Quality improvement and redesign of performance measurement systems: an application to the academic field

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Fiorenzo Franceschini (1)
  Elisa Turina (1)
  
• 关键词：Performance measurement system redesign ; Quality improvement ; Performance measurement ; Indicators ; Balanced scorecard ; Higher education
• 刊名：Quality and Quantity
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：January 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：47
• 期：1
• 页码：465-483
• 全文大小：431KB
• 参考文献：1. Agence de l’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur (AERES).: évaluation des établissements, des unités de recherche et des formations de la vague A (2011-014). http://www.aeres-evaluation.frEvaluation/Evaluation-par-l-AERES/Modalites-d-evaluationde-la-campagne-en-cours-Vague-A-2011-2014 (2010). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  2. Asan ?.E., Tanyas M.: Integrating Hoshin Kanri and the balanced scorecard for strategic management: The case of higher education. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 18(9), 999-014 (2007). doi:10.1080/14783360701592604 CrossRef
  3. Baldridge National Quality program.: Criteria for Performance excellence. http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/PDF_files/2009_2010Business_Nonprofit_Criteria.pdf (2010). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  4. Bititci U., Turner T., Begemann C.: Dynamics of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 20(6), 692-04 (2000). doi:10.1108/01443570010321676 CrossRef
  5. Bourne M., Mills J., Wilcox M., Neely A., Platts K.: Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 20(7), 754-71 (2000). doi:10.1108/01443570010330739 CrossRef
  6. Caplice C., Sheffi Y.: A review and evaluation of logistics metrics. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 5(2), 11-8 (1994). doi:10.1108/09574099410805171 CrossRef
  7. Chen S., Yang C., Shiau J.: The application of balanced scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher education. TQM Mag. 18(2), 190-05 (2006). doi:10.1108/09544780610647892 CrossRef
  8. Comitato di Indirizzo per la Valutazione della Ricerca (CIVR).: Linee guida per la valutazione della ricerca. http://vtr2006.cineca.it/documenti/linee_guida.pdf (2006). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  9. Coccia M., Rolfo S.: Technology transfer analysis in the Italian National Research Council. Technovation 22(5), 291-99 (2002). doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00018-9 CrossRef
  10. De Mast J., Bergman M.: Hypothesis generation in quality improvement projects: Approaches for exploratory studies. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 22(7), 839-50 (2006). doi:10.1002/qre.767 CrossRef
  11. Eccles R.G.: The performance measurement manifesto. Harv. Bus. Rev. 69, 131-37 (1991)
  12. European Foundation for Quality Management.: Introducing the EFQM model 2010. http://www.efqm.org/en/PdfResources/EFQMModel_Presentation.pdf (2010). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  13. Flapper S.D.R., Fortuin L., Stoop P.P.M.: Towards consistent performance management systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 16(7), 27-7 (1996). doi:10.1108/01443579610119144 CrossRef
  14. Franceschini F., Galetto M., Maisano D.: Classification of performance and quality indicators in manufacturing. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2(3), 294-11 (2006). doi:10.1504/IJSOM.2006.009862
  15. Franceschini F., Galetto M., Maisano D.: Management by measurement: Designing key indicators and performance measurements. Springer, Berlin (2007)
  16. Franceschini F., Maisano D.: Analysis of the Hirsch index’s operational properties. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203(2), 494-04 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.08.001 CrossRef
  17. Franceschini F., Maisano D.: A survey of quality engineering-management journals by bibliometric indicators. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 26(6), 593-04 (2010). doi:10.1002/Qre.1083 CrossRef
  18. Gomes C.F., Yasin M.M., Lisboa J.V.: A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 15(6), 511-30 (2004). doi:10.1108/17410380410547906 CrossRef
  19. Gumport P.: Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. High. Educ. 39(1), 67-1 (2000). doi:10.1023/A:1003859026301 CrossRef
  20. Henri J.: The periodic review of performance indicators: An empirical investigation of the dynamism of performance measurement systems. Eur. Account. Rev. 19(1), 73-4 (2009). doi:10.1080/09638180902863795 CrossRef
  21. Hirsch J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102, 16569-6572 (2005) CrossRef
  22. Hudson M., Smart A., Bourne M.: Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21(8), 1096-115 (2001). doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005587 CrossRef
  23. Johnson H.T., Kaplan R.S.: Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (1987)
  24. Jordan G.B., Mortensen J.C.: Measuring the performance of research and technology programs: A balanced scorecard approach. J. Technol. Trans. 22(2), 13-0 (1997). doi:10.1007/BF02509640 CrossRef
  25. Juhl H.J., Christensen M.: Quality management in a Danish business school—A head of department perspective. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 19(7-), 719-32 (2008). doi:10.1080/14783360802159394 CrossRef
  26. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70, 71-9 (1992)
  27. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71, 134-47 (1993)
  28. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge (1996)
  29. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P.: The strategy focused organisation: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2001)
  30. Karathanos D., Karathanos P.: Applying the balanced scorecard to education. J. Educ. Bus. 80, 222-31 (2005). doi:10.3200/JOEB.80.4.222-230 CrossRef
  31. Kennerly M., Neely A.: A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22(11), 1222-246 (2002). doi:10.1108/01443570210450293 CrossRef
  32. Kennerly M., Neely A.: Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23(2), 213-29 (2003). doi:10.1108/01443570210450293 CrossRef
  33. Lingle J.H., Schiemann W.A.: From balanced scorecard to strategy gauge: is measurement worth it?. Manag. Rev. 85, 56-2 (1996)
  34. McDevitt R., Giapponi C., Solomon N.: Strategy revitalization in academe: A balanced scorecard approach. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 22(1), 32-7 (2008). doi:10.1108/09513540810844549 CrossRef
  35. Montague S., Teather G.G.: Evaluation and management of multi-departmental (horizontal) science and technology programs. Res. Eval. 16(3), 183-90 (2007). doi:10.3152/095820207X235106 CrossRef
  36. Neely A., Gregory M., Platts K.: Performance measurement systems design. A literature review and a research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15(4), 80-16 (1995). doi:10.1108/01443570510633648 CrossRef
  37. Neely A.: The evolution of performance measurement research. Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25(12), 1264-277 (2005). doi:10.1108/01443570510633648 CrossRef
  38. Papenhausen C., Einstein W.: Insights from the balanced scorecard - implementing the balanced scorecard at a college of business. Meas. Bus. Excell. 10(3), 15-2 (2006). doi:10.1108/13683040610685757 CrossRef
  39. Paranjape B., Rossiter M., Pantano V.: Insights from the Balanced Scorecard. Performance measurement systems: successes, failures and future -a review. Meas. Bus. Excell. 10(3), 4-4 (2006). doi:10.1108/13683040610685748 CrossRef
  40. Performance-Based Management Special Interest Group.: Using performance information to drive improvement. In: U.S. Department of Energy (eds.) The performance-based management handbook, vol. 6. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge (2001)
  41. Pinheiro De Lima E., Goueva Da Costa S., Angelis J.E.: The strategic management of operation system performance. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manag. 10(1), 108-32 (2008). doi:10.1504/IJBPM.2008.015924 CrossRef
  42. Pinheiro De Lima E., Goueva Da Costa S., Angelis J.E.: Strategic performance measurement systems: a discussion about their roles. Meas. Bus. Excell. 13(3), 39-8 (2009). doi:10.1108/13683040910984310 CrossRef
  43. Politecnico di Torino.: Regolamento generale del Politecnico di Torino. www.swas.polito.it/_library/downloadfile.asp?id=10384 (2010a). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  44. Politecnico di Torino.: Statuto del Politecnico di Torino. http://www.unisi.it/dl2/20090518110041906/downloadfile_statuto_torino.pdf (2010b). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  45. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).: Research Assessment Exercise 2008: The outcome. http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/outstore/RAEOutcomeFull.pdf (2008). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  46. Sandstr?m, U., Sandstr?m, E.: The field factor: Towards a metric for academic institutions. Res. Eval. 18(3): 243-50. doi:10.3152/095820209X466892
  47. Schmoch U., Schubert T., Jansen D., Heidler R., von G?rtz R.: How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Res. Eval. 19(1), 2-8 (2010). doi:10.3152/095820210X492477 CrossRef
  48. Tapinos E., Dyson R.G., Meadows M.: The impact of the performance measurement systems in setting the ’direction-in the University of Warwick. Prod. Plan. Control 16(2), 189-98 (2005). doi:10.1080/09537280512331333084 CrossRef
  49. Teather G.G., Montague S.: Performance measurement, management and reporting for S&T organization: An overview. J. Technol. Trans. 22(2), 13-0 (1997). doi:10.1007/BF02509639 CrossRef
  50. Tutuncu O., Kucukusta D.: Canonical correlation between job satisfaction and EFQM business excellence model. Qual. Quant. 44(6), 1227-238 (2010) CrossRef
  51. Umashankar V., Dutta K.: Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: An Indian perspective. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 21(1), 54-7 (2007). doi:10.1108/09513540710716821 CrossRef
  52. University Of California, Laboratory Administration Office. Objective Standards of Performance (Appendix F). http://www.ucop.edu/labs/labprimecontracts/LBNL/appendices/archives/apndx_f_lbnl_m345.pdf (2010c). Accessed 1 Sep 2010
  53. U.S. Department of the Treasury.: Criteria for developing performance measurement systems in the public sector. US Department of the Treasury, Washington DC (1994)
  54. Vitale M.R., Mavrinach S.C.: How effective is your performance measurement system?. Manag. Account. USA 77(2), 43-8 (1995)
  55. Waggoner D.B., Neely A.D., Kennerley M.: The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 60-1, 53-0 (1999). doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00201-1 CrossRef
  56. Yu M.L., Hamid S., Mohamad T., Soo H.P.: The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic staff performance excellence. High. Educ. 57, 813-28 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9197-x CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Fiorenzo Franceschini (1)
  Elisa Turina (1)
  
  1. Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Torino, Italy
  
• ISSN：1573-7845

文摘

The increasing competition both in the public and private sectors gave rise to a growing interest in quality improvement and in designing and implementing Performance Measurement Systems (PMS). Academic organizations also recognized the need for implementing performance measurement systems. Some recent works on PMS in the higher education make use of the Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (BSC) to translate the characteristic strategic goals (e.g. research and teaching excellence) into performance measures. However, a PMS needs to be updated when external or internal changes influence the organization modus operandi. In this way a continuous quality improvement of organization performance is required. This paper describes a methodology based on the BSC model to redesign a current PMS. In detail, a reference BSC-check matrix is proposed. A “mapping analysis-of the current PMS is developed to understand if all the operational aspects involved in goals achievement are considered and if proper indicators have been defined. As an example, the methodology is applied to a Department of the authors-own University. The paper shows also how the proposed approach can be extended to other contexts.