An empirical study of performance measurement in manufacturing firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The recent performance measurement literature suggests that organizations should put more emphasis on non‐financial measures in their performance measurement systems, that organizations must use new performance measurement approaches such as the balanced scorecard and that measures should be aligned with contextual factors such as strategy and organizational structure. The purpose of this paper is to assess the extent to which organizations are following these prescriptions. Design/methodology/approach A survey of a sample of Canadian manufacturing firms was conducted. In the questionnaire, organizations had to indicate the extent to which they use 73 performance measures. They also had to respond to questions about determinants such as strategy, organizational structure and environmental uncertainty. More than 100 organizations responded to the survey. The response rate was 50.5 percent. Findings The results show that manufacturing firms continue to use financial performance measures. Despite the recommendations from experts and academics, the proportion of firms that implement a balanced scorecard or integrated performance measurement systems is low. Furthermore, organizations that use these approaches are not employing more extensively non‐financial measures than those which are applying traditional performance measurement approaches. This research project also shows that there are some significant relationships between the types of measures and contextual factors like strategy, decentralization and environmental uncertainty. This research finally demonstrates clearly that there is a need to develop a theory that explains how firms can use their performance measurement system to enhance their performance. Originality/value This paper provides information on performance measures used by organizations and their association with organizational determinants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it