Editorial

Citation

Burgess, T. and Heap, J. (2014), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-11-2013-0193

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Volume 63, Issue 2

Welcome to this issue. Reflecting our status as an “Academic-Practitioner” journal we have seven papers, five research-based and two reflective practice pieces. While the papers in the previous issue were predominantly from India, in this issue a good number of the papers originate from Europe including the UK. As is often the case, the issue has an improvement initiative flavour with papers appearing on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Lean Six Sigma. The topics of the knowledge economy and innovation feature as the context for several papers while we have at least two “back to basics” items. One of these is a thought-stimulating piece on how we should measure productivity while the other is an intriguing paper on how modern technology can assist in basic work measurement of agricultural workers. We hope you find something of interest in this diverse group of papers.

The BSC is one of the most written about topics in the area of Performance Measurement and Management – as regular readers of the journal will no doubt confirm. Given this level of interest one might ask “what is there left to say about the BSC?” Well, the authors of the first paper answer that question admirably through their lucid analysis of how the concept of the BSC has developed over time. By analysing the literature Perkins, Grey and Remmers (from the UK) create a taxonomy of how the BSC has developed since its initial inception by Kaplan and Norton in 1992. Using version control from the area of design, they identify eight subsets of the evolving BSC concept grouped in to three generations. Such a framework can help identify which version of BSC has been used in a reported application. In their paper the authors also highlight some of the difficulties attached to BSC and raise questions about reported use of the BSC. Of major concern for our field is that rigorous evidence of the impact of the BSC on performance is sadly lacking in the literature. The implementation of, perhaps, the major innovation in our field is based on acts of faith rather than clear, objective evidence. Maybe this does indicate that there is still more to say about the BSC!

Developing and applying new technologies has become a leitmotif of the knowledge economy. However, the burgeoning interest in development and application of scientific technologies has exposed a “managerial deficit”. What we need are better “managerial technologies” that help target resources, in this case to publicly funded R&D projects, so that industrial technologies are developed as efficiently and effectively as possible. In this paper Islam and Brousseau, based in the UK, describe a European research endeavour to develop a better, simpler, broader-based method of assessing how far along technologies are in terms of their maturity. The ones they are particularly interested in are those technologies associated with micro- and nano-manufacturing. The authors illustrate their method by applying it to a basket of technologies in a European-funded project and to an individual company. Clearly anything that helps provide better value from the sizeable public funds that go into R&D is more than useful; but the authors see that possibility of using their approach in the private sector is, perhaps, a greater benefit.

Many profess that we have progressed significantly into the knowledge economy yet, as Bechar and Eben-Chaime (Israel) illustrate in their paper, performance of the agricultural economy is still important to our society. The authors start from the basis that the nature of agriculture is such that manual labour is still a major cost component and managing its performance remains a challenge. Somewhat paradoxically they show that modern technology can be part of the solution. In their paper they explain how hand-held electronic devices can help the industrial engineer improve their own productivity in work measurement and, as a consequence, support a more accurate and reliable work measurement system.

The continuing growth of interest in supply chains raises the importance to the firm of developing their suppliers. In their paper, Pradhan and Routroy focus on assessing the performance of the firm's supplier development activities. They identify the critical success factors (CSFs) and their corresponding key performance indicators (KPIs) for supplier development in a manufacturing environment. They propose a methodology to evaluate supplier development that uses Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Performance Value Analysis (PVA). Data are forthcoming to test their method from discussions and brainstorming sessions held with managers and engineers in various Indian manufacturing companies.

In their paper Saunila, Pekkola and Ukko (Finland) start from the premise that studying performance measurement in the context of innovation management has been limited in the past and therefore is ripe for further investigation. In particular they study the impact of performance measurement on the relationship between innovation capability and firm performance. Innovation is seen by business and governments as a key area that contributes positively to productivity increase (see e.g. www.nesta.org.uk/) so studying this area is particularly relevant. The authors conducted a web-based survey in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and applied regression analysis to the 311 responses they received. The key connection they found in their data was that measurement can help exploit the external knowledge component of innovation capability to drive firm performance.

In the sixth paper, Teng (Singapore) asserts that the productivity and performance management field lacks a common, universal, qualitative measurement model for productivity. He argues that while quantitative macro-level measurements of productivity have been available worldwide for decades; he sees their lack of focus on quality as a major deficiency. He hopes to stimulate a debate on how such a more qualitative approach to productivity measurement can be developed and applied. This is your chance to reflect on practice and engage with the debate.

In the final paper Jiju (UK) focuses on the application of Lean Six Sigma to the Higher Education (HE) sector. By combining a literature review and reflection on practical work carried out in a number of universities, the author identifies five groups of readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the HE sector. These factors are characteristics which, if present to a good degree, predispose the implementation outcome to be positive; in other words they enable the assessment of whether the adopting environment is “fertile ground”. Jiju argues the need for this type of assessment since not many HE organisations have, as yet, gone down the path of embracing Lean Six Sigma.

Tom Burgess and John Heap