Editorial

Citation

Heap, J. and Radnor, Z. (2009), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2009.07958eaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Volume 58, Issue 5

In a bid to improve customer service and experience the UK Government has advised local authorities to reduce “failure demand”. This is the demand placed on the system or organisation due to not being able to deal with it completely the first time, e.g. people having to ring up again or getting the wrong information. This seems sensible as all of us who are “time poor” want our requirements to be met first time (and correctly!). However, in order to ensure that local councils took the concept seriously the UK Government introduced a performance indicator/target for all authorities to meet! This indicator is “National Indicator (NI) 14 – avoidable contact” which has been defined as the proportion of customer contacts that is of no value to the customer or the public sector organisation handling the contact. From April 2009 local authorities will need to report their level of “avoidable contact”. We can only hope that what appears on the surface to be a sensible concept to support customer service does not end up being an exercise on the creative ways to define (or not) “avoidable contact”!

The majority of papers in this issue focus on strategic and cultural issues. The first research paper in this issue by Matthew Tucker and Michael Pitt is focused on customer performance measurement setting out a customer performance measurement system for facilities management which can be used to evaluate performance both on an internal and external basis. The system then evaluates areas for improvement and devises strategic performance management goals. In their first set of results they found that although many people found the services good, the level of innovation was felt to be poor.

The second paper, by Elise Ramstad considers the relation between performance and quality of working life (something we all want to be high!) in Finnish organisations. Using a large sample from over 400 projects the author presents results which indicate that performance and quality of life can be improved concurrently using the same workplace practices. The outcome of these practices improve aspects of teamworking, leadership, customer service and quality systems. Many of the findings from the study support previous studies but it is always good to be reminded of the impact and relevance of performance practices.

The third paper, by Said Elbanna and Rabia Naguib, considers strategic decision making in Egyptian organisations through surveying 286 managers and interviewing 36 of them. The authors claim that strategic decision making in high performing firms is more rational and less intuitive and political. I wonder if this is because in high-performing organisations there are generally more robust performance management systems so the data and information is used to make decisions rather than being ends in themselves. In too many organisations performance indicators and measures are still used for measurement and monitoring only rather than for “true” management purposes. Measures and indicators are only a tool … but can be a useful one if used appropriately, as this paper appears to show.

The final research paper by Clara M. Novoa and Francis Mendez looks at ways which time studies and input data for statistical analysis through discrete event simulation can be better utilised. The paper suggests bootstrap methods as an alternative stating that managers involved in process improvement will perform more efficient time studies from small studies using bootstrap.

Under the “Reflective Practice” banner, we have a paper which interestingly examines a sector less widely covered – that of humanitarian aid. This explores aspects of the supply chain and concludes that – though this is a specialised form of supply chain operating in abnormal conditions – many of the “standard” principles of supply chain management and improvement still apply.

Sometimes it is worth reading several of the papers in a journal like this one … and then attempting to “join up the dots” and look for similarities and “universal truths” that emerge. This, of course, is the “synthesis” that emerges from careful research and analysis. Sometimes what emerges at first reading of a paper pales besides what emerges after further thought and reflection. On first “read” you might think that the relationship between you and a particular paper was “avoidable contact” – but stick with it. Reading a journal (especially an excellent one like this) helps understand current thinking and practice – but you have to put in some extra work of your own to learn the real lessons of research. This is also why we maintain a section on reflective practice – sometimes someone else’s reflections can catalyse your own reflective process.

If we do our job well, and you make the effort necessary, then this journal becomes more than the sum of its papers!

John Heap, Zoe Radnor