Page 74 - CITN 2017 Journal
P. 74

practice in the 1970s with the introduction of new social programmes that needed to be
         assessed.  However,  interest  in  performance  measurement  nosedived  in  the  1980s,  as
         people did not perceive the benefits of using the concept in making decisions. In the 1990s,
         performance  measurement  was  reenergized  as  the  demands  for  holding  government
         entities accountable to the public increased. A number of resolutions were passed by
         Companies  and Allied  Matters  Decree  (1990).  In  the  United  States  of America,  the
         National Academy for Public Administration came with a policy urging government to set
         goals and measure their performance and in 1993, The Government Performance and
         Results Act was passed by the US government requiring their agencies to become involved
         in strategic planning, goal-setting, and performance measurement (Moullin 2002).
         Performance  measurement  according  to  Upadhaya,  Munir  and  Blount  (2014)  is  the
         process of collecting, analyzing and/or reporting information regarding the performance
         of  an  individual,  group,  organization,  system  or  component.  It  can  involve  studying
         processes/strategies  within  organizations,  or  studying  engineering
         processes/parameters/phenomena.  This  helps  in  the  assessment  of  the  level  of
         achievement of the firm's objectives. Neely, Adams, and Kennerley (2002), McCurry
         (2010) and Moullin (2002) see performance measurement as “the process of quantifying
         the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  an  organization's  past  actions”,  "the  process  of
         evaluating how well organizations are managed and the value they deliver for customers
         and other stakeholders”.
         Several performance measurement systems are in use today, and each has its own group of
         supporters. For example, the Balanced Scorecard  (Kaplan and Norton, 1993, 1996, 2001),
         Performance Prism (Neely, 2002), action-profit linkage APL (Epstein & Westbrook, 2001)
         and the Cambridge Performance Measurement Process (Neely, 1996) are designed for
         business-wide implementation; and the approaches of the TPM Process (Moullin 200), 7-
         step TPM Process (Epstein & Westbrook 2001) and Total Measurement Development
         Method  (TMDM)  (Tarkenton  Productivity  Group,  2000)  are  specific  for  team-based
         structures. With continued research efforts and the test of time, the best-of-breed theories
         that help organizations structure and implement its performance measurement system
         should emerge.
         Talking about organizational model towards effective performance measurement, Etzioni
         (1960) emphasized on goal model by saying that organization is a set up with proper
         arrangement  towards  achieving  goals',  implying  that  the  organization  focuses  on
         accomplishment  of  outcome.    Yuchtman  and  Seashore  (1967)  in  their  study  sees
         organization as an open system (input, transformation, output), relying on acquisition of
         resources and internal processes as a means. Connolly et al. (1980) developed what is
         called 'strategic constituencies' model. According to them, organization is perceived as
         internal and external constituencies that negotiate a complex set of constraints, goals and
         referents. This is in response to the expectations of powerful interest groups that gravitate
         around  the  organization.  For  Quinn  and  Rohrbaugh  (1983)  organization  is  a  set  of
         competing  values  which  create  multiple  conflicting  goals  with  three  dimensions  of
         competing values: internal versus external focus, control versus flexibility concern and
         ends versus means concern.

         Ghosh  and  Mukherjee  (2002)  opined  that  a  corporate  performance  measure  is  better
         discussed from two points which are: (a) Operational CPM and (b) Analytical CPM.
         Operational  CPM  addresses  the  business  process  needs  of  executives  and  financial
         managers. Analytical CPM addresses the reporting and analysis needs of executives,
         managers and staff through all levels of an organization, as well as vendors, suppliers and
         partners.  This  is  solely  the  responsibility  of  the  accountant.  There  are  a  number  of
         performance  measurement  tools,  which  could  be  merged  into  two  broad  groups:  (i)
         Traditional  measures  and  (ii)  Non  -traditional  measures.  Traditional  measures  which

                                               67
   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79