scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Performance measurement and management: a system of systems perspective

TL;DR: A SoS-based paradigm to PMM is outlined, which considers PMM from a ‘system of systems’ (SoS) point of view, whose essential characteristics are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity and emergence.
Abstract: Despite changes in tools and practices, the conceptual foundations of performance measurement and management (PMM) are still predominantly rooted in control systems research. While PMM approaches have delivered significant organisational benefits, including creating alignment, supporting monitoring and control, and enabling prediction and optimisation of resource allocation, this paper argues that this paradigm is not capable of responding to increasingly complex and highly uncertain organisational environments. Drawing on ideas emerging in the literature on systems engineering and complex systems, we propose a novel perspective that considers PMM from a ‘system of systems’ (SoS) point of view, whose essential characteristics are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity and emergence. After identifying the assumptions underpinning existing PMM approaches, we outline a SoS-based paradigm to PMM and conclude by articulating the main implications for the practice of PMM and setting out a research agenda.

Summary (4 min read)

1. Introduction

  • Since the rise of modern corporations, performance measurement and management (PMM) has been used to help organizations achieve their goals and deliver their mission.
  • This perspective is appropriate when problems can be clearly defined, phenomena can be reduced using parsimonious models and theories, and the prediction of optimal outcomes is the main goal (Maier 1998).
  • Melnyk et al. (2014) identified instances of misalignment between organizational strategy and PMM systems, and suggested that the relationship between the two should be reframed.
  • The adoption of a SoS approach in PMM could offer a suitable alternative to the challenges posed by the dominant paradigm, particularly in complex and uncertain environments.
  • A SoS approach explicitly favours learning and adaptation, rather than control and alignment, which are critical capabilities for operating in high uncertainty contexts (Otley and Soin 2015).

2. Performance measurement and management: The dominant

  • Paradigm Conceptualizations of PMM have developed over the years across different organizational forms (FrancoSantos et al. 2007).
  • According to Johnson (1981), these performance measures played a fundamental role in supporting the development of these new organizational processes.
  • The cascading and review processes therefore attempt to ensure that units, teams and individuals respond and contribute to the same corporate objectives and that a sufficient level of accountability is attained (Kolehmainen 2010).
  • In sum, by creating alignment, ensuring that resources are managed appropriately, and enacting feedback loops across the organization, PMM has often been regarded as an important means to improve performance (Neely 2005; Koufteros, Verghese, and Lucianetti 2014).

3. Limitations of the dominant paradigm

  • While PMM systems have been showed to play a mainly positive role in organizations (Franco-Santos, Lucianetti, and Bourne 2012), concerns are being raised regarding the appropriateness of the current paradigm for increasingly complex, volatile and uncertain environments.
  • Furthermore, the idea of PMM as a predictive means that can help organizations anticipate outcomes and prepare for them is often questioned in environments which are constantly changing (Otley and Soin 2015).
  • This perspective is based on the idea that complex and uncertain issues cannot be addressed following a unitary, “monolithic” system approach (i.e., a way of thinking that assumes that a central system can be designed to ‘solve’ the problem).
  • The types of issues the SoS perspective is aiming to address resonate with the ones faced by the dominant PMM paradigm.

4. An overview of system of systems research

  • The concept of SoS emerged in response to the challenges posed by the complexity, ambiguity, and scale of modern problems (Sauser, Boardman, and Verma 2010).
  • In certain cases, however, the constituent parts of the system are complex dynamic systems in their own right, making up an overarching structure whose properties are significantly different from those of single systems.
  • The multiple systems within a SoS are “disparate, diverse, autonomous and asynchronized entities [that] work together without losing their individual sense of purpose and without loss of idiosyncratic capability, in order to realize some higher-level and otherwise unattainable purpose” (Sauser, Boardman, and Verma 2010, 805).
  • These are highly complex and emergent conflicts where the enemy is continuously changing and adapting, and wars are no longer ‘won’ or ‘lost’.
  • The success of a supply chain does not result from the aggregation of the individual operations and performance of each company.

4.1 Main characteristics of system of systems

  • Research in SoS gained momentum in the late 1980s, driven by the application of SoS thinking in the U.S. military (Sauser and Boardman 2008).
  • As a SoS is a loose structure that evolves as individual autonomous systems choose to belong to it or to leave it, the relationships between these systems cannot be designed in advance (Sauser, Boardman, and Verma 2010).
  • Such properties and functions are qualitatively novel, and their characteristics cannot be explained solely by the nature of the parts that generated them (Bunge 2014).
  • The above characteristics make SoS capable of addressing problems that are outside the scope of more traditional monolithic systems.
  • It is because of this capability that SoS has been used in many research studies that examine ambiguity, complexity, and change (Gorod et al. 2008).

5. Performance measurement and management: A system of systems

  • Paradigm Applying the five characteristics of the SoS perspective (Sauser, Boardman, and Verma 2010) to PMM helps both to evaluate the limitations of the dominant paradigm and to develop an alternative new paradigm for PMM.
  • These characteristics and their implications are summarised in Table 1 and explained in detail in sections below.

5.1 Autonomy

  • In the dominant paradigm, PMM practices are characterized by alignment and control.
  • In environments that are characterized by rapid pace of change and high degree of uncertainty, this view could hinder adaptability which is necessary for maintaining competitive advantage (McGrath 2013).
  • In contrast, a SoS perspective would advocate allowing the constituent parts of the system to have independent purposes and functions.
  • The corresponding PMM practices might include allowing different units to identify and manage their own stakeholders, develop their own performance appraisals and design appropriate indicators, and set their own compensation and reward policies.
  • In large conglomerates with various subsidiaries, each unit could develop local indicators and targets, and performance information may or may not be reported centrally.

5.2 Belonging

  • In the dominant paradigm, the different components of the system are interrelated and the organizational structure is highly centralized.
  • Key performance indicators and targets are often designed at the corporate level and then cascaded down to the business unit, team and individual levels.
  • This integration enables centralized decision making and the cascading of those priorities to be established at the top, and assumes that there is an optimal way of assessing performance that is valid regardless of context.
  • While this characteristic of SoS may have limited application within unitary organizations, it becomes increasingly relevant in settings that bring together independent units or firms, for example, partnerships, supply chains, or organizational ecologies.
  • In these contexts, PMM practices may take the form of stakeholder consultations, organizing joint workshops, and collaborative development of PMM systems.

5.3 Connectivity

  • The dominant view of PMM assumes that the connections between the different parts of the system must be designed simultaneously with the design of the parts themselves.
  • This in turn implies that various subsystems should be tightly coupled at all hierarchical levels (Lo et al. 2014).
  • As sub-systems within a SoS operate within their own environment which ensures their effectiveness, these sub-systems may need indicators and scorecards that could be misaligned with those of other sub-systems and with the overall SoS (Melnyk et al.
  • This approach would be particularly suitable in networks of organizations with distributed authority, such as airports where various partners contribute to a diverse set of operations, but pursue divergent objectives.
  • Here, some common objectives and targets may be introduced, but the majority would be independent and different.

5.4 Diversity

  • The dominant PMM paradigm favours homogeneity and consistency.
  • From a PMM viewpoint, performance measures and targets are derived from strategic priorities, which are defined in advance in the strategic planning process (Melnyk, Stewart, and Swink 2004; Dror and Barad 2011).
  • In a more dynamic and complex environment, relevant aspects of performance may not be known in advance, and therefore PMM systems should be able to capture a wider range of phenomena.
  • Different sources of data could be utilized (e.g., customer, environmental, general trends) to uncover potential patterns rather than to prove hypotheses.
  • Furthermore, a SoS perspective suggests the importance of managing and evaluating the performance of the whole system taking synergies into account (e.g., the organization or network of organizations), rather than focusing on separate units or individuals.

5.5 Emergence

  • The dominant view of PMM has prediction and optimization as ultimate goals.
  • These goals derive from a planning-based approach to managing performance and require a substantial degree of foresight on the part of the organization’s leaders.
  • Moreover, the precise contribution of these constituent parts cannot be known, which means that the performance of the system cannot be optimized through the use of control-based PMM practices.
  • In fact, deploying such practices may produce the opposite results, which is widely documented in the literature on the unintended consequences of PMM (Kerr 1995; Dahler-Larsen 2014; Ridgway 1956).

5.6 PMM in practice

  • This section presents two examples to highlight the differences between a traditional PMM approach and a SoS-based one.
  • A typical process for designing a PMM system in a large private firm begins with the elaboration of a strategy map – usually by the senior management team - that is linked to the organization’s main priorities and that helps clarify and communicate strategy (Kaplan and Norton 2000).
  • These KPIs are then used in the organization to review and reward performance.
  • Instead of identifying and cascading a set of KPIs following a linear and unitary system perspective, the organization focused on communicating and negotiating the objectives and relationships included in the map with managers in the regional businesses.
  • Supply chains provide another context where the five main attributes of SoS could also transform the way in which PMM is understood and practiced.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

  • This paper has applied the SoS perspective to the dominant paradigm in PMM research and practice to outline an alternative approach, which regards complexity and uncertainty as normal features of organizational environments rather than exceptions to otherwise stable and predictable contexts.
  • It has the potential to address many of the limitations of the dominant paradigm.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

1
Performance measurement and management: A system of systems perspective
Mike Bourne*
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
T: +44 (0)1234 754514; E: m.bourne@cranfield.ac.uk
Monica Franco-Santos
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
T: +44 (0)1234 751122; E: monica.franco@cranfield.ac.uk
Pietro Micheli
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
T: +44 (0)24 7615 0882; E: pietro.micheli@wbs.ac.uk
Andrey Pavlov
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
T: +44 (0)1234 751122; E: andrey.pavlov@cranfield.ac.uk
* Corresponding author
International Journal of Production Research, Volume 56, 2018, Issue 8, pp. 2788-2799
DOI:10.1080/00207543.2017.1404159
Published by Taylor & Francis. This is the Author Accepted Manuscript issued with:
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC:BY:NC 4.0).
The final published version (version of record) is available online at DOI:10.1080/00207543.2017.1404159
Please refer to any applicable publisher terms of use.

2
Performance measurement and management: A system of systems
perspective
Abstract
Despite changes in tools and practices, the conceptual foundations of performance measurement and
management (PMM) are still predominantly rooted in control systems research. While PMM approaches
have delivered significant organizational benefits, including creating alignment, supporting monitoring and
control, and enabling prediction and optimization of resource allocation, this paper argues that this
paradigm is not capable of responding to increasingly complex and highly uncertain organizational
environments. Drawing on ideas emerging in the literature on systems engineering and complex systems,
we propose a novel perspective that considers PMM from a ‘system of systems’ (SoS) point of view, whose
essential characteristics are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity, and emergence. After identifying
the assumptions underpinning existing PMM approaches, we outline a SoS-based paradigm to PMM and
conclude by articulating the main implications for the practice of PMM and setting out a research agenda.
Keywords: Performance management, performance measurement, control systems, system of systems.

3
1. Introduction
Since the rise of modern corporations, performance measurement and management (PMM) has been used
to help organizations achieve their goals and deliver their mission. PMM systems have been introduced to
facilitate the implementation of business strategies (Bititci et al. 2015), to provide alignment within and
between organizations (Danese and Romano 2012; Liang 2015; Maestrini et al. 2017), to optimize resource
allocation and support decision-making (Berrah, Mauris, and Vernadat 2004), and to improve performance
(Franco-Santos, Lucianetti, and Bourne 2012; Neely 2005). However, despite considerable progress,
managing performance effectively continues to be a major organizational challenge (Cappelli and Tavis
2016; Micheli and Mura 2017).
While PMM theory and practice have developed and evolved significantly over the years, various
authors have started to question whether the dominant PMM paradigm, rooted in the control systems
literature, is suitable in increasingly volatile and uncertain contexts. PMM is currently regarded as a
collection of management processes supported and enacted through the use of tools and techniques such
as scorecards, measures, targets, performance reviews and incentives that are developed centrally and
cascaded throughout the organization (Franco-Santos et al. 2007; Malmi and Brown 2008). This approach
to PMM reflects the view of organizations as ‘monolithic’ systems, which consist of different parts that are
interconnected to achieve a particular purpose not attainable by each part on its own (Rechtin 1991). This
perspective is appropriate when problems can be clearly defined, phenomena can be reduced using
parsimonious models and theories, and the prediction of optimal outcomes is the main goal (Maier 1998).
Current evidence, however, shows that the reality of most organizations is rather different and
PMM scholars have highlighted the potential inadequacy of existing approaches. For example, Melnyk et al.
(2014) identified instances of misalignment between organizational strategy and PMM systems, and
suggested that the relationship between the two should be reframed. Similarly, Bititci et al. (2012) raised

4
several questions about PMM’s readiness for an emerging context characterized by disruptive and
transformational change. However, despite calls to review and rethink PMM, little has been done to offer
viable paradigms that either complement or replace the existing one.
This paper suggests that novel and practically relevant PMM research can be developed by
employing a ‘system of systems’ (SoS) perspective (Ackoff 1971), which has been debated in recent systems
engineering and complex systems literature (Sauser, Boardman, and Verma 2010). A SoS has been defined
as “a metasystem, comprised of multiple embedded and interrelated autonomous complex subsystems
that can be diverse in technology, context, operation, geography, and conceptual frame. These complex
subsystems must function as an integrated metasystem to produce desirable results in performance to
achieve a higher-level mission subject to constraints” (Keating, Padilla, and Adams 2008, 24). The adoption
of a SoS approach in PMM could offer a suitable alternative to the challenges posed by the dominant
paradigm, particularly in complex and uncertain environments. For example, a SoS approach explicitly
favours learning and adaptation, rather than control and alignment, which are critical capabilities for
operating in high uncertainty contexts (Otley and Soin 2015). Similarly, its main aim is neither prediction
nor optimization (Otley and Berry 1980; Malmi and Brown 2008), but rather ‘navigation’ (i.e., to enhance
understanding and learning about the problem at hand, so that progress towards the intended goals is
achieved) (DeLaurentis and Callaway 2004).
To discuss the distinctiveness and proposed advantages of a SoS perspective in PMM, this paper
starts by reviewing the current dominant paradigm in PMM, founded in the control systems literature.
Subsequently, the literature on systems of systems is examined and an alternative conceptualization of
PMM is proposed. The paper concludes by providing several examples of using PMM according to the SoS
paradigm, articulating a research agenda to guide the development of further studies in this area, and
identifying salient practical implications.

5
2. Performance measurement and management: The dominant
paradigm
Conceptualizations of PMM have developed over the years across different organizational forms (Franco-
Santos et al. 2007). In the early 1900s, performance measures were introduced as control mechanisms,
which could support budgeting and planning processes in large corporations such as du Pont and General
Motors (Chandler 1977). According to Johnson (1981), these performance measures played a fundamental
role in supporting the development of these new organizational processes. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, dissatisfaction with purely accounting-based measures (Johnson and Kaplan 1987) led to the
development of a series of multi-dimensional PMM frameworks (Keegan, Eiler, and Jones 1989; Cross and
Lynch 1989; Fitzgerald et al. 1991). One of the most widely used PMM framework has been the Balanced
Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1996) due to its capacity to connect strategic objectives with performance
measures and action plans (Bourne et al. 2000; Bourne et al. 2002) and to link financial and non-financial
indicators (Ittner, Larcker, and Randall 2003).
These developments in PMM have led to what can be described as the current dominant approach,
which is mainly based on a control systems perspective. Indeed, many authors have claimed that PMM
systems are important means for monitoring and controlling resources (Franco-Santos, Lucianetti, and
Bourne 2012) and are “ultimately responsible for maintaining alignment and coordination” (Melnyk et al.
2014, 213) (see also Ittner and Larcker 2003; Hanson, Melnyk, and Calantone 2011). For example, Dossi and
Patelli’s (2010) study of multinational firms found that PMM systems enabled corporate control of
subsidiaries. The importance attributed to PMM in creating strategic alignment has led to a number of
studies focused on the design of performance measures and targets which are consistent with strategic
objectives (Kaplan and Norton 2008; Hoque 2014; Micheli and Mura 2017).

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
16 Jun 2020
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify three conceptual propositions that highlight the main characteristics that typify advanced performance measurement and management systems in SMEs, and suggest some key characteristics that such a system should develop to be effective in the target enterprises.
Abstract: Literature identifies the key relevance of human resource management (HRM) in the creation of an organisational performance measurement and management system, while, in practice, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) continue to prioritise financial and operational aspects. This study aims to identify the main characteristics that typify an advanced performance measurement and management system in SMEs, according to the literature dedicated to performance measurement and HRM.,Through a multiple-case study methodology, the research deeply investigates four European SMEs. Empirical data were collected through interviews, company documents and direct observations. Then, within- and cross-case analysis were implemented to analyse the data.,In designing organisational performance measurement and management systems in SMEs, HRM emerges as essential in supporting the enhancement of the maturity of performance measurement and the improvement of performance management. Through a framework based on the relevant literature, this research identifies three conceptual propositions that highlight the main characteristics that typify advanced performance measurement and management systems in SMEs.,The research identifies a conceptual framework suitable to investigate empirically the role of HRM in developing performance measurement and management systems at SMEs, and it lays the foundation for future broader empirical studies in this field.,This paper underlines HRM as an important driver in the creation of organisational performance measurement and management systems. Moreover, it suggests some key characteristics that such a system should develop to be effective in the target enterprises.

41 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the role of enterprise social networking (ESN) in the development of a holistic performance measurement and management system (PMMS) has been investigated by using case studies available in the scientific literature.
Abstract: Literature describes the transformation process of employees’ individual competences into firm-specific competences as a great challenge in the performance management and management field. Recently, to favor the transformation of competences, some companies have adopted enterprise social networking (ESN). However, not enough studies support the understanding of its role in performance management and measurement and scant attention is given to the inclusion of competences in a holistic performance measurement and management system (PMMS). To help close this gap, the purpose of this paper is to develop knowledge on the role of ESN in measurement and management of competences to favor the development of a holistic PMMS.,The research adopts a multiple case study methodology using a qualitative meta-analysis. It investigates 32 multinational companies by case studies available in the scientific literature.,The results highlight the use of ESN as a relevant support for the development of a holistic PMMS based on a high maturity in performance measurement and a democratic and participative approach in performance management. ESN provides real-time data collection, analysis and reports that encourage a democratic and participative performance management. It facilitates relationships, knowledge sharing and favors a high maturity performance measurement.,The paper provides implications for theory, practice and society. First, the paper rationalizes the impact of ESN usage on performance measurement and management. Second, it offers new knowledge supporting practitioners in the development of holistic PMMS. Third, it highlights that ESN favors people in self-expression of own capacity, sharing artwork and knowledge on specific topics.

29 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A holistic view of big data and performance measurement research is given through the inclusion of numerous contributions on different research streams and encourages further study for developing concrete tools.
Abstract: Purpose Current literature recognised big data as a digital revolution affecting all organisational processes. To obtain a competitive advantage from the use of big data, an efficient integration in a performance measurement system (PMS) is needed, but it is still a “great challenge” in performance measurement research. This paper aims to review the big data and performance measurement studies to identify the publications’ trends and future research opportunities. Design/methodology/approach The authors reviewed 873 documents on big data and performance carrying out an extensive bibliometric analysis using two main techniques, i.e. performance analysis and science mapping. Findings Results point to a significant increase in the number of publications on big data and performance, highlighting a shortage of studies on business, management and accounting areas, and on how big data can improve performance measurement. Future research opportunities are identified. They regard the development of further research to explain how performance measurement field can effectively integrate big data into a PMS and describe the main themes related to big data in performance measurement literature. Originality/value This paper gives a holistic view of big data and performance measurement research through the inclusion of numerous contributions on different research streams. It also encourages further study for developing concrete tools.

26 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that much research work has focused on narrow aspects of management control systems and has often detached these from their wider organizational contexts, diminishing its value, and there is a need for more field-based studies by academics who are better connected with the world of practice.
Abstract: This discussion paper outlines the wider context from which the systems versus package debate has emerged, and draws on the papers included in this Special Issue to make suggestions for future progress. It argues that much research work has focused on narrow aspects of management control systems and has often detached these from their wider organizational contexts, diminishing its value. Researchers should recognize that management control systems are complex in themselves, and they interact in complex ways with the settings in which they are used. We describe various consequences of this situation and provide suggestions as to how research can be improved. We conclude that there is a need for more field-based studies by academics who are better connected with the world of practice. Only in this way will our research work both lead to better, more reliable, theories of MCS design and use and also be useful to practitioners.

24 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems as discussed by the authors, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems.
Abstract: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about “optimal solutions” to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no “solutions” in the sense of definitive and objective answers.

13,262 citations


"Performance measurement and managem..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Furthermore, SoS is assumed to deal with more effectively with ‘wicked’ rather than ‘tame’ problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) that require a multiple and integrated complex response (Keating, Padilla, and Adams 2008)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify key dimensions of absorptive capacity and offer a reconceptualization of this construct, and distinguish between a firm's potential and realized capacity, and then advance a model outlining the conditions when the firm's realized capacities can differentially influence the creation and sustenance of its competitive advantage.
Abstract: Researchers have used the absorptive capacity construct to explain various organizational phenomena. In this article we review the literature to identify key dimensions of absorptive capacity and offer a reconceptualization of this construct. Building upon the dynamic capabilities view of the firm, we distinguish between a firm's potential and realized capacity. We then advance a model outlining the conditions when the firm's potential and realized capacities can differentially influence the creation and sustenance of its competitive advantage.

8,648 citations


"Performance measurement and managem..." refers background in this paper

  • ...…by the work on capabilities (Foss et al. 2012), which would allow scholars to examine the origin, functionality and evolution of individual sub-systems, or absorptive capacity (Zahra and George 2002), which may enable researchers to understand and estimate a sub-system’s potential to learn....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Weick as discussed by the authors argued that the concept of loose coupling incorporates a surprising number of disparate observations about organizations, suggests novel functions, creates stubborn problems for methodologists, and generates intriguing questions for scholars.
Abstract: Karl E. Weick In contrast to the prevailing image that elements in organizations are coupled through dense, tight linkages, it is proposed that elements are often tied together frequently and loosely. Using educational organizations as a case in point, it is argued that the concept of loose coupling incorporates a surprising number of disparate observations about organizations, suggests novel functions, creates stubborn problems for methodologists, and generates intriguing questions for scholars. Sample studies of loose coupling are suggested and research priorities are posed to foster cumulative work with this concept.1

6,410 citations


"Performance measurement and managem..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Rather, these relationships are dynamically formed (Baldwin, Boardman, and Sauser 2013) and the connections between the parts of a SoS can be described as network-centric (Gorod et al. 2008) and loosely coupled (Glassman 1973; Weick 1976; Lo et al. 2014)....

    [...]

Book
01 Mar 1987
TL;DR: Relevance Lost as mentioned in this paper is an overview of the evolution of management accounting in American business, from textile mills in the 1880s and the giant railroad, steel, and retail corporations, to today's environment of global competition and computer-automated manufacturers.
Abstract: "Relevance Lost" is an overview of the evolution of management accounting in American business, from textile mills in the 1880s and the giant railroad, steel, and retail corporations, to today's environment of global competition and computer-automated manufacturers. The book shows that modern corporations must work toward designing new management accounting systems that will assist managers more fully in their long-term planning. It is the winner of the American Accounting Association's Deloitte Haskins & Sells/Wildman Award Medal. It is also available in paperback: ISBN 0875842542.

3,308 citations


"Performance measurement and managem..." refers background in this paper

  • ...In the late 1980s and early 1990s, dissatisfaction with purely accounting-based measures (Johnson and Kaplan 1987) led to the development of a series of multi-dimensional PMM frameworks (Cross and Lynch 1989; Keegan, Eiler, and Jones 1989; Fitzgerald et al. 1991)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A definition, a limited taxonomy, and a basic set of architecting principles to assist in the design of system-of-systems are proposed.
Abstract: While the phrase “system-of-systems” is commonly seen, there is less agreement on what they are, how they may be distinguished from “conventional” systems, or how their development differs from other systems. This paper proposes a definition, a limited taxonomy, and a basic set of architecting principles to assist in their design. As it turns out, the term system-of-systems is infelicitous for the taxonomic grouping. The grouping might be better termed “collaborative systems.” The paper also discusses the value of recognizing the classification in system design, and some of the problems induced by misclassification. One consequence of the classification is the identification of principal structuring heuristics for system-of-systems. Another is an understanding that, in most cases, the architecture of a system-of-systems is communications. The architecture is nonphysical, it is the set of standards that allow meaningful communication among the components. This is illustrated through existing and proposed systems. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 1: 267–284, 1998

1,759 citations

Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Q1. What are the contributions in "Performance measurement and management: a system of systems perspective" ?

While PMM approaches have delivered significant organizational benefits, including creating alignment, supporting monitoring and control, and enabling prediction and optimization of resource allocation, this paper argues that this paradigm is not capable of responding to increasingly complex and highly uncertain organizational environments. Drawing on ideas emerging in the literature on systems engineering and complex systems, the authors propose a novel perspective that considers PMM from a ‘ system of systems ’ ( SoS ) point of view, whose essential characteristics are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity, and emergence. 

This section outlines the implications of a SoS-based PMM paradigm and suggests a number of directions for future research that could clarify its modes of operation, outcomes and boundaries.