Literature Review Performance Management and the Balanced Scorecard

Chapter 2 belles-lettres Re emplacement Since the equilibrize Scorecard was developed in the 1990s by Robert Kaplan and David Norton (1992), it has gained in popularity amongst academics and practiti acers. In 1990, Kaplan and Norton led a research necessitate of a lot of companies with the single-valued function of exploring the red-hot methods of activenessment precaution. The grandness of the theatre was an increase belief that the fiscal respects of capital punishment concern were non as impressive as before with the schooling of modern line of play enterprise.Representatives involved in the say companies, including the tecs Kaplan and Norton, were persuaded that the reliance on financial measures of cognitive process had an effect on their ability to create value. After deep discussions the group brainstormed on several(prenominal) alternatives but finally settled on the equilibrize bill of fare, which featured feat measures, customer issues, interior(a) trading processes, employee activities, and sh atomic frame 18holder concerns.Kaplan and Norton introduced the new tool as the fit Scorecard and summarized the concepts of the study in the starting time of three Harvard backup retread articles, The balance Scorecard-Measures That Drive consummation. M all fundamental laws in both the private and public sectors pay embraced the concept of the balanced scorecard. Most have implemented it in an attempt to amend cognitive operation (Chan & Ho 2000 Hoque & Jamesl Ittner & Larcker 2003). However, it appears that the margin balanced scorecard is subject to various interpretations.For example, a document create by CMA Canada (1999) suggests that the term Balanced Scorecard whitethornbe understood several(predicate)ly by different individuals/organizations. They state that many organizations believe that if a execution of instrument meter eruptline takes both financial and nonfinancial measures, it is a balanced scoreca rd, whereas Kaplan & Norton cl acquire that a match bill is much more than righteous a collection of action measures. Different interpretations of a BALANCED plug-in are evident in academic studies as well.Hoque & James (2000) mulish BALANCED SCORECARD employ using a 20-item scale noting that their BALANCED SCORECARD measure might not pick up the strategic connectiveages of a real BALANCED SCORECARD. As a result, companies in their study may possibly have had varying levels of BALANCED SCORECARD slaying which could have affected their results, curiously considering the fact that BALANCED SCORECARD impost was the dependent variable in their regression mystify.Chan & Ho (2000) stated in their limitations section that the respondents may have mistaken their organizations military operation quantity musical arrangement to that of a true BALANCED SCORECARD (p. 167). It is besides possible that a ac connections surgery bill system has all of the attributes of a bala nced scorecard but they do not consider it to be one. Clearly defining a BALANCED SCORECARD would be a 4 contribution to future research by providing a basis to determine the extent of BALANCED SCORECARD bridal by an organization. This study testament attempt to do this.Although at that place 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), solitary(prenominal) one study has attempted to develop a conceptual model of the scorecard and employ it to examine the extent of its put onion. This was in Austrian, German and Swiss organizations (Speckbacher et al. 2003). This suggests a subscribe to for more research to examine what attributes of a Kaplan and Norton (1992, 2001, 2006) Balanced Scorecard other organizations use in their surgical process bill system.This study will not attempt to explain the reasons for any differences between organizations with different levels of Balanced Scorecard adoption, it will only report them. In summary, musical composition other studies have appeared 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, curious in that it addresses both the structure and use of the BALANCED SCORECARD. Kaplan & Norton (1992 1996 2001), the originators of the balanced corecard, punctuate that the inclusion of non-financial measures is but one aspect of the balanced scorecard, noting that there are several structural attributes that make it unique from other frameworks, such(prenominal) as KPI (key accomplishment indicator) cards and stakeholder cards. Kaplan & Norton (1996, 2001) in any case suggest that its unique structure allows it to be used as a strategic tool to steer organizations towa rds sustain long-term profitability. They argue that simply including non-financial metrics in their surgery quantity system is not enough for organizations 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 clearly defined Balanced Scorecard was used. A clearly defined BALANCED SCORECARD would change organizations and police detectives to assess the level of BALANCED SCORECARD adoption which may suspensor to explain some of the differences in results between studies.Understanding cognitive operation watchfulness mathematical operationes 2. 1 Defining executing Maila (2006) stated that functioning implies the action of doing editgs that is using thing s, attendance to conditions, processing, communicating and achieving results. Performance is the actual work that is done to ensure that an shaping achieves its mission. In summary, execution of instrument encompasses inputs, conditions, processes elements, turnouts, consequences and feedback. According to Maila (2006), the end product of consummation should be measured against four elements that are quantity, prize, cost or risk factors and time.The whim of measuring the end product is fully supported as it whoremaster be argued that a product can be in any form that is good or bad, hence the need to have it measured. Botswana structured Revenue Service (BURS, 2002) states, mathematical operation shall mean the standard of proceeding unavoidable by BURS related to an employees output measured in terms of lumber and quantity. In addition, it shall mean the behavioural standards and competencies adopted by BURS. The OPM (2005) defined mental process as actions, behaviou r and/or inputs by a ply segment contributing to the achievement of results.While the researcher acknowledges the above descriptions, she argues that application of the definitions should be do by with a provision that the output of that action is positive to the fundamental law. In the researchers own definition, movement bureau an action by an employee that has produced an output relevant to an employee or make-ups goals. 2. 2 Defining trouble focal point means to give direction, lead, control, govern, rule over, whilst a coach is an authorised 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 perplexity as a process of achieving organisational goals through and through engaging in the four major functions (planning, organising, leading and commanding). Cleland (199439-40) described way through the major charge functions that are planning, organising, motivation, directing and controlling. mayor (2005 246) identify planning, organising, directing, controlling and motivating as roles of individual project manager, an improvement on the definition by Vaughan-Jones as 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 steering process into the context 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 lit 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-based viewpoint can only be made if the viewpoint is prove by me ans 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 communication channeld that leadership activities has to do with dealing with change developing a vision and put a direction for an organisation formulating a system aligning stakeholders with the organisation? s vision, motivating and inspiring employees and recognising and reward success. caution activities include planning and budgeting, implementing system, organising and runging to achieve outline and controlling behaviour and problem solving to ensure outline is implemented, enthalpy (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 conduces to effective performance management. 2. 3 Defining Performance Management OPM (2005) defines performance management as cu rrent communication process between staff and supervisor/managers for getting reform organisational results.It involves (a) establishing clear expectations and understanding round performance and the results to be achieved (b) identifying essential worlds of performance as relating to the mission and objectives of the O/M/A (c) developing living and detach performance criteria (d) giving and receiving feedback about performance (e) conducting constructive performance sagaciousnesss and (f) planning endless development of staff to sustain and improve performance so that individual, unit and organisational humans 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 commission 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 jeering on the activity to be performed, how it should be measured and within 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 carry on toward these objectives and assess results. With this process, employee s 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 excisioning progress toward s goals. It further calls for exchanging feedback among the components, reinforcing goal oriented activities and step in to create improvement when needed. the performance management process places greater importance on the methods used to achieve results.This 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 finish that these cardinal concepts could be used interchangeably. 2. 5 Defining Performance standard Balanced scorecard originally developed as tool for performance measurement at the organisational level and has been expanded to include critical 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). Emphasis on measuring output is fully supported by this study as it could assist managers to determine whe ther 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 objectives, 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 still non progress. 2. 6 Importance of Performance Management Processes Flanagan and Finger (1998154) stated that close to performance improvement processes consist of agreeing on the standards or expectations by managers and staff observe progress recognising achievement and reviewing the performance displayed with recognition and review featuring in the importanttenance plan. It is imperative that supervisor and employee agree upon and understand each others expectations of the job.This is the foundation garment upon which the entire performance manageme nt 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 principal(prenominal) purpose of performance management process is to develop people and improve performance by clarifying goals and coaching regularly. A secondary 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 electric 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 supporting rewards or punishment for performance practices. According to Maila (2006, p. 4), criteria for measuring success should be clarified and obstacles trepidly identified so as to seek solutions and that public attend auction pitch 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 perfor mance within 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 SCORECARD is an important start for measuring and managing the closely critical processes in organization. To be meaningful, political party performance should be judged against a specific objective is achieved. Without an objective, a accompany would have no measuring for choosing among alternative strategies and projects (Arm bulletproof 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 keeping a company on track in achieving its objectives (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 staunchs tend to practice 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 resource internal duty process an d environmental indicators (DSouza &Williams, 2000 Barsky & Flick, 1999). More a great deal than not usually however, performance measurements has relied on financial or accounting-based measures, patronage the drawbacks associated with such an approach.Specifically, the use of financial measures alone has serious limitations because of inherently backwards-looking nature, their bound 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 vulnerability 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. d rive from strategies and provide a linkage between unit actions and strategic plans 2. Hierarchical and structured across business functions 3. corroboratory of the companys two-dimensional 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 third-dimensional 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 sextuple 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, in particular as a tool for driving unit level outline within many industries, including 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 unclouded 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 possible action 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 in operation(p) in highly uncertain environments, for example, the pickaxe of performance measures may be baffled by choices made by industry leaders as a means of reducing uncertainty 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 dicta te 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 supervisory bodies (coercive isomorphism) (DiMaggio et al. , 1991a Greve, 2000 Haverman, 1993).Therefore, it appears that if organisations are pursuance 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 psycho abbreviation 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 application 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 macrocosm debated (Corrigan, 1998 Kaplan & Norton, 1998 Kimball, 1997 Landy & Farr, 1983 Maisel, 1992). For instance, do financial performance indicators provide the necessary nurture 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 addi tion, 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 useable information (Banker, Devraj, Sinha, &Schroeder, 1997). Information about performance is important in different slipway to the various stakeholders within a business. For example, owners and investors are interested in company perf ormance 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 allotment of resources (Duursema, 1999 Euske et al. , 1993 Fama, 1890 Lockamy & Cox, 1994 Tricker & 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 associate with company strategy. This view is supported by a number of researchers who note that measures of performance need to be based on a c ompanys strategic objectives in order for employees to understand and be affiliated 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 contemporary 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 genuine 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 agreement that these types of characteristics will make for better performance measures (Devenport, 2000), how performance is in truth 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), especially 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 quite 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 international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance. International daybook of Operations & business Management, 17(9) 842. Emerald radical Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Ahmed, N. M. & Scapens, R. W.. 1994. The history of cost allocation practices in Britain roughly illustrations of institutional influences, working paper.University of Manchester, Manchester. Emerald group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Armstrong, M. 2000. Performance management discern strategies and practical guidelines (Second ed. ) Kogan Page Limited. Emerald group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Atkinson, A. A. body of waterhouse, J. H. & Wells, R. B.. 1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review (Spring) 25-37. Emerald sort 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. Human Relations, 46(6) 725-758. Emerald throng Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Cardy, R. (2004). Incentives Systems for Health Care Professionals. functional 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 conference Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Chandler, A. D. 1962b. Pattern in organizational analysis A critical examination. craft History Review (pr e-1986), 36(2) 233-236. Emerald radical 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. bill Education, 14(395- 420). Emerald aggroup 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 Focusing Healthcare Organization Management. Journal of Healthcare Management, 43(3) 263-279. Emerald assort Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? Cleland, D. I. (1994). Project Management strategical intention and Implementation. Second Edition. USA McGraw Hill, Inc. Emerald aggroup Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/books. htm? Cornell University, (2010).The Performance Management Process Mod el. 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 multitude Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm? DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1991a. Introduction in the new institutionalism in organisational analysis. bread, 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 capital of Italy fall again? Management Decision, 36(6) 363. E merald Group Publishing. Accessed 11November2012 Donald, L. and Humpries, J. H, (2008). Performance Appraisal essential characteristics for Strategic Control. Measuring agate line 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 Manage ment 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 system & Finance, 13(3)17-23. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed12November2012 Frigo, M. L. 2001. 2001 CMG survey on performance measurement Trends and challenges 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. rail line unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 2 7 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. immature 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. Are 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. Innovatio ns 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. Coming up short On non-financial performance measurement. Harvard personal line of credit 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 science 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. 1984b. Yesterdays accounting undermines production. Harvard demarcation 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 Publish ing. 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 Press. 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 Score card. 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. emeraldinsight. 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 England (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 ma nagement 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 Mannual 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 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 extend and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1994, p. 108. Emerald Group Publishing. Accessed 12 November 2012 http//www. emeraldinsight. com/journals. htm?