The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Collaborative
Collaborative performance performance
management: present gaps and management
future research
7
Marco Busi
Department of Production and Quality Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway and
SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, Norway, and
Umit S. Bititci
Centre for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To identify gaps in current research concerning the critical issues, threats and
opportunities in the design of a system for managing performance in collaborative enterprises; and to
define a performance management research agenda.
Design/methodology/approach – An interdisciplinary study examines performance management
from different disciplinary perspectives with the purpose of giving insights into the area, which is
currently not sufficiently explained. Three sources of knowledge are investigated: scientific literature;
practitioners’ magazines; and research project reports.
Findings – There is a lack of understanding of what collaboration means and what it implies on the
development of appropriate performance measurement systems. Future research should study the
nature of collaboration and the characteristics of performance indicators to support it.
Research limitations/implications – The selection of the disciplines to be investigated and
knowledge sources to be searched is based on the authors’ definition of collaborative performance
management. This implies that different definitions of the same concept could lead other researchers to
study different disciplines, reach different conclusions and define a different research agenda.
Practical implications – It helps researchers build a sound knowledge base in collaborative
performance management and focuses their research efforts on the most relevant issues.
Originality/value – The value of this paper resides in its ability to structurally gather most of the
information available in the area, which is usually scattered in several different disciplines. This
paper’s contribution should be seen in the context of an ever-increasing use in performance
management research of the constructive approach, where a priori knowledge is very important.
Keywords Performance management, Performance measurement (quality)
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Performance management as an identifiable subject for academic study and
research arguably began in the late 1980s (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Lynch and
Cross, 1991; Eccles, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1992; EFQM, 1999; Thorpe, 2004). International Journal of Productivity
Ever since, much research has been carried out and industrial initiatives have been and Performance Management
Vol. 55 No. 1, 2006
undertaken in several fields: logistics management, marketing, human resources pp. 7-25
management and operations management among the others. This increased q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
attention from academia and industry has lead to enormous amount of papers, DOI 10.1108/17410400610635471
,IJPPM research projects, commercial tools etc. Neely (1999) estimated that between 1994
55,1 and 1996, 3,615 articles on performance measurement were published; and in 1996
books on the subject appeared at a rate of one every two weeks in the USA alone. A
more recent study carried out at Cranfield University (Franco and Bourne, 2003) has
confirmed such interest.
However, most existing studies are loosing relevance in today’s industrial
8 dynamics. Business models such as supply chain, extended enterprise and virtual
enterprise are merely the tip of an emerging trend in new organization alliances,
boundary redefinition, and market structures. Today’s manufacturing systems should
be measured and managed in the context of the total business they are part of: back
through the supplier chain and forward into the distribution and customer chain
(Browne and Sackett, 1995). Despite the increasing focus on collaboration between
enterprises from one side, existing studies in the area of performance management still
narrowly look at the single enterprise and its “within-enterprise” processes and people
(e.g. Beamon, 1999; Neely et al., 1995;).
The main objective of the research behind this paper was hence to go beyond
existing work and thoroughly analyse existing knowledge in different disciplines in
order to develop a better understanding of the issue of performance management in
collaborative enterprises. We aimed at identifying gaps in current knowledge
concerning the critical issues, threats and opportunities that must be considered and
the challenges that must be faced when designing a system for managing performance
in collaborative enterprises and to define a research agenda for future performance
management studies.
Research methodology
Research in the field of performance management is increasingly being characterised
by an applied focus and the growth in academic interest in performance management
has mirrored the development of actual performance management practice (Thorpe,
2004, Bourne, 2003; Korpela et al., 2001). Action- and constructive- research and
plant-based-case-study strategies seem to be the most appropriate and most widely
used approaches in operations management research, helping reduce the gap between
theory and practice (see for example Hill et al., 1999, Vafidis, 2002).
The growing emphasis on constructivism in the field of performance management
is posing numerous challenges on the way to do research. The strength point of
constructive research is that it combines existing knowledge from previous research
with experience from the organisation(s) involved (Korpela, 1994, Vafidis, 2002).
Constructive researchers must have or build an a priori extensive knowledge ground to
support thorough understanding of the research problem and its implications in its
context (see also Lukka, 2003; Coughlan and Coughlan, 2002).
Given the dynamic nature of performance management discipline, and the growing
interdisciplinary interest in organization performance (Neely and Waggoner, 1998),
building the required a priori knowledge is not an easy task. We identify two major
challenges to be overcome, concerning:
(1) The selection of sources of knowledge: should the investigator look only for
literature or should he look for knowledge in other forms, e.g. project reports,
interviews, etc.? (see also Rowley and Slack, 2004).
, (2) The design of the study of existing knowledge: should the study analyze Collaborative
knowledge across a number of disciplines, or should it focus only on a specific performance
one? How to select the discipline(s) of interest and for what reasons? (see also
Thorpe, 2004). management
As for the selection of knowledge sources for the study, literature review is often seen
as an important part of any research project (see also Tranfield et al., 2003). However, 9
we question the very meaning of knowledge. We actually argue that knowledge as
such cannot be limited to existing literature only; on the opposite it is embedded in all
what surround us. It is therefore a skill of the investigator understanding where to look
for the available knowledge that is most relevant for his or hers study’s purpose, e.g.
on-going research activities, practitioners’ experience, etc.
We selected mainly three sources of knowledge to be studied within our investigation:
(1) scientific literature;
(2) practitioners’ magazines; and
(3) reports from completed and on-going research projects.
As suggested by Rowley and Slack (2004), we decided to use professional and
practitioner journal articles and project reports to design the literature review, selecting
topical themes and identifying recent developments. We then decided to use the
outcome of this first analysis as a guideline for the interdisciplinary review of
up-to-date literature and scientific articles in scholarly and research journals
The practice of performance management crosscuts different management areas.
For the sake of this study we hence opted for an inter-disciplinary study. As Thorpe
(2004) concluded, inter-disciplinary studies might attempt to examine performance
management from different disciplinary perspectives, and observes where they touch,
with the purpose of giving insights into situations or phenomena currently
unexplained. The selection of the relevant disciplines was based on how we define
integrated performance management in collaborative enterprises:
Integrated performance management in collaborative enterprises is the process of using
inter-organizational systems to collaboratively measuring performance of collaborative
enterprise processes and using the measurement to enable decision-makers to proactively and
strategically manage the collaborative enterprise itself.
Five “actors” can be identified in this definition:
(1) the collaborative enterprise;
(2) the collaborative operational processes;
(3) the collaborative process of measuring and managing performance;
(4) the inter-organizational systems; and
(5) the decision makers.
Hence the choice of analyzing collaborative performance management with the tools
and knowledge archetypal of each of the following (Figure 1a):
.
enterprise collaboration;
.
operations management and business process management/engineering;
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Collaborative
Collaborative performance performance
management: present gaps and management
future research
7
Marco Busi
Department of Production and Quality Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway and
SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, Norway, and
Umit S. Bititci
Centre for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To identify gaps in current research concerning the critical issues, threats and
opportunities in the design of a system for managing performance in collaborative enterprises; and to
define a performance management research agenda.
Design/methodology/approach – An interdisciplinary study examines performance management
from different disciplinary perspectives with the purpose of giving insights into the area, which is
currently not sufficiently explained. Three sources of knowledge are investigated: scientific literature;
practitioners’ magazines; and research project reports.
Findings – There is a lack of understanding of what collaboration means and what it implies on the
development of appropriate performance measurement systems. Future research should study the
nature of collaboration and the characteristics of performance indicators to support it.
Research limitations/implications – The selection of the disciplines to be investigated and
knowledge sources to be searched is based on the authors’ definition of collaborative performance
management. This implies that different definitions of the same concept could lead other researchers to
study different disciplines, reach different conclusions and define a different research agenda.
Practical implications – It helps researchers build a sound knowledge base in collaborative
performance management and focuses their research efforts on the most relevant issues.
Originality/value – The value of this paper resides in its ability to structurally gather most of the
information available in the area, which is usually scattered in several different disciplines. This
paper’s contribution should be seen in the context of an ever-increasing use in performance
management research of the constructive approach, where a priori knowledge is very important.
Keywords Performance management, Performance measurement (quality)
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Performance management as an identifiable subject for academic study and
research arguably began in the late 1980s (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Lynch and
Cross, 1991; Eccles, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1992; EFQM, 1999; Thorpe, 2004). International Journal of Productivity
Ever since, much research has been carried out and industrial initiatives have been and Performance Management
Vol. 55 No. 1, 2006
undertaken in several fields: logistics management, marketing, human resources pp. 7-25
management and operations management among the others. This increased q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
attention from academia and industry has lead to enormous amount of papers, DOI 10.1108/17410400610635471
,IJPPM research projects, commercial tools etc. Neely (1999) estimated that between 1994
55,1 and 1996, 3,615 articles on performance measurement were published; and in 1996
books on the subject appeared at a rate of one every two weeks in the USA alone. A
more recent study carried out at Cranfield University (Franco and Bourne, 2003) has
confirmed such interest.
However, most existing studies are loosing relevance in today’s industrial
8 dynamics. Business models such as supply chain, extended enterprise and virtual
enterprise are merely the tip of an emerging trend in new organization alliances,
boundary redefinition, and market structures. Today’s manufacturing systems should
be measured and managed in the context of the total business they are part of: back
through the supplier chain and forward into the distribution and customer chain
(Browne and Sackett, 1995). Despite the increasing focus on collaboration between
enterprises from one side, existing studies in the area of performance management still
narrowly look at the single enterprise and its “within-enterprise” processes and people
(e.g. Beamon, 1999; Neely et al., 1995;).
The main objective of the research behind this paper was hence to go beyond
existing work and thoroughly analyse existing knowledge in different disciplines in
order to develop a better understanding of the issue of performance management in
collaborative enterprises. We aimed at identifying gaps in current knowledge
concerning the critical issues, threats and opportunities that must be considered and
the challenges that must be faced when designing a system for managing performance
in collaborative enterprises and to define a research agenda for future performance
management studies.
Research methodology
Research in the field of performance management is increasingly being characterised
by an applied focus and the growth in academic interest in performance management
has mirrored the development of actual performance management practice (Thorpe,
2004, Bourne, 2003; Korpela et al., 2001). Action- and constructive- research and
plant-based-case-study strategies seem to be the most appropriate and most widely
used approaches in operations management research, helping reduce the gap between
theory and practice (see for example Hill et al., 1999, Vafidis, 2002).
The growing emphasis on constructivism in the field of performance management
is posing numerous challenges on the way to do research. The strength point of
constructive research is that it combines existing knowledge from previous research
with experience from the organisation(s) involved (Korpela, 1994, Vafidis, 2002).
Constructive researchers must have or build an a priori extensive knowledge ground to
support thorough understanding of the research problem and its implications in its
context (see also Lukka, 2003; Coughlan and Coughlan, 2002).
Given the dynamic nature of performance management discipline, and the growing
interdisciplinary interest in organization performance (Neely and Waggoner, 1998),
building the required a priori knowledge is not an easy task. We identify two major
challenges to be overcome, concerning:
(1) The selection of sources of knowledge: should the investigator look only for
literature or should he look for knowledge in other forms, e.g. project reports,
interviews, etc.? (see also Rowley and Slack, 2004).
, (2) The design of the study of existing knowledge: should the study analyze Collaborative
knowledge across a number of disciplines, or should it focus only on a specific performance
one? How to select the discipline(s) of interest and for what reasons? (see also
Thorpe, 2004). management
As for the selection of knowledge sources for the study, literature review is often seen
as an important part of any research project (see also Tranfield et al., 2003). However, 9
we question the very meaning of knowledge. We actually argue that knowledge as
such cannot be limited to existing literature only; on the opposite it is embedded in all
what surround us. It is therefore a skill of the investigator understanding where to look
for the available knowledge that is most relevant for his or hers study’s purpose, e.g.
on-going research activities, practitioners’ experience, etc.
We selected mainly three sources of knowledge to be studied within our investigation:
(1) scientific literature;
(2) practitioners’ magazines; and
(3) reports from completed and on-going research projects.
As suggested by Rowley and Slack (2004), we decided to use professional and
practitioner journal articles and project reports to design the literature review, selecting
topical themes and identifying recent developments. We then decided to use the
outcome of this first analysis as a guideline for the interdisciplinary review of
up-to-date literature and scientific articles in scholarly and research journals
The practice of performance management crosscuts different management areas.
For the sake of this study we hence opted for an inter-disciplinary study. As Thorpe
(2004) concluded, inter-disciplinary studies might attempt to examine performance
management from different disciplinary perspectives, and observes where they touch,
with the purpose of giving insights into situations or phenomena currently
unexplained. The selection of the relevant disciplines was based on how we define
integrated performance management in collaborative enterprises:
Integrated performance management in collaborative enterprises is the process of using
inter-organizational systems to collaboratively measuring performance of collaborative
enterprise processes and using the measurement to enable decision-makers to proactively and
strategically manage the collaborative enterprise itself.
Five “actors” can be identified in this definition:
(1) the collaborative enterprise;
(2) the collaborative operational processes;
(3) the collaborative process of measuring and managing performance;
(4) the inter-organizational systems; and
(5) the decision makers.
Hence the choice of analyzing collaborative performance management with the tools
and knowledge archetypal of each of the following (Figure 1a):
.
enterprise collaboration;
.
operations management and business process management/engineering;
