Explaining the Effects of Peformance Measurement on Performance

8/10/2019 Explaining the Effects of Peformance Measurement on Performance

1/24

International Journal of Operations & Production ManagementExplaining the effects of performance measurement on performance: An organizational

routines perspectiveAndrey Pavlov Mike Bourne

Article in format ion:To cite this document:Andrey Pavlov Mike Bourne, (2011),"Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance",International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 101 - 122Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571111098762

Downloaded on: 18 October 2014, At: 07:58 (PT)References: this document contains references to 117 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5851 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Judy Bullock, (2010),"Organizational Routines: Advancing Empirical Research20103Markus C. Becker,Nathalie Lazaric, . Organizational Routines: Advancing Empirical Research. Aldershot: Edward Elgar 2009. 291 pp., ISBN: 978#1847201942 79.95 (hardback)", Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, Vol. 31 Iss 6 pp. 568-569

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 459863 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldins ight .comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding 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 Committeeon 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571111098762


2/24

Explaining the effectsof performance measurement

on performanceAn organizational routines perspective

Andrey Pavlov and Mike BourneCraneld School of Management, Centre for Business Performance,

Craneld, UK

AbstractPurpose Existing research evaluating the effect of performance measurement (PM) on performanceproduces conicting results, indicating that the effect is poorly understood. This paper aims to addressthis problem by proposing a theoretical model of the effects of PM on performance.Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews the PM and MCS literature, extracting thefactors that help to explain the effect of PM on performance. Then it applies the organizational routinesperspective as an analytical lens to tie these factors into a coherent explanatory model.Findings A theoretical model shows that PM has three distinct effects on the organizationalprocesses that deliver performance the trigger, guidance, and intensication effects.Originality/value The paper employs the organizational routines perspective, moving beyond thedescription of the effects of PM on performance to offer a theoretical model explaining these effects.As such, it responds to a number of contemporary challenges in the PM eld most importantly,the broad need for a solid organizational foundation for the studies of PM and the explanation of the mechanism through which PM affects organizational performance.

Keywords Performance measures, Performance management, Organizational structures

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionResearch in the eld of performance measurement (PM) has drawn on a wide crosssection of disciplines, from operations and production management to accounting andmanagement control (Neely et al., 1995; Neely, 2005). Over the last two decades, the focushas moved from PM system design (Neely et al., 1995) to the design and deployment of enterprise performance management systems (Neely, 2005). With academic andpractitioner interest in the balanced scorecard (BSC), there has spawned a literaturearound the design (Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Neely et al., 1996; Bititci et al., 1998),implementation (Bourne et al., 2003a, b, 2005; Bititci et al., 2006) and use of performancemeasures to manage performance (Bourne et al., 2005; Widener, 2007; Wouters andWilderom, 2008; Hall, 2008) together with a more critical interest in whether scorecardswork (Norreklit, 2000, 2003) and whether they have a positive impact on performance(Bourne et al., 2007; Grifth and Neely, 2009). However, there remains one fundamentalyet excruciatingly complex question how is the performance of an organizationmanaged?

Perhaps, none of the aspects of this research has received as much attention as thetask of measuring performance (Franco and Bourne, 2003; Neely, 2005). Numerousstudies, academic conferences and associations, and an emergence of a distinct PM

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

The effects of performance

measurement

101

Received May 2009Revised March 2010Accepted May 2010

International Journal of Operations &Production Management

Vol. 31 No. 1, 2011pp. 101-122

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0144-3577

DOI 10.1108/01443571111098762


3/24

theme in the literature reect this interest. PM has been widely viewed as anindispensable pre-requisite for management as an old adage often attributed to LordKelvin says, If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. In this capacity, PM hasbecome a rmly established element of performance management.

The link between measurement and management, however, has been notoriouslydifcult to explain, and today it remains one of the most pressing contemporarychallenges in the eld. In this paper, we take a step towards addressing this challengebyproposing a model that illuminates the mechanism of the major effects of PM onperformance. Theoretically, themodel is informed by three key bodiesof literature PMand management, management accounting, and organizational routines. The paperfollows a simple structure, which is outlined below.

First, wepresent the problem that willbe the focus of attention of thispaper.To do so,we offer an expanded discussion of the effects of PM on performance, noting thatexisting studies have produced contradictory evidence. On one hand, they have shownthat measurement is a powerful tool for affecting organizations and, ultimately, theirperformance. On the other hand, these studies have also demonstrated that the natureand direction of this effect are far from being predictable. It could be said that what theyhave shown was that the power of PM, however signicant, is often poorly understood.

Second, we draw upon two domains of literature to review the insights into variousaspects of the effect of PM on performance where some understanding has beenachieved. We show that the management control systems (MCS)/managementaccounting literature has suggested several distinct roles of PM and shown that therole of PM depends on the way it is used. However, it has not demonstrated how exactlyPM is linked to performance, thus leaving the gap between PM and performance stillunexplained. We suggest that the understanding of the effectsof PM can be achieved byadopting an organizational perspective that would help to spell out the mechanism of theeffect of PM on organizations and organizational performance. We argue that such a

perspective isprovided by theorganizational routines literature.This literature assumesthat organizational performance is delivered by a set of organizational processes routines which perform specic functions, respond to performance feedback (Nelsonand Winter, 1982) and carry out organizational change in a number of distinct ways(Feldman, 2000; Becker et al., 2005). As such, routines provide a powerful analytical lensfor studying organizations (Becker and Zirpoli, 2008) and present a clear link betweenPM and organizational performance.

Finally, we use the insights from the aforementioned literature domains to propose atheoretical model of the effects of PM on performance. We then discuss the ways inwhich this model may be used to address current challenges in the PM eld.

Current challengeThe modern literature on performance management (Flapper et al., 1996; Bititci et al.,2005; Neely, 2005) has progressed from providing general recommendations onimproving performance to formulating PM frameworks and systems (Folan andBrowne, 2005), and nally to the issues of implementing and using PM systems tomanage organizational performance. The discussion of measurement, however,continues to occupy a central place in this literature. PM has always been viewed as amajor instrument of performance management, as it provides and integrates allinformation relevant for making decisions related to the task of managing performance

IJOPM31,1

102


4/24

(Bititci et al., 1997). The development of discussion of PM, however, was in many waysshaped by the progress in the elds of management accounting and MCS.

Management accounting in a way has provided the operational power for PM as itdeveloped a set of metrics that could be used for measuring organizational performance.However, the prevailing paradigm of management accounting in the second half of thetwentieth century determined the lens through which performance and PM wereexamined. In many cases organizationalperformancewas equated with nancial resultsand measured with corresponding nancial indicators. Such indicators of performancewere emphasized in early performance management practices (Hopwood, 1972), whichin turn resulted in a narrowly dened view of performance even when it was managedwithin the overall organizational context. It was not until nancial measures of performance were complemented by non-nancial counterparts that performancemanagement evolved into a separate conversation in its own right.

Responding to the critique of management accounting mentioned above, the earlyperformance management eld generated a large number of comprehensive PMframeworks (Keegan et al., 1989; Lynch and Cross, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996a, b; Neely, 1998) and examined various performance measures (Azzone et al., 1991;Misterek et al., 1992; Dumond, 1994). In most of these early studies, measurement wasoften assumed to be performing the feedback function, providing management with theinformation necessary to challenge the assumptions underlying the organizationsbusiness model. However, more recent contributions reect the use of measurement inits feedforward role, where measures are used to prescribe learning domains andstimulate learning in strategically important areas and where processes are allowed toevolvewithoutbeing fully predetermined by management (Kerssens-van DrongelenandBilderbeek, 1999). Contemporary discussions of PM are thus encompassing allaccumulated knowledge of the effects of PM, returning to the original purpose of measurement the task of managing organizational performance (Otley, 1999). PM and

performance management are thus inextricably linked, and while PM is driven by theperformance management philosophy, its results can also inuence the latter (Lebas,1997). Moreover, the link between the two is a strong and enduring one, althoughapplying PM in the service of performance management may be less predictable andstraightforward than it seems on initial examination (Otley, 2003).

In terms of the focus of this paper, most notable in this discussion is the stream of contributions on managing through measures. The goal of this literature has been toexamine the ways in which PM systems were used as an instrumentof management andwhat inuenced the success of such actions. Franco and Bourne (2003), for instance,noted that the effectiveness of the use of measurement depended on the extent to whichthe process of managing through measures was embedded in the organization bothin terms of hard elements, such as compensation systems, and in terms of softeraspects such as culture and managerial competence. Bourne et al. (2005), on the otherhand, observed the differences between high- and low-performing units in anorganization, noting that people in the higher-performing units tended to use PMinteractively, continuously moving between interrogating the performance data andtaking action on its basis. This literature provided a glimpse of how PM could be used tomanage organizational performance comprehensively.

However, at the turn of the century, a number of studies attempted to evaluatethe impact of PM initiatives on the actual performance of organizations.


measurement

103


5/24

Perhaps,not surprisingly, but rather disconcertingly, these studiesproduced conictingresults (Neely, 2005). Some studies, for instance, indicated the positive impact of the BSCon performance. Hoque and James (2000) studied the use of non-nancial measuresadvocated by frameworks such as the BSC and reported a strong positive relationshipbetween such measures and nancial performance. Likewise, Davis and Albright (2004)in a quasi-experimental study demonstrated that the business units that adopted theBSC signicantly outperformed the business units in the control group. Malina andSelto (2001) also found that the BSC was an effective tool for controlling strategy, butnoted that the effectiveness would depend on the way the BSC was implemented.

However, other contributions provided contradictory evidence. Perera et al. (1997)found no relationship between the use of non-nancial measures and nancialperformance. Ittner et al. (2003) looked at the use of measurement alignment techniques,including theBSCmodel and reported similar ndings almost no relationship betweensuch techniques and economic performance. Finally, in a cross-sectional survey study,Franco-Santos (2007) examined the relationship between the use of non-nancialmeasures in executive compensation and the rms nancial performance and foundthat the relationship did exist but was negative. She further noted that factors such asorganizational culture andbusiness risk might help to explain these results. In our view,what these studies seem to suggest is that while measuring performance does have thepower to produce an effect on performance, this effect is unpredictable and itsmechanism is vague.

At the same time, as these results were appearing, the eld came to realize that PMsystems were an integral part of the organization, which means that they accomplishedtheir objectives by affecting multiple and diverse organizational processes that deliverorganizational performance. While earlier contributions focusedon the technical aspectsof PM and PM systems, often overlooking the organizational aspect of the subject, thelater research warned of these shortcomings. Bourne et al. (2003a, b), for instance, noted

that the process of implementing PM systems could be signicantly improved byviewing implementation as a larger organizational change initiative that involvesparticipation across the layers of management and by incorporating the insights of theorganizational change scholars. Likewise, Kennerley and Neely (2002, 2003), concludedon the basis of an empirical study that PM systems were deeply embedded in theorganizations, being affected by a wide range of organizational factors and being heldtogether by an infrastructure of diverse organizational processes.

What has thus transpired by the middle of the current decade is that PM is oncemore seen as an instrument for managing organizational performance and that there isevidence that PM initiatives have the capability to produce a major organizationalimpact and that they affect a multitude of organizational processes. However, theresearch hasalso shown that the impact itself is at best unpredictable and its mechanismis poorly understood. Notwithstanding the accumulated knowledge of the effects of measurement, the researchers have been struggling to explain how exactly PM affectsorganizational performance and thus to advance towards its aim of using measurementas an instrument for managing performance. As such, the power of PM can be seen assubstantial yet somewhat blind.

In other words, there is still a black box that separates PM intervention from itsintended outcome. Opening this black box would allow researchers to elucidate theprocess through which PM affects performance, and as such, to restore the vision

IJOPM31,1

104


6/24

of PM. Building on the insights of the PM scholars who emphasized organizationalembeddedness of PM frameworks and systems, we propose that this black boxcontains multiple organizational processes that deliver organizational performance.Therefore, in order to understand the mechanism of the impact of PM on performance,one needs to understand how PM affects these organizational processes. In the next twosections of the paper, we turn to the review of theoretical contributions to the study of performance management and organizational performance, showing rst, whatfunctions PM can perform depending on the way it is used and, second, how the blackbox mentioned abovecan beopened andwhy theeffect of measurement on performancecan begin to be explained by adopting the organizational routines perspective as ananalytical lens.

The effects of PMOrganizational performance is a theme with a long history in management literature.As Neely (2005) notes, management scholars have discussed various aspects of

performance management since at least the 1950s, observing the behaviouralconsequences of PM (Argyris, 1952; Ridgway, 1956) and the complex nature of thephenomenon that was described by the term organizational performance (Drucker,1954). As the discussion of this phenomenon in the academic literaturehas progressed, ithas drawn heavily on the insights from the MCS and the accounting literature. Indeed,the intellectual roots and many of the crucial conceptual elements of PM lie in the eldsof MCS (Otley, 2003) and management accounting (Otley, 2001; Franco-Santos andBourne, 2005).

Taking this observation a step further, we argue that these elds provided anindication of the specic ways in which PM affects organizational performance. In thefollowing paragraphs, we briey review the parts of the MCS and the managementaccounting literature that offer insights into the distinct effects of PM on organizational

performance. It is important to note that what follows is by no means a comprehensivereview of literature in the aforementioned domains such a review would be beyond thescope of this paper. Rather, we focus on the discussion of the effects of PM provided inthis literature.

Management control systemsThe issue of control occupies a central place in management literature. It traces itshistory back to the work of Taylor (1911), who saw it as a prerequisite to achievingoperational efciency, and Fayol (1949), who considered it to be one of the ve functionsof management. Traditionally, control was seen as a function that ensured that businessprocesses remained aligned to the organizations business objectives. As late as in the1960s, management control was still dened as [ . . .] the process by which managersensure that resources are obtained and used effectively and efciently in theaccomplishment of the organizational objectives (Anthony, 1965 cited inLangeld-Smith, 1997, p. 208). The limitation of this view of control as a coordinatingactivity fuelled the development of research on MCS. This research shed light on theroles of PM in managing, or, rather, controlling organizational performance.

In an early study of MCS, Flamholtz et al. (1985) identied four core components of anMCS planning, measurement, feedback, and rewards. The authors further discussedthese components in terms of their temporal orientation. While planning takes place


measurement

105


7/24

before an action is taken, feedback and rewards perform an ex post function they aretriggered by the action. Measurement, however, has a dual role it can act as aninformation provider ex post and as a guide for learning ex ante. In its ex post function, itis very similar to feedback in the sense that it communicates to the management theinformation about the performance of an organizational process that has already beenexecuted. In its ex ante role, however, it is prescriptive in nature it can focusorganizational attention on critical areas before any action is taken. It helps to create thegoals towards which the performance will gravitate.

Later research in MCS addressed this distinction explicitly and incorporated bothfunctions of measurement into the discussion of management control. Schreyogg andSteinmann (1987) introduced the term feedforward that corresponds to the ex antefunction of measurement and is used to differentiate this function from the traditional ex post feedback effect. Broadly, feedforward refers to the data generated andcommunicated by performance measures when the latter are used to inform an actionbefore it is taken.Others note that feedforward is preventive in nature andcan be used toanticipate threats and lead change (Morgan, 1992) and that it is an autonomousmanagement function that allows management to make steering decisions (Preble,1992). Simons (1994, 1995) provides the most comprehensive model of an MCS thatbuilds on these propositions and is empirically tested. His idea of diagnostic controlsystems reects the use of measurement in its feedback or information-providingfunction, while interactive control systems are seen as performing the feedforwardfunction allowing emergent actions and leading the development of new organizationalprocesses in key areas.

Management accounting It has been argued that all the major achievements in accounting were accomplished bythe early twentieth century (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987) and that accounting practices

had lost their relevance to business reality, becoming more of an obstacle than an enablerof effective PM (Kaplan, 1984; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). New accounting frameworks,such as activity-based costing (Cooper, 1988), wereput forward to address this limitationand received some success. However, it has been noted that this success could beattributed not so much to the replacement of the old accounting frameworks by a newparadigm of managing performance, but to the fact that the new methodsdelivered theirbenets indirectly by stimulating the debates about the drivers of performance andencouraging organizational change (Neely et al., 1995).

Recent contributions to the management accounting eld, including both qualitative(Johanson et al., 2001a; Askim, 2004; Vaivio, 2004) and quantitative (Chenhall, 2005)studies, echo these observations, demonstrating that PM often delivers its benetsindirectly not simply by encouraging behaviour consistent with the determinedstrategy, but rather by initiating and stimulating the debates about the factors thatdetermine organizational performance. This aspect of PM is most pronounced in thestream of managementaccounting literature devoted to the measurement of intangibles.Mouritsen (1998) and Johanson et al. (2001a, b) note that the primary value of measuringintangibles does not lie in the accurateestimation of their value, but rather in stimulatingthe process of discovering the drivers of organizational performance through thelocalized search triggered by measurement. In the process of trying to design objectivemeasures for the resources and processes that are inherently difcult to quantify,

IJOPM31,1

106


8/24

the subjective perceptions of such resources and processes surface and become theobject of analysis and discussion, during which assumptions behind the drivers of organizational performance are articulated and challenged. New assumptions are thentranslated into actions. These actions in turn become the object of reection and so on.Non-nancial measures are particularly powerful in stimulating this process (Vaivio,2004). Measurement thus intensies the existing organizational processes and powersthe search for the new solutions through the cycle of reection and action.

Summarizing the argument put forward in this section, it can be said that, asprecursors of the performance management eld, the elds of MCS, and managementaccounting have determined and described a number of effects of PM on organizationalperformance. The MCS literature has shown that PM can be used in two distinct ways to provide the information about past performance and to communicate the directionfor future performance. In the literature, these are described as distinct functions of measurement. In its feedback function, measurement acts as an ex post information-providing mechanism communicating the performance information afteran event takes place. The feedback function of measurement is necessary for theevaluation of past performance. Feedforward, on the other hand, is the mechanism forcommunicating performance priorities ex ante in order to provide guidance for thedevelopment of organizational processes. Recent contributions to the accountingliterature indicated another indirect effectof measurement. They noted that theveryprocess of measuring performance affects performance by intensifying the cycle of reecting on the performance and altering corresponding behaviours.

The effects of PM described in this section, although undoubtedly useful, are notsufcient for providing a comprehensive solution to the problem outlined in thebeginning of the paper. In a sense, they leave the black box of organizationalperformance unopened, thus severely limiting the understanding of the link betweenPM and performance. We suggest that this understanding can be reached by adopting

the organizational routines perspective as an analytical lens.

Organizational routines as an analytical lensWhy organizational routines? The conceptof the organizational routine fully entered the eld of management researchafter the seminal work of Nelson and Winter (1982). In this contribution, the authorsgave a broad denition of organizational routines, which included organizationalprocesses whose complexity varied from simple operational routines to revisions in thecorporatestrategy. Theauthors noted that the structure of organizational routines couldbe conceived of as a hierarchy: while some routines play an operational role, other higher-order routines perform an organizing function. The higher-order routines formthe basis for the rms dynamic capabilities that areused to manage the rms resources(Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Zollo and Winter, 2002). A complete setof routines then determines what an organization is at any given point in time. What isimportant here is the fact that the organizational routines perspective offers acomprehensive view of the organization as a complex set of processes calledorganizational routines. As such, it responds to the need for a solid organizationalfoundation in the study of PM and provides a way to analyze the impact of PM onorganization. However, this perspective is also by its very nature tied to the study of performance-related issues.


measurement

107


9/24

Nelson and Winter (1982) suggested that organizational routines deliveredorganizational performance and noted that routines evolved in response toperformance feedback. If the feedback received after the execution of a routineindicates that the performance is no longer satisfactory, the organization initiates aroutine-guided, routine-changing process of search (Nelson and Winter, 1982, p. 18).As a result of this search, routines adapt to the new environmental conditions. In thissense, organizational routines are remarkably similar to performance programs (Marchand Simon, 1963), which are learned routinized responses of organizational actors, orgroups of actors, to the problems presented by the external environment andcanbe seenas the basic vehicles of performance. This problem-centered search that underscores theevolution of performance programs is a central characteristic of the decision-makingprocess (Simon, 1979) and is triggered when the appropriate performance feedback isreceived (March and Simon, 1963; Cyert and March, 1963). Performance feedback is themechanism throughwhich an organizationlearnsabout theadequacyof itsperformanceand which triggers the change in routines (Cyert and March, 1992).

In other words, the organizational routines perspective explicitly views routines asthevehicles of organizational performanceandechoes many of the insights generated bythe early contributions to the PM eld. As Becker and Zirpoli (2008) state, thisperspective is remarkably useful for studying many complex organizational issues.However, with its natural focus on the processes giving rise to performance, it is perhapsone of the most revealing perspectives for the study of organizational performancemanagement. In terms of the focus of this paper, we believe that the research into thedynamics of organizational routines provides an insight into the mechanism of theimpact of PM on organizational performance.

Alternative perspectivesThe adoption of organizational routines as an analytical lens for analyzing the effects of

PM on organizational performance invites a discussion of alternative perspectives thatcould either be seen as fullling a function similar to that of organizational routines orprovide a direct link between PM and individual behaviour. The alternatives providingthe closest parallels to organizational routines are business process management (BPM)and dynamic capabilities. However, the linksof PM with behaviour arealso discussed inthe literature devoted to reward systems, individual performance appraisals, andbehavioural consequences of PM. These perspectives and the reasons they wereforegone in favour of the organizational routines lens are now discussed in turn.

BPM refers to the efforts of the organization to manage all fundamental activities,including manufacturing, marketing, and communications (Trkman, 2010). It grew outof work on business process re-engineering (Hammer and Champy,1993), but evolved torepresent continuous management of business processes (Armistead and Machin,1997).In this sense, the BPM literature can provide an alternative view of the processescontained in the organizational black box discussed earlier. However, the notion of aroutine is wider than that of a process in the BPM perspective and, therefore, it covers awider range of organizational processes. A process in the BPM literature is a relativelyspecic sequence of actions with a distinct purpose, a [ . . .] set of activities or logicallyrelated tasks that must be performed to deliver value to customers or to full otherstrategic goals (Trkman, 2010, p. 125). Routines, however, encompass a wider range of historically evolved patterns of action, including those that are not directly linked

IJOPM31,1

108


10/24

to an organizational goal. Nonetheless, these patterns of action are responsive toperformance feedback, affect organizational performance and need to be managed. Theorganizational routines perspective is thus more comprehensive in its scope.

The dynamiccapabilitiesperspective (Teece etal., 1997; Eisenhardt andMartin, 2000;Zollo and Winter, 2002) examines coordinating organizational processes and can thustake place of the organizational routines perspective in the analysis of the impact of PMon performance. However, the dynamic capabilities perspective restricts its attention tohigh-level complex processes (Teece et al., 1997; Zollo and Winter, 2002), whereas theorganizational routines lens applies to all organizational processes regardless of theirscope. Moreover, dynamic capabilities can themselves be understood as high-levelroutines (Zollo and Winter, 2002), in which case the general view of organizationalprocesses as routines would extend to dynamic capabilities.

Finally, the literature on reward systems, individual performance appraisals, andbehavioural consequences of PM offers an alternative way of looking into the content of the black box. This literature has accumulated substantial evidence of the effect of PMand performance measures on individual behaviour. Research on reward systems, forinstance, explored the implications of reward systems on organizational performance(Brown et al., 2003) on the premise that rewards inuence the behaviour of individuals,which in turn leads to organizational performance. The literature on performanceappraisals also examined the impact that appraisals as a form of PM can have onperformance. For instance, Cardy (1998) argues that appraisals are linked with futureperformance, and Hanson and Borman (2006) demonstrate the connection of appraisalswith motivation and performance improvement, showing that certain behaviourstranslate the core performance into organizational effectiveness. Finally, the literatureexploring the unintended consequences of measurement, from Kerrs (1975) classiccontribution on intentions and incentives to the modern research in target gaming(Hood,2006), shows that PM canhavean impact on performance-generating behaviours.

However, the analytical perspectives discussed in the previous paragraph focus onthe individual level of analysis and individual performance, whereas this paper isconcerned with organizational performance. Moreover, where these perspectives didattempt to link individual behaviours with organizational performance, the studies oftenfell prey to the same problem of the black box as the studies in PM literature discussedabove. In other words, it is precisely the intermediate stage of understanding theorganizational processes amenable to management that is missing from these studies(Bloom and Milkovich, 1998; Brown et al., 2003). We argue that the organizationalroutines perspective provides an analytical lens that responds to this problem and offersa comprehensive view of organizational processes.

The dynamics of organizational routinesAlthough the early view of routines was aimed primarily at explaining organizationalstability, continuity, and repetitiveness, subsequent research made considerableprogress in understanding andexplaining thedynamic aspectsof routines (PentlandandRueter, 1994; Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003) and subsequently applyingthem to the study of organizational change (Traneld and Smith, 1998; Zellmer-Bruhn,2003; Bresnen et al., 2005). As Becker et al. (2005, p. 776) note, routines [. . .] arefundamental to understanding change partly because they provide a basic denition of what change really is at the organizational level. The idea of organizational change


measurement

109


11/24

that takes place through changing routines builds on the behavioural theorists view of organizational routines as the vehicles of performance and as such underlies the modelpresented in this paper. In order to be incorporated into the model, however, thedynamics of change need to be understood in greater detail.

Following the work of Nelson and Winter and behavioural theorists, the concept of organizational routines evolved to incorporate two meanings: routines as behaviouralpatterns and routines as cognitive regularities. In other words, while for someresearchers organizational routines represent primarily recurrent patterns of actualbehaviour (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997; Edmondson et al., 2001), othersunderstand it as mental models or rules (Simon, 1976; Cohen, 1991). Similar to this isthe distinction between the ostensive (an abstract idea) and the performative (a concreteaction) denitions of routines proposed by Feldman (2000). Becker (2005b) uses theterms representation and action to make the distinction between the understandingof routines as abstract ideas and as concrete observable actions. Cognitive andbehavioural, representation and action, and ostensive and performative aredifferent terms that have been used to describe the key distinction between the two waysin which organizational routines can be conceptualized.

Other ways of understanding routines have been suggested. The most notable of these is the view of routines as tendencies or dispositions to express certain behaviours(Hodgson, 2003; Hodgsonand Knudsen, 2004), which, as Becker (2005a,b) states, reectsthe deepest level of existence of routines. However, it is the distinction between theunderstanding of routines as abstract ideas and concrete action that underlies most of the current research examining the organizational role of routines.

This distinction is very useful for understanding the nature and dynamics of changethrough organizational routines. One of the most notable pieces of research that shedlight on this issue is Feldmans (2000) longitudinal study of organizational change. Sheintroduces the terms ostensive and performative to describe the views of the routine as

an abstract idea and as concrete action. On the basis of empirical observations, Feldman(2000) proposes a model where change in routines is conceptualized as continuousiterations between the ostensive and the performative levels between reection andaction of individual people involved in the execution of a routine. Routines change as theresult of people doing things, reecting on what they are doing, and doing differentthings (or doing the same thing differently) as a result of the reection (Feldman, 2000,p. 625). In the process of such a change, both the abstract idea of the routine and thecorresponding action pattern evolve, leading to the full adaptationof a routine to the newconditions. Extending this idea, Feldman (2003) argues that the distinction between theostensive and performative levels lends an insightnotonly into the dynamics of change,but also into the mechanism of preserving stability in organizational routines. Sheargues that the ostensive dimension of a routine may be reinforced by the people whotake into consideration a number of organizational factors in making a consciousdecision as to whether or not to bring about the change in behaviour (Espedal, 2006) foran example of such factors albeit in a somewhat different context).

In this model of change in organizational routines, not only are the ostensive and theperformative levels conceptually distinct (Becker, 2005b), but also neither is superior tothe other. In order to adjust the routine so as to generate sustainable performanceadequate to the new task at hand, both the idea of the routine and the correspondingpattern of action need to adjust. It would be misleading to state that in this process

IJOPM31,1

110


12/24

of adjustment, one level of a routine leads the other. Rather, the routine evolves throughthe interaction of peoples ideas of the routine and the way these ideas are expressed inaction (Feldman, 2003; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Both of these levels depend on eachother forexecutionbutat thesame time areopen to unpredictable autonomous variations.The continuous interaction between these levels determines the evolution of the routine.

Empirical studies applying Feldmans (2000) model of change in routines arebeginning to appear. The most notable contribution is provided by Volkoff et al. (2007),who study a case of implementation of a SAP R/3 system, applying Feldmans (2000)model as an analytical lens. An interesting application of the change in routinesperformance through the iterations between reection and action was also provided byHuberman (2001), although he did not refer to Feldmans (2000) modelexplicitly. Heuseda computer simulation, modeling the process of organizational learning as creation of new or modied routines, where routines were assumed to be stable patterns of action.The results suggest that if new action patterns are created faster than the decision rulesare updated, the rate of improvement in the systems performance decreases. In terms of the characteristics of organizational routines, this result may support the propositionthat in order to achieve optimal performance, changes in action patterns must bebalanced by the corresponding changes in the abstract idea of the routine.

In summary, the concept of organizational routines provides a useful perspective forinvestigating the issues related to organizational performance. The recent research onorganizational routines also sheds light on the nature of change in organizationalprocesses when such processes are viewed as routines. While performance feedbacktriggers the change in organizational routines, the change itself is powered by the peoplewho are involved in the execution of the routine. The nature of this change is bestunderstood as taking place through continuous iterations between the two levels of routines: the abstract idea of the routine and its expression in concreteactions. Neither of these levels leads the other. Rather, routines evolve through the interaction between

reection and action, both of which need to be balanced in order to produce optimalperformance.The power of the organizational routines perspective in understanding the nature of

organizational performance and the contribution of the MCS and the managementaccounting literature to understanding theeffects of PM provide thematerial for craftinga theoretical model that could respond to the aforementioned challenge of the PM eld byexplaining in detail the effects of PM on organizational performance.

Explaining the effects of PMThe insights into the nature and dynamics of organizational processes providedby the organizational routines perspective make it possible to begin to understandthe mechanism through which PM produces its effect on performance. As such, thisperspective helps to restore the vision of PM as an instrument for managingorganizational performance. Moreover, applied to the knowledge of the effects of PMaccumulated by the predecessors of the PM research as well as to the early observationsabout the nature of such effects provided by the research on managing throughmeasures, the organizational routines perspective permits the development of anexplanatory model of the effects of PM on performance.

The model shown in Figure 1 synthesizes the conclusions drawn earlier in order toexplain the effect that PM has on the interaction and evolution of organizational


measurement

111


13/24

processes which deliver organizational performance. In accordance with theorganizational routines literature, organizational processes that deliver organizationperformance are understood as routines. These routines in turn are conceptualized asexisting on two levels the abstract idea of the routine and its expression in concreteaction. We use Beckers (2005b) generic terms representation and action introducedearlier to denote these levels. Change in routines takes place through the iterationsbetween these levels.

Depending on the way in which PM is used, it affects the routines in three distinctways. Incorporating the contributions of the MCS scholars and behavioural theorists,the model proposes that when measurement is used in its feedback-generating function,measures communicate the results of the past execution of the routine and indicatewhether its performance is adequate to the demands of the environment. A discrepancybetween the actual and the necessary performance would thus communicate thenecessity to change the routine. As such, measures act as triggers in the process of change in the organizational routines, initiating the process of adjusting existing ideasof the routines and their corresponding action patterns. We call this the trigger effectof measurement.

As the research in the MCS eld suggests, when measurement is used in itsfeedforward function, it can affect the direction of the change in organizationalprocesses. In this role of guiding the search, PM can inuence the aspects of the routinesthat undergo change and more importantly the balance between changes on therepresentation and action levels of the organizational routines. In other words, thedirection of the change in routines can be guided, and measurement in its feedforwardfunction accomplishes this objective. We call this the guidance effect of measurement.

Finally, regardless of the role that measurement assumes, it makes another, perhapsindirect, contribution to the process of iterations between the representation andthe action levels of organizational routines it intensies these iterations. Echoing thestimulating effect of measurement described in the literature, this model implies thatmeasuring performance forces the search for the match between the existing ideaand expression of the routine and stimulates the process of adjusting them in order torespond to the new demands of the environment. This often demonstrates itself through

Figure 1.Effects of PM onorganizational routines

Measures of routines (feedback)

Measures of routines (feedback)

Intensificationeffect

Intensification

effect

Representation(abstract idea of the routine)

Action(concrete actions)

Organizational

routines

Guidance effect(feedforward)

M a n a g e m e n t

Trigger effect

(feedback)

E n v i r o n m e n t

IJOPM31,1

112


14/24

the debates about the drivers and measures of performance. Thus, the very process of measurement intensies the change in the routines precisely through stimulating theinteraction between the idea of the routine and the correspondingaction pattern. We callthis the intensication effect of measurement.

It also has to be noted that in order for this model to be functional, there needs to be anadditional smaller feedback loop that would allow management to see where andwhether the changes in the routines take place and modify the measurement processaccordingly. This feedback is provided by the measures of organizational routines,where measurement performs an ex post feedback-generating role.

Discussion and avenues for future researchThe model presented above is a conceptual model that aims to describe and explain theeffects of PM on the organizational processes that deliver organizational performance.Performance is delivered as people involved in these processes iterate betweenconceptualizing their work (i.e. the routine) as an abstract idea and translating it into

concrete actions. PM, being a key instrument of performance management and offeringa number of distinct ways of affecting these iterations, can thus be a tool for initiating,leading, and stimulating organizational processes. In line with the organizationalroutines view of organizations, PM itself can be seen as a higher-order routine thatmanages routines on lower levels through the processes explicated in the model.

Themodel responds to several keyissuesin thecurrent research in PM.First,by virtueof employing organizational routines as one of its core constructs, it provides a richorganizational context and a solid organizational foundation that are lacking in the PMliterature. As it was mentioned earlier, the PM eld is facing the challenge of using PMsystems that are deeply embedded in the fabric of organizational processes, and notheoreticalperspective is as suitableor provides as deep an insight into therelevant issuesas that of organizational routines. When organizational processes become the key object

of PM initiatives, it is necessary to clarify two key issues: rst, what these processes areand how they are related to organizational performance and, second, how they could beaffected. The model presented above draws on the insights from the organizationalroutines literature to address the former issue and on the PM literature to respond to thelatterone. It is a model that explains theeffectofPM on organizational processes, and thusit responds to one of the main contemporary challenges in the PM eld.

While the argument laid out in the preceding paragraph mainly describes thecontribution of the organizational routines literature to the PM research, the model alsosuggests that further study of routines can likewise benet from the insights of the PMeld. Generally, the PM eld is operational and applied by nature. In its literatureresearchers have documented, accumulated, and analyzed peoples considerableexperience of using concrete methods of PM to affect performance (e.g. devising andbalancing measures (Ittner and Larcker, 1998; Melnyk et al., 2004) and evaluating theimpact on performance (Ittner et al., 2003)). Through its roots in the MCS research, ithas also described the information-providing mechanism that underlies this effect.As such, PM is a relatively well-operationalized tool for affecting organizationaldynamics and therefore may be extremely useful in designing empirical studies of organizational routines.

The main implications for further research likewise stem from the interdisciplinarynature of the model. Some of the relationships that make up the structure of the model


measurement

113


15/24

have been empirically tested most notably, the ex post effect of performance feedbackdemonstrated by behavioural theorists and the ex ante effectof feedforwarddescribed inthe works of MCS scholars culminating in Simons (1994, 1995) system of levers of control. However, pulling these ndings together and adopting an organizationalroutines perspective, the model permits the asking of more and deeper questions aboutthe ways in which PM can be used as an instrument for managing performance. Thesequestions will have to be answered empirically. Organized by the effects of measurement described earlier, they highlight the links to the PM literature and theempirical research agenda stemming from the model.

As far as the trigger effect of measurement is concerned, the effect itself and thesubsequent search leading to the modication of the routine are well-documented by theorganizational learning scholars (see for instance Levitt andMarch (1988) or Greve (2003)for a good overview). However, in order for measurement to become an effectiveinstrument for changing organizational routines, its relative impact on the two levels of existence of routines needs to be evaluated. PM in the wider sense has the power totrigger change both in the representation of the routine and in the corresponding actionpattern.Thismeansthat for an informed use of PM as an instrumentof management, it isnecessary to, rst, understand how to balance measures to affect both the representationand action levels and, second, understand which levels should be the primary focus of measurement in which context. This can perhaps be taken forward by the stream of PMliterature examining cognitive mapping and the design of performance measures. Thispoint may also shed light on the conicting results produced by the studies evaluatingthe effect of measurement on performance. It is possible, for instance, that in the studiesthat reported no effectof implementinga PM framework, thechangein routines triggeredby the measurement took place mainly through the adjustment of the representationlevel of the routine, leaving the level of action relatively unchanged. For instance, peoplemay have re-evaluated their assumptions and goals about their work, making a decision

not to change the actual work. Given that it is the observable outcome that is usuallymeasured, an evaluative study would record no effect of measurement, while the modelpresented here would indicate a change in the representation level of the routine.

Another question pertaining to the feedback effect of measurement is the question of whether the difference in routines responsiveness to the effect of feedback can beexplained by the dynamics of interaction between the representation and the actionlevels of organizational routines. If either of these levels is considerably more stable thanthe other or the link between them is impaired, will the effect of feedback fromperformance measures be sufcient to trigger change in the routine? In other words, if thinking is not ready, can the action change? Any PM initiative encounters cases inwhich existing organizational processes resist change when the new behaviour isincentivized without considering the strength of the mental model underlying the oldprocess. Alternatively, if people are not prepared to go through the iterations betweenchallenging old assumptions and trying out new ideas in practice (i.e. the connectionbetween the levels of the routine is impaired) will the change take place? Whether thesequestions could be answered through the dynamics of iterations between therepresentation and the action levels of routines needs to be evaluated empirically.

The guidance effect of measurement offers even richer and more interestingavenues for further research. First, PM in its feedforward function may determine theroutines through which learning takes place. If it is prescriptive in nature and thus

IJOPM31,1

114


16/24

drives localized change, it can be an instrument of focusing attention on particularorganizational routines. Second, by virtue of possessing tools for affecting bothreection and action, PM (again, in its ex ante, prescriptive function) must be able toinuence the representation and the action levels of organizational routines selectively.Third although at this point it is admittedly speculative if PM can inuencedecisions ex ante and hasa number of well-operationalized tools, then once the iterationsbetween the representation and the action levels of a routine are triggered, it may be ableto determine which effect will prevail (i.e. whether the adjustment will take placethrough changes in mental models or abstract idea of their work or through changes inthe actual actions). These questions stem from the relationships proposed in theframework, and to answer them, more empirical work is necessary.

Finally, as far as the intensication effect of measurement is concerned, the modelsuggests two major questions that need to be answered. First, the nature of the effectneeds to be validated within the organizational routines perspective. There issubstantial evidence of the link between the mere fact that measurement is taking placeand the resulting change in behaviour. The earliest mentions of it go as far back as theHawthorne studies (Mayo, 1933). However, it remains to be empirically shown that thisprocess does indeed take place through the iterations between adjustments in therepresentation and the action levels of routines. Recent research suggests that this mayindeed be the case and that this effect may be brought into play during performancemanagement meetings (Vaivio, 2006). The other question that this model prompts iswhether the intensity of such iterationsdependson whether PM isused in its feedback orfeedforward function. Again, these questions need to be answered empirically.

ConclusionsThis paper addresses an important contemporary challenge in the performancemanagement eld. It notes that, although the study of performance management has

accumulated substantial knowledge of the effects of PM on performance, the actualmechanism of these effects has remained poorly understood. The paper responds to thischallenge by developing a theoretical model of the effects of PM on organizationalperformance.

The model suggests that PM affects organizational performance through affectingthe dynamics of organizational processes and distinguishes three effects of PM. Wecalled them the trigger, guidance, and intensication effects of measurement as theydescribe the ways in which PM initiates, guides and intensies the iterations betweenreection and action that make up the structure of organizational routines that deliverperformance.

The paper is important in several respects. First, by proposing a model of the effectsof PM on performance, it takes a step towards resolving the contradictory resultsaccumulated by the past research in PM. Second, it shows the usefulness and theexplanatory power of the organizational routines perspective as a lens for analyzingissues in PM. Third, the model presented in the paper integrates the contributions of different disciplines to the study of the effect of performance management onperformance, bringing together several streams of related research. Finally, thetheoretical foundation, cross-disciplinary nature, and the structure of the proposedmodel seem to suggest a diverse range of potential applications of the model in the studyof performance management.


measurement

115


17/24

ReferencesAnthony, R.N. (1965), Planning and Control Systems: Framework for Analysis , Harvard

University, Boston, MA.Argyris, C. (1952), The Impact of Budgets on People , Controllership Foundation, New York, NY.Armistead, C. and Machin, S. (1997), Implications of business process management for

operations management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management ,Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 868-98.

Askim, J. (2004), Performance management and organizational intelligence: adapting thebalanced scorecard in Larvik municipality, International Public Management Journal ,Vol. 7 No. 3, p. 415.

Azzone, G., Masella, C. and Bertele, U. (1991), Design of performance measures for time-basedcompanies, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 77-85.

Becker, M.C. (2004), Organizational routines: a review of the literature, Industrial and Corporate Change , Vol. 13 No. 4, p. 643.

Becker, M.C. (2005a), A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research:linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interactionpatterns, Industrial and Corporate Change , Vol. 14 No. 5, p. 817.

Becker, M.C. (2005b), The concept of routines: some clarications, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 29 No. 2, p. 249.

Becker, M.C. and Zirpoli, F. (2008), Applying organizational routines in analyzing the behaviorof organizations, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 128-48.

Becker, M.C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2005), Applying organizational routinesin understanding organizational change, Industrial and Corporate Change , Vol. 14 No. 5,p. 775.

Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and McDevitt, L. (1997), Integrated performance measurement systems:a development guide, International Journal of Operations & Production Management ,

Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 522-34.Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and Turner, T. (1998), Diagnosing the integrity of your performance

measurement system, Control , April, pp. 9-13.Bititci, U.S., Mendibil, K., Martinez, V. and Albores, P. (2005), Measuring and managing

performance in extended enterprises, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 333-53.

Bititci, U.S., Mendibil, M., Nudurupati, S., Turner, T. and Garengo, P. (2006), Dynamics of performance measurement and organizational culture, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1325-50.

Bloom, M. and Milkovich, G.T. (1998), Relationships among risk, incentive pay, andorganizational performance, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 283-97.

Bourne, M., Kennerley, M. and Franco-Santos, M. (2005), Managing through measures: a studyof impact on performance, Journal of Manudacturing Technology Management , Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 373-95.

Bourne, M., Melnyk, S. and Faull, N. (2007), The impact of performance measurement onperformance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 27No. 8, pp. 781-3.

Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Platts, K. (2003a), Implementing performance measurementsystems: a literature review, International Journal of Business Performance Management ,Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 1.

IJOPM31,1

116
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579710171217&isi=A1997YE08100005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579110143412http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579110143412http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth026&isi=000223597900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth026&isi=000223597900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth072&isi=000232594300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth072&isi=000232594300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fcje%2Fbei031&isi=000227242000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fcje%2Fbei031&isi=000227242000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2007.04.002&isi=000255444500009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth071&isi=000232594300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579710167230&isi=A1997XF01700007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570510585534&isi=000228956100009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570510585534&isi=000228956100009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570610710579&isi=000241963300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570610710579&isi=000241963300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256908&isi=000075177800004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410380510594480http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000248670200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.002097http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579710171217&isi=A1997YE08100005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579710167230&isi=A1997XF01700007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2007.04.002&isi=000255444500009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.002097http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth071&isi=000232594300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fcje%2Fbei031&isi=000227242000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000248670200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fcje%2Fbei031&isi=000227242000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410380510594480http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth072&isi=000232594300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth026&isi=000223597900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256908&isi=000075177800004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2Fdth026&isi=000223597900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570610710579&isi=000241963300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579110143412http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570610710579&isi=000241963300010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570510585534&isi=000228956100009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570510585534&isi=000228956100009


18/24

Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Platts, K. (2003b), Why some performance measurementinitiatives fail: lessons from the change management literature, International Journal of Business Performance Management , Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, p. 245.

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. and Swan, J. (2005), Organizational routines, situated learningand processes of change in project-based organizations, Project Management Journal ,Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 27-41.

Brown, M.P., Sturman, M.C. and Simmering, M.J. (2003), Compensation policy andorganizational performance: the efciency, operational, and nancial implications of paylevels and pay structure, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 752-62.

Cardy, R.L. (1998), Performance appraisal in a quality context: a new look at an old problem,in Smither, J.W. (Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice , Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 132-62.

Chenhall, R.H. (2005), Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategicalignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 30 No. 5, p. 395.

Cohen, M.D. (1991), Individual learning and organizational routine: emerging connections,Organization Science , Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 135.Cooper, R. (1988), The rise of activity-based cost systems: part I what is an activity-based cost

system?, Journal of Cost Management , Summer, pp. 45-54.Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1992), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 2nd ed., Blackwell,Cambridge, MA.

Davis, S. and Albright, T. (2004), An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecardimplementation on nancial performance, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 135-53.

Drucker, P. (1954), The Practice of Management , Harper Collins, New York, NY.Dumond, E.J. (1994), Making best use of performance measures and information, International

Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 16-31.Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001), Disrupted routines: team learning and

new technology implementation in hospitals, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 46No. 4, p. 685.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, p. 1105.

Espedal, B. (2006), Do organizational routines change as experience changes?, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 468-90.

Fayol, H. (1949), General and Industrial Management , Pitman, London.

Feldman, M.S. (2000), Organizational routines as a source of continuous change, OrganizationScience, Vol. 11 No. 6, p. 611.

Feldman, M.S. (2003), A performative perspective on stability and change in organizationalroutines, Industrial and Corporate Change , Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 727.

Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a sourceof exibility and change, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 48 No. 1, p. 94.

Flamholtz, E.G., Das, T.K. and Tsui, A.S. (1985), Toward an integrative framework of organizational control, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-50.


measurement

117
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.003250http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.003250http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F30040666http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2004.08.001&isi=000227855000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.2.1.135&isi=000208105700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.mar.2003.11.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579410066712&isi=A1994PX51700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579410066712&isi=A1994PX51700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3094828&isi=000174964500004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F1097-0266%28200010%2F11%2921%3A10%2F11%3C1105%3A%3AAID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO%3B2-E&isi=000165188900009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F1097-0266%28200010%2F11%2921%3A10%2F11%3C1105%3A%3AAID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO%3B2-E&isi=000165188900009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0021886306291601http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0021886306291601http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.11.6.611.12529&isi=000166243300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.11.6.611.12529&isi=000166243300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2F12.4.727&isi=000184670000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3556620&isi=000186856600004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2885%2990030-3&isi=A1985ADJ9400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.mar.2003.11.001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Ficc%2F12.4.727&isi=000184670000005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.003250http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.11.6.611.12529&isi=000166243300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJBPM.2003.003250http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.11.6.611.12529&isi=000166243300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0021886306291601http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0021886306291601http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F1097-0266%28200010%2F11%2921%3A10%2F11%3C1105%3A%3AAID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO%3B2-E&isi=000165188900009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.2.1.135&isi=000208105700009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F1097-0266%28200010%2F11%2921%3A10%2F11%3C1105%3A%3AAID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO%3B2-E&isi=000165188900009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2004.08.001&isi=000227855000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3094828&isi=000174964500004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2885%2990030-3&isi=A1985ADJ9400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579410066712&isi=A1994PX51700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579410066712&isi=A1994PX51700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3556620&isi=000186856600004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F30040666


19/24

Flapper, S.D., Fortuin, L. and Stoop, P.P. (1996), Towards consistent performance managementsystems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 16 No. 7,pp. 2-7.

Folan, P. and Browne, J. (2005), A review of performance measurement: towards performance

management, Computers in Industry , Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 663-80.Franco, M. and Bourne, M. (2003), Factors that play a role in managing through measures,

Management Decision , Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 698-710.Franco-Santos, M. (2007), The performance impact of using measurement diversity in

executives annual incentive systems, unpublished PhD thesis, Craneld University,Craneld.

Franco-Santos, M. and Bourne, M. (2005), An examination of the literature relating to issuesaffecting how companies manage through measures, Production Planning & Control ,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 114-24.

Greve, H.R. (2003), Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback. A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Grifth, R. and Neely, A.D. (2009), Performance pay and managerial experience in multitaskteams: evidence from within a rm, Journal of Labour Economic , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 49-82.

Hall, M. (2008), The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity,psychological empowerment and managerial performance, Accounting, Organizationsand Society , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 141-63.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation , The Free Press,New York, NY.

Hanson, M.A. and Borman, W.C. (2006), Citizenship performance: an integrative review andmotivation analysis, in Bennett, W., Lance, C.E. and Woehr, D.J. (Eds), Performance Measurement: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 141-74.

Hodgson, G.M. (2003), The mystery of the routine: the Darwinian destiny of an ecolutionary

theory of economic change, Revue Economique , Vol. 54, pp. 355-84.Hodgson, G.M. and Knudsen, T. (2004), The complex evolution of a simple trafc convention:

the functions and implications of habit, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization ,Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 19-47.

Hood, C. (2006), Gaming in targetworld: the targets approach to managing British publicsector, Public Administration Review , July/August, pp. 515-21.

Hopwood, A.G. (1972), Supplement. An empirical study of the role of accounting data inperformance evaluation, Journal of Accounting Research , Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 156-82.

Hoque, Z. and James, W. (2000), Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and marketfactors: impact on organizational performance, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 12, pp. 1-17.

Huberman, B.A. (2001), The dynamics of organizational learning, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory , Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 145.

Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), Innovations in performance measurement: trends andresearch implications, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 10, pp. 205-38.

Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. and Meyer, M.W. (2003), Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard, The Accounting Review ,Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 725-58.

Johanson, U., Martensson, M. and Skoog, M. (2001a), Measuring to understand intangibleperformance drivers, European Accounting Review , Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 407.

IJOPM31,1

118
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610119144&isi=A1996UW88200003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.compind.2005.03.001&isi=000231894200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00251740310496215http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09537280512331333020&isi=000228976700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511615139http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511615139http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F596324&isi=000263805300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2007.02.004&isi=000253792200002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2007.02.004&isi=000253792200002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2003.04.001&isi=000221072000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000238750100005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2489870http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1011305021724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1011305021724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1011305021724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Faccr.2003.78.3.725&isi=000184463700005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09638180126791http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09638180126791http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511615139http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511615139http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2489870http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09537280512331333020&isi=000228976700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000238750100005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2003.04.001&isi=000221072000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09638180126791http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00251740310496215http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Faccr.2003.78.3.725&isi=000184463700005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.compind.2005.03.001&isi=000231894200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579610119144&isi=A1996UW88200003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2007.02.004&isi=000253792200002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1011305021724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2007.02.004&isi=000253792200002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1011305021724http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F596324&isi=000263805300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2000.12.1.1


20/24

Johanson, U., Martensson, M. and Skoog, M. (2001b), Mobilizing change through themanagement control of intangibles, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 26Nos 7/8, p. 715.

Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Rise and fall of management accounting, Management

Accounting , Vol. 68, p. 22.Kaplan, R.S. (1984), The evolution of management accounting, The Accounting Review , Vol. LIX

No. 3, pp. 390-418.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard measures that drive

performance, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 70 No. 1, p. 71.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy, California

Management Review , Vol. 39 No. 1, p. 53.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management

system, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 74 No. 1, p. 75.Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G. and Jones, C.R. (1989), Are your performance measures obsolete?,

Management Accounting , pp. 45-50.

Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2002), A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance management systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 22 No. 11, p. 1222.

Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2003), Measuring performance in a changing businessenvironment, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 23No. 2, p. 213.

Kerr, S. (1975), On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 18 No. 4, p. 769.

Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C. and Bilderbeek, J. (1999), R&D performance measurement: morethan choosing a set of metrics, R & D Management , Vol. 29 No. 1, p. 35.

Langeld-Smith, K. (1997), Management control systems and strategy: a critical review, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 22 No. 2, p. 207.

Lebas, M. (1997), Performance measurement and performance management, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 41, pp. 23-35.

Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988), Organisational learning, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14,pp. 319-40.

Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure Up! Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement , BasilBlackwell, Oxford.

Malina, M.A. and Selto, F.H. (2001), Communicating and controlling strategy: an empiricalstudy of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 13, pp. 47-90.

March, J.G. and Simon, H. (1963), Organizations , Wiley, New York, NY.Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization , The Viking Press,

New York, NY.Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M. and Swink, M. (2004), Metrics and performance measurement in

operations management: dealing with the metrics maze, Journal of Operations Management , Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-18.

Morgan, M.J. (1992), Feedforward control for competitive advantage: the Japanese approach, Journal of General Management , Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 41.

Mouritsen, J. (1998), Driving growth: economic value added versus intellectual capital, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 461-82.


measurement

119
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900024-1&isi=000170710800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165876http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165876http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1996TM91400011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570210450293&isi=000180154800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570210450293&isi=000180154800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570310458465&isi=000181298200006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F255378&isi=A1975AZ09400009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F255378&isi=A1975AZ09400009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F255378&isi=A1975AZ09400009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-9310.00115&isi=000078472400005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2895%2900040-2&isi=A1997WQ20400006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0925-5273%2895%2900081-X&isi=A1995TY42900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0925-5273%2895%2900081-X&isi=A1995TY42900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.so.14.080188.001535&isi=A1988Q714900015http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2001.13.1.47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2001.13.1.47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jom.2004.01.004&isi=000221894200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jom.2004.01.004&isi=000221894200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fmare.1998.0090http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F255378&isi=A1975AZ09400009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F255378&isi=A1975AZ09400009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2801%2900024-1&isi=000170710800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570310458465&isi=000181298200006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570210450293&isi=000180154800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2001.13.1.47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443570210450293&isi=000180154800003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2308%2Fjmar.2001.13.1.47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.so.14.080188.001535&isi=A1988Q714900015http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1996TM91400011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fmare.1998.0090http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165876http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0925-5273%2895%2900081-X&isi=A1995TY42900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F41165876http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0925-5273%2895%2900081-X&isi=A1995TY42900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0361-3682%2895%2900040-2&isi=A1997WQ20400006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jom.2004.01.004&isi=000221894200001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-9310.00115&isi=000078472400005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jom.2004.01.004&isi=000221894200001


21/24

Misterek, S., Dooley, K. and Anderson, J. (1992), Productivity as a performance measure, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-45.

Neely, A. (1998), Measuring Business Performance , Economist Books, London.Neely, A. (2005), The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the last

decade and a research agenda for the next, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 25 No. 12, p. 1264.

Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), Performance measurement system design: aliterature review and research agenda, International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 15 No. 4, p. 80.

Neely, A., Mills, J.F., Gregory, M.J., Richards, A.H., Platts, K.W. and Bourne, M.C.S. (1996),Getting the Measure of Your Business , Findlay, London.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change , The BelknapPress, Cambridge, MA.

Norreklit, H. (2000), The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of itsassumptions, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 11, pp. 65-88.

Norreklit, H. (2003), The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rhetorical analysis of thebalanced scorecard, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 591-619.

Otley, D. (1999), Performance management: a framework for management control systemsresearch, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 10, pp. 363-82.

Otley, D. (2001), Extending the boundaries of management accounting research: developingsystems for performance management, The British Accounting Review , Vol. 33 No. 3,pp. 243-61.

Otley, D. (2003), Management control and performance management: whence and whither?, British Accoun

Documents

Explaining the Effects of Peformance Measurement on Performance