Rationale: Scholars in the field of performance measurement tend to use the term Business Performance Measurement (BPM) systems without explaining exactly what they mean by it. This lack of clarity creates confusion and comparability issues, and makes it difficult for researchers to build on each others' work. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify the key characteristics of a BPM system. We do so by reviewing the different definitions of a BPM system that exist in the literature. Through this work, we aim to open a debate on what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of a BPM system. We also hope to encourage a greater level of clarity in the performance measurement research arena. Methodology: We review the performance measurement literature using a systematic approach. Findings: Based on our research, we have proposed a set of conditions of a BPM system from which researchers can choose those which are necessary and sufficient conditions for their studies. Research implications: The analysis in this paper provides a structure and set of characteristics that researchers could use as a reference framework to define a BPM system for their work, and as a way to define the specific focus of their investigations. More clarity and 2 precision around the use of the BPM systems phrase will improve the generalisability and comparability of research in this area.

It is now generally believed, within the current literature, that an academic and practitioner focus on intellectual capital (IC) is important and that the measurement of a company's intangibles provides real business benefits. However, it is essential for researchers in the field of IC to be able to justify these newly formed theoretical assumptions through rigorous empirical testing. This paper reports on the results of a systematic investigation into the theoretical underpinnings of why firms measure their IC and existing empirical evidence that helps to prove that the measurement of IC is really worthwhile. The paper then critically reviews the state of research evidence in the field. The major finding of this paper is that the majority of research within the IC measurement field is at the theory building stage, and that very little of the proposed measurement theory has yet been fully tested. This paper outlines possible avenues scholars might pursue in order to further the development of the IC measurement field.

The paper highlights the importance of visual representations of strategic intent in order to understand how organizational resources – especially intangible assets and intellectual capital – are used to create value. Based on the literature the paper provides a taxonomy of organizational value drivers. Grounded in the resource‐based view of the firm, which argues that organizational resources or assets are bundled together and interdependent, it then highlights shortcomings in the strategy map approach based on the balanced scorecard. The paper then introduces the value creation map that utilizes both direct and indirect dependencies to map value creation. It is suggested that this approach complements the strategy map approach by extending its view of value creation from direct to both direct and indirect dependencies. Subsequently, the paper presents a case study of how the value creation map was applied to understand the new product development process in a leading furniture manufacturing firm.

Measuring intellectual capital is on the agenda of most 21st century organisations. This paper takes a knowledge-based view of the firm and discusses the importance of measuring organizational knowledge assets. Knowledge assets underpin capabilities and core competencies of any organisation. Therefore, they play a key strategic role and need to be measured. This paper reviews the existing approaches for measuring knowledge based assets and then introduces the knowledge asset map which integrates existing approaches in order to achieve comprehensiveness. The paper then introduces the knowledge asset dashboard to clarify the important actor/infrastructure relationship, which elucidates the dynamic nature of these assets. Finally, the paper suggests to visualise the value pathways of knowledge assets before designing strategic key performance indicators which can then be used to test the assumed causal relationships. This will enable organisations to manage and report these key value drivers in today's economy.

Business performance measurement (BPM) is on the radar screen of business managers and academic scholars alike. Special issues of journals appear regularly and Harvard Business Press as well as Cambridge University Press have recently published collections of articles on measuring corporate performance. New reports and articles on the topic have been appearing at a rate of one every five hours of every working day since 1994 (Neely, 2002). Internet searches on the topic reveal more than 12 million sites dedicated to BPM. Furthermore, the software market for solutions and applications for measuring and managing corporate performance is constantly growing (Marr and Neely, 2001). Like in many emerging research areas developments are rapid. Recent years have seen the development of new approaches of measuring performance, such as activity-based costing (Kaplan and Cooper, 1997) and shareholder value (Rappaport, 1986). New measurement frameworks, most notably the balanced scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996a) and assessment frameworks such as the business excellence model, have taken the business community in storm. Research suggests that 60 per cent of Fortune 1000 companies have experimented with the BSC (Silk, 1998). Other frameworks include the performance pyramid (Lynch and Cross, 1990), the macro process model (Brown, 1996) and more recently the performance prism (Neely et al., 2002). Moreover, the recognition of non-financial and intangible assets has led to the development of various frameworks which address this evermore important area

This paper takes a resource‐based view of the R&D process. Based on the literature, we forward a theory that allows us to predict the dynamic interaction and transformation of five key resources, namely human, relational, organizational, monetary, and physical. Utilizing visualization tools allows us to test this theory on various levels in order to draw insights from the data. The output of the analysis improves the strategic understanding of an organization. In particular, it improves the understanding of how intangible resources drive the value creation in an R&D organization. Further analysis of the data allows us to identify resources that are either under utilized or over utilized, which might indicate inefficiencies in the organizational performance.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Intellectual capital and knowledge management effectiveness Management Decision 41/8 [2003] 771-781

This introductory editorial to the special issue “IC at the crossroads: theory and research” explains the rationale and background to the studies. In addition it outlines reasons why the field of intellectual (IC) capital is at the crossroads. It seems that awareness of the importance of IC has been created. It is now the role of researchers as well as practitioners to move to the next level. This next level involves issues around taxonomies as well as research methodologies. In order to move on, precise definitions of concepts such as IC, better justifications of why organizations need to measure and manage IC, and increased clarity about terms such as measurement, assessment, or valuation are needed. In addition, more rigorous research methods are needed in order to test and validate existing theories in the field.