An investigation of information availability and sharability for organisational performance measures

Due to the multifaceted nature of manufacturing performance measurement and measures, the nature and scope of the information flow between those who lead manufacturing organisations and those who evaluate the performance of these organisations are very critical. The objective of this study is to shed some light on the information flow between these two groups. To achieve this objective, data collected from a sample of Portuguese financial analysts and Portuguese manufacturing executives was analysed using multiple regression analysis, cluster analyses and gap analysis. Based on the results of this study, three levels of information availability in relation to organisational performance measures are identified. A framework designed to view these three informational levels in relation to the willingness of management to share performance information with concerned outsiders is proposed.

[1]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[2]  Chwen Sheu,et al.  A study of purchasing practices in Taiwan , 2000 .

[3]  Bruce A. Walters,et al.  Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance , 2003 .

[4]  R. Hayes,et al.  Managing as if Tomorrow Mattered , 1982 .

[5]  Kelvin F. Cross,et al.  The “SMART” way to define and sustain success , 1988 .

[6]  Andy Neely,et al.  Performance measurement system design , 1995 .

[7]  Thomas J. Crowe,et al.  An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness , 1997 .

[8]  Mahmoud M. Yasin,et al.  A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research , 2004 .

[9]  Riaz Khadem.  One page management: A unified approach to productivity , 1988 .

[10]  R. Kaplan.  Measuring manufacturing performance: a new challenge for managerial accounting research , 1983 .

[11]  Mahmoud M. Yasin,et al.  An examination of manufacturing organizations' performance evaluation: Analysis, implications and a framework for future research , 2004 .

[12]  Marc Wouters,et al.  Designing a performance measurement system: A case study , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  A. Gunasekaran,et al.  A framework for supply chain performance measurement , 2004 .

[14]  D. Grinnell,et al.  The Use of Strategic Performance Variables as Leading Indicators in Financial Analyst's Forecasts , 1997 .

[15]  R. Kaplan,et al.  PUTTING THE BALANCED SCORECARD TO WORK , 1993 .

[16]  Manoochehr Najmi,et al.  The role of performance measurement systems in promoting quality development beyond ISO 9000 , 2001 .

[17]  A. Neely,et al.  The performance prism in practice , 2001 .

[18]  S. Moss,et al.  Comparing IT success in manufacturing and service industries , 2001 .

[19]  Ganesh D. Bhatt,et al.  An empirical examination of the effects of information systems integration on business process improvement , 2000 .

[20]  L. Sprague,et al.  The role of customer relationships in the growth of small‐ to medium‐sized manufacturers , 2001 .

[21]  Alfred J. Nanni,et al.  The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World-Class Competition , 1990 .

[22]  Andy Neely,et al.  The forces that shape organisational performance measurement systems:: An interdisciplinary review , 1999 .

[23]  Steven E. Salterio,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures , 2000 .

[24]  Stefano Tonchia,et al.  Performance measurement systems - Models, characteristics and measures , 2001 .

[25]  Richard Reed,et al.  The ABCs of Customer-Centered Performance Measures , 1996 .

[26]  Andy Neely,et al.  The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success , 2002 .