Moving from performance measurement to

0 downloads 0 Views 203KB Size Report
David Baldry is a Lecturer, both at the School of ..... Aditya Parida Department of Operation & Maintenance Engineering, LuleÃ¥ University of Technology, LuleÃ¥, ...
Facilities Moving from performance measurement to performance management Dilanthi AmaratungaDavid Baldry

Article information: To cite this document: Dilanthi AmaratungaDavid Baldry, (2002),"Moving from performance measurement to performance management", Facilities, Vol. 20 Iss 5/6 pp. 217 - 223 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770210426701 Downloaded on: 23 May 2016, At: 09:16 (PT) References: this document contains references to 32 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12488 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

(1995),"Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 80-116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622 (1997),"Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp. 522-534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579710167230 (1996),"Towards consistent performance management systems", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 Iss 7 pp. 27-37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579610119144

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:422267 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Performance measurement and its applications within facilities management

Moving from performance measurement to performance management Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

The authors Dilanthi Amaratunga is Research Fellow and David Baldry is a Lecturer, both at the School of Construction and Property Management, The University of Salford, Salford, UK. Keywords Facilities management, Performance measurement, Performance management Abstract In order for a facilities management (FM) organisation to make effective use of the results of performance measurement it must be able to make the transition from measurement to management. It must also be able to anticipate needed changes in the strategic direction of the organisation and have a methodology in place for effecting strategic change. Successful accomplishment of these two tasks represents the foundation of good performance management. This paper explores baselines for moving from performance measurement to performance management and provides a discussion of how the FM performance assessment can be used to manage the FM function effectively. Electronic access The research register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . pp. 217±223 # MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/02632770210426701

Performance measurement is an established concept that has taken on renewed importance in varieties of organisations (Camarata and Camarata, 2000). Performance measurement systems historically developed as a means of monitoring and maintaining organisational control which is the process of ensuring that an organisation pursues strategies that lead to the achievement of overall goals and objectives (Nani et al., 1990). In attempting to change the focus of an organisation, Brignall (1992) suggests that performance measurement is a key agent of change. The development of performance measurement in management has followed a path that has been influenced by the general push to improve quality and service, in addition to meeting cost parameters. For many organisations, the justification has been acknowledged by senior management that a lack of appropriate performance measurement can act as a barrier to change and improvement. Bititcti et al. (2000) identify that performance measurement needs to have the following characteristics: . being sensitive to changes in the external and internal environment of an organisation; . reviewing and reprioritising internal objectives when the changes in the external and internal environment are significant enough; . deploying the changes to internal objectives and priorities to critical parts of the organisation, thus ensuring alignment at all times; and . ensuring that gains achieved through improvement programmes are maintained. As emphasised by Amaratunga et al. (2001), there has been a growing interest in performance measurement throughout FM. Alexander (1996) identifies FM measurement of performance as one of ``three essential issues for the effective implementation of a facilities strategy''. Performance measurement in FM is becoming increasingly important both for reasons of justification to general management and to support management and practice within the FM organisation, and various authors have suggested different

217

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

mechanisms (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2000a, b; Amaratunga et al., 2000; Featherstone, 1999; Willimas, 1994; Preiser, 1995; British Institute of Facilities Management, 2000; Belcher, 1997; Varcoe, 1996a, b; Douglas, 1994; Murphy, 1999; Hinks and McNay, 1999; Simpson, 1998).

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

Performance measurement and performance management As identified above, measurement provides the basis for an organisation to assess how well it is progressing towards its predetermined objectives, helps to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses, and decides on future initiatives, with the goal of improving organisational performance. Measurement is not an end in itself, but a tool for more effective management. Results of performance measurement indicated what happened, not why it happened, or what to do about it. In order for an organisation to make effective use of its performance measurement outcomes it must be able to make the transition from measurement to management. It must also be able to anticipate needed changes in the strategic direction of the organisation and have a methodology in place for effecting strategic change. This concept is identified as performance management in performance measurement literature. Procurement Executives' Association (1999) defines performance management as: ``the use of performance measurement information to effect positive change in organisational culture, systems and processes, by helping to set agreed-upon performance goals, allocating and prioritising resources, informing managers to either confirm or change current policy or programme directions to meet those goals, and sharing results of performance in pursuing those goals''. Organisations which do not integrate ongoing performance measurement and feedback into their management development programmes tend to experience lower than expected performance improvements and higher dissatisfaction and turnover (Longenecker and Fink, 2001). It must also be possible to anticipate needed changes in the strategic direction of the organisation, and have a methodology in place for effecting strategic change. Successful

accomplishment of these two tasks represents the foundation of good performance management. Thus, performance management provides organisations the opportunity to refine and improve their development activities. Performance management programmes provide feedback based on specifics rather than generalisations and are based on specific objectives derived from the desired outcome of performance measurement results.

Performance management in facilities management Sink (1991) suggests that performance measurement is a ``mystery . . . complex, frustrating, difficult, challenging, important, abused and misused'' function. The level of performance a business attains is a function of the efficiency and effectiveness of the actions it undertakes, and thus: performance measurement can be defined as the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of an action. Zairi (1994) identifies that performance measurement has been the systematic assignment of a number of activities. He further suggested that the function of measurement is to develop a method for generating a class of information that will be useful in a wide variety of problems and situations. The contribution made by FM will be judged by an organisation's stakeholders over a wide range of performance criteria including the hard metrics of finance and economics. FM is seen to be able to contribute to performance of organisations in many ways, including strategy, culture, control of resources, service delivery, supply chain management and, perhaps most importantly, the management of change. Today's organisations constantly review the composition of their core business and the way it operates (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1993). Therefore, clear attention must be paid both to the effective maintenance of support systems and the culture of the organisation. In this context, it is suggested that a more holistic approach would be of benefit, one that emphasises the positive aspects resulting from the combination of influences of FM on all business functions. It was clear that good communication and building of commitment

218

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

was of the utmost importance. It was also very clear that the unique culture and existing organisational philosophy had to be incorporated into the FM performance measurement system for it to be viable, and closely aligned to this was a need to link performance measurements with the organisational strategy. FM is seen to have a direct impact on the bottom line, but there are many more little obvious and indirect ways in which facilities performance enables that of the wider organisation (Madeley, 1996). But, in businesses where facilities represent a visible key to the organisation's success, FM is becoming a strategic issue and it is necessary to demonstrate the nature of performance links which may be built between FM and other functions within the business, and where opportunities exist to promote synergy. In this context, the application of the performance management concept could be identified as a major task facing an FM organisation in attempting to introduce performance measurement systems and how to use them to influence future performance. As a facilities development manager of a facilities directorate of an NHS Trust situated in North West England described: Measurement is not an end to itself, but a tool for more effective management. The results of performance measurement in FM will tell you what happened, not why it happened, or what to do about it.

Performance management system goals Leading edge organisations seek to create an efficient and effective performance management system to (adapted from Procurement Executives' Association, 1999): . translate organisational vision into clear measurable outcomes that define success, and which are shared throughout the organisation and with customers and stakeholders; . provide a tool for assessing, managing, and improving the overall health and success of FM systems; . continue to shift from prescriptive, auditand compliance-based oversight to an ongoing, forward-looking strategic partnership; . include measures of quality, cost, speed, customer service, and employee alignment, motivation, and skills to

.

provide an in-depth, predictive performance management system; and replace existing assessment models with a consistent approach to performance management.

Leading organisations agree on the need for a performance management system which is a structured methodology for using performance measurement information to help set agreed-upon performance goals, allocate and prioritise resources, inform managers to either confirm or change correct policy or programme direction to meet those goals, and report on the success in meeting those goals (Procurement Executives' Association, 1999). In applying the performance management concept in FM environments, FM organisations, to make effective use of the results of performance assessment, must be able to make the transition from measurement to management. It is emphasised that to effectively move from performance measurement to performance management, the ability to use performance measurement results to actually bring about change in the FM organisation need to be in place (Amaratunga, 2001).

Using performance measurement results to effect change Establishing organisational improvement structures and procedures will help FM organisations to implement performance improvements, and to make a genuine commitment to performance management. After the FM organisation has analysed performance measurement results it may wish to consider establishing broad areas of performance targeted for improvement. With a performance management system, FM organisations can continually test their FM strategies, and it is like performing real-time research. This is exactly the capability that the performance management system should give facilities managers: the ability to know at any point in its implementation whether the strategy they have formulated is, in fact, working and, if not, why. To move effectively from performance measurement to performance management, two key components need to be in place:

219

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

(1) the right organisational structure which facilitates the effective use of performance measurement results; and (2) the ability to use performance measurement results to bring about change in the organisation. Accordingly, FM organisations need to be able to deploy a performance management programme, which includes such attributes as (adapted from Procurement Executives' Association, 1999): . leadership involvement in designing and deploying effective performance measurement and management systems; . effective and open communication between employees, stakeholders, and customers in order to share assessment results and any new initiatives to improve performance; . accountability of results which are clearly assigned and well understood; . compensation, rewards and recognition that are linked to performance measures; . targets that are linked to appraisals; and . a performance measurement system that is positive. Making constructive use of performance measurement results is critical if the FM organisation is to improve. Performance measures must provide intelligence for decision makers at all levels to assess towards achieving predetermined goals. Results of performance measurement must be properly analysed and understanding what a particular result really means is important in determining whether or not it is useful to the organisation. Data by themselves are not useful information but they can be when viewed from the context of FM organisational objectives and other factors. Proper analysis is imperative in determining whether or not performance indicators are effective and results are contributing to FM organisational objectives. Results must be used or no one will take them seriously (Neely, 1998), and this seems so obvious that it should not need to be stated. Nevertheless, FM performance assessments are often followed with little effective analysis of results or honest attempts at improved performance. Performance measurement results should be able to be used to determine gaps between specific strategic FM objectives and actual achievement. Whenever there is a gap

between current results and an FM organisation's strategic objectives, there is an opportunity for improvement. In addition to tracking progress on past results facilities managers can use the performance management concept to learn about the future. Managers gain the opportunity to discuss not only how they achieved past results but also whether their expectations for the future remain on track. If an FM organisation followed established strategies, but did not achieve target results, facilities managers then should examine internal capabilities and assess whether the underlying strategies remain valid. Based on such analyses, facilities managers may adjust or redirect their strategies or identify new strategies. This focus serves as a foundation for effective process improvement and risk management. It also completes a feedback loop that supports decision making at all levels of the FM organisation. An FM organisation can also use the performance measurement results and associated performance management systems to benchmark performance against other FM organisations. It also serves as one input for developing target goals. However, the strength of benchmarking is not in identifying best performance but in learning best practices. That is, the FM organisation should identify, study, analyse, and adapt the ``best practices'' that led to the ``best performance'' and understand the best practices that help facilities managers to make better-informed decisions about where and how to change their FM organisation. Once performance measurement results are correctly analysed, communicated to relevant parties, used for development of any corrective action and for revising performance measures as needed, effective performance management requires that the FM organisation considers strategic goals, that is, where it expects to be in the future, and to incorporate these goals into the performance management structure. Establishing organisational improvement structures and procedures will help to implement performance improvements and to make commitment to performance management. An FM organisation can further use the performance management data to support oversight and compliance activities. If performance measures are properly aligned with significant objectives, then review efforts

220

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

addressed through the performance management system should be focused where they will have the most benefit. Reviews should analyse the causes of concern and identify appropriate remedies. Performance management systems help to shift the emphasis to a risk-based approach that diagnoses systematic problems, evaluates effectiveness, and links performance to consequences in order to strike a proper balance between risk and return in FM activities. A performance management concept fits within the FM risk management framework by tying results to strategic vision and holding units accountable for results (adapted from Procurement Executives' Association, 1999). In addition to strategic feedback and learning, facilities managers can also use performance management systems to build a strong business case to support proposals for changes or requests for additional resources as it illuminates links between strategies, measures, and expected outcomes.

Performance management systems as an aid towards strategic development and learning In the model of creating a balanced business scorecard, a popular performance measurement and management framework (Kaplan and Norton, 1996), emphasised the role of the performance management process in the development of the organisation's strategy. Thus, the role which performance management systems may have as management control systems has received great attention including short- and long-term ventures, and how the organisation will develop competencies, markets, systems etc. Olve et al. (1999) believe that performance management systems can contribute to organisational learning in this way, and thus lead to the re-assessment of strategies. While it may be practical to link organisational strategy to some form of routine performance measurement elements, what an organisation learns may well lead it to reconsider more often what needs to be done. In this context, facilities strategy implies a purpose for which a direction is set over the long term (Alexander, 1994). It requires leadership and an understanding of the broader context in which facilities are

operated. Management means the professional and effective deployment of resources and being totally accountable for results which are measurable. It is important to realise that the organisational facilities function cannot exist in strategic isolation if the organisation is to effectively exploit its entire asset base to best support the delivery of core services. Accordingly, it was clear, in a study carried out by Amaratunga (2001), that FM has somewhat strategic importance. As an example of strategic FM in action, Amaratunga (2001) illustrates how, by focusing on the overall business objectives of an organisation, a facilities manager can manage its resources to complement the core organisation's long-term goals. It also highlighted the effectiveness of adopting a partnership approach. An FM organisation can take several steps to encourage support for performance management implementation efforts: . active communication at all levels, that is within the FM organisation and also among other organisational units; . develop FM organisational strategic goals; . demonstrate a clear need for improvement throughout the organisation; . break down any organisational barriers to learning and organisational improvement; . co-ordinate responsibilities among staff; . make attempts at implementing best practices; . offer training in improvement techniques and in other areas; . establish a reward and recognition system to foster performance improvements; . integrate the measurement systems into the organisation; and . change the corporate culture. Performance management could be a tool that lets the FM organisation track progress and direction towards strategic goals and objectives and should focus on whether the organisation has met its performance goals and targets. By creating a performance management environment at the centre of its management systems, an organisation will be able to evaluate organisational strategy in light of the recent performance. Performance management systems enable organisations to modify strategies to reflect real-time learning

221

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

and the implementation of performance management systems gives organisations the capacity for strategic learning. Creating learning organisations The process of performance management develops participation, awareness, a decentralised decision-making process, and responsibility for achieving the goals which have been formulated. As a consequence, there must be a goal-achievement analysis, in which the organisation draws conclusions about what it is doing well, what it is not doing so well, and what can be improved. Thus, one of the main purposes of the performance management concept is to develop a learning organisation culture where such systems may be seen as enablers of a circle of learning. The learning organisation is one of the many management concepts used in recent management literature. Pacitti (1998) describes a learning organisation as: ``a particular type of organisation whose structures and processes are aimed at enhancing learning''. In other words, a learning organisation improves an organisation's ability to react to, adapt to, and capitalise on changes in its internal and external situations. The use of the word ``learning'' is intended to underscore the focus performance management systems in this instance, but we need to remain cautious against believing that in the learning organisation it is primarily individual employees who learn from the performance measurement outcomes.

Maintaining the performance management knowledge repository One of the most important features of applications of performance management concept is that it is dynamic, that is, it allows for enhancements over time in light of changing circumstances (Procurement Executives' Association, 1999). While some measurement concepts may seem timeless, the ever-changing character of the nature of FM dictates that maintenance and continuous updating of a current measurement model be a priority. Thus, the performance management model needs to be updated periodically to reflect statutory changes and there may be a need to discard measures that have not proved useful, or to

modify existing core measures to enhance their utility. However, any system revisions need be made on a selective basis to ensure that the measurement framework permits FM organisations to gauge performance progress against a consistent baseline, and to ascertain and analyse meaningful trends.

Conclusion The primary function of any performance measurement system is to control organisational operations. It furnishes a language for describing expectations and performance, thus laying the foundation for discussion on how each individual can contribute to fulfilling the organisation's vision. Thus, the performance measurement systems provide a basis for determining the appropriate efforts in the overall balance and for communicating such efforts through management control. In this way, the use of performance measurement systems facilitates learning. The learning process places special emphasis on how different measures are interrelated. At both individual and organisational levels, a better understanding of the relationship between what is being done and how well the organisation succeeds will be developed. Of course it is crucial how the performance systems will actually be used. What is needed is an appropriate incentive structure and practical arrangements for handling the information generated, so that it becomes attractive and feasible to develop a set of good practices, thus transforming performance measurement to performance management. Through a performance management system an FM organisation monitors both its current performance (finances, customer satisfaction and business process results) and its efforts to improve processes, motivate and educate employees, and enhance information systems ± that is its ability to learn and improve. Implementing performance management concepts within FM organisations can have a profound financial and organisational impact on an enterprise. For a performance measurement system to become a management aid it should provide a structured methodology for using performance measurement information to help set agreed-upon performance goals,

222

Moving from performance measurement to performance management

Facilities Volume 20 . Number 5/6 . 2002 . 217±223

Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry

allocate and prioritise resources, inform management either to confirm or change current policy or set directions to meet these goals, and report on the success in meeting these goals.

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

References Alexander, K. (1994), ``A strategy for facilities management'', Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 11, pp. 6-10. Alexander, K. (Ed.) (1996), Facilities Management: Theory and Practice, E & FN Spon, London. Amaratunga, D. (2001), ``Theory building in facilities management performance measurement: application of some core performance measurement and management principles'', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Salford. Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000a), ``Assessment of facilities management performance ± what next?'', Facilities, Vol. 18 No. 1/2, pp. 66-76. Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000b), Performance Measurement of Higher Education Facilities: The Balanced Scorecard Approach, RICS Research Paper series, ISBN/ISSN ± 0953 3761 17. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2000), ``Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties'', Facilities, Vol. 18 No. 7/8, pp. 293-301. Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2001), ``Nature of facilities management performance and its relationships to the core business'', unpublished paper, The University of Salford. Belcher, R.G. (1997), ``Corporate objectives, facilities, measurement and use: a university model'', Proceedings of the RICS Cobra Conference, Portsmouth. Bititcti, U.S., Turner, T. and Begemann, C. (2000), ``Dynamics of performance measurement systems'', International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 692-704. Brignall, S. (1992), Performance Measurement Systems as Change Agents: a Case for Further Research, Warwick Business School Research Papers, No. 72, Warwick Business School Research Bureau, Warwick. British Institute of Facilities Management (2000), ``Facilities introduction'', (on-line serial). Available at http://bifm.org.uk Camarata, J.B. and Camarata, M.R. (2000), ``Towards an integrative model: performance measurement in not-for-profit organisations'', in Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement ± Past, Present and Future, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management. Douglas, J. (1994), ``Developments in appraising the total performance of buildings'', Structural Survey, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 10-15. Featherstone, P. (1999), ``The application of effective facilities management techniques to best optimise

the provision of community health services within community health care premises'', unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Salford. Hinks, J. and McNay, P. (1999), ``The creation of a management-by-variance tool for facilities management performance assessment'', Facilities, Vol. 17 No. 1/2, pp. 31-53. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Score Card, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Longenecker, C.O. and Fink, L.S. (2001), ``Improving management performance in rapidly changing organisations'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 7-18. Madeley, A. (1996), ``The performance of organisations and facilities management: an exploration into the opportunities afforded for facilities management to contribute toward corporate performance'', unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Strathclyde. Murphy, P. (1999), ``Service performance measurement using simple techniques actually works'', Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 56-73. Nani, A.J., Dixon, J.R. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), ``Strategic control and performance measurement'', Journal of Cost Management, Summer, pp. 33-42. Neely, A.D. (1998), Performance Measurement: Why, What and How, Economics Books, London. Olve, N., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999), Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Pacitti, B.J. (1998), ``Organisational learning in R&D organisations: a study of new product development projects'', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Preiser, W.F.E. (1995), ``Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better'', Facilities, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 19-28. Procurement Executives' Association (1999), Guide to a Balanced Scorecard Performance Management Methodology, Procurement Executives' Association. RICS (1993), Facilities Management: Fitting All the Pieces in a Changing World, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London. Simpson, E. (1998), ``Assessment of facilities management performance'', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Salford. Sink, D. (1991), ``The role of measurement in achieving world class quality and productivity management'', Industrial Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 6. Varcoe, B. (1996a), ``Business-driven facilities benchmarking'', Facilities, Vol. 14 No. 3/4, pp. 42-8. Varcoe, B. (1996b), ``Facilities performance measurement'', Facilities, Vol. 14 No. 10/11, pp. 46-51. Williams, B. (1994), Facilities Economics ± ``Incorporating Premises Audits'', Building Economics Bureau, London. Zairi, M. (1994), Measuring Performance for Business Results, Chapman & Hall, London.

223

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by: 1. Youchao Tan, Yang Zhang, Roohollah Khodaverdi. 2016. Service performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis and balance scorecard approach: an application to automotive industry. Annals of Operations Research . [CrossRef] 2. Norat Roig-Tierno, Kun-Huang Huarng, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano. 2016. Qualitative comparative analysis: Crisp and fuzzy sets in business and management. Journal of Business Research 69:4, 1261-1264. [CrossRef] 3. Umit Bititci, Paola Cocca, Aylin Ates. 2016. Impact of visual performance management systems on the performance management practices of organisations. International Journal of Production Research 54:6, 1571-1593. [CrossRef] 4. Cheong Peng Au-Yong Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Azlan Shah Ali Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Faizah Ahmad Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia . 2016. Enhancing building maintenance cost performance with proper management of spare parts. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 22:1, 51-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. C.W. Ho Daniel Daniel C.W. Ho Liusman Ervi Ervi Liusman Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong . 2016. Measuring the performance of property management companies in high-rise flats. Facilities 34:3/4, 161-176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Roshni A. George, A.K. Siti-Nabiha, Dayana Jalaludin, Yousif A. Abdalla. 2016. Barriers to and enablers of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef] 7. Igal M. Shohet, Lorenzo Nobili. 2015. Performance-Based Maintenance of Public Facilities: Principles and Implementation in Courthouses. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 04015086. [CrossRef] 8. Cheong Peng Au-Yong, Azlan Shah Ali, Faizah Ahmad. 2015. Participative Mechanisms to Improve Office Maintenance Performance and Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29:4, 04014103. [CrossRef] 9. Zilia Iskoujina Lord Ashcroft International Business School, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK Joanne Roberts Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton, Winchester, UK . 2015. Knowledge sharing in open source software communities: motivations and management. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:4, 791-813. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 10. Joseph H.K. Lai, Edmond C.K. Choi. 2015. Performance measurement for teaching hotels: A hierarchical system incorporating facilities management. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 16, 48-58. [CrossRef] 11. Umit S. Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Aylin Ates, Sai S. Nudurupati. 2015. Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research 53:10, 3062-3085. [CrossRef] 12. Bernadette Nambi Karuhanga School of Business, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda . 2015. Evaluating implementation of strategic performance management practices in universities in Uganda. Measuring Business Excellence 19:2, 42-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 13. Dr Giuseppe Grossi, Dr Ulf Papenfuß and Dr Marie-Soleil Tremblay Martyna Swiatczak Chair of Public Management and Leadership, German University of Administrative Scieneces Speyer, Speyer, Germany Michèle Morner Chair of Public Management and Leadership, German University of Administrative Scieneces Speyer, Speyer, Germany Nadine Finkbeiner Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate Governance, Witten/ Herdecke University, Witten, Germany . 2015. How can performance measurement systems empower managers? An exploratory study in state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28:4/5, 371-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 14. Faisal Tehseen Shah, Shafay Shamail, Niaz Ahmad Akhtar. 2015. Lean quality improvement model for quality practices in software industry in Pakistan. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 27:4, 237-254. [CrossRef] 15. Aditya Parida Department of Operation & Maintenance Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden Uday Kumar Department of Operation and maintenance Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden Diego Galar Department of Operation and maintenance Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden Christer Stenström Department of Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden . 2015. Performance measurement and management for maintenance: a literature review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 21:1, 2-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 16. Sunday Julius Odediran Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Job Taiwo Gbadegesin Department of Estate Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Mujidat Olubola Babalola Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. . 2015. Facilities management practices in the Nigerian public universities. Journal of Facilities Management 13:1, 5-26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 17. Cheong Peng Au-Yong Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Azlan Shah Ali Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Faizah Ahmad Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia . 2014. Optimising maintenance cost performance with skilled technicians. Structural Survey 32:3, 238-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 18. Matthew TuckerMeasuring Work 123-140. [CrossRef] 19. Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Sergio E. Gouvea da Costa, Jannis Jan Angelis, Juliano Munik. 2013. Performance measurement systems: A consensual analysis of their roles. International Journal of Production Economics 146:2, 524-542. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

20. T. M. Trebble, L. Cruickshank, P. M. Hockey, N. Heyworth, T. Powell, N. Clarke. 2013. Individual performance review in hospital practice: the development of a framework and evaluation of doctors' attitudes to its value and implementation. BMJ Quality & Safety 22:11, 948-955. [CrossRef] 21. Yuhainis Talib Deakin University Rebecca Jing Yang Deakin University Priyadarsini Rajagopalan Deakin univerisity . 2013. Evaluation of building performance for strategic facilities management in healthcare. Facilities 31:13/14, 681-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 22. Minna SaunilaLappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland Juhani UkkoLappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. 2013. Facilitating innovation capability through performance measurement. Management Research Review 36:10, 991-1010. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 23. Moses Acquaah, David B. Zoogah, Eileen N. KwesigaBernadette Nambi KaruhangaSchool of Business, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Amanda WernerFaculty of Business and Economic Sciences, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. 2013. Challenges impacting performance management implementation in public universities. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 4:2, 223-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 24. Christian CoenenInstitute of Facility Management, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland Doris WaldburgerInstitute of Facility Management, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland Daniel von FeltenInstitute of Facility Management, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland. 2013. FM Servicebarometer: monitoring customer perception of service performance. Journal of Facilities Management 11:3, 266-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 25. Devesh Chaturvedi, Vinayshil Gautam. 2013. Performance Contracting as an Instrument for Improving Performance in Government: An Indian Experience. International Journal of Public Administration 36:6, 408-425. [CrossRef] 26. Suwit SrimaiFaculty of Liberal Arts & Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Surat Thani, Thailand Chris S. WrightBusiness School, Faculty of the Professions, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Jack RadfordFaculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. 2013. A speculation of the presence of overlap and niches in organizational performance management systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:4, 364-386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 27. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Padmabati Gahan. 2013. Supplier performance measurement in discrete manufacturing industryempirical study on Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14:2, 330-347. [CrossRef] 28. Sanna PekkolaBased at the Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti, Finland. 2013. Managing a network by utilizing performance measurement information. Measuring Business Excellence 17:1, 72-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 29. Aylin AtesInstitute for Operations Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Patrizia GarengoDepartment of Innovation in Mechanics and Management, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Paola CoccaDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy Umit BititciInstitute for Operations Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. 2013. The development of SME managerial practice for effective performance management. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 20:1, 28-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 30. Bibliography 179-190. [CrossRef] 31. Josef Blasini, Susanne LeistSuccess Factors in Process Performance Management for Services -- Insights from a MultipleCase Study 3654-3663. [CrossRef] 32. Rafael Henrique Palma Lima, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2012. Analysis of the interplay between knowledge and performance management in industrial clusters. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 10:4, 368-379. [CrossRef] 33. Payam Hanafizadeh, Neda Rastkhiz Paydar, Neda Aliabadi. 2012. Neural Network-based Evaluation of the Effect of the Motivation of Hospital Employees on Patients’ Satisfaction. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics 5:4, 1-19. [CrossRef] 34. Martin LoosemoreDepartment of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Venny ChandraCiputra Group, Jakarta, Indonesia. 2012. Learning through briefing: for strategic facilities management in the health sector. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 2:1, 103-117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 35. Ogan M. Yigitbasioglu, Oana Velcu. 2012. A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13:1, 41-59. [CrossRef] 36. Nina HellqvistDepartment of Management, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland. 2011. Global performance management: a research agenda. Management Research Review 34:8, 927-946. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 37. P. ParthibanDepartment of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India Mark GohNUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore and School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 2011. An integrated model for performance management of manufacturing units. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:2, 261-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 38. Helena ForslundSchool of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden. 2011. The size of a logistics performance measurement system. Facilities 29:3/4, 133-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

39. Matthew TuckerUniversity College London, London, UK Michael PittUniversity College London, London, UK. 2010. Improving service provision through better management and measurement of customer satisfaction in facilities management. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 12:4, 220-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 40. Yu Ma, Kecheng LiuImpact analysis of facilities management outsourcing - through a case study of Cisco HQ building 5221-5227. [CrossRef] 41. R.M. Chandima RatnayakeCenter for Industrial Asset Management, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway and AkerSolutions, Stavanger, Norway Tore MarkesetAkerSolutions, Stavanger, Norway. 2010. Technical integrity management: measuring HSE awareness using AHP in selecting a maintenance strategy. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 16:1, 44-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 42. Murugesan Punniyamoorthy, R. Murali. 2010. Identification of benchmarking service units through productivity and quality dimensions. International Journal of Business Performance Management 12:2, 103. [CrossRef] 43. R. ParameshwaranDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Kongu Engineering College, Erode, India P.S.S. SrinivasanKnowledge Institute of Technology, Salem, India M. PunniyamoorthyDepartment of Management Studies, National Institute of Technology, Trichy, India. 2009. Modified closed loop model for service performance management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 26:8, 795-816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 44. Edson Pinheiro de LimaAffiliated to both Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil and the OM Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Sergio E. Gouvea da CostaBased at the Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil Jannis J. AngelisBased at The OM Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 2009. Strategic performance measurement systems: a discussion about their roles. Measuring Business Excellence 13:3, 39-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 45. Matthew TuckerSchool of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK Michael PittSchool of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 2009. National standards of customer satisfaction in facilities management. Facilities 27:13/14, 497-514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 46. K. Lundberg, B. Balfors, L. Folkeson. 2009. Framework for environmental performance measurement in a Swedish public sector organization. Journal of Cleaner Production 17:11, 1017-1024. [CrossRef] 47. Matthew TuckerSchool of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK Michael PittSchool of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 2009. Customer performance measurement in facilities management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58:5, 407-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 48. Hackman Hon Yin Lee, David Scott. 2009. Strategic and operational factors' influence on the management of building maintenance operation processes in sports and leisure facilities, Hong Kong. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 8:1, 25-37. [CrossRef] 49. WenAn Tan, Weiming Shen, Lida Xu, Bosheng Zhou, Ling Li. 2008. A Business Process Intelligence System for Enterprise Process Performance Management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 38:6, 745-756. [CrossRef] 50. K.L. Choy, Harry K.H. Chow, K.H. Tan, Chi-Kin Chan, Esmond C.M. Mok, Q. Wang. 2008. Leveraging the supply chain flexibility of third party logistics – Hybrid knowledge-based system approach. Expert Systems with Applications 35:4, 1998-2016. [CrossRef] 51. Terence Y.M. LamFaculty of Science & Technology, Department of the Built Environment, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK. 2008. Optimisation of performance management for housing services. Journal of Facilities Management 6:3, 226-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 52. Anna KadeforsDepartment of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. 2008. Contracting in FM: collaboration, coordination and control. Journal of Facilities Management 6:3, 178-188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 53. Matthew TuckerLiverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK Andrew SmithLiverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 2008. User perceptions in workplace productivity and strategic FM delivery. Facilities 26:5/6, 196-212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 54. Sang-Youl Kim. 2008. Distribution Channel Performance Measurement: Valid Measures From Customers' Perspective. Journal of Korean navigation and port research 32:2, 141-148. [CrossRef] 55. Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Sergio E. Gouvea da Costa, Jannis J. Angelis. 2008. The strategic management of operations system performance. International Journal of Business Performance Management 10:1, 108. [CrossRef] 56. Qi Zhou MossUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK Johanna AlhoHelsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland Keith AlexanderUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK. 2007. Performance measurement action research. Journal of Facilities Management 5:4, 290-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 57. Peter S. P. Wong, Sai On Cheung, Cliff Hardcastle. 2007. Embodying Learning Effect in Performance Prediction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 133:6, 474-482. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by University of Huddersfield At 09:16 23 May 2016 (PT)

58. Marco BusiDepartment of Production and Quality Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway and SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, Norway Umit S. BititciCentre for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. 2006. Collaborative performance management: present gaps and future research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55:1, 7-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 59. Paul Folan, Jim Browne. 2005. A review of performance measurement: Towards performance management. Computers in Industry 56:7, 663-680. [CrossRef] 60. Anthony Wall. 2005. The measurement and management of intellectual capital in the public sector. Public Management Review 7:2, 289-303. [CrossRef] 61. Champika LiyanageSchool of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Charles EgbuSchool of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. 2005. Controlling healthcare associated infections (HAI) and the role of facilities management in achieving “quality” in healthcare: a three‐ dimensional view. Facilities 23:5/6, 194-215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 62. Kit Fai Pun, Anthony Sydney White. 2005. A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: A review of systems and frameworks. International Journal of Management Reviews 7:1, 49-71. [CrossRef] 63. Igal M. ShohetSenior Lecturer at the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Structural Engineering and Construction, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel Sarel LavyPhD Candidate, at the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Structural Engineering and Construction, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 2004. Healthcare facilities management: state of the art review. Facilities 22:7/8, 210-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 64. Hung-Da Wan, F. Frank Chen. 2004. A FRAMEWORK FOR PERFORMANCE-DRIVEN WEB-BASED MANUFACTURING. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 21:6, 527-534. [CrossRef] 65. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Performance Management Practices on Organizational Performance: 1635-1658. [CrossRef] 66. Payam Hanafizadeh, Neda Rastkhiz Paydar, Neda AliabadiNeural Network-Based Evaluation of the Effect of the Motivation of Hospital Employees on Patients’ Satisfaction 125-143. [CrossRef] 67. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Performance Management Practices on Organizational Performance 62-85. [CrossRef]