move beyond simple measurement by providing more extensive and customised support for decision making in the firm. Through this enrichment, PMS now play a more important role in the organisation, extending beyond control toward support for continuous improvement and managerial development (Sinclair and Zairi, 2000). In light of this evolution, there is a need for a renewed conceptualisation and better definition of PMS as a research object, in terms of their essential characterisation as information systems (IS), if one wishes to study these systems, and understand in particular the individual and organisational behaviours associated with PMS usage and management practices. In this regard, the conceptualisations and definitions of PMS in the literature require more precision and completeness. For instance, a definition wherein a PMS is a balanced and dynamic system that is able to support the decision-making process by gathering, elaborating and analysing information (Neely et al., 2002) does not sufficiently specify the unique characteristics of such systems that distinguish them from other types of management decision-support systems. Mainly, originating in management accounting and operations management studies (Neely et al., 1995; de Toni and Tonchia, 2001), the PMS research domain to-date has developed outside the IS research field. A few researchers have attempted to establish links between IS and PMS
3

(Bititci et al., 1997a; Kueng et al., 2001), but these attempts have been isolated. References to IS research are thus rare in PMS studies and, as defined presently in the PMS literature, these systems are not present in the mainstream of IS knowledge. While seemingly related systems such as EIS have been the object of past IS research (Bergeron et al., 1995), these systems have evolved differently and thus cannot be assimilated to PMS. In their recent literature review, Franco-Santos et al. (2007, p. 799) counted no less than 17 definitions of business PMS, underlining that a no-consensus situation on PMS definition can inhibit the development of the field. Research is more problematic when the basic concepts and definitions that underlie a research object lack clarity, precision, and uniformity. Accumulating and integrating research results into a coherent body of knowledge is more difficult, as the lack of a common language renders studies less comparable. Conceptual and definitional imprecision also makes it more difficult to import knowledge from other disciplines or fields, knowledge that could provide a deeper understanding of the phenomena under study. Models of Performance Measurement Systems In recognition of the need for more relevant, better structured and integrated performance measurement systems, a number of frameworks and models for performance measurement have been developed, the main models of PMSs found in the literature can be referred to five typologies: models that are strictly hierarchical (or strictly vertical), characterised by cost and non-cost performances on different levels of aggregation, till they ultimately become economicfinancial (Berliner and Brimson, 1988; Lockamy and Cox, 1994; Partovi, 1994; Rangone,
4

1996), the first hierarchical model was that of Gold (1955), which connects productivity and ROI. models that are balanced scorecard or tableaux de bord, where several separate performances are considered independently, these performances correspond to diverse perspectives (financial, internal business processes, customers, learning/growth) of analyses, that substantially remain separate and whose links are defined only in a general way (Maskell, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1992), though recently their model has been integrated with some vertical linkages, from the operational measures up to the financial ones (Brown, 1996); models that can be called frustum, where there is a synthesis of low-level measures into more aggregated indicators, but without the scope of translating non-cost performance into financial performance, typically the economic-financial measures are kept separate from the aggregate ones of customer satisfaction (Lynch and Cross, 1991; Hronec, 1993). The frustum approach permits the vertical architecture to be defined at the lowest levels, involving the aggregation and synthesis of the performances, while at the higher levels the frustum approach is nearer to a balanced architecture, thus with a tableaux of economicfinancial performances and customer satisfaction / market performances. models which distinguish between internal and external performances, these are the only ones directly perceived by the customers (Bartezzaghi and Turco, 1989; Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1990; Johnson, 1990; Thor, 1993).

 models which are related to the value chain, these models in respect to the preceding ones, also consider the internal relationship of customer/supplier (Sink and Tuttle, 1989; Moseng and Bredrup, 1993). The above mentioned models are characterised by three different structural associations: vertical, balanced (or a tableaux) and horizontal (or by process). These structural associations permit the above PMS models to be classified as reported in Figure 1. As can be seen, the frustum models as well as those that distinguish between internal/external performances (without reference to the value chain) show both types of associations at the same time.

ARCHITECT URE VERTICAL ARCHITECT URE BALANCED ARCHITECT URE HORIZONTA L (BY PROCESS)

strictly hierarchi cal models "balanc ed scorecar d" models

"frustu m" models models with internalexternal performan ces

models related to value chain

Figure 1. Classification of the PMS models

Performance Measurement Systems Characteristics The main characteristics of PMSs held in the literature can be grouped into three different classes:

 PMS Formalisation this class includes the formalisation of the measures, which involves the identification of the object or phenomena to be measured and formalisation of the measurements which seeks to identify how exactly the object or phenomena will be measured. In this two basic questions must be answered, what will be measured? And how will it be measured? (White, 1996). PMS Integration the performance measurement system is not, nor can it be, an isolated system. This is mainly due to the fact that it shares inputs with other systems and also because it produces outputs for other systems. As a consequence, the performance measurement system has a precise position within the organisation, due to its tasks of promoting the integration between the various areas of the business and deploying the business objectives throughout the organisation (Bititci et al., 1997). A performance measurement system must be integrated with at least three other types of systems, these systems being the accounting system, the manufacturing, planning and control system and finally the strategic planning system. PMS Utilisation this class concerns the aim and use of the performance measurement system. Wisner and Fawcett (1991) believe that organisation have PMS to compare ones own competitive position with that of its competitors and to check or evaluate the accomplishments of ones own objectives. Neely (1998) underlines three different roles for a PMS: to comply, to check, and to challenge. Furthermore, a PMS serves different staff units and functions of a firm, general management, quality management, production, new product development, technology, distribution, customer service, etc. - Zairi, 1994).

Notion and evolution of PMS A number of parallel developments have led to the notion of an information system that measures the performance of business enterprises in a multi-dimensional manner, that is, not solely through financial statements. In the 1980s, among other developments, the activity-based costing (ABC) and activity-based management (ABM) approaches extended the firms performance logic beyond the purely financial by highlighting the cause-effect relationships that could explain the performance of the firms operations and production function, thus using financial and other types of measures. The phrase performance measurement system, although already present in management literature (Ridgway, 1956, p. 240: system of performance measurement), began to appear more frequently in the early 1990s, mainly in the fields of management accounting and operations management, and was marked by Neely et al.s (1995) founding review of the PMS literature. In the same decade, this expression also started to appear more often in professional publications, targeting the management accounting profession, among others (e.g. CMA, 1999). The basic notions that underlie PMS have also evolved over time to arrive at the present ways in which these systems are conceptualised, designed, and implemented in organisations. These notions include: the focus of PMS, namely the notion of performance itself and its dimensions the performance logic that guides the design of PMS (architecture and performance measurement framework), and the system characteristics of PMS (definition, organisational role and information output).

These notions evolved notably in the early 1990s. PMS notions seem more evident as such in the literature after 1990. The first observable activities were those that defined measurement approaches, one then saw the development of measurement frameworks that were proposed to practitioners. Before 1980, the situation was generally the following, essentially financial, focusing on results or one where retrospective management existed. Measurement frameworks were thus rather limited to the financial aspects of performance, as traditionally exemplified by the use of financial ratios such as return-on-assets and earnings-per-share. In the 1980s, performance was still envisioned as essentially financial in most organisations, but new measures of operations/ production performance appeared, extending beyond costs . Information output was essentially quantitative, operational in nature, internal, of short-term value, and focused on results, but began to present cause-effect linkages that provided a prospective view of operations and production management. This led some to propose operational performance measurement models that took into account the firms strategic objectives, such as Keegan et al.s (1989) Performance Measurement Matrix or models that focused on quality, customer satisfaction, time reduction, and cost reduction. With the 1990s, systems became more integrated in functional (hierarchically) and inter-functional (across business functions) terms (Neely et al., 2000). Also, in line with Skinners (1974) early work, a pre-occupation with strategic alignment became more apparent, notably with Kaplan and Nortons (1992) Balanced Scorecard.

Performance Measurement Frameworks One of the most widely recognised performance measurement frameworks of today is the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Developed by Kaplan and Norton, and popularised by the marketing efforts of major consulting companies, the phrase ``balanced scorecard'' appears to have entered the management vernacular. It is, however, only one of several performance measurement frameworks, which have been proposed. In 1989, for example, Keegan et al. presented the performance measurement matrix. As with the balanced scorecard, the strength of the performance measurement matrix lies in the way it seeks to integrate different classes of business performance, financial and non-financial, internal and external.

Figure 2. The Performance Measurement Matrix

The matrix, however, is not as well packaged as the balanced scorecard and does not make explicit the links between the different dimensions of business performance, which is arguably one of the greatest strengths of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard. An alternative, which overcomes this criticism, is the results and determinants framework. This framework, which was
10

developed by Fitzgerald et al. (1991) following their study of performance measurement in the service sector, is based on the assumption that there are two basic types of performance measures in any organization, those that relate to results (competitiveness, financial performance), and those that focus on the determinants of the results (quality, flexibility, resource utilisation and innovation). The appeal of this distinction is that it highlights the fact that the results obtained are a function of past business performance with regard to specific determinants, results are lagging indicators, whereas determinants are leading indicators.

Figure 3. Results and Determinants Framework

11

Conclusion In concluding this literature review it is worth discussing one other relevant stream of writing in the literature, namely that concerned with rules and guidelines for performance measurement systems design, rather than the actual process. Authors, such as Globerson (1985) and Maskell (1989), for example, made early contributions to this literature. Globerson (1985), for example, states that: Performance criteria must be chosen from the company's objectives. Performance criteria must make possible the comparison of organizations that are in the same business. The purpose of each performance criterion must be clear.

Data collection and methods of calculating the performance criterion must be clearly defined. Ratio based performance criteria are preferred to absolute numbers. Performance criteria should be under the control of the evaluated organizational unit. Performance criteria should be selected through discussions with the people involved (customers, employees, managers).

Objective performance criteria are preferable to subjective ones. Similarly Maskell (1989) offers the following seven principles of performance measurement system design: The measures should be directly related to the firm's manufacturing strategy. Non-financial measures should be adopted.

12

It should be recognised that measures vary between locations one measure is not suitable for all departments or sites.

It should be acknowledged that measures change as circumstances do. The measures should be simple and easy to use. The measures should provide fast feedback. The measures should be designed so that they stimulate continuous improvement rather than simply monitor.

The performance measurement system design principles proposed by Globerson (1985) and Maskell (1989) can be categorised according to whether they relate to the process of designing a performance measurement system, or whether they focus on the output of the process. Take, for example, Globerson's (1985) assertion that ``the performance criteria should be chosen from the company's objectives''. This is equivalent to Maskell's (1989) recommendation that ``the measures should be directly related to the firm's manufacturing strategy'', and in both cases the performance measurement system design principle being examined relates to the process of designing a performance measurement system, look to strategy first, rather than the actual output of the process. This provides a framework that can be used not only to appraise the performance measurement system design processes proposed by various authors (Keegan et al., 1989; Wisner and Fawcett, 1991; Azzone et al., 1991 and Kaplan and Norton, 1993), but also to inform the design of such a process.

References
13

Bartezzaghi, E., Turco, F. (1989), The Impact of Just-in-time on Production System Performance: An Analytical Framework, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 40-62 Berliner, C., Brimson, J. A. (1988), Cost Management for Todays Advanced Manufacturing, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA Bititci, U. S., Carrie, A. S., McDevitt, L. (1997), Integrated Performance Measurement Systems: A Development Guide, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 522-534 Brown, M. G. (1996), Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World-Class Performance, Quality Resources, New York Daniels, R. C., Burns, N. D. (1997), A Framework for Proactive Performance Measurement System Introduction, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 100-116 Fisher, J. (1992), Use of Nonfinancial Performance Measures, Journal of Cost Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 31-38, spring Fowler, F. J. Jr. (1984), Survey Research Methods, Sage University Press, Beverly Hills, CA Ghalayini, A. M., Noble, J. S. (1996), The Changing Basis of Performance Measurement, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 63-80 Gold, B. (1955), Foundations of Productivity Analysis, University of Pittsburgh Press, PA Hall, R. W., Johnson, H. T., Turney, P. B. B. (1991), Measuring Up - Charting Pathways to Manufacturing Excellence, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL 14

Hronec, S. M. (1993), Vital Signs - Using Quality, Time and Cost Performance Measurement to Chart Your Companys Future, AMACOM, American Management Association, New York Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1992), The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, pp. 71-79, Jan./Feb. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard - Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA Lynch, R. L., Cross, K. F. (1991), Measure Up! Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA Mapes, J., New, C., Szwejczewski, M. (1997), Performance Trade-offs in Manufacturing Plants, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 10, pp. 1020-1033 Maskell, B. H. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA Meyer, C. (1994), How the Right Measures Help Teams Excel, Harvard Business Review, may/june, pp. 95-103 Moseng, B., Bredrup, H. (1993), A Methodology for Industrial Studies of Productivity Performance, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 198-206 Neely, A. (1998), Measuring Business Performance, Economist Books, London Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K. (1995), Performance Measurement System Design - A Literature Review and Research Agenda, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 80-116 15

Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., Bourne, M. (1997), Design Performance Measures: A Structured Approach, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 1131-1152 Sink, D. S., Tuttle, T. C. (1989), Planning and Measurement in Your Organization of the Future, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA White, G. P. (1996), A Survey and Taxonomy of Strategy-related Performance Measures for Manufacturing, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 42-61 Wisner, J. D., Fawcett, S. E. (1991), Linking Firm Strategy to Operating Decisions Through Performance Measurement, Production & Inventory Management Journal, pp. 5-11, third quarter Zairi, M. (1994), Measuring Performance for Business Results, Chapman & Hall, London

16