Literature Review Performance Management and the Balanced Scorecard

Chapter 2 Literature Review Since the equilibrate menu was bursted in the 1990s by Robert Kaplan and David Norton (1992), it has gained in popularity amongst academics and practitioners. In 1990, Kaplan and Norton led a look into write up of a lot of companies with the purpose of exploring the new methods of transaction worry. The importance of the study was an increasing belief that the fiscal measures of transaction wariness were not as effective as before with the development of modern melodic phrase enterprise.Representatives involved in the study companies, including the lookers Kaplan and Norton, were persuaded that the reliance on financial measures of instruction execution had an effect on their ability to create value. After deep discussions the group brainstormed on several(prenominal) alternatives but finally settled on the balanced scorecard, which featured proceeding measures, customer issues, ingrained cable sufficees, employee activities, and sharehold er concerns.Kaplan and Norton introduced the new spear as the Balanced wit and summarized the concepts of the study in the scratch of three Harvard clientele Review articles, The Balanced Scorecard-Measures That Drive exercise. M whatsoever organizations in both the private and public sectors have embraced the concept of the balanced scorecard. to the highest degree have implemented it in an attempt to meliorate exertion (Chan & Ho 2000 Hoque & Jamesl Ittner & Larcker 2003). However, it appears that the term balanced scorecard is subject to different interpretations.For example, a document publish by CMA Canada (1999) suggests that the term Balanced Scorecard maybe understood differently by different individuals/organizations. They state that many organizations believe that if a transaction mensuration arrangement accommodates both financial and nonfinancial measures, it is a balanced scorecard, whereas Kaplan & Norton claim that a fit SCORECARD is practically more t han just a collection of effect measures. Different interpretations of a BALANCED SCORECARD are evident in academic studies as well.Hoque & James (2000) determined BALANCED SCORECARD endure using a 20-item scale noting that their BALANCED SCORECARD measure might not pick up the strategical linkages of a real BALANCED SCORECARD. As a result, companies in their study may possibly have had varying levels of BALANCED SCORECARD implementation which could have affected their results, especially considering the fact that BALANCED SCORECARD usage was the dependent variable in their regression model.Chan & Ho (2000) stated in their limitations section that the respondents may have mistaken their organizations performance measurement schema to that of a professedly BALANCED SCORECARD (p. 167). It is also possible that a keep companys performance measurement system has all of the attributes of a balanced scorecard but they do not consider it to be one. Clearly defining a BALANCED SCO RECARD would be a 4 contribution to future research by providing a basis to determine the extent of BALANCED SCORECARD adoption by an organization. This study will attempt to do this.Although thither are numerous studies on the balanced scorecard (Chan & Ho 2000 Hoque & James 2000 Lipe & Salterio 2000 Malina & Selto 2001 Lipe & Salterio 2002 Ittner & Larcker 2003 Speckbacher et al. 2003), that one study has essay to develop a conceptual model of the scorecard and subprogramd it to examine the extent of its adoption. This was in Austrian, German and Swiss organizations (Speckbacher et al. 2003). This suggests a need for more research to examine what attributes of a Kaplan and Norton (1992, 2001, 2006) Balanced Scorecard other organizations use in their performance measurement system.This study will not attempt to explain the reasons for any differences among organizations with different levels of Balanced Scorecard adoption, it will only report them. In summary, while other studi es have looked at specific aspects of the balanced scorecard, only one has looked at its structure as a whole (Speckbacher et al. 2003). Similar to Speckbacher et al. (2003), this study examines the structure of the BALANCED SCORECARD as a whole. This study is however, incomparable in that it addresses both the structure and use of the BALANCED SCORECARD. Kaplan & Norton (1992 1996 2001), the originators of the balanced corecard, emphasize that the inclusion of non-financial measures is just one aspect of the balanced scorecard, noting that there are several structural attributes that make it unique from other frameworks, such as KPI ( expose performance indicator) cards and stakeholder cards. Kaplan & Norton (1996, 2001) also suggest that its unique structure allows it to be used as a strategic tool to steer organizations towards sustained long-term profitability. They argue that simply including non-financial metrics in their performance measurement system is not enough for orga nizations to learn, improve, and grow.If Kaplan and Nortons argument is correct, then companies with different levels of BALANCED SCORECARD adoption should see different results. This suggests a need to compare organizations that have different levels or numbers of balanced scorecard attributes to see if there are any differences. As well, academic studies may be more comparable if a all the way defined Balanced Scorecard was used. A clearly defined BALANCED SCORECARD would enable organizations and researchers to assess the level of BALANCED SCORECARD adoption which may help to explain some of the differences in results between studies.Understanding Performance Management Processes 2. 1 Defining Performance Maila (2006) stated that performance implies the action of doing things that is using things, tending to conditions, processing, communicating and achieving results. Performance is the actual work that is done to ensure that an organisation gives its legation. In summary, pe rformance encompasses inputs, conditions, processes elements, outputs, consequences and feedback. According to Maila (2006), the end product of performance should be mensural against cardinal elements that are quantity, quality, cost or risk factors and time.The idea of criterion the end product is fully supported as it can be argued that a product can be in any form that is good or bad, hence the need to have it measured. Botswana Unified Revenue Service (BURS, 2002) states, performance shall mean the standard of performance required by BURS related to an employees output measured in terms of quality and quantity. In addition, it shall mean the doingsal standards and competencies select by BURS. The OPM (2005) defined performance as actions, behaviour and/or inputs by a cater member contributing to the exertion of results.While the researcher acknowledges the supra definitions, she argues that activity of the definitions should be treated with a provision that the output of that action is optimistic to the organisation. In the researchers own definition, performance means an action by an employee that has produced an output relevant to an employee or organisations goals. 2. 2 Defining Management Management means to give cathexis, lead, control, govern, rule over, whilst a manager is an positive who manages or controls- a person who has in his hands the general leadership of an enterprise or of a division (Bryman, 198478 as cited in Brynard, et al 1997).Vaughan-Jones (2009), defined heed as a process of achieving organisational goals through engaging in the four study functions (planning, organising, leading and controlling). Cleland (199439-40) described anxiety through the major management functions that are planning, organising, motivation, directing and controlling. Mayor (2005 246) identified planning, organising, directing, controlling and motivating as roles of individual project manager, an improvement on the definition by Vaughan-Jones a s it has added motivation as a manager function.The description of the major activities/functions of the manager as planning, organisation, command, coordination and control put for the first time the management process into the scope of major activities or functions (Fayol, 1949, pp. 3-6). These management functions have been condensed to four, namely planning, organising, leading and controlling, (Robbins 2003). What comes out clearly from the literature is that planning, organising and controlling are common in the description of the management process or the functions of management.The researcher has made use of these concepts while cognisant of the fact that the usage of majority- found stand can only be made if the viewpoint is proven by means of scientific investigation (Brynard, 1997 54), however this research will not be able to prove that due to time constraint. In comparing management to leadership activities, the researcher noted that leadership activities has to do wi th dealing with change developing a vision and setting a direction for an organisation formulating a strategy aligning stakeholders with the organisation? s vision, motivating and inspiring employees and recognising and reward winner.Management activities include planning and budgeting, implementing strategy, organising and staffing to achieve strategy and controlling behaviour and problem solving to ensure strategy is implemented, Henry (2008 143). The research supports the contemporary definition of management provided by Mayor especially that he has added motivation to the definition, a factor that breaks to effective performance management. 2. 3 Defining Performance Management OPM (2005) defines performance management as ongoing communication process between staff and supervisor/managers for getting better organisational results.It involves (a) appointing clear mindsets and understanding about performance and the results to be achieved (b) identifying essential areas of perfo rmance as relating to the mission and preys of the O/M/A (c) developing realistic and appropriate performance criteria (d) giving and receiving feedback about performance (e) conducting constructive performance assessments and (f) planning unvarying development of staff to sustain and improve performance so that individual, unit and organisational human capital is optimised.Performance management is a system for integrating the management of organisational and employee performance (Williams, 2002 as cited by Maila, 200613). Performance management is defined as the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organisational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals, this was obtained through (U. S.Office Personnel Management, (Undated) Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS, 2002) states that performance management is a joint responsibility between managers who carry out the assessments and the staff whose performance they are assessing. It is essential that this process is carried out objectively,openly and honestly. The researcher has found some common words to arrive at this definition performance management is a continuous process between staff and supervisors agreeing on the activity to be performed, how it should be measured and in spite of appearance what period, with an aim to accomplish a goal at employee and organisational level. . 4 Defining Performance Management Processes Performance management process was defined as a continuous process where supervisors and employees work together to establish objectives (goals), monitor progress toward these objectives and assess results. With this process, employees receive regular feedback and coaching which is a vital development process for all employees (KSU, 2009). According Cornell University (2010), the first element of performance management process that must be effectively executed is specifying the required levels of performance and identifying goals to be achieved.The researcher understands from the above definitions that performance management processes is a continuous (non-stop) process that underscores the need for supervisors and employees to work together in determining the organisation and employee? s goals and determining performance standards required to achieve those goals. The researcher views performance management processes as a continuous negotiation process that calls for effective communication (Acuff, 20086).It is a process that requires that calls for identification and prioritisation of goals, defining what constitutes progress towards goals, setting standards for measuring results and bring in progress towards goals. It further calls for exchanging feedback among the components, reinforcing goal oriented activities and intervening to create improvement when needed. the performance management process places greater importance on the methods used to achieve results.T his study recognises that there is a thin line between the definitions of management processes and the description of management functions which then points to the conclusion that these two concepts could be used interchangeably. 2. 5 Defining Performance Measurement Balanced scorecard originally developed as tool for performance measurement at the organisational level and has been expanded to include hypercritical success factors (Kaplan and Norton, 1993 as cited in MoF, 2009).It is recognised by the researcher that the definition of performance measurement underscores the need for output/ product to be measured, (Maila (2006). wildness on measuring output is fully supported by this study as it could assist managers to determine whether or not the employees output contribute to the attainment of the set goals. The researchers contribution to the definition of measurement is that this process is aimed at determining strategies necessary to the realisation of the organisations obje ctives, as they appraise how far one is from attaining the set goal.The process calls for assessment of results and provision of honest feedback to either strengthen progress or remedy non progress. 2. 6 immenseness of Performance Management Processes Flanagan and Finger (1998154) stated that most performance improvement processes consist of agreeing on the standards or expectations by managers and staff monitoring progress recognising achievement and reviewing the performance displayed with recognition and review featuring in the maintenance plan. It is imperative that supervisor and employee agree upon and understand each others expectations of the job.This is the foundation upon which the entire performance management process will be built. The challenge is that both supervisor and employee have to posses negotiating skills as they are required to agree on each others expectation of the job. According to Cornell University (2010), the main purpose of performance management proce ss is to develop people and improve performance by clarifying goals and coaching regularly. A thirdhand purpose is to provide honest and accurate formal evaluations to support rewards for performance practices.Performance management processes is important as it entails planning employee performance, facilitating the achievement of work related goals and reviewing performance as a way of motivating employees to achieve their full potential in line with the organisations objectives, (Swanepoel et al, 1998 as cited Maila, 20068). The researcher deducing from the literature above concluded that performance management process was important as it entails planning employee performance, agreeing on standards, monitor and evaluate performance with a view to facilitating the achievement of work related goals.The process is further important as it allows for a two way feedback aimed at livelihood rewards or punishment for performance practices. According to Maila (2006, p. 4), criteria for m easuring success should be clarified and obstacles timorously identified so as to seek solutions and that public dish up delivery is not halted, performance management system is one of the instruments that can provide that solution.According to Hogue (2010), performance measurement system highlights whether the organisation is on track to achieve its desired goals. Performance measurement system develops key performance indicators (KPIs), or metrics, depending on the nature and activities of the organization. KPIs can serve as the cornerstone of an organizations employee incentive schemes. The researchers contention is that it is much more difficult to develop KPIs for each area of performance inside the organisation which can be measured effectively.According to the MoF (2009), the BALANCED SCORECARD of Robert Kaplan and David Norton of 1996 provide a framework that not only provides performance measurements, but helps planners identify what should be done and measured. BALANCED S CORECARD is an important approach for measuring and managing the most critical processes in organization. To be meaningful, company performance should be judged against a specific objective is achieved. Without an objective, a company would have no criterion for choosing among alternative strategies and projects (Armstrong 2000 Chang 1999).For example, if the objective of the company is to maximize its return on investment, the company would try to achieve that objective by adopting investments with return on investment ratios greater than the companys current average return on investment ratio. However, if the objective of the company were to maximize its accounting profits, the company would adopt any investment, which would provide a positive accounting profit, even though the company might lower its current average return on investment ratio (Birch, 1998 Atkinson, Warehouse, & Well, 1997).Performance measurement is important for memory a company on track in achieving its object ives (Armstrong, 2000 Atkinson & Epstein, 2000 Frigo, Pustortio, George, & Krull, 2000). The selection of the most appropriate indicators is however, an area with no defining boundaries as there are a number of purposes to which performance measurements can be put, although not all performance measurement can be used for purposes (Fitzergerald, Johnston, Brignall, Silveston, & Voss, 1993).Even though individual firms tend to put on firm-specific performance indicators appropriate to their needs, for many firms the main performance indicators would typically include some combination of financial market/customer competitor human mental imagery internal business process and environmental indicators (DSouza &Williams, 2000 Barsky & Flick, 1999). More often than not usually however, performance measurements has relied on financial or accounting-based measures, despite the drawbacks associated with such an approach.Specifically, the use of financial measures alone has serious limitation s because of inherently backwards-looking nature, their limited ability to measure operational performance and their tendency to focus on the short-term (Kaplan et al. , 2001a Ittner, Larcker, & Rajan 1997). The reliance on financial measures alone, therefore, to present the true picture of organizational performance, is in itself backward looking, especially from a variety of stakeholders.As a result, an organization requires more from its performance management system than ever before (Becker & Gerhart, 1996l Kaplan et al. , 2001a Lambert, 1998). Several researchers have identified that the selection of performance measurement indicators should be 1. Driven from strategies and provide a linkage between unit actions and strategic plans 2. Hierarchical and unified across business functions 3.Supportive of the companys multidimensional environment (internal or external and cost-based or non cost-based) and 4. Based on a thorough understanding of cost relationships and cost behaviour (Brown & Mitchell, 1993 Euske, Lebas, & McNair, 1993 Kaplan & Atkinson, 1989 McKensize & Shilling, 2000 McMann & Nanni, 1994). Additionally, the method of monitoring performance should be dynamic in order to adapt to internal and external changes.In response to these recommendations, a number of frameworks that adopt a multidimensional view of performance measurement have been developed, most notable of which has been the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996). The Balanced Scorecard addresses the need for multiple measures of performance and provides a strategic framework, which specifically encourages the use of both financial and non-financial measures along four perspectives financial, customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth to measure firm performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b).In both research and practice, the BSC has received much attention, particularly as a tool for driving unit level strategy within many industries, i ncluding hospitality, health, manufacturing and banking (Ashton, 1998 Beechey & Garlick, 1999 Birch, 1998 Chow, Ganulin, Haddad, & Williamson, 1998 Kaplan et al. , 2001a). According to Kaplan and Norton (1996, p. ) the balanced scorecard translates an organizations mission and strategy into a comprehensive set of performance measures and provides the framework for strategic measurement and management. On the outset therefore, the BSC appears to have all the answers for choosing the most appropriate measures of company performance, which are governed by the organisations strategic orientation and external competitive environment.The success of the BSC relies on a transparent and well-defined strategy as the basis for the development of specific and relevant performance measures. Although the BSC, along with many other perspectives, acknowledges that firms respond to the environment they face in developing their strategy and ultimately performance measurement system, institutional pos sibility specifically asserts that the social network in which firms operate exerts an equally strong hold on the decision- making practices of the firm (DiMaggio, 1983).For instance, it is likely that for firms operating in extremely uncertain environments, for example, the choice of performance measures may be influenced by choices made by industry leaders as a means of reducing suspense and enhancing legitimacy (mimetic isomorphism) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991a Greve, 2000 Haverman, 1993). For firms operating within institutional environments, such as banking, accounting, insurance and the like, shared norms and behaviours may dictate the types of performance measures used (normative isomorphism) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 DiMaggio et al. 1991a Gupta, Dirsmith, & Fogarty, 1994 Heverman, 1993 Hussain & Gunasekaran, 2002a). For firms operating in environments where there is a pressure to conform to rules and practices, performance measurement may be influenced by the dictates of super visory bodies (coercive isomorphism) (DiMaggio et al. , 1991a Greve, 2000 Haverman, 1993).Therefore, it appears that if organisations are seeking to utilise the BSC or similar frameworks to develop the most appropriate measures of performance, coercive, mimetic and normative forces, along with strategic orientation, need to be factored into any analysis in order to gain a true picture of what factors influence performance measurement and management. Hence, it is the purpose of this dissertation to examine the role that institutional forces play in the choice of performance measurement systems, via the act of the BSC framework in an industry where the institutional forces mentioned above are at play.Information about performance management is critical to the effective functioning of any business (Chandler, 1962a Kaplan et al. , 1992 McWilliams, 1996). However, what constitutes good performance and what constitutes good measures of performance are continuously being debated (Corrigan , 1998 Kaplan & Norton, 1998 Kimball, 1997 Landy & Farr, 1983 Maisel, 1992). For instance, do financial performance indicators provide the necessary information for operating within environments that are classified as turbulent, given that they are backward looking? Armstrong, 2000 Barker, 1995 Kaplan, 1983). Is it important to utilise non-financial information for organisations that are facing changes in demand? (Chang, 1999 Kaplan, 1983). In order to answer these questions and more, this chapter reviews literature on performance management and describes the factors that influence performance measures. In addition, why there is a need for organisations to focus on both traditional financial and non-financial indicators of performance in order to meet organisational objectives, irrespective of competitive environment, is reviewed.Specific frameworks, which can be utilised by organisations to measure performance in this way, are also reviewed, with a particular focus on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a measurement tool which meets the demands of contemporary organisations (Duursema, 1999 Ittner & Larcker, 1998a Kaplan et al. , 1992). 2. 7 Role of Performance Measures in an Organisation To function successfully in a business environment, an organisation depends upon the decision-making ability of its managers, who in turn, depend upon the availability of operational information (Banker, Devraj, Sinha, &Schroeder, 1997). Information about performance is important in different ways to the various stakeholders within a business. For example, owners and investors are interested in company performance to ensure that their investment decisions are correct, and, if not, to look for alternative investments. Managers look at the performance of a companys subunits as a way of prioritising the allocation of resources (Duursema, 1999 Euske et al. , 1993 Fama, 1890 Lockamy & Cox, 1994 prankster & Dockery, 1995).In a more strategic sense, performance measurement is seen as an important way of keeping a company on track in achieving the companys objectives and as a monitoring mechanism employed by the owners of a company where ownership and management are separated (Baker & Wruck, 1989 Bushman, Indjejikian, & Smith, 1995 Delaney & Husekid, 1996 Huselid, 1995 Ittner & Larcker, 1998b Kaplan, 1984 Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992 Mayo & Brown, 1999).If measures of performance are to be effective, the measures need to be performance- driven and linked with company strategy. This view is supported by a number of researchers who note that measures of performance need to be based on a companys strategic objectives in order for employees to understand and be committed to the achievement of those objectives (Becker et al. , 1996 Hronec, 1993 Huber, 1990 John, Jacqueline, & Robert, 2002 Johnson, 1998 Kaplan, 1983 Kaplan et al. , 2001a). Specifically, DSouza and Williams (2000), Euske et al. 1993), Kimball (1997) and Mayo and Brown (1999) argue that within the c ontemporary work environment, a good performance measurement system should be Supportive and consistent with an organisations goals, actions, people/culture, and key success factors Driven by the customer Appropriate to the internal and external environment Developed by a combined top-down and bottom-up effort Communicated and integrated throughout the organisation Focused more on managing resources and inputs, not just simply costs Committed to providing action-oriented feedback and Supportive of individual and organizational learning. Although there is harmony that these types of characteristics will make for better performance measures (Devenport, 2000), how performance is actually measured is still a black box for many organisations (Cross & Lynch, 1992 Eccles, 1991 ECSI, 1998 Frigo et al. , 2000 Gering & Mhtambo, 2000a Henerson, Morris, & Fitz- Gibbon, 1987), particularly as performance measures used in one company may not be appropriate for another company facing a different situation or different set of circumstances (Otley, 1980).Defining performance for an individual company is highly dependent upon the companys business objective and strategy and is therefore preferably unique (Fitzergerald et al. , 1993 Hoffectker et al. , 1994 Kaplan et al. , 1992 Kaplan et al. , 1996b Keegan, Eiler, & Jones, 1989). For many firms however, the main performance indicators would typically include some combination of indicators across two broad categories financial indicators and non-financial indicators (Barsky et al. , 1999 Brown et al. , 1993 DSouza et al. , 2000 Eccles, 1991 Fitzergerald et al. , 1993 Hoffectker et al. 1994 Johnson et al. , 1987 Kaplan, 1983, 1984 Kaplan et al. , 1996b, 2001a). References Adam, E. E Corbett, L. M. Flores, B. E. & Harrison, N. J. et al. 1997. An global study of quality improvement approach and firm performance. International daybook of Operations & Production Management, 17(9) 842. Emerald host Publishing. Accessed 12 Novem ber 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ahmed, N. M. & Scapens, R. W.. 1994. The history of cost allocation practices in Britain Some illustrations of institutional influences, working paper.University of Manchester, Manchester. Emerald meeting Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Armstrong, M. 2000. Performance management Key strategies and practical guidelines (Second ed. ) Kogan Page Limited. Emerald grouping Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Atkinson, A. A. Waterhouse, J. H. & Wells, R. B.. 1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review (Spring) 25-37. Emerald convention Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. meraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Brown, K. A. & Mitchell, T. R.. 1993. Organization obstacles link with financial performance, customer satisfaction, and job satisfaction in a service environment. m an Relations, 46(6) 725-758. Emerald stem Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Cardy, R. (2004). Incentives Systems for Health Care Professionals. Available at http//www. whpa. org/PPE_Fact_Incentive_Pro. pdf. Accessed 12 November 2012. International Hospital Federation Chan, Y. -C. L. 2002. The benefits of balance, CMA Management, Vol. 6 48. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Chandler, A. D. 1962b. Pattern in organizational analysis A critical examination. Business History Review (pre-1986), 36(2) 233-236. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Chang, O. H. 1999. The balanced scorecard A potential tool for supporting change and continuous improvement in accounting education. Accounting Education, 14(395- 420). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. om/journals. htm? Chow , C. W. , Ganulin, D. , Haddad, K. , & Williamson, J. 1998. The Balanced Scorecard A Potent Tool for Energizing and stress Healthcare Organization Management. Journal of Healthcare Management, 43(3) 263-279. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Cleland, D. I. (1994). Project Management strategic Design and Implementation. Second Edition. USA McGraw Hill, Inc. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Cornell University, (2010).The Performance Management Process Model. Cornell University, Division of Human Resources accessed on 12 November 2012. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American sociological Review, 48(147-160). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1991a. Int roduction in the new institutionalism in organisational analysis.Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1991b. The new institutionalism in organisational analysis. Chicago University of Chicago Press. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Dinesh, D. & Palmer, E. 1998. Management by objectives and the Balanced Scorecard will Rome fall again? Management Decision, 36(6) 363. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 11November2012 Donald, L. and Humpries, J. H, (2008). Performance Appraisal Essential characteristics for strategic Control. cadence Business Excellence, 12(3), pp. 24-34. USA Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed11November2012 DSouza, D. E. & Williams, F. P. 2000. Appropriateness of the stakeholder approach to measuring manufacturing performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2) 227- 246 . Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Fitzergerald, L. Johnston, R. , Brignall, S. , Silveston, R. , & Voss, C. 1993. Performance measurement in service business The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Flanagan, N. and Finger,J. (1998). Just About Everything a Manager Needs to Know inSouthAfrica. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed9November2012 Frigo, M. L. & Krumwiede, K. 1999. 10 ways to improve performance measurement systems. Cost Management Update, 96(Apr) 1-4.Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Frigo, M. L. , Pustorio, P. G. , George, W. , & Krull, J. 2000. The balanced scorecard for community banks Translating strategy into action Bank. Accounting & Finance, 13(3)17-23. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Frigo, M. L. 2001. 2001 CMG survey on performance measurement Trends and ch allenges in performance measurement, Cost Management Update 1. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. meraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Frigo, M. L. 2003. Performance measures that drive the first Tenet of business strategy. strategic Finance, 85(3) 8. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. 1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27 25-41. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Hasan, H. & Tibbits, H.R. 2000. Strategic management of electronic commerce an adatation of the balanced scorecard. Internet Research, 10(5) 439-450. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. , Larcker, D. , & Rajan, M. 1997a. The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review, April 231-255. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 1995. Total Quality Management and the choice of information and reward systems.Journal of Accounting Research, 33(Supplement) 1- 34. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 1996. Measuring the impact of quality initiatives on firm financial performance. In S. Ghosh & D. Fedor (Eds. ), Advances in the management of organisational quality, Vol. 1 1-37. New York JAI Press. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. , Larcker, D. F. , & Rajan, M. V. 1997b. The choice of Performance Measures in Annual Bonus Contracts.The Accounting Review, 72(2) 231-255. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 1998a. ar non-financial measure leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(Supplement) 1-35. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 1998b. Innovations in performance measurement Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10 205-225.Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 1998c. Innovations in performance measurement Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10 205. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ittner, C. D. & Larcker, D. F. 2003. advent up short On non-financial performance measurement. Harvard Business Review, November 88-95. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? gt Jones, C. 1991a. Qualitative interviewing. In G. Allen & C. Skinner (Eds. ), Handbook for research students in the social information 203-214. London Farner Press. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Jones, C. P. 2002. Investments analysis and management (8th ed. ). New York Wiley & Sons. Accessed12November2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. 1986. The role for empirical research in management accounting. Accounting, Organization and Society, 11 429-452. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. meraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. 1983. Measuring manufacturing performance A new challenge for managerial accounting research. The Accounting Review(October) 686-705. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 Kaplan, R. S. 1984a. The evolution of management accounting. The Accounting Review(July)390-418. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Kaplan, R. S. 198 4b. Yesterdays accounting undermines production. Harvard Business Review, July/August 95-101.Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Atkinson, A. A. 1989. Advanced Management Accounting assimilator Hall. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard Measure That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(Jan/Feb) 71-79. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Kaplan, R. S. & Klein, N. 1996. Chemical bank Implementing he Balanced Scorecard, Case Studies from Harvard Business School Implementing the Balanced Scorecard Harvard Business School Publishing. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 1996a. The Balanced Scorecard Translating Strategy into Action. Massachusetts Harvard Business School Pres s. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 1996b. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System.Harvard Business Review, 74(Jan/Feb) 75-79. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12November2012 Kaplan, R. S. & Norton. , D. P. 1996. Linking the Balanced Scorecard to strategy. California Management Review, 39(1) 53-80. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. 1997a. Mobil USM&R (A) Linking the Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business Review(May 7). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 Kaplan, R.S. 1997b. Mobil USM&R (C) Lubricants Business Unit. Harvard Business Review(May 5). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. 1998a. Mobil USM&R (B) New England Sales and Distribution. Harvard Business Review(April 30). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. eme raldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. 1998b. Mobil USM&R (D) Gasoline Marketing. Harvard Business Review(April 30). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. om/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. 1998c. Innovation action research Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10 89-118. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 Kaplan, R. S. & Atkinson, A. A. 1998. Advanced Management Accounting (Third ed. ). New Jersey Prentice Hall. Inc. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 1998. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to work. In A. H. B. R.Paperback (Ed. ), Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance. Boston Harvard Business School Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Kaplan, E. L. 1999. United Way of South-eastern New Englan d (UWSENE). Harvard Business Review(April 1). Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 2001a. The strategy focused organization How the Balanced Scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment.Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Business School Press. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 2001b. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management Part 1. Accounting Horizons, 15(1) 87-104. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 2001c. Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management Part 2. Accounting Horizons, June 147-160. Emerald Group Publishing.Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? KSU, (2009). Policies and Procedures Man nual Performance Management Process. Available http//www. ksu. edu/policies/ppm/4080. html. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed on 10 November 2012. Lauter, G. P. (1970). Advanced management Process in Developing Countries Planning in Turkey. California Management Review, 12 (3), pp 7-12. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Maila, H. M. (2006), Performance Management and Service obstetrical delivery in the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Magister Technologie University of South Africa. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Maylor, H. (2005). Project Management. Third Edition, FT Prentice Hall. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1994, p. 108. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. eme raldinsight. com/journals. htm?