Nasze serwisy używają informacji zapisanych w plikach cookies. Korzystając z serwisu wyrażasz zgodę na używanie plików cookies zgodnie z aktualnymi ustawieniami przeglądarki, które możesz zmienić w dowolnej chwili. Więcej informacji odnośnie plików cookies.

Obowiązek informacyjny wynikający z Ustawy z dnia 16 listopada 2012 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo telekomunikacyjne oraz niektórych innych ustaw.

Wyłącz komunikat

 
 

Logowanie

Logowanie za pomocą Centralnej Usługi Uwierzytelniania PRz. Po zakończeniu pracy nie zapomnij zamknąć przeglądarki.

Modern Management Review (dawna nazwa: Zarządzanie i Marketing)

Modern Management Review
(dawna nazwa: Zarządzanie i Marketing)
23 (4/2016), DOI: 10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.51

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF A STRATEGY EXECUTION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

Joanna RADOMSKA
Submitted by: Paweł Perz

DOI: 10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.51

Abstract

The article describes the issue of strategy execution measurement taking into consideration two variables – the level of its comprehensiveness and the effectiveness of activities performed. The comprehensiveness was defined by means of three areas: the use of measurement tools, processes and regularity of the measurement work conducted. Whereas the effectiveness of strategy implementation was expressed through the level to which intended strategic objectives are achieved and income dynamics. The research sample included managers of 200 companies that have been operating for at least 5 years and are listed among the 500 largest Polish companies in the ranking of “Polityka” magazine and in the “Forbes Diamonds 2013” ranking. The study was conducted the PAPI (Paper and Pencil Interview) technique. The questions in the questionnaire were of nominal value (the respondents declared the existence of specific obstacles) and or ordinal variable nature (the respondents indicated the strength of their impact on a 5-point scale). In order to test the hypotheses, Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated. The research has shown the existence of a positive correlation between these, indicating that the greatest role is played by appropriately designed measurement processes. Concurrently, it is important to take into consideration mutual interactions between the elements of the measurement system, in order to adopt a holistic perspective and design it using the comprehensive approach.

Full text (pdf)

References

  1. Brignall S., Ballantine J., Strategic Enterprise Management Systems: new directions for research, Management Accounting Research, 2004, No 15, p. 225.
  2. Burns J., Scapens R., Turley S., The crunch for numbers, Accountancy, 1997, Vol. 119, No. 1245, pp. 86.
  3. Chenhall R., Management control system design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2003, Vol. 28, pp. 127‐68.
  4. Chennell A., Dransfield S., Field J., Fisher N., Saunders I., Shaw D., OPM: A System for Organisational Performance Measurement, Performance Measurement – Past, Present and Future (Conference Proceedings), Cranfield University, Cranfield, 2000, pp. 96-103.
  5. Choong K., Understanding the features of performance measurement system: a literature review, Measuring Business Excellence, 2013, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 114.
  6. Dangayach G., Deshmukh S., Manufacturing strategy literature review and some issues, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2001, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 884‐932.
  7. Fishman F., Strategy Execution for Enduring Performance, Baseline, 2009, April, p. 40.
  8. Forza C., Salvador F., Assessing some distinctive dimensions of performance feedback information in high performing plants, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 2000, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 359.
  9. Franco-Santos M., Kennerley M., Micheli P., Martinez V., Mason S., Marr B., Gray D., Neely A., Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2007, Vol. 27, No. 8, p. 795.
  10. Frigo M., Litman J., Strategy, Business Execution, and Performance Measures, Strategic Finance, 2002, May, pp. 6-8.
  11. Frigo M., Nonfinancial Performance Measures and Strategy Execution, Strategic Finance, 2002, August, pp. 6-8.
  12. Frigo M., Strategy or Execution?, Strategic Finance, 2003, March, p. 9.
  13. Garengo P., Biazzo S., Bititci U., Performance measurement system in SMSs: a review for a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 2005, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-47.
  14. Gates S., Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Results, The Conference Board, 1999, New York, p. 4, 24
  15. Gomes C., Yasin M., Lisboa J., A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 2004, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 522 - 524
  16. Hanley C., The Execution Challenge: Translating Strategy into Action, Bank Accounting & Finance, 2007, October-November, p. 19.
  17. Hoque F., Shaping Your Business Strategy, Baseline, 2008a, September, p. 49.
  18. Hoque F., Turning Ideas Into Action, Baseline, 2008b, April, p. 61.
  19. Hudson M., Bourne M., Lean J., Smart P., Only Just Managing – No Time to Measure, Performance Measurement – Past, Present and Future (Conference Proceedings) Cranfield University,  Cranfield, 2000, pp. 243-250.
  20. Hvolby H-H., Thorstenson, A., Performance Measurement in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, 3rd International Conference on Stimulating Manufacturing Excellence in SMEs (Proceedings), Coventry University, 2000, pp. 324-332.
  21. Ittner C., Larcker D., Randall T., Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial service firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2003, Vol. 28, No. 7/8, p. 734.
  22. Jääskeläinen A., Productivity Measurement and Management in Large Public Service Organizations, Publication 927, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, 2010,.
  23. Kaplan R., Norton D., The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Press, Boston, 2008, p. 15.
  24. Maisel L., Performance Measurement Practices Survey Results, AICPA, New York, 2001a, p. 12.
  25. Maisel L., Performance Measurement Practices: A Long Way from Strategic Management, Balanced Scorecard Report, 2001b, May – June.
  26. Medori D., Steeple D., A framework for auditing and enhancing performance measurement systems, International Journal of Operations & Production, 2000, Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 523.
  27. Morgan J., Strategy Execution. A Four-Step Process, American Management Association, “MWorld” 2010-11, Winter, p.16.
  28. Neely A., Adams C., Kennerley M., The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Relationship, Prentice-Hall, London, 2002.
  29. Perego P., Hartmann F., Aligning Performance Measurement Systems With Strategy: The Case of Environmental Strategy, Abacus – A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies, 2009, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 428 – 432.
  30. Sirkin H., Keenan P., Jackson A., The hard side of change management, Harvard Business Review, 2005, No. 83(10), pp. 109–118.
  31. Tenhunen J., Rantanen H., Ukko J., SME-oriented implementation of a performance Measurement system, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, 2001.
  32. Van Dooren W., What Makes Organisations Measure? Hypotheses on the Causes and Conditions for Performance Measurement, Financial Accountability & AMP Management, 2005, July, pp. 362 – 383.

About this Article

TITLE:
COMPREHENSIVENESS OF A STRATEGY EXECUTION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

AUTHORS:
Joanna RADOMSKA

AUTHORS AFFILIATIONS:
Strategic Management Department, Wrocław University of Economics

SUBMITTED BY:
Paweł Perz

JOURNAL:
Modern Management Review
23 (4/2016)

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES:
strategy execution, measurement system, strategic goals, strategic management, control

FULL TEXT:
http://doi.prz.edu.pl/pl/pdf/zim/264

DOI:
10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.51

URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.51

COPYRIGHT:
Publishing House of Rzeszow University of Technology Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszow

POLITECHNIKA RZESZOWSKA im. Ignacego Łukasiewicza; al. Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszów
tel.: +48 17 865 11 00, fax.: +48 17 854 12 60
Administrator serwisu: