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.

Design thinking has attracted considerable interest from practitioners and academics alike, as it offers a novel approach to innovation and problem‐solving. However, there appear to be substantial differences between promoters and critics about its essential attributes, applicability, and outcomes. To shed light on current knowledge and conceptualizations of design thinking we undertook a multiphase study. First, a systematic review of the design thinking literature enabled us to identify 10 principal attributes and 8 tools and methods. To validate and refine our findings, we then employed a card sorting exercise with professional designers. Finally, we undertook a cluster analysis to reveal structural patterns within the design thinking literature. Our research makes three principal contributions to design and innovation management theory and practice. First, in rigorously deriving 10 attributes and 8 essential tools and methods that support them from a broad and multidisciplinary assortment of articles, we bring much needed clarity and validity to a construct plagued by polysemy and thus threatened by “construct collapse.” Second, aided by the identification of perspectives of scholars writing about design thinking, we provide detailed recommendations for relevant topics warranting further study in order to advance theoretical understanding of design thinking and test its applications. Third, we identify the enduring, yet essential, questions that remain unresolved across the extant design thinking literature and that may impede its practical implementation. We also provide suggestions for the theoretic frames, which may help address them, and thus advance the ability of scholars and managers alike to benefit from design thinking’s apparent advantages.

His main areas of expertise are design and innovation management, strategy implementation, and performance management. He has published in various journals including Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Management, and International Journal of Operations and Production Management. He has worked as a practitioner and a management consultant with over 50 organizations. Currently he is carrying out research on design thinking and digital transformation in large firms.

In order to sustain and grow brand equity, brand managers are faced with balancing the preservation of existing brand identity through consistency with the need to maintain relevance, which requires change and innovation. In this paper we build upon the concept of organizational ambidexterity (March 1991), arguing that design thinking-the logics and practices associated with designers-can serve as a mechanism which promotes and enables the integration of brand consistency and relevance. Drawing on cases of innovation at firms across a range of industries, we show how design thinking can trigger brand ambidexterity across a three-stage process. We identify eight practices and examine how designers enable brand managers to address enduring consistency-relevance tensions in ways that ensure innovations renew or revitalize the brand without undermining its essence.

Despite changes in tools and practices, the conceptual foundations of performance measurement and management (PMM) are still predominantly rooted in control systems research. While PMM approaches have delivered significant organizational benefits, including creating alignment, supporting monitoring and control, and enabling prediction and optimization of resource allocation, this paper argues that this paradigm is not capable of responding to increasingly complex and highly uncertain organizational environments. Drawing on ideas emerging in the literature on systems engineering and complex systems, we propose a novel perspective that considers PMM from a 'system of systems' (SoS) point of view, whose essential characteristics are autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity, and emergence. After identifying the assumptions underpinning existing PMM approaches, we outline a SoS-based paradigm to PMM and conclude by articulating the main implications for the practice of PMM and setting out a research agenda.

No abstract

No abstract

Research in sustainability measurement has been growing at a very high pace over the past years, and it has explored a variety of issues, from sustainability disclosure to measurement in green supply chains, from the diffusion of environmental standards to the political use of sustainability metrics. This study is the first to report and discuss the results of a comprehensive review of the sustainability measurement literature. In particular, the authors adopt a wide conceptualization of the measurement process, and analyze data through a bibliometric method–bibliographic coupling. The results show that the literature is divided into eight distinct areas of inquiry and 12 sub‐fields, some of which have expanded significantly over recent years, and others appear to be waning. Furthermore, the lack of a comprehensive view of sustainability measurement has led to the development of many separate communities, resulting in duplications of effort, incomplete framing of the problem, and the proposal of partial solutions. However, findings drawn in sustainability measurement research could inform current debates in performance measurement and management in three main ways: by emphasizing stakeholders’ roles in the design, implementation and use of measures; by indicating ways to establish common measures and sharing data between organizations; and by adopting novel theoretical perspectives. Equally, future sustainability measurement studies could benefit from consideration of extant research on strategic performance measurement and on the behavioral effects of measurement practices.