The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ll text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

53,8
Performance measurement: from
philosophy to practice
726
Stefan Tangen
Department of Production Engineering, The Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Keywords Performance measures, Performance management systems, Activity based costs,
Balanced scorecard
Abstract Even though remarkable progress has been made over recent years in the design of
performance measurement frameworks and systems, many companies are still primarily relying on
traditional financial performance measures. This paper presents an overview of the more common,
more modern approaches to performance measurement and attempts to identify whether they have in
fact addressed the limitations of traditional ways of measuring performance. The paper suggests that
the modern frameworks have indeed addressed the underlying conceptual issues, but have rarely
addressed the practicalities of measurement in ways that render them meaningful to practitioners.
What is needed is further work to explore how these conceptual frameworks can be translated and
tailored to fulfil the unique measurement needs of a specific company, especially at the operational level.

Introduction
Lord Kelvin once said:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you will
know something about it [otherwise] your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;
it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in thought advanced to the stage
of science (cited in Fisher, 1990).
Measurement of performance and productivity has garnered significant interest
recently among both academics and practitioners. Much progress has been made on
establishing performance management systems (PMSs) which include a portfolio of
measures aimed to balance the more traditional, single focus view on profitability.
Bitichi (1994) suggests that a major objective of such PMSs is to encourage proactive
rather than reactive management. However, despite the remarkable progress made
over recent years in performance measurement, many companies are still primarily
relying on traditional financial performance measures (Tangen, 2003). This suggests
that not all performance measurement problems have yet been solved. Certainly the
“traditional” measure of profitability is flawed, since many business strategies and
opportunities involve sacrificing current profits for longer-term gain (Ross et al., 1993).
Numerous researchers have exposed limitations of this traditional approach to
performance measurement using solely financial performance measures (Maskell,
1991; Ghalayini et al., 1997; Jagdev et al., 1997):
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management .
financial measures are concerned with cost elements and try to quantify
Vol. 53 No. 8, 2004
pp. 726-737 performance solely in financial terms, but many enhancements are difficult to
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
quantify monetarily, such as lead-time reduction, quality improvements and
DOI 10.1108/17410400410569134 customer service;
 .
financial reports are usually produced monthly and are results of decisions that Performance
were made one or two months previously; and measurement
.
financial measures have predetermined inflexible formats used across all
departments, ignoring the fact that a department may have its own unique
characteristics and priorities.
To use a PMS that solely consists of financial performance measures can cause 727
problems for a company (Maskell, 1991; Hill, 1995; Crawford and Cox, 1990; Ghalayini
et al., 1997; Jagdev et al., 1997; Kaplan and Cooper, 1998; Bitichi, 1994):
.
financial measures are not directly related to manufacturing strategy: excessive use
of return on investmnet (ROI) also distorts strategy building and may conflict with
strategic objectives;
.
traditional criteria such as cost efficiency and utilisation may pressure managers
and supervisors for short-term results and, for that reason, discourage
improvements;
.
financial measures do not report accurately on the cost of processes, products,
and customers: they are also focused on controlling processes in isolation rather
than as a whole system;
.
financial measures are not applicable to new management techniques that give
shop-floor operators responsibility and autonomy; and
.
financial measures do not penalise overproduction and do not adequately
identify the cost of quality.
Neely et al. (1995) described performance measurement as the process of quantifying
action, where measurement is the process of quantification and action correlates with
performance. They further propose that performance should be defined as the efficiency
and effectiveness of action, which leads to the following definitions, which have been
adopted in this paper:
.
performance measurement is defined as the process of quantifying the efficiency
and effectiveness of action;
.
a performance measure is defined as a metric used to quantify the efficiency
and/or effectiveness of an action; and
.
PMS is defined as the set of metrics used to quantify the efficiency and
effectiveness of an action.
A PMS should:
.
Support strategic objectives. A PMS should be derived from the company’s
strategic objectives. Otherwise, the PMS may support actions that have the
opposite effect of those implied in the strategy (Tangen, 2002a). Furthermore, it is
important to remember that strategies usually change over time and when a
strategy changes, some performance measures must change too. There is
therefore a need for flexibility in the PMS, which provides a mechanism that
ensures that the PMS is at all times coherent with the objectives of the company.
.
Have an appropriate balance. It is vital that performance is not solely seen from a
financial point of view. A PMS ought to consist of various types of performance
measures covering all important aspects agreed as representing the success of a
IJPPM company. There must in turn be a balance between the various performance
measures in the PMS. Unfortunately, it is not possible to give an exact definition of
53,8 the term “balance”, since it includes several types of “balance” and is highly
dependent on each individual case. However a PMS should be appropriately focused
on short- and long-term results, different types of performances (e.g. cost, quality,
delivery, flexibility and dependability), various perspectives (e.g. the customer, the
728 shareholder, the competitor, the internal and the innovativeness perspective), and
various organisational levels (e.g. global and local performance).
.
Guard against sub-optimisation. As the performance measures by which employees
are evaluated greatly impact their behaviour, an improper set of measurements can
lead to dysfunctional or unanticipated behaviour (Fry, 1995). In other words,
employees seeking to improve the measure of their performance often make
decisions that are contrary to the desires of management. For example, it is not rare
that an improvement in one area leads to a deterioration in another, even resulting in
a decline in overall performance. Skinner (1986) termed this phenomenon the
“productivity paradox”, where dysfunctional behaviour results from poor
performance measures. A PMS must therefore guard against sub-optimisation,
possibly by establishing a clear link from the top of the company all the way to the
bottom, to ensure that employee behaviour is consistent with corporate goals.
.
Have a limited number of performance measures. To create appropriate action it
is necessary to use a limited number of performance measures (Jackson, 2000).
More measurement demands more analysis time. It is a waste to collect data if
they are ignored. It is therefore important to pay attention to limiting the data
requirements to both the necessary detail and frequency and to consider whether
the data is needed for a specific useful purpose, and whether the cost of
producing it is not higher than its expected benefit (Bernolak, 1997). A large
number of performance measures also increases the risk of information overload
– it becomes difficult to know which performance measures should be
prioritised. This is also a good reason to remove “old” performance measures
that are no longer of interest from the PMS.
. Be easily accessible. A PMS’s main goal is to give important information, at the
right time, to the right person. An important point to remember is that the PMS
must be designed in such a way that information is easily retrieved, usefully
presented and easily understood by those whose performance is being evaluated.
.
Consist of performance measures that have comprehensible specifications. A
performance measure should have a clear purpose and be defined in an
unambiguous way along with details of who will use the measure (e.g. collect the
data, with what frequency, and how to act on the measure). Furthermore, it is also
necessary to specify a target for each performance measure and a timeframe within
which that target should be reached.
PMSs
According to Toni and Tonchia (2001), the main models of PMS can be referred to
under one of five typologies:
(1) PMSs that are strictly hierarchical (or strictly vertical), characterised by cost
and non-cost performance on different levels of aggregation, until they
ultimately become economic financial.
 (2) PMSs that are balanced scorecard, where several separate performance Performance
measures which correspond to diverse perspectives (financial, customer, etc.), measurement
are considered independently.
(3) PMSs that can be called frustum, where there is a synthesis of low-level
measures into more aggregated indicators, but without the scope of translating
non-cost performance into financial performance.
(4) PMSs that distinguish between internal/external performances. 729
(5) PMSs that are related to the value chain.
The following section looks at several of the better-known approaches to addressing
the limitations of using solely financial performance measures.

Activity-based costing
A new approach to cost accounting, known as activity-based costing (ABC), was
developed by Johnson and Kaplan (1987) in the late 1980s as an attempt to resolve
some of the fundamental inadequacies of traditional cost accounting. ABC is concerned
with the cost of activities within a company and their relationships to the manufacture
of specific products rather than to basic functional areas (Hill, 1995). The basic
technique of ABC is to analyse the indirect costs within a company and to discover the
activities that cause those costs. Such activities are called “cost drivers” and can be
used to apply overheads to specific products. In this way, it is believed that ABC
results in a more accurate identification of costs than traditional cost allocation.
According to Maskell (1991), several example cases indicate that ABC can be of
practical value for product pricing, production decision making, overhead cost
reduction and continuous improvement. However, there are researchers who claim that
the argument that ABC provides more accurate product costs has never been proved
(Neely et al., 1997). More importantly, an improved cost accounting system will not
entirely solve the problem with financial measures – other measures than cost are
needed to adequately gauge manufacturing performance relative to a competitive
strategy (White, 1996). This is why many researchers have focused on developing more
complex performance measurement systems during the last decade. These systems
include both cost and non-cost performance objectives, and are argued to be more
suitable for the business environment of today.

Sink and Tuttle model

A classical approach to a PMS is the Sink and Tuttle model (Figure 1), which claims
that the performance of an organisation is a complex interrelationship between seven
performance criteria (Sink and Tuttle, 1989):
(1) effectiveness, which involves “doing the right things, at the right time, with the
right quality”: in practice, effectiveness is expressed as a ratio of actual output
to expected output;
(2) efficiency, which simply means “doing things right”, and is defined as a ratio of
resources expected to be consumed to resources actually consumed;
(3) quality, where quality is an extremely wide concept: to make the term more
tangible, quality is measured at six checkpoints;
(4) productivity, which is defined as the traditional ratio of output to input;
IJPPM
53,8

730

Figure 1.
Definitions of seven
performance criteria

(5) quality of work life, which is an essential contribution to a system which

performs well;
(6) innovation, which is a key element in sustaining and improving performance; and
(7) profitability/budgetability, which represents the ultimate goal for any organisation.
Although much has changed in industry since this model was first introduced, these
seven performance criteria are still important. However, the model has several major
limitations. For example, it does not consider the need for flexibility, which has
increased markedly during the last few decades. The model is also limited by the fact
that it does not consider the customer perspective.
In addition to the work of Sink and Tuttle, the researchers within the TOPP Project
(a research program studying productivity issues in Norwegian manufacturing
industry) looked at performance as an integration of three dimensions:
(1) efficiency;
(2) effectiveness; and
(3) adaptability.
The first two dimensions in the TOPP performance model (Figure 2) are the same as in
the Sink and Tuttle model, while the third expresses the extent to which the company
is prepared for future changes.

Balanced scorecard
Probably the most well known PMS is the balanced scorecard system, developed and
promoted by Kaplan and Norton (1992). The balanced scorecard proposes that a
company should use a balanced set of measures that allows top managers to take a
quick but comprehensive view of the business from four important perspectives
(Figure 3). In turn, these perspectives provide answers to four fundamental questions:
(1) How do we look to our shareholders (financial perspective)?
(2) What must we excel at (internal business perspective)?
 (3) How do our customers see us (the customer perspective)? Performance
(4) How can we continue to improve and create value (innovation and learning measurement
perspective)?
Evidently, the balanced scorecard includes financial performance measures giving the
results of actions already taken. It also complements the financial performance
measures with more operational non-financial performance measures, which are 731
considered as drivers of future financial performance. Kaplan and Norton (1992) argue
that, by giving information from four perspectives, the balanced scorecard minimises
information overload by limiting the number of measures used. It also forces managers
to focus on the handful of measures that are most critical. Further, the use of several
perspectives also guards against sub-optimisation by compelling senior managers to
consider all measures and evaluate whether improvement in one area may have been
achieved at the expense of another.
According to Ghalayini et al. (1997), the main weakness of this approach is that it is
primarily designed to provide senior managers with an overall view of performance.
Thus, it is not intended for (nor is it applicable to) the factory operations level. Further,
they also argue that the balanced scorecard is constructed as a monitoring and
controlling tool rather than an improvement tool. Furthermore, Neely et al. (2000) argue
that although the balanced scorecard is a valuable framework suggesting important
areas in which performance measures might be useful, it provides little guidance on
how the appropriate measures can be identified, introduced and ultimately used to
manage business. They further conclude that the balanced scorecard does not consider
the competitor perspective at all.

The performance pyramid

An important requirement of a PMS is that there must be a clear link between performance
measures at the different hierarchical levels in a company, so that each function and
department strives towards the same goals. One example of how this link can be achieved
is the performance pyramid, i.e. the SMART system (Figure 4), proposed by Cross and
Lynch (1992). The purpose of the performance pyramid is to link an organisation’s
strategy with its operations by translating objectives from the top down (based on
customer priorities) and measures from the bottom up. This PMS includes four levels of
objectives that address the organisation’s external effectiveness (left side of the pyramid)
and its internal efficiency (right side of the pyramid). The development of a company’s
performance pyramid starts with defining an overall corporate vision at the first level,

Figure 2.
Performance model from
TOPP
IJPPM
53,8

732

Figure 3.
The balanced scorecard

which is then translated into individual business unit objectives. The second-level business
units are set short-term targets of cash flow and profitability and long-term goals of
growth and market position (e.g. market, financial). The business operating system
bridges the gap between top-level and day-to-day operational measures (e.g. customer
satisfaction, flexibility, productivity). Finally, four key performance measures (quality,
delivery, cycle time, waste) are used at departments and work centres on a daily basis.
Ghalayini et al. (1997) suggest that the main strength of the performance pyramid is
its attempt to integrate corporate objectives with operational performance indicators.
However, this approach does not provide any mechanism to identify key performance
indicators, nor does it explicitly integrate the concept of continuous improvement.

Theory of constraints
Many researchers state that there is a need to limit the number of performance measures to
avoid information overflow (Jackson, 2000). Goldratt (1990) developed an approach called
the “theory of constraints” (TOC). TOC emerged in the mid 1980s as a process of ongoing
improvement. TOC researchers have mainly focused on production planning and
scheduling methods, but have also been involved in performance measurement.
Within a system, a constraint is defined as anything that limits the system from
achieving higher performance relative to its purpose. However, while the concept of
TOC is simple, it is far from simplistic. To a large degree, the constraint/non-constraint
distinction is almost totally ignored by most managerial techniques and practices
(Moore and Scheinkopf, 1998). TOC offers a systematic and focused process that
organisations use to pursue ongoing improvement successfully. The TOC’s “five steps
of focusing” are conducted in the following way (Goldratt, 1990):
 Performance
measurement

733

Figure 4.
The performance pyramid

(1) identify the system’s constraint(s);

(2) decide how to exploit the system’s constraint(s);
(3) subordinate everything else to the above decisions;
(4) elevate the system’s constraint(s); and
(5) when a constraint is broken, go back to step (1).
Within the TOC three global performance measures are used for assessing a business
organisation’s ability to obtain the goal (i.e. making money). These global measures are
net profit, ROI and cash flow.
Studies have shown that the major strength of the TOC approach is that it provides
focus in a world of information overload (Tangen, 2002b). Another advantage is that
the performance measures within TOC are both easy to access and easy to
comprehend. However, TOC is far from being a complete PMS. One could argue that
TOC simplifies the reality a little too far, since TOC assumes that there always is a
legible constraint in the system, which is not necessarily true.

The performance prism

One of the more recently developed conceptual frameworks is the performance prism
(see Figure 5), which suggests that a PMS should be organised around five distinct but
linked perspectives of performance (Neely et al., 2001):
(1) Stakeholder satisfaction. Who are the stakeholders and what do they want and
need?
(2) Strategies. What are the strategies we require to ensure the wants and needs of
our stakeholders?
IJPPM
53,8

734

Figure 5.
The performance prism

(3) Processes. What are the processes we have to put in place in order to allow our
strategies to be delivered?
(4) Capabilities. The combination of people, practices, technology and infrastructure
that together enable execution of the organisation’s business processes (both now
and in the future): what are the capabilities we require to operate our processes?
(5) Stakeholder contributions. What do we want and need from stakeholders to
maintain and develop those capabilities?
The performance prism has a much more comprehensive view of different stakeholders
(e.g. investors, customers, employees, regulators and suppliers) than other frameworks.
Neely et al. (2001) argue that the common belief that performance measures should be
strictly derived from strategy is incorrect. It is the wants and needs of stakeholders that
must be considered first. Then, the strategies can be formulated (Neely et al., 2001). Thus, it
is not possible to form a proper strategy before the stakeholders and their needs have been
clearly identified.
The strength of this conceptual framework is that it first questions the company’s
existing strategy before the process of selecting measures is started. In this way, the
framework ensures that the performance measures have a strong foundation. The
performance prism also considers new stakeholders (such as employees, suppliers, alliance
partners or intermediaries) who are usually neglected when forming performance
measures.
However, although the performance prism extends beyond “traditional” performance
measurement, it offers little about how the performance measures are going to be realised.
Neely and co-workers have previously published many useful tools in this area and
should, if possible, create a better link between such tools and the performance prism.
Another weakness, which also applies to the frameworks described previously, is that little
or no consideration is given to the existing PMSs that companies may have in place
(Medori and Steeple, 2000). In an earlier publication, Neely et al. (1994) suggest that:
Business rarely wants to design PMS from scratch. Usually managers are interested in
eliminating any weaknesses in their existing system.
Medori and Steeple (2000) further state that all conceptual frameworks have their Performance
relative benefits and limitations, with the most common limitation being that little measurement
guidance is given for the actual selection and implementation of the measures selected.

Medori and Steeple’s framework

Medori and Steeple (2000) present an integrated framework for auditing and enhancing
PMSs. This approach consists of six detailed described stages (see Figure 6). Similar to 735
most frameworks, the starting point begins with defining the company’s
manufacturing strategy and success factors (stage 1). In the next stage, the primary
task is to match the company’s strategic requirements from the previous stage with six
defined competitive priorities (e.g. quality, cost, flexibility, time, delivery and future
growth; stage 2). Then, the selection of the most suitable measures takes place by the
use of a checklist that contains 105 measures with full descriptions (stage 3). After the
selection of measures, the existing PMS is audited to identify which existing measures
will be kept (stage 4). An essential activity is the actual implementation of the
measures in which each measure is described by eight elements: title, objective,
benchmark, equation, frequency, data source, responsibility and improvement (stage 5).
The last stage is based around the periodic review of the company’s PMS (stage 6).
In contrast to many other frameworks, this one is beyond being simple guidelines,
and can actually be followed by a measurement practitioner in practice. A major
advantage is that it can be used both to design a new PMS and to enhance an existing
PMS. It also contains a unique description of how performance measures should be
realised. Its limitations are mainly located in stage 2, where a performance
measurement grid is created in order to give the PMS its basic design. Little guidance
is given here, and the grid is only constructed from six competitive priorities (e.g.
quality, cost, flexibility, time, delivery and future growth). As described earlier,
performance measures can be divided into many other categories.

Conclusions
Performance measurement is a complex issue that normally incorporates at least three
different disciplines: economics, management and accounting. In order to select
appropriate performance measures and design a suitable PMS for a particular
organisation, a number of factors must be considered. The choice of a suitable
measurement technique depends on a number of factors, including (Tangen, 2002a):

Figure 6.
A PMS audit and
enhancing method
IJPPM .
the purpose of the measurement;
53,8 .
the level of detail required;
.
the time available for the measurement;
.
the existence of available predetermined data; and
.
the cost of measurement.
736 This review shows that new approaches to PMSs have indeed solved some of the
limitations of the traditional way of measuring performance. For example, the performance
pyramid and the balanced scorecard are two excellent examples of strategically driven
PMSs. Furthermore, these modern frameworks are all trying to limit the number of
performance measures to avoid information overload and guard against sub-optimisation.
However, the review also shows that each PMS has several weaknesses.
Generally, the various approaches and frameworks have a clear academic
grounding, and are “philosophically” sound – they do provide guidance on how a
company should design its unique PMS, but they rarely help with the practical
realisation of specific measures at an operational level. The measurement practitioner
still has to translate the framework into practical measures. He/she is still left to decide
how each performance measure should be specified, how often it should be measured,
and at what level of detail. Thus, these newer frameworks show what to measure, but
give little guidance when it comes to the question of how to measure it.

References
Bernolak, I. (1997), “Effective measurement and successful elements of company productivity:
the basis of competitiveness and world prosperity”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 52, pp. 203-13.
Bitichi, U.S. (1994), “Measuring your way to profit”, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 16-24.
Crawford, K. and Cox, J. (1990), “Designing performance measurement systems for just in time
operations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 2025-36.
Cross, K.F. and Lynch, R.L. (1992), “For good measure”, CMA Magazine, April, pp. 20-3.
Fisher, T.J. (1990), “Business productivity measurement using standard cost accounting
information”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 10 No. 8,
pp. 61-9.
Fry, T.D. (1995), “Japanese manufacturing performance criteria”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 33 No. 4.
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S. and Crowe, T.J. (1997), “An integrated dynamic performance
measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 207-25.
Goldratt, E. (1990), Theory of Constraints, North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
Hill, T. (1995), Manufacturing Strategy: The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing
Function, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London.
Jackson, M. (2000), “An analysis of flexible and reconfigurable production systems”, Dissertation
No. 640, Linköping University, Linköping.
Jagdev, H., Bradley, P. and Molloy, O. (1997), “A QFD based performance measurement tool”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 33, pp. 357-66.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Cooper, R. (1998), Cost and Effect: Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Performance
Profitability and Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
measurement
performance”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-9.
Maskell, B. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for
American Companies, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Medori, D. and Steeple, D. (2000), “A framework for auditing and enhancing performance 737
measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 520-33.
Moore, R. and Scheinkopf, L. (1998), Theory of Constraints and Lean Manufacturing: Friends or
Foes?, Chesapeake Consulting, Severna Park, MD.
Moseng, B. and Bredrup, H. (1993), “A methodology for industrial studies of productivity
performance”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 198-206.
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Crowe, P. (2001), “The performance prism in practice”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a
literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M. and Richards, H. (1994), “Mapping measures and
activities: a practical tool for assessing measurement systems”, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference of the European Operations Management Association,
Manufacturing Engineering Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp. 313-18.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H. and Bourne, M. (2000), “Performance measurement
system design: developing and testing a process-based approach”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1119-45.
Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K. and Bourne, M. (1997), “Designing performance
measures: a structured approach”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 1131-52.
Ross, S.A., Westerfield, R.W. and Jaffe, J.F. (1993), Corporate Finance, 3rd ed., Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Sink, D.S. and Tuttle, T.C. (1989), Planning and Measurement in Your Organisation of the
Future, Ch. 5, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA, pp. 170-84.
Skinner, W. (1986), “The productivity paradox”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 55-9.
Tangen, S. (2002a), “A theoretical foundation for productivity measurement and improvement of
automatic assembly systems”, Licentiate thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm.
Tangen, S. (2002b), “RATOC: a simple method for productivity improvement in robot workcells
based on the theory of constraints”, Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on
Robotics (ISR2002), Stockholm, October 7-10.
Tangen, S. (2003), “An overview of frequently used performance measures”, Work Study, Vol. 52
No. 7, pp. 347-54.
Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (2001), “Performance measurement systems – models, characteristics
and measures”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21
No. 1/2, pp. 46-70.
White, G. (1996), “A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related performance measures for
manufacturing”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 42-61.