nach oben

Erschienen in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Performance Management as a Part of the Management Control System

verfasst von : Claudia Presti

Erschienen in: Integrating Performance and Risk in a Management Control System

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Performance and management control are strictly related, as there is no control if there is no measurement of the performance achieved—either in qualitative or quantitative (Thomson (Popular Lectures 1:73, 1883), in his physics studies, affirms thus in relation to the quantitative measurements: “[…]when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”) terms—and if there is no consequent comparison with what was established as a goal. In the previous chapter, we explained how the management control system expanded its boundaries, its scope, and its areas of interests. This expansion led to an explosion of studies that analyze a better means of defining, measuring, and managing performances. Consequently, a new evolutionary stage in research on the management control system has started: the era of research on the performance management system.

This chapter starts with a deep reflection on the meaning of the term “performance.” Then, the evolution that led to performance measurement becoming a performance management system is outlined by describing the most important outcome of the performance management system’s evolution. Combining the reflections on the term “performance” and the evolution of the performance management system tools, Sect. 3.3 proposes a clarification of the eventual distinctions, interconnections, and overlaps between performance management, management control, and other relevant systems, highlighting the connections with Chap. 4.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Toward a Contemporary Concept of Management Control

Nächstes Kapitel The Development of Risk Management

The author literally affirms: “Depuis quelques années, le mot performance est au cœur des discours du contrôle de gestion. Rarement défini, polysémique, ce mot contient en outre des métaphores qui suggèrent des représentations additionnelles […] La perplexité s’accroit lorsque, au-delà d’un titre d’ouvrage qui affiche la performance comme objet d’étude central, on cherche en vain une réflexion introductive sur le concept” Bourguignon (1997, pp. 89–90).

Actually, Bourguignon’s point on the declination of the word may have less importance in the English language.

In this regard, Maraghini and Riccaboni (2019:8) affirm that researching the history of the term “performance” brings us to the combination of the Latin verb performare—which means giving definitive form, modeling—and the Germanic root frumjan—which means completing, satisfying.

This is the literal definition of the verb “to perform” retrieved from the Oxford Dictionary Of English, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.

Here, I refer to the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) model, also known as the Deming–Shewhart cycle or the control circle/cycle. It is a model developed by E. Deming during the 1950s, and it consists of an iterative four-step logical sequence used for the control and continuous learning and improvement of processes and products.

Although a taxonomic study on mono-dimensional models is beyond the scope of this work, it is relevant to highlight that starting from the beginning of the twentieth century, it is possible to distinguish different approaches where the economic value is:

the synthesis of assets stock
the result of a process of discounting economic or financial values
linked to differential and residual revenue results
the result of the application of comparative logic.

Examples of models based on a process of discounting economic or financial values are: free cash flow from operations; free cash flow to equity, shareholder value added; cash value added; cash flow return on investment.

Examples of these models are: residual divisional income; residual income; economic value added; economic profit.

Consistent with the chosen definition of performance, corporate value represents the sum of the managers’ activities results.

It should be emphasized that, still today, the budget represents an effective system for measuring the company’s global performance, as the budget constitutes an integrated system of measures used to quantify objectives distributed among the organizational structure’s centers of responsibility. The budget is a document of synthesis of planning and control that makes explicit the objectives pursued, the choices made about the means to achieve them, and the expected results. In fact, the budget provides signals for the impact produced by the combination of operating variables (sales targets, yield of production factors, sales price/purchase cost ratio, etc.), and for summary variables, represented through economic-financial metrics related to the company’s profitability (Castellano, 2011; Marasca, 2018).

It means the unit of measure is not the currency.

The meaning of “management variable” acquires importance in the comparison with the result variables referred to in Sect. 3.2.1.

The Tableau de Bord represents one of the first control tools born from the need to face the changed conditions of competitive context. It should integrate different categories of measures: stock and flow measures, quotients, variations, and indicators that allow the comparison with the external environment. Moreover, it is based on five principles:

The dashboard must be based on a limited number of relevant indicators.

Through secondary bearings and causal relationships, it is possible to involve different organizational levels.

The calculation frequency must be decided based on the nature of the various measures taken into consideration.

The control process must guarantee a high speed of the information flow.

The system can be improved through certain practical measures.

Although it is one of the first multidimensional measurement tools, it is still a tool strongly conditioned by the economic-financial dimension, with no explicit link between the measures and the strategy (Castellano, 2012).

For these reasons, it appears as a static tool that does not fully belong to the dynamic ones analyzed in this chapter.

Many organizations who claim to use the BSC model are, instead, using only a limited version of the BSC (Speckbacher et al., 2003) or an incomplete one (Rhodes et al., 2008).

In this regard, Bourguignon (1997, p. 90) reminds: “It is certainly not a brutal intrusion of this word in the vocabulary of the accounting field: performance measurement is a traditional tool of management control.”

Bourguignon, A. (1995). Peut-om définir la performance? Revue française de comptabilité, 269, 61–66.

Bourguignon, A. (1997). Sous les pavés la plage? ou les multiples fonctions du vocabulaire comptable : l’exemple de la performance. Comptabilité – Contrôle – Audit, 3(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.3917/cca.031.0089CrossRef

Castellano, N. G. (2011). Modelli e misure di performance aziendale: analisi della letteratura e spunti di ricerca. Management Control.

Castellano, N. G. (2012). La misurazione delle performance per le piccole imprese Strumenti di misurazione e processi di controllo. Giuffrè.

Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Multiple perspectives of performance measures. European Management Journal, 25(4), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.06.001CrossRef

Comuzzi, E. (2006). Valore, Complessità e imprese. Modelli e strumenti per la misurazione e il governo del valore e della complessità. Giappichelli Editore.

D’Onza, G. (2008). Il sistema di controllo interno nella prospettiva del risk management. Giuffrè editore.

De Geuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802481698CrossRef

Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. T. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003CrossRef

Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., & Lisboa, J. V. (2004). A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: A framework and direction for future research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(6), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380410547906CrossRef

Hopper, T., Otley, D. T., & Scapens, B. (2001). British management accounting research: Whence and whither: Opinions and recollections. British Accounting Review, 33(3), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0169CrossRef

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business.

Kennerly, M., & Neely, A. (2004). Performance measurement frameworks: A review. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Theory and practice (pp. 145–155). Cambridge University Press.

Lamboglia, R. (2012). La componente immateriale e organizzativa del sistema di controllo aziendale: una proposta di analisi e misurazione delle condizioni di efficacia. Giuffrè editore.

Lebas, M., & Euske, K. (2004). A conceptual and operational delineation of performance. In Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Lucianetti, L. (2010). The impact of the strategy maps on balanced scorecard performance. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 12(1), 21–36.CrossRef

Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measures up – The essential guide to measuring business perfor-mance. FrancoAngeli.

Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package-Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003CrossRef

Maraghini, M. P., & Riccaboni, A. (2019). Performance e Execution oppure Performance è Execution? Management Control, 2, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3280/maco2019-002001CrossRef

Marasca, S. (2018). Il budget: prospettive evolute. In Sistemi avanzati per il controllo di gestione. Knowità.

Meyer, M. W. (2004). Finding performance: The new discipline in management. In Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Neely, A., & Adams, C. (2000). The performance prism to boost M&A success. Measuring Business Excellence, 4(3), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040010377818CrossRef

Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (Eds.). (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. Prentice Hall Financial Times.

Otley, D. T. (1994). Management control in contemporary organizations: Towards a wider framework. Management Accounting Research, 5(3–4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1994.1018CrossRef

Otley, D. T. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0115CrossRef

Pierotti, M. (2008). Il sistema di controllo integrato. Esigenze strategiche delle moderne realtà aziendali (Vol. 84). Giuffrè editore.

Rhodes, J., Hung, R., Lok, P., Ya-Hui, B., & Wu, C. M. (2008). Factors influencing organizational knowledge transfer: Implication for corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810875886CrossRef

Sharpe, W. F. (1970). Portfolio theory and capital markets. McGraw Hill College.

Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 361–388.CrossRef

Stewart, G. B. (1991). The quest for value. Harper and Collins.

Thomson, W. (1883). Lecture on Electrical Units of Measurement. Popular Lectures, 1.

Woods, M., & Grubnic, S. (2008). Linking comprehensive performance assessment to the balanced scorecard: Evidence from Hertfordshire County Council. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00456.xCrossRef

Titel: Performance Management as a Part of the Management Control System
verfasst von: Claudia Presti
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Integrating Performance and Risk in a Management Control System
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87081-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-87082-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87082-9_3