GENERAL ARTICLES

 

An integrated performance management framework for a multi-business company

 

 

H.M. Aburas

Department of Industrial Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. haburas@kau.edu.sa

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

A multi-business company is a complex entity. Evaluating corporate performance of such an organisation is even more challenging. Corporate performance is inherently multidimensional in nature, is viewed from various perspectives, and has to satisfy multiple objectives. It is multi-dimensional in the sense of being a function of many variables that drive firm performance; multi-perspectival, from various stakeholders' standpoints; and multi-objectives are to be optimised. So there is no single corporate performance evaluation tool that can be prescribed as a stand-alone gauge; however, a unified and holistic corporate performance management system can be developed from multiple tools. This paper attempts to bring together a variety of performance management tools that have evolved and developed in theory, and have been tested and applied in practice. In developing this convergence, first a set of criteria that answers the multi-dimensional, multi-perspectival, and multi-objective requirements of a firm's performance will be identified and weighted. Second, management tools that have been used either singly or in combination by multi-business companies are reviewed and ranked against the chosen criteria. Finally, an integrated model or framework that brings together and unifies the elements of these ranked performance management tools is proposed.

---

OPSOMMING

'n Multi-maatskappy-onderneming is 'n komplekse entiteit. Die evaluasie van maatskappy-prestasie van so 'n onderneming is self meer van 'n uitdaging. Maatskappyprestasie is inherent multidimensioneel, word uit verskeie perspektiewe beskou en moet veelvuldige doelwitte bevredig. Geen enkele maatstaf is beskikbaar om hierdie fasette van maatskappyprestasie te evalueer, alhoewel 'n holistiese prestasiebestuurstelsel ontwikkel kan word gebaseer op verskillende maatstawwe. Hierdie artikel bring verskillende metodologieë byeen vir die meting van maatskappyprestasie wat multi-dimensioneel, multi-perspektiewelik en multi-doelwit-geöriënteerd is. Sodoende word 'n geïntegreerde raamwerk vir die meting van maatskappyprestasie ontwikkel.

---

 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

 

REFERENCES

[1] Ansoff, H. & Brandenburg, R. 1971. A language for organizational design: Part II. Management Science, Application series, 17(12), pp 717-731.         [ Links ]

[2] Benner, M. & Veloso, F. 2008. ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: A technology coherence perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), pp 611-629.         [ Links ]

[3] Boyne, G. & Walker, R. 2002. Total quality management and performance. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(2), pp 111-131.         [ Links ]

[4] Brudan, A. 2005. Balanced scorecard typology and organizational impact. actKM Online Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), pp 1-14.         [ Links ]

[5] Clarkson, M. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp 92-117.         [ Links ]

[6] Easton, G. & Jarrell, S. 1998. The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business, 71(2), pp 253-307.         [ Links ]

[7] Feldman, S., Soyka, P. & Ameer, P. 1996. Does improving a firm's environmental management system and environmental performance result in a higher stock price? ICF Kaiser Intl, USA.         [ Links ]

[8] Fioretti, G. & Visser, B. 2004. A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. E:CO, 6(1-2), pp 11-23.         [ Links ]

[9] Hendricks, K. & Singhal, V. 2000. The impact of Total Quality Management (TQM) on financial performance: Evidence from quality award winners. Strategos Inc, USA.         [ Links ]

[10] Hendricks, K. & Singhal, V. 2003. The impact of business excellence on financial performance. British Quality Foundation, United Kingdom.         [ Links ]

[11] Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. 2006. Alignment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA.         [ Links ]

[12] Lawrie, G. 2001. Combining EVA with balanced scorecard to improve strategic alignment. Berkshire, United Kingdom: 2GC.         [ Links ]

[13] Lawrie, G. & Cobbold, I. 2004. Development of the 3^rd generation balanced scorecard. Berkshire, United Kingdom: 2GC.         [ Links ]

[14] McKenzie, C. & James, K. 2004. Aesthetics as an aid to understanding complex systems and decision judgment in operating complex systems. E:CO, 6(1-2), pp 32-39.         [ Links ]

[15] Mihok, J. 2006. Corporate performance management as a new way in directing companies. Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 11(4), pp 278-282.         [ Links ]

[16] Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. and Rynes, S. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), pp 403-441.         [ Links ]

[17] Peters, T. 1989. Thriving on chaos. Pan Books, London, United Kingdom.         [ Links ]