International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 1

ISSN 2250-3153

Study on performance measurement systems – Measures

and Metrics
Roshan David*, Jenson Joseph E**

* SCMS School of Engineering and Technology, Karukutty, Kerala 683 582, India
** Department of Mechanical Engineering, SCMS School of Engineering and Technology, Karukutty, Kerala 683 582, India

Abstract- Significant research has been carried out so far in the field of performance measurement and management. Various
authors have presented their findings based on their respective perspective of the topic. A wide variety of literature available makes
the study of performance measures and metrics more difficult. The present study has made an attempt to dig into the literature to
identify the importance of performance management, terminologies and various models in performance measurement system.
Knowledge about types of measures, their purpose and tests on measures provides sufficient inputs while designing a performance
measurement system.

Index Terms- Performance management, Performance measurement, Performance measures and metrics, Performance models

I. INTRODUCTION
Increasing competition, changing external demand as well as roles of business are forcing the enterprises to examine and improve
their strategies and management systems (Michaela et al., 2012). Companies have understood that for competing in continuously
changing environment, it is necessary to monitor and understand firm performances. Measurement has been recognized as a crucial
element to improve business performance (Taticchi et al., 2010). In recent years, organizational performance measurement framework
and factors have received much attention from researchers and practitioners (Gunasekaran et al., 2004).

According to Amlan et al.,(2004) performance measurement provides the means by which a company can assess whether its supply
chain has improved or degraded. It is only by means of performance measurement that one can see how much one is behind or ahead
of its competitors. In the last three decades, a variety of literature has been published in the area of performance measurement and
management. Researchers and practioners initially concentrated on the business performance, definitions for measurement, measures
and measurement system (Neely et al.,1995). Later studies were about developing comprehensive frameworks and models for
measurement (Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Subsequently importance was given to developing and designing customised performance
measurement systems with integrated models gaining prominence.

One of the problems with the performance measurement literature is that it is diverse. This means that individual authors have
tended to focus on different aspects of performance measurement system design (Neely et al., 1995). A comparative analysis of some
most widely cited performance measurement systems have been undertaken by G. P. Kurien and M.N. Qureshi and it indicates that
validity of many of the measurement frameworks needs to be established through further study. Unfortunately these different
approaches have led to numerous definitions of a performance measurement system, and there is little consensus regarding its main
components and characteristics. The gap between what are wanted to be measured and what can be measured is the main reason for
performance measurement being still so challenging (Michaela et al., 2012).

So the study aims to identify the major theories, models and frameworks in order to analyse best practices in performance
management systems. A detailed study regarding the performance measures are also carried to facilitate knowledge regarding
performance system design.

II. IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The famous sayings such as “You get what you measure”, “People perform the way they are measured”, highlight the importance of
a proper performance management system. Thus performance management is an important aspect of a successful supply chain
management. Even well-conceived competitive strategies cannot increase organizational success unless they are effectively
implemented. Performance-measurement systems can play a key role in strategy implementation by helping to translate organizational
strategy into desired behaviours and results, communicate expectations, monitor progress, provide feedback, and motivate employees

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 2
ISSN 2250-3153

through performance-based rewards (Fleming et al., 2009). According to Amr Abu-Suleiman, importance of performance
management systems can be summarised into the following categories:
 To drive organizational actions
Performance measures drive actions in two ways. First, monitored measures get high visibility within an organization, and people
strive to achieve high performance with respect to these measures. Second, Measured metrics drive organizational actions by
identifying areas of improvement. Once poor area is identified, managers can take corrective action to address such issues.
 As a framework for decision making
Measures provide a basis to evaluate alternatives and identify decision criteria. The structure of measurement systems drives decisions
and action at the different levels in the firm.
 Provides closed loop control
An effective enterprise performance management system allows proper monitoring of business process. The feedback is used to
compare actual progress to planned; facilitate benchmarking against industry best practices and to identify improvement opportunities.
Meyer (2002) defines 7 purposes of performance measurement that takes place within the different levels of the companies.
Performance measurement enables companies to look back and evaluate the past activities and look ahead and prepare for the
forthcoming performance. Motivate and compensate, on the other hand are the purposes for the lower levels of the company. In larger
and more complicated firms, measures are also expected

Figure 1: Seven purposes of performance measurement (Meyer 2002)

to roll up from the bottom to the top of the organization, to cascade down from top to bottom, and to facilitate performance
comparisons across business and functional units.

III. TERMINOLOGY
According to Neely(1995) performance measurement is a topic which is often discussed but rarely defined. He defines performance
measurement as the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action. Effectiveness is the amount of meeting
customers' needs and efficiency is rate of economically using corporation's resources in time of measuring a predetermined level of
customers' satisfaction.
 A performance measure can be defined as a metric used to quantify the efficiency and/or effectiveness of an action (Neely,
1995).
 A performance measurement system can be defined as the set of metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and
effectiveness of actions (Neely, 1994).
Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships (GAO/GGD-98-26), the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) cited in ‘Performance based management handbook’, 2001 provides the following definition:

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 3
ISSN 2250-3153

Performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress towards pre
established goals. Performance measures may address the type or level of program activities conducted (process), the direct products
and services delivered by a program (outputs), and/or the results of those products and services (outcomes).

IV. CLASSIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE

Different authors have classified the performance management literature based on their perspectives. According to Başar
Öztayşi(2009), the studies about performance can be grouped into two. In the first group, the researches focus on models and
frameworks about what to measure in other words, performance indicators. On the other hand, the second group focuses on analytical
techniques and quantification of performance.

Table 1: Performance measurement models and evaluations (Öztayşi, 2009)

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 4
ISSN 2250-3153

The present supply chain performance measurement frameworks can be classified into following three main models that are
mentioned frequently by other scholars:
 result based (balanced scorecard) (Kaplan and Norton, 1992);
 hierarchical (decision making levels) (Gunasekaran et al., 2004) and
 process based (supply chain operations reference, SCOR model) frameworks (Supply Chain Council, 1996).
Kurien et.al,(2011) classified the literature related to SCPMS to two major orientations. They are: (i) Conceptual articles and (ii)
Empirical articles. The conceptual works tend to focus on measurement constructs and prescriptive methodologies. Topics normally
covered in conceptual articles are related to performance definition, theoretical evaluation criteria, models and issues with measures.
The empirical works tend to focus more on performance content than on measurement process. Empirical articles include descriptive
studies, methods, taxonomies, benchmarking and prescriptive performance improvement activities. Table 1. shows the evaluations of
various models and frameworks. The symbols are used to define the properties of the models, “+” means that the model satisfies the
property while “–” means that the property is not provided. The “¤” sign symbolizes that the property is satisfied to some degree or the
user is free to modify.

Many authors have classified PMS in different ways. A basic classification provided by Cagnazzo cited in Kurien et.al,(2011)
consists of grouping PMS models into:
1. Balanced models;
2. Quality models;
3. Questionnaire-based models;
4. Hierarchical models; and
5. Support models.

V. COMMON FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

A number of frameworks and models for performance measurement have been developed, since 1980s (Bititci et al., 2000). All
these frameworks and models have their own respective benefits and limitations. Kurien et.al,(2011) claims that empirical and
theoretical validity of some of the frame works are established whereas information about others is not available. The following
section familiarises a few widely cited measurement systems.
A. Balanced Score Card (BSC):
Since the introduction of Balanced scorecard by Kaplan and Norton in 1992, it has been widely recognised as the leading tool for
performance management. Balanced scorecard shown in the figure below provides a quick and comprehensive view of the entire
business process by using a set of balanced measures from four different perspectives. They are
• Customer perspective (How do customers see us?)
• Internal perspective (What must we excel at?)

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 5
ISSN 2250-3153

• Innovation and learning perspective (Can we continue to improve and create value?)
• Financial perspective (How do we look to shareholders?)

Figure 2. Balanced Score Card (Source: Adapted from Kaplan et.al, 1992)
With these perspectives in mind a manager can derive specific measures that are directly linked to the business strategy. Thus BSC
provides a set of financial and non financial operational measures and helps the managers to identify a critical few measures that are
most important to the business. The balanced score card guards against local optimisation thus providing insight whether an
improvement is based on actual process improvement or by reducing the performance of other processes (Kaplan et.al, 1992).
B. Performance Prism:
The Performance Prism (PP) is one of the younger conceptual systems and is considered as a second-generation PM system (Michaela
et al., 2012). The performance prism framework suggests that a PMS should be organised around five distinct but linked perspectives

Figure 3: Performance Prism (Adapted from Tangen, 2004)

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 6
ISSN 2250-3153

of performance as shown in figure 3 (Neely et al., 2001).

• Stakeholder satisfaction (Who are the stakeholders and what do they want and need?)
• Strategies (What are the strategies we require to ensure the wants and needs of our stakeholders?)
• Processes (What are the processes we have to put in place in order to allow our strategies to be delivered?)
• Capabilities (The combination of people, practices, technology and infrastructure that together enable execution of the
organisation’s business processes, both now and in the future, and what are the capabilities we require to operate our
processes?)
• Stakeholder contributions (What do we want and need from stakeholders to maintain and develop those capabilities?)

According to performance prism the performance measurement need not be strictly derived from the strategy: instead, “strategies
should be put in place to ensure the wants and needs of the stakeholders are satisfied” (Neely et.al.,2001). It is tool that helps
management teams to think about vital questions and strategies to address them. (Michaela et.al. 2012). Although the performance
prism extends beyond “traditional” performance measurement, it offers little about how the performance measures are going to be
realised. Another weakness is that little or no consideration is given to the existing PMSs that companies may have in place (Medori et
al., 2000), cited in Kurien et.al,(2011).
C. The Performance Pyramid:
Another important framework is performance pyramid proposed by Cross and Lynch (1992). The purpose of the performance
pyramid (refer Figure 4) is to link an organisation’s strategy with its operations by translating objectives from the top down (based on
customer priorities) and measures from the bottom up. This PMS includes four levels of objectives that address the organisation’s
external effectiveness (left side of the pyramid) and its internal efficiency (right side of the pyramid). The development of a

Figure 4. Performance Pyramid (Adapted fromTangen, 2004)

company’s performance pyramid starts with defining an overall corporate vision at the first level, which is then translated into
individual business unit objectives. The second-level business units are short-term targets of cash flow and profitability and long-term
goals of growth and market position (e.g. market, financial). The business operating system bridges the gap between top-level and
day-to-day operational measures (e.g. customer satisfaction, flexibility, productivity). Finally, four key performance measures
(quality, delivery, and cycle time, waste) are used at departments and work centres on a daily basis (Kurien et.al,2011).

The strengths of this framework are that it ties together the hierarchical view of business performance measurement with the
business process view. It also makes explicit the difference between measures that are of interest to external parties-customer
satisfaction, quality and delivery, and measures that are primarily of interest within the business productivity, cycle time and waste
(Neely et.al, 2000).

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 7
ISSN 2250-3153

D. The Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model:

The SCOR model was developed by the Supply-Chain Council (SCC) to assist firms in increasing the effectiveness of their SCs,
and to provide a process-based approach to SCM (Kurien et.al, 2011). The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model
provides a unique framework that links performance metrics, processes, best practices, and people into a unified structure. The
framework supports communication between supply chain partners and enhances the effectiveness of supply chain management,
technology, and related supply chain improvement activities (SSC Council, 2010). The SCOR model was originally developed on
five supply chain management processes - plan, source, make, deliver and return. Further the measures are grouped into five
performance attributes: reliability, responsiveness, flexibility, cost and assets.

VI. MEASURES AND METRICS

Performance measures help us understand, analyse, control and improve what our organizations do. Commentators believe
performance measures and metrics will facilitate a more open and transparent communication between people, leading to a co-
operative supported work environment and hence improved organizational performance (Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007). According to
The Performance-Based Management Handbook, 2001 effective performance measures can let us know:
• How well we are doing,
• If we are meeting our goals,
• If our customers are satisfied,
• If our processes are in statistical control, and
• If and where improvements are necessary.
Gopal et.al, (2012) in review of supply chain measures and metrics claim that researchers have associated the supply chain
performance with measures in the following diverse ways:
• qualitative or quantitative
• cost and non-cost;
• quality, cost, delivery and flexibility
• cost, quality, resource utilization, flexibility, visibility, trust and innovativeness
• resources, outputs and flexibility
• supply chain collaboration efficiency; coordination efficiency and configuration
• input, output and composite measures
• strategic, operational or tactical focus
• supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model (plan, source, make, deliver and return or customer satisfaction); whether
they measure cost, time, quality, flexibility and innovativeness; and, whether they were quantitative or qualitative
• modelling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chains
• key performance measures and metrics in supply chain
• scorecard approach
• tangible/intangible
• sustainability/green
• financial/non-financial

A .Types of Performance Measures:

The Performance-Based Management Handbook, 2001 has divided the performance measures into five general types. They are:
• Input Measures - Used to understand the human and capital resources used to produce the outputs and outcomes.
• Process Measures - Used to understand the intermediate steps in producing a product or service. In the area of training for example, a
process measure could be the number of training courses completed as scheduled.
• Output Measures - Used to measure the product or service provided by the system or organization and delivered to customers. An
example of a training output would the number of people trained.
• Outcome Measures - Evaluate the expected, desired, or actual result(s) to which the outputs of the activities of a service or
organization have an intended effect. For example, the outcome of safety training might be improved safety performance as reflected
in a reduced number of injuries and illnesses in the workforce.
• Impact Measures - Measure the direct or indirect effects or consequences resulting from achieving program goals. An example of an
impact is the comparison of actual program outcomes with estimates of the outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the
program.

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 8
ISSN 2250-3153

Performance measures can also be categorized as leading, lagging, and/or behavioural. These types of measures are defined below:
• Lagging Measures - Measure performance after the fact. Injury and illness measures such the Lost Workday Case Rate and the Total
Recordable Case Rate are examples of lagging measures commonly used to measure environment, safety and health performance.
• Leading Measures - Are more predictive of future performance and include measures such as near misses, procedural violations, or
estimated cost based on highly correlated factors.
• Behavioural Measures - Measure the underlying culture or attitude of the personnel or organization being measured. Examples
would include management walk-through, safety program implementation, or employee satisfaction questionnaires.

VII. TESTS FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Once the performance measure types are identified and selected, it is to be tested to analyse the effectiveness of the measure. Even
though a wide literature is available on the various requirements of performance measures a set of generic tests will help us to know
what to look for in a performance measure and how to develop sound performance measure. Two important tests cited from The
Performance-Based Management Handbook, 2001is given below.
A. The SMART test:
SMART test provide a quick reference for determining the quality of a particular performance measure:
• S = Specific - Is the measure clear and focused to avoid misinterpretation? It should include measurement assumptions and
definitions, and should be easily interpreted.
• M = Measurable - Can the measure be quantified and compared to other data? It should allow for meaningful statistical
analysis. Avoid ?yes/no” measures except in limited cases, such as start-up or systems-in-place situations.
• A = Attainable - Is the measure achievable, reasonable, and credible under conditions expected?
• R = Realistic - Does the measure fit into the organization’s constraints? Is it cost-effective?
• T= Timely - Is measurement doable within the time frame given?
B. The Quality Check:
The following questions serve as a checklist to determine the quality of the performance measures that have been defined:
• Is the measurement objectively measurable?
• Does the measurement include a clear statement of the end results expected?
• Does the measure support customer requirements, including compliance issues where appropriate?
• Does the measure focus on the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the system being measured?
• Does the measure allow for meaningful trend or statistical analysis?
• Have appropriate industries or other external standards been applied?

VIII. CRITICISMS ON PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

We have seen that a variety of models and frameworks were proposed and practiced in various organisational contexts. Even though
each model has its own merits and features, they had to face criticisms from reviewers on various fronts. Some of the most observed
shortcomings of performance measurement systems are listed below.
• Lack of systematic method for selecting measures
• Lack of a balanced approach
• Too many number of metrics and measures
• Lack of provision for benchmarking
• Lack of connection with organisation’s mission and strategy.
• Failure in addressing the practicalities of measurement
• Lack of system thinking of measuring supply chain as a whole
• Lack of systematic method for prioritising measures

IX. SUGGESTIONS
• Creative efforts are needed to design new measures and new programs for assessing the performance of the supply chain as a
whole as well as the performance of each organization that is a part of the supply chain (Gunasekaran et.al, 2004).
• Researchers should include and analyze safety-related measures in supply chains (Gopal et.al, 2012).
• Comparative analysis is needed of short vs long supply chains based on product life cycles (Gopal et.al, 2012).
• Composite models can be generated and be experienced in some case studies (Öztayşi et.al, 2009)
• Measures spanning entire SC do not exist; there is requirement to go beyond internal matrix and take an SC perspective
(Kurien et.al, 2011).

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 9
ISSN 2250-3153

• It is expected that future SCPMS will be incorporating technology, Operations Research techniques and heuristics in
measurement frameworks (Kurien et.al, 2011).
• Future studies must address the business and environmental results of a green supply chain management performance
measurement system and their impact within the organization, industry, and society at large (Hervani et. al, 2005).
• Research to explore how the conceptual frameworks can be translated and tailored to fulfil the unique measurement needs of
a specific company, especially at the operational level, is needed (Michaela Striteska et.al, 2012).
• There is a need for longitudinal empirical studies that explores the relationship between the dynamic operating environment;
Evolution of performance measures; Evolution of performance management and Evolution of organisational culture to create
a better understanding of how one effects the other (Bititci et.al, 2000).

X. CONCLUSION
The relevance of effective performance measures in achieving sustained business progress in a dynamic environment cannot be
understated. With this in mind significant amount of work has been carried out in the field of performance measurement and
management in the last two decades. Literature indicates the existence of wide variety of measures and frameworks. Many of the
works are theoretical models with less information on how to implement these models. The validity and practicality of most of these
measures and metrics is yet to be determined. With the change of time business practices are also evolving to meet the changes in
market demand and customer expectations. Accordingly the measures and measurement systems also need to evolve. The existing
performance measurement models and systems are to be strengthened by including new dimensions and measures of the new age. The
scope for incorporating suitable optimisation techniques to create integrated performance measurement and management systems is to
be tested. While carrying on such advanced researches the ability of a performance measurement system to provide a quick snapshot
of the business with relative easiness is to be maintained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and cooperation provided by the colleagues, friends and family. The authors would
like to thank everyone who with their constructive comments helped to improve the quality of the paper.

REFERENCES
[1] Adebayo Adiamo, A, De Castro Vila, R. and Gimenez Leal, G.,(2012),“Measuring Competitive Factors: A perspective of Spanish manufacturing firms,” 6th
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management.
[2] Amlan Bora, Singha Chiamsiri and Donyaprueth Krairit, “Developing key performance indicators for performance controlling of a supply chain,” Proceedings of
the Fifth Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference.
[3] Amr Abu-Suleiman, Bonnie Boardman and John W. Priest “A framework for an integrated Supply Chain Performance
Management System ,” University of Texas, Arlington.
[4] Aref A. Hervani and Marilyn M. Helms Joseph Sarkis (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply chain management Benchmarking,” An International
Journal Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-353
[5] Başar Öztayşi, İrem Uçal,(2009) “Comparing madm techniques for use in performance measurement”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Analytic Hierarchy Process
[6] Benita M. Beamon (1998) “Supply Chain Design and Analysis: Models and Methods,” International Journal of Production Economics Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 281-294
[7] Benita M. Beamon and Burcu Balcik (2008) “Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains,” International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol.
21 No. 1, pp. 4-25
[8] Bititci, U.S., and Turner. T., (2000). “Dynamics of performance measurement systems,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 692-704.
[9] Damon M. Fleming, Chee W. Chow, Gongmeng Chen (2009) “Strategy, performance-measurement systems, and performance: A study of Chinese firms”, The
International Journal of Accounting 44) 256–278
[10] G. P. Kurien, M.N. Qureshi(2011), “Study of performance measurement practices in supply chain management,” International Journal of Business, Management
and Social Sciences Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 19-34
[11] Gopal P.R.C, Jitesh Thakkar (2012) “A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management Emerald Article
[12] Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E., (2004) “A framework for supply chain performance measurement”, International Journal of Production
Economics, 87 (3), p.333-347.
[13] Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004)
for research and applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-40.
[14] Jitesh Thakkar Arun Kanda S.G. Deshmukh (2009) “Supply chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 702-723
[15] Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
[16] Meyer, M.W., (2002). “Rethinking performance measurement: beyond the balanced scorecard,” Cambridge University Press, New York.
[17] Michaela Striteska and Marketa Spickova (2012), “Review and Comparison of Performance Measurement Systems”, Journal of Organizational Management
Studies Vol. Article ID 114900, 13 pages
[18] Mohammad Reza Akhavan Anvari, Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri and Seyed Mostafa Razavi,(2011) “How to Measure Supply Chain Performance (case study)”,
International Review of Business Research Papers Vol. 7. No. 2. . Pp. 230-244
[19] Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F., Platts, K.W., Gregory, M.J. and Richards, A.H. (1994), ``Mapping measures and activities: a practical tool for assessing measurement
systems'', Operations Strategy and Performance, Proceedings of the 1st European Operations Management Association Conference, Churchill College,
Cambridge, pp. 313-18
[20] Neely,A.D., John Mills, Ken Platts, Huw Richards, Mike Gregory and Mike Bourne Mike Kennerley (2000) “Performance measurement system design:
developing and testing a process-based approach”, International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 10, , pp. 1119-1145

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2014 10
ISSN 2250-3153

[21] Neely,A.D., Mike Gregory and Ken Platts (1995) “Performance measurement system design A literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management Vol. 25 No. 12, 2005 pp. 1228-1263 IJOPM Volume 15 Issue 4, pp. 80-116
[22] Neely, A., Adams, C., and Crowe, P., 2001. “The Performance Prism in Practice”,. Measuring Business Excellence, Vol 5 , Issue 2,pp . 6 - 1 2.
[23] Supply-Chain Council (2010), “Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model, SCOR Version 10.0 Overview,” Supply-Chain Council Inc., Pittsburgh.
[24] Tangen, T., (2004). “Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53, No.
8, pp. 726-737.
[25] Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., and Cagnazzo, L., (2010). “Performance measurement and management: a literature review and a research agenda”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 4-18.
[26] The Performance-Based Management Handbook ,Volume 2 - Establishing an Integrated Performance Measurement System, Prepared by the Training Resources
and Data Exchange Performance-Based Management Special Interest Group 2001

AUTHORS

First Author – Roshan David, Mtech scholar, SCMS Institute of Science and Technology,[email protected]
Second Author – Jenson Joseph E, Assistant Professor, SCMS Institute of Science and Technology, [email protected]
Correspondence Author – Roshan David, [email protected], Contact number : +91 9809055360

www.ijsrp.org