1. Introduction
The practice of performance evaluation (PE) guides organizational actors to achieve objectives and to maintain or improve performance through interactive activities involving organizational performance measurement and management [1,2]. With globalization, changes around the world and technological advances, the context in which PE is used has been affected, and new trends, types of business, processes and innovations must be considered by managers [3,4]. From the perspective of measurement and management, frameworks and performance evaluation systems (PESs) are guided by the organizational context and established strategies [5,6,7], aiming, among other functions, at continuous improvement [8,9].
Through the use of PESs, performance information is generated and enables the control of actions, as well as communication, in addition to monitoring, planning and action taking [8,10,11]. For managers, it is important that the information obtained is updated, adequate and accessible [12], which requires constant reviewing and adjusting of the system [2,13] and the use of tools and technologies that facilitate the visibility, communication and accessibility of the volume of information generated by the PES [14,15]. Within a dynamic and turbulent scenario, it is necessary that the PESs incorporate a variety of performance metrics, which have the function of providing information about all aspects that can influence organizational performance, reducing uncertainties in the environment, and, thus, supplying assistance for decision-making [16]. It is emphasized then that the measurement and management systems feed each other and form an interactive process in the organizational context [1].
The first scientific academic records of the practice of measuring performance by managers in the organizational context relate to factories using information from production cost and productivity measures [17,18]. With changes in organizational structures and businesses, and with the aim of keeping the organization competitive in a globalized and dynamic market [3,4], a PES needs to be holistic in terms of both measurement and management.
In this vein, a representative number of works have been published [19], with proposals for frameworks [6,7], with an emphasis on the lifecycle of the PES [20,21], and on the consequences generated by the implementation of a PES [22,23,24,25], among others. However, management-related aspects are incipient and insufficient [19,26]. Thus, there is a lack of studies addressing aspects that are relevant to management in an integrated way, as well as research that explores the prospects of PE in the long term in the organizational context, that is, the sustainability of the PES. Holzer et al. (2019) [27] present the concept of sustainability in the PE context and highlight its importance as a way to institutionalize (incorporate) the use of performance information and promote the maintenance of the system’s useful life.
Within this context, Holzer et al. (2019) [27] suggest examining the issue through the ‘sustainability’ of the system. In this way, they present the concept of sustainability in relation to PE and highlight its importance, as it is a way of institutionalizing (incorporating) the use of performance information and promoting the maintenance of the system’s useful life and the continuous improvement of organizational performance.
Prompted by the need for a means of supporting organizational performance management (OPM) and the theoretical proposal suggested by [27], the authors argue that a synthesis of the literature, guided by the elements/aspects that form these two theoretical contributions, can offer insights that contribute to OPM activities, justifying an integrative review. Thus, the objective of exploring the scientific literature emerges, in the form of an integrative review, to show how the process of institutionalizing the ‘sustainability’ of the PES contributes to OPM. For the selection of scientific articles, which will serve as a database for the integrative analysis [28], the Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist instrument is used [29,30].
The main contribution of this study is made theoretically through the proposal that the ‘sustainability’ of the PES is capable of helping OPM. More specifically, in this research, the authors present a contribution to the scientific community by formulating the concept of OPM, supported by the articles selected in the BP, which are theoretical works in the area of PE. In addition, the authors also provide descriptions (concepts) for the aspects identified as essential by [27] for the ‘sustainability’ of the PES. Thus, through the developed taxonomy, it is demonstrated how, effectively, the aspects of sustainability can be used, that is, through OPM. The integrated, holistic view is the management element that is most related to the ‘sustainability’ of the PES, and learning is the aspect of the idea of ‘sustainability’ that is most closely related to the concept of management. In this way, through the established relationships and the evolution of PE, as well as by offering definitions that help in the understanding of OPM concepts and ‘sustainability’, a new perspective of support for OPM is presented. In addition, this analysis also represents a practical contribution, given that the elements explored are considered essential for organizations to continue evolving and adhering to new market trends and technologies, such as the use of the Internet of Things (IoT), big data and other smart initiatives. It is noteworthy that this work is delimited to the content of the selected articles and also offers a theoretical perspective.
2. Methodology
To reach the objective of exploring the scientific literature in order to show how the process of institutionalizing the ‘sustainability’ of the PES contributes to OPM, an integrative review of this type of literature was carried out [28], using the intervention instrument Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist (ProKnow-C) [29,30,31], for the selection of the bibliographic portfolio (BP) that served as the basis for analysis.
ProKnow-C is a structured process of selection, identification and reflection regarding the characteristics of a strand of literature that, initially, aims to develop knowledge on the studied topic, according to the delimitations established by the researchers, and, later, transmit this knowledge, generated through analysis, criticism and contributions [31,32,33], based on the constructivist approach. It is thus aligned to the purpose of this research.
The ProKnow-C instrument was originally designed to help a researcher who does not have consolidated knowledge on a subject and/or who is faced with the questions: (i) where and how to select relevant studies on the topic [34]; (ii) how he can justify his scientific research, supported by relevant theoretical contributions [34,35]; and (iii) how to identify research gaps and formulate scientific research questions for future work [33]. Based on the generation of this initial knowledge, the process evolves through a constructivist bias, guiding the researcher to establish theoretical affiliation and analyse the selected articles and critically reflect on their alignment. Thus, the instrument is constantly growing and updating and is now composed of five stages: (i) selection of the BP; (ii) bibliometric analysis; (iii) a map of the literature; (iv) systemic analysis; and (v) the formulation of research suggestions [25]. In this research, step (i), the selection of the BP, will be developed (Figure 1). Additional information about BP selection and the characteristics of this BP are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B.
ProKnow-C has been used in qualitative studies, such as this one, by the scientific community, as can be seen in works by [36,37,38,39,40,41], among others.
The research process lasted eight months, from the initial search of the databases to the end of the article analysis. With the ProKnow-C operationalization, 39 articles were selected to compose the BP, which are used as the data for analysis. The selected studies can be identified in the references by asterisks at the end of each article’s reference.
The integrative literature review is a way of revisiting and criticizing publications based on ‘lenses’ and/or theoretical affiliations with which the subject has not yet been explored in order to generate new knowledge and perspectives. With the adoption of these ‘lenses’ and/or theoretical affiliations, the researcher reflects on and explores the literature (critical analysis), synthesizing it and presenting it through a taxonomy, research agenda, alternative models to the existing ones, or metatheory [28,42].
In this research, the literature will be presented in the forms of a taxonomy and a research agenda.
Thus, in the context of the integrative review, it is necessary to indicate the theoretical affiliation and the ‘lens’ that inform the exploration (critical analysis) of the literature. Here, the theoretical affiliation will be that of the guiding concept of OPM, built and presented in Section 3.2, and the ‘lens’ will be guided by the ‘sustainability’ concept of the PES, as proposed by Holzer et al. (2019) [27].
Figure 2 shows the process adopted for the development of the literature exploration (critical analysis). After the BP selection, the evolution of the PE area was presented, followed by the definition of the OPM guiding concept, and, later, a ‘lens’ was elaborated with the ‘sustainability’ of the PES concept, as proposed by [27], from which it was possible to identify its essential aspects and use them as a basis for exploration. With this, it was possible to demonstrate the relationship of the ‘lens’ with the guiding concept through the construction of a taxonomy.
The lens follows the concept of ‘sustainability’ proposed by [27] (2019, p. 139): ‘the sustainability of performance management is understood as the process of institutionalizing the use of performance information as a fundamental component that guides decisions and implies continuous adjustments and improvements’. Based on this, five aspects are considered essential for achieving the ‘sustainability’ of the PES.
The data processing was carried out by coding the articles that make up the BP, following the precepts of the grounded theory (GT). This methodology offers a systematic strategy for qualitative research, allowing the creation of new perspectives based on a grounded analysis of data [43]. In this study, the constructivist approach of GT will be used since the final result depends on the perception and experience of the researcher himself in his interaction with the data [44].
Codification is the fundamental process of GT, and it structures the entire analysis of the methodology. This strategy seeks to organize and integrate data, carefully analysing each piece of information and assigning meaning to it. This stage allows groups and relationships to be highlighted, initiating the construction of new perspectives on the topic [45]. In this study, coding was used to build the OPM guiding concept and relate it to the PES ‘sustainability’ lens, according to [27]. To accomplish this, in an electronic spreadsheet, all BP articles were coded, highlighting the elements that define OPM and the ‘lens’ aspects, enabling the construction of a taxonomy. Figure 3 illustrates the BP encoding process.
3. Results
3.1. The Evolution of Performance Evaluation
The evolution of the PE presents the 1980s as a milestone, when there was a change in the focus—which was, until then, on accounting metrics, decontextualized from internal demands [18]—to a vision of the use of multidimensional ad hoc [7] metrics [6,9,11,17,46,47] oriented towards the achievement of organizational strategy [3,13,17,48].
Around the 1990s, models began to emerge that connected the strategies of organizations and their operations, which presented itself as a great innovation [49]. Thus, models and frameworks were created to measure performance, enabling organizational strategic alignment, and seeking integrated solutions or answers to the specific problems of organizations [12,13,14,21,50].
From the 2000s onwards, the focus of PE was given to management, with a view to improving organizational performance and learning [14]. In this period, the need arose to understand how PE and PESs evolved in order to meet the new business structure, such as collaborative organizations, networks, and open innovation environments, in addition to the change in perspective regarding the knowledge age [3], servitization, and new technologies accompanied by the demand for sustainability [4]. Thus, management and performance measurement adopted the systems of systems (SoS) vision [19,51] to meet these settings beyond individual organizations.
Thus, to evaluate organizational performance, it is important to define the processes, characteristics and functions [10] necessary and sufficient for the context. As a reflection of this, a PES will contemplate, in its conception, metrics that would enable the operationalization of the defined strategy [8]. These metrics must meet the fundamental properties of objectivity and accuracy [52]. Thus, organizational characteristics and their context, sector and priorities are part of the essential factors for the system design [13,21,31], along with the dimensions that interfere with organizational performance, such as elements related to human resources [23]. Corroborating this, PESs allow for an organizational PE in a holistic way [5], so their complexity must be evaluated [53] through the analysis of their impact and the strategies that really add value to the organization [54].
In addition to the design steps, as well as the implementation and use of the PES lifecycle, it is necessary to incorporate a fourth step of reviewing and updating the system to ensure its alignment and relevance with the strategy, allowing the incorporation of changes [20]. In this sense, the long-term sustainability of the system becomes important [27]. As a way to facilitate its management, tools have emerged that provide this process [15,55].
The PE that, until then, was related to technical controls (the definition of metrics, goals, data collection, analysis and transmission of performance information) began to incorporate, in a complementary way, social controls linked to culture and behavioural routines that influence how measurement is used to manage performance in an organization [24]. It is possible to observe the evolution of PE from the perspective of theoretical articles in Figure 4.
Performance is achieved as the people involved in the process interact in their routine, transforming abstract ideas into concrete actions. The PE, as a management activity, can change organizational routines through the feedback and feedforward processes that will guide organizational changes before the action occurs [56]. The PES becomes a tool capable of influencing people’s behaviour, developing organizational capacities and, therefore, improving their performance [57]. From a behavioural point of view, a PES’s success depends not only on the commitment of senior management but also on the involvement and motivation of other employees [21].
Figure 4Evolution of performance evaluation. Source: Prepared by the authors.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Due to organizational reconfiguration and the evolution of information and communication technologies, organizations generate and need to process an increasing amount of data. Tools that support information management become more necessary, helping to collect, compile and present information from various sources [15,55].
PE is understood, then, as a system composed of two subsystems—performance measurement and management [2]—that operate interactively in a virtuous cycle.
3.2. Organizational Performance Management as a Guiding Concept
From the perspective of PE, management comprises an integrated set of organizational processes and practices that seek, considering the context and its particularities, to put into use the information generated by the measurement of performance to monitor the impact on organizational culture and people’s behaviour as well as systems and processes to then support decision-making, stimulating organizational learning and providing opportunities for resource allocation, information management and the transmission of performance results. This concept was built based on the authors’ interpretation of the contributions to management identified in the BP. In this sense, Table 1 presents this interpretation of each of the elements that make up the constructed management concept.
To better explain the authors’ interpretation in their analysis, it is noteworthy that, with regard to the presented OPM elements, the references attributed to each of them represent a relationship between the content of the articles and the identified element and are not necessarily a direct mention of these elements in the articles. Thus, the definition of each of the aspects was elaborated based on the authors’ understanding, reflection and knowledge generation through reading and critical analysis, as previously described in the methodology section. As an example, there were references that supported the construction of the definition of the ‘process’ element and helped in the generation of knowledge about management as a process, that is, a continuous action that requires a continuous sequence of actions with regularity and development. Thus, the same process was completed to define the other elements.
3.3. Analysis of Lens Aspects in Relation to the Elements of the Guiding Concept
Table 2 shows the relationship between the aspects that determine the ‘sustainability’ of the PES, which are listed in the first column, with the elements that make up the concept of OPM, which are provided in the first row. Thus, the closer to the bottom of the figure, the greater the number of aspects of the lens that are present in the concept. This can also be seen through the increase in the intensity of the yellow colour when approaching the bottom line of the figure. It is noteworthy that only the articles that made contributions to the management aspects were analysed in relation to the ‘sustainability’ lens.
The aspects of ‘learning’, ‘culture’ and ‘human factor’ are the most present in the concept of OPM because they are related to most of the inherent elements, with ‘learning’ present in all these elements. Another important point to note is that the ‘holistic/integrated vision’ element encompasses all aspects that determine the ‘sustainability’ of the PES.
More specifically, the presence of learning in the OPM concept is due to the fact that it is a consequence of all the elements present. On the other hand, the relationship of the ‘holistic/integrated view’ with all aspects of the lens is present within this perspective, considering that all dimensions of the organization must be seen and analysed in an integrated way, including the aspects mentioned in the lens.
The analysis summary of the articles can be viewed in Figure 5.
3.3.1. System-Related Resources
The elements necessary for the institutionalization of the ‘sustainability’ of the PES include the design, maintenance and useful life of this system. The system needs to rely on the support of tools and technologies that enable the use of the information generated during decision-making.
To ensure the relevance of the system’s metrics and goals, it is necessary to introduce periodic review and update processes that keep the PES aligned with the strategy and environment. The use of information to constantly challenge the current strategy is a way to generate organizational learning and encourage continuous improvement.
3.3.2. Technical Factors
Technical factors give PES the ability to collect and analyse data, transmit information and highlight the need for adjustments in organizational behaviour and routine, thus helping the decision-making process. To this end, the system must have integrated information from feedback and feedforward, which identify and signal corrective actions when necessary and can affect the direction of change in organizational processes. The flow of information must occur in an integrated manner internally between departments, teams and individuals, and between partner organizations to reduce the incidence of problems and encourage organizational learning.
3.3.3. Human Factor
Performance measurement and management practices influence people’s behaviour and, consequently, affect organizational performance. The technical and the human factors must be viewed in an interconnected way since one has the power to influence the other. Thus, importance should be given to management practices that encourage the participation and engagement of people both in the use of a PES and in its management, stimulating the development of the desired organizational culture. Corroborating this, it is important to build a communication channel that encourages employee involvement.
3.3.4. Culture
Just as the human factor impacts organizational culture, culture influences the behaviour of individuals. To take advantage of this influence, the culture must be aligned with the organizational context and its objectives and with PES. Similarly, PES can influence organizational culture, especially with regard to the continuous improvement of organizations’ performance. Therefore, it is important that the organizational culture encourages the use of PES, especially regarding the use and sharing of performance information, which is made available by the system, stimulating the action of feedback and feedforward. It will be the regular discussions based on this information that help to embed the practice of PE in the organizational culture. In this sense, it is noted that culture can contribute to OPM in several ways, either through its influence on the behaviour of individuals, in routines and management practices through internal and external communication, for example, in the visualization of the organization in a holistic/integrated way, in the strategic alignment of the organization, or in the proposition of continuous improvement.
3.3.5. Learning
Through the information generated by the measurement activity, managers have the knowledge and assistance to analyse the results obtained and organize the conduct of the communication and dialogue process with people, generating individual and organizational knowledge, and to plan and implement the necessary actions and verify whether the adopted practices lead to the organizational objectives. Learning also occurs through motivations for employees’ behaviour and in the interactions between the social and technical dimensions. Thus, it can be a success factor in the use of PES.
In conclusion, considering that the PE is composed of the interaction between the measurement and performance management subsystems, and based on the evolution of the PE and the observation that the management aspects are incipient and few works in the scientific literature explore it, this study adopted the PES concept of ‘sustainability’, proposed by [27], in order to assist OPM. Thus, it was found that the five aspects that lead to the maintenance of the useful life of the PES and, consequently, the sustainability of these systems can contribute to the OPM. By exploring how these aspects contribute to the seven elements that make up the OPM, it was noted that the ‘use of information’ is present in all aspects of the sustainability of the PES, as it is able to boost management, and is a common component and the link between the sustainability aspects of PES and the elements of OPM.
4. Final Considerations
This study aimed to explore the scientific literature, in the form of an integrative review, in order to show how the process of institutionalizing the ‘sustainability’ of the PES contributes to OPM. Conducting an integrative review on PE, considered a mature topic in the literature, was a way of exploring publications on the subject, but with a focus on OPM. Therefore, the idea proposed by [27] for the elaboration of a ‘lens’ using the concept of the ‘sustainability’ of the PES meant it was possible to identify the essential aspects and employ them as a new way of exploring the literature in order to generate new knowledge and perspectives on the subject. The explored bibliographic portfolio made it possible to present the evolution of the PE area (Figure 4), the elaboration of the OPM guiding concept and the development of a ‘lens’ using the concept of the ‘sustainability’ of the PES and its essential aspects. These constructions enabled the elaboration of a taxonomy (Table 2) that correlates the aspects of the lens with the elements of the guiding concept based on the analysis of the articles that explore or present contributions to the management activity due to the lack of a deepening of this activity in the consulted literature.
Among the findings, it was found that one element of the OPM concept, the ‘holistic/integrated view’, encompasses all aspects that determine the ‘sustainability’ of the PES. Thus, based on the lens of ‘sustainability’, the aspects related to management were discussed and synthesized (Figure 5), where it was found that the ‘use of information’ is the link between the understanding of OPM and the ‘sustainability’ of the PES.
It should be noted that the criticism and the synthesis made it possible to highlight gaps. The main one is related to the need for works that explore the contribution of ‘culture’ in encouraging the ‘continuous process’ of organizational management. There was also a lack of studies or even inconclusive analyses in the investigation of the following factors: (i) incorporation of aspects related to the ‘human factor’, ‘culture’ and ‘organizational learning’ as well as the ‘context and strategic alignment’ and the ‘holistic/integrated view’ of performance management; and (ii) the contribution of the ‘human factor’ and ‘culture’ to the ‘continuous improvement’ of organizational performance. In this sense, the questions presented in Table 3 are suggested as a research agenda.
This research contributes theoretically by presenting an OPM concept, a topic that is still incipient in the literature, as demonstrated in the evolution of PE (Figure 4). Until now, research has mainly been directed at the need to collect performance information through the design of PESs and the elaboration of frameworks. In this article, the essential elements for the use of this information to be incorporated in organizations are identified, as well as the ‘sustainability’ of the PES, in addition to how these elements interact with the OPM essential elements and provide assistance for management support. By presenting the relationship between the elements through the taxonomy presented in Table 2, a practical contribution is also generated since it provides a perspective on ‘how’ managers can obtain the use of the information incorporated in the organization, and not just ‘what’ should be considered. This analysis also benefits managers and society by highlighting the elements that must be considered fundamental in organizations: culture and behaviour, routines and practices, strategic alignment, decision-making, continuous improvement, system-related resources, technical factors, human factors, culture, and learning. It is necessary to consider that, without achieving good performance regarding these factors, there will possibly be more resistance in the implementation of new actions and, consequently, wasted cost, knowledge and rework will be generated. For an organization to be able to incorporate the use of new technologies, such as big data, IoT and even more modern software, a favourable culture must be created and nurtured, with standardized and optimized processes, where employees are able to operate such tools and understand and support the philosophy of continuous improvement. In this sense, the implementation of innovations in the organizational context, whether in products, processes, or the business model itself, must always be accompanied by an integrated vision and strategic alignment for assertive decision-making so that the useful life of these actions is supported by the aspects necessary for the ‘sustainability’ of the PES. As a final word, the authors argue that this investigation offers a new guiding perspective for OPM. To carry out the research, a delimitation was made regarding the selection of BP in two databases and the consideration of only theoretical articles on the subject. This research focused on the development of a theoretical proposal on how to support OPM through elements that ensure the ‘sustainability’ of the PES. Thus, the manuscript does not present an operationalization of these elements through the development of a case study, nor does it contemplate the proposal of a framework. Thus, in terms of future research, in addition to the research agenda proposed in Table 3, it is suggested that empirical studies should be carried out that help in the generation of knowledge regarding the contribution of the ‘sustainability’ of the PES to the OPM.
All authors contributed to several aspects of the study, specifically, conceptualization, S.R.E., K.T.R., L.J.M.Y. and J.C.d.S.; methodology, S.R.E., K.T.R., L.J.M.Y. and J.C.d.S.; validation, S.R.E. and A.A.L.; formal analysis, K.T.R., L.J.M.Y. and J.C.d.S.; investigation, S.R.E., K.T.R., L.J.M.Y., J.C.d.S. and A.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.R.E., K.T.R., L.J.M.Y. and J.C.d.S.; writing—review and editing, S.R.E. and A.A.L.; supervision, S.R.E. and A.A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors wish to thank the Brazilian governmental agencies CAPES and CNPq for financial assistance.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Process of validating the accuracy of integrative review information. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Synthesis of the analysis in relation to the ‘sustainability’ lens. Source: Prepared by the authors.
Definition of OPM concept elements. Source: Prepared by the authors.
| Element | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|
| Process | Related to considering management as a process. | [ |
| Culture and behaviour | Related to organizational culture, social aspects, people’s behaviour, and the way in which this impacts organizational learning. | [ |
| Routines and practices | Related to all routines and management practices, such as the elaboration of metrics and action strategy, internal and external communication, among others. | [ |
| Holistic/integrated view | Related to considering the organizational dimensions in an integrated way, as well as performing the organization evaluation holistically. | [ |
| Context and strategic alignment | Related to considering the particularities of the organization in order to enable its strategic alignment. | [ |
| Decision-making | Related to all aspects that feed decision-making, such as resource allocation, information management, and knowledge, among others. | [ |
| Continuous improvement | Related to the improvement and sustainability of organizational performance and its system. | [ |
Taxonomy of the aspects of the ‘sustainability’ of the PES with the elements of the OPM concept. Source: Prepared by the authors.
| Process | Culture and Behaviour | Routines and Practices | Integrated Holistic Vision | Context and Strategic Alignment | Decision-Making | Continuous Improvement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System-related resources | [ |
[ |
[ |
||||
| Technical factors | [ |
[ |
[ |
||||
| Human factor | [ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
|||
| Culture | [ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
||
| Learning | [ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
[ |
Research agenda on OPM and the ‘sustainability’ of the PES. Source: Prepared by the authors.
| Elements of Organizational Performance Management | Research Agenda |
|---|---|
| Process |
|
| Integrated/holistic vision |
|
| Context and strategic alignment |
|
| Continuous improvement |
|
Appendix A. Process of Selection of the Bibliographic Portfolios (BP) on Performance Evaluation (PE)
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]
Appendix B. Summary of Journals Selected in the Bibliographic Portfolios on Performance Evaluation
| Journals | Frequency |
| International Journal of Operations & Production Management | 8 |
| International Journal of Business Performance Management | 4 |
| International Journal of Management Reviews | 4 |
| International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management | 4 |
| Management Accounting Research | 4 |
| International journal of Production Research | 3 |
| Production Planning & Control | 2 |
| Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior | 1 |
| Computer Standards & Interfaces | 1 |
| Computers & Industrial Engineering | 1 |
| International Journal of Accounting Information Systems | 1 |
| International Journal of Production Economics | 1 |
| International Journal of Public Administration | 1 |
| Journal of Operations Management | 1 |
| Measuring Business Excellence | 1 |
| SpringerPlus | 1 |
| The British Accounting Review | 1 |
References
1. Lebas, M.J. Performance measurement and performance management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 1995; 41, pp. 23-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0925-5273(95)00081-X]
2. Melnyk, S.A.; Bititci, U.; Platts, K.; Tobias, J.; Andersen, B. Is performance measurement and management fit for the future?. Manag. Account. Res.; 2014; 25, pp. 173-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.007]
3. Bititci, U.S.; Garengo, P.; Dörfler, V.; Nudurupati, S. Performance measurement: Challenges for tomorrow. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2012; 14, pp. 305-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00318.x]
4. Busi, M.; Bititci, U.S. Collaborative performance management: Present gaps and future research. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag.; 2006; 55, pp. 7-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400610635471]
5. Ferreira, A.; Otley, D.T. The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Manag. Account. Res.; 2009; 20, pp. 263-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003]
6. Kennerley, M.; Neely, A. A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2002; 22, pp. 1222-1245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450293]
7. Neely, A.; Gregory, M.; Platts, K. Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 1995; 15, pp. 80-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622]
8. Franco-Santos, M.; Kennerley, M.; Micheli, P.; Martinez, V.; Mason, S.; Marr, B.; Gray, D.; Neely, A. Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2007; 27, pp. 784-801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570710763778]
9. Otley, D. Extending the boundaries of management accounting research: Developing systems for performance management. Br. Account. Rev.; 2001; 33, pp. 243-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0168]
10. Martins, V.A.; Ensslin, S.R. Performance evaluation: What theoretical studies highlight about this theme. Int. J. Bus. Perf. Manag.; 2020; 21, pp. 455-476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2020.110828]
11. Melnyk, A.S.; Stewart, D.M.; Swink, M. Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: Dealing with the metrics maze. J. Oper. Manag.; 2004; 22, pp. 209-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.004]
12. Nudurupati, S.S.; Bititci, U.S.; Kumar, V.; Chan, F.T. State-of-the-art literature review on performance measurement. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2011; 60, pp. 279-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.11.010]
13. Bourne, M.; Neely, A.; Mills, J.; Platts, K. Implementing performance measurement systems: A literature review. Int. J. Bus. Perf. Manag.; 2003; 5, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2003.002097]
14. Bititci, U.S.; Garengo, P.; Ates, A.; Nudurupati, S. Value of maturity models in performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 3062-3085. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970709]
15. Yigitbasioglu, O.M.; Velcu, O. A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst.; 2012; 13, pp. 41-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002]
16. Rikhardsson, P.; Wendt, S.; Arnardóttir, A.A.; Sigurjónsson, T.O. Is more really better? Performance measure variety and environmental uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag.; 2021; 70, pp. 1446-1469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-11-2019-0539]
17. Carneiro-Da-Cunha, J.A.; Hourneaux, F., Jr.; Corrêa, H.L. Evolution and chronology of the organizational performance measurement field. Int. J. Bus. Perf. Manag.; 2016; 17, pp. 223-240.
18. Ghalayini, A.M.; Noble, J.S. The changing basis of performance measurement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 1996; 16, pp. 63-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579610125787]
19. Choong, K.K. Has this large number of performance measurement publications contributed to its better understanding? A systematic review for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2014; 52, pp. 4174-4197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.866285]
20. Bourne, M.; Mills, J.; Wilcox, M.; Nelly, A.; Platts, K. Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2000; 20, pp. 754-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010330739]
21. Franco-Santos, M.; Bourne, M. An examination of the literature relating to issues affecting how companies manage through measures. Prod. Plan. Cont.; 2005; 16, pp. 114-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280512331333020]
22. Beer, H.A.; Micheli, P. Advancing performance measurement theory by focusing on subjects: Lessons from the measurement of social value. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2018; 20, pp. 755-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12175]
23. Franco-Santos, M.; Otley, D. Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2018; 20, pp. 696-730. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12183]
24. Smith, M.; Bititci, U.S. Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee engagement and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2017; 37, pp. 1207-1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0313]
25. Welter, L.M.; Ensslin, S.R. How do the unintended consequences of performance evaluation systems manifest themselves?. J. Account. Org. Chang.; 2022; 18, pp. 509-528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-07-2020-0087]
26. Neely, A. The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next?. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 1999; 19, pp. 205-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579910247437]
27. Holzer, M.; Ballard, A.; Kim, M.; Peng, S.; Deat, F. Obstacles and opportunities for sustaining performance management systems. Int. J. Pub. Admin.; 2019; 42, pp. 132-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1405445]
28. Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.; 2005; 4, pp. 356-367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283]
29. Lacerda, R.T.O.; Ensslin, L.; Ensslin, S.R. Research opportunities in strategic management field: A performance measurement approach. Int. J. Bus. Perf. Manag.; 2014; 15, pp. 158-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2014.060165]
30. Dutra, A.; Ripoll-Feliu, V.M.; Fillol, A.G.; Ensslin, S.R.; Ensslin, L. The construction of knowledge from the scientific literature about the theme seaport performance evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag.; 2015; 64, pp. 243-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2014-0015]
31. Ensslin, S.R.; Welter, L.M.; Pedersini, D.R. Performance evaluation: A comparative study between public and private sectors. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag.; 2022; 71, pp. 1761-1785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2020-0146]
32. Staedele, A.E.; Ensslin, S.R.; Forcellini, F.A. Knowledge building about performance evaluation in lean production: An investigation on international scientific research. J. Manufac. Technol. Manag.; 2019; 30, pp. 798-820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2017-0277]
33. Thiel, G.G.; Ensslin, S.R.; Ensslin, L. Street lighting management and performance evaluation: Opportunities and challenges. Lex Localis.; 2017; 15, pp. 303-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4335/15.2.303-328(2017)]
34. Tasca, J.E.; Ensslin, L.; Ensslin, S.R.; Alves, M.B.M. An approach for selecting a theoretical framework for the evaluation of training programs. J. Eur. Ind. Train.; 2010; 34, pp. 631-655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591011070761]
35. Ensslin, L.; Ensslin, S.R.; Pinto, H.M. Processo de Investigação e Análise Bibliométrica: Avaliação da Qualidade dos Serviços Bancários. RAC Rev. Adm. Contemporânea; 2013; 17, pp. 325-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552013000300005]
36. Bonatto, F.; Resende, L.M.M.; Betim, L.M.; Pereira, R.S.; Agner, T.V. Performance management in horizontal business networks: A systematic review. IFAC-PapersOnLine; 2015; 48, pp. 1827-1833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.352]
37. Loos, M.J.; Merino, E.; Rodriguez, C.M.T. Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics within logistics. Scientometrics; 2016; 109, pp. 85-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1960-z]
38. Linhares, J.E.; Pessa, S.L.R.; Bortoluzzi, S.C.; Luz, R.P. Capacidade para o trabalho e envelhecimento funcional: Análise sistêmica da literatura utilizando o Proknow-C (Knowledge Development Process—Constructivist). Ciencia Saude Coletiva; 2019; 24, pp. 53-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018241.00112017]
39. Mite-Albán, M.T.M. Estrategias de contabilidad de gestión aplicada a pymes revisión literaria. Rev. Lasallista Investigación; 2018; 15, pp. 256-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22507/rli.v15n2a20]
40. Stefano, N.M.; Casarotto Filho, N. Activity-based costing in services: Literature bibliometric review. SpringerPlus; 2013; 2, 80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-80]
41. Tuesta, Y.N.; Solera, C.C.; Ripoll-Feliu, V.M. Bibliometric and systemic analysis of the relationship between management and carbon. Cuadernos Gestión; 2022; 22, pp. 215-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5295/cdg.211442yn]
42. Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: Update methodology. J. Adv. Nurs.; 2005; 52, pp. 546-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16268861]
43. Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Soc.; 1990; 13, pp. 3-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593]
44. Charmaz, K. The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qual. Inq.; 2017; 23, pp. 34-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105]
45. Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis; 1st ed. SAGE: London, UK, 2006; pp. 42-70.
46. Goshu, Y.Y.; Kitaw, D. Performance measurement and its recent challenge: A literature review. Int. J. Bus. Perf. Manag.; 2017; 18, pp. 381-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2017.087103]
47. Van Looy, A.; Shafagatova, A. Business process performance measurement: A structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. SpringerPlus; 2016; 5, 1797. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3498-1]
48. Van Camp, J.; Braet, J. Taxonomizing performance measurement systems’ failures. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag.; 2016; 65, pp. 672-693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2015-0054]
49. Taticchi, P.; Tonelli, F.; Cagnazzo, L. Performance measurement and management: A literature review and a research agenda. Measur. Bus. Excel.; 2010; 14, pp. 4-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683041011027418]
50. Domínguez, E.; Pérez, B.; Rubio, A.L.; Zapata, M.A. A taxonomy for key performance indicators management. Comput. Stand. Interf.; 2019; 64, pp. 24-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2018.12.001]
51. Bourne, M.; Franco-Santos, M.; Micheli, P.; Pavlov, A. Performance measurement and management: A system of systems perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2018; 56, pp. 2788-2799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1404159]
52. Micheli, P.; Mari, L. The theory and practice of performance measurement. Manag. Account. Res.; 2014; 25, pp. 147-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.005]
53. Okwir, S.; Nudurupati, S.S.; Ginieis, M.; Angelis, J. Performance measurement and management systems: A perspective from complexity theory. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2018; 20, pp. 731-754.
54. Pulakos, E.D.; Mueller-Hanson, R.; Arad, S. The evolution of performance management: Searching for value. Annu. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav.; 2019; 6, pp. 249-271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015009]
55. Martinez, V.; Pavlov, A.; Bourne, M. Reviewing performance: An analysis of the structure and functions of performance management reviews. Prod. Plan. Cont.; 2010; 21, pp. 70-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280903317049]
56. Pavlov, A.; Bourne, M. Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance: An organizational routines perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2011; 31, pp. 101-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571111098762]
57. Franco-Santos, M.; Lucianetti, L.; Bourne, M. Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag. Account. Res.; 2012; 23, pp. 79-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Rodrigues, Kassia Tonheiro 1
; Luiz Junior Maemura Yoshiura 1
; Carvalho da Silva, Jessica 1 ; André Andrade Longaray 2
1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Campus Trindade, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis CEP 88040-900, SC, Brazil
2 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Modelagem Computacional, Campus Carreiros, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande CEP 96203-900, RS, Brazil