Bridging the Strategic Outcome Measurement Gap in Manufacturing Organizations

Nemetz, Patricia L.

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2189-4_8

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with the literature that suggests a correspondence between performance measures and the manufactur-Ž ing priorities emphasized Richardson et al, 1985; . Roth, 1989;Nemetz, 1990 . It is also possible that the above within and between group differences could be related to both Ž. Nakane's 1986 notion of how manufacturing progresses through various competitive priorities and Ž. Ferdows and De Meyer's 1990 sandcone model. For example, the Starters seem to have a light emphasis on all priorities that might show how dividing attention between the priorities diminishes the impact on certain performance measures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competitive priorities and managerial performance: a taxonomy of small manufacturers

Kathuria

2000

J of Ops Management

262

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the research in manufacturing strategy has focused on specific relationships between a few constructs, with relatively little emphasis on typologies and taxonomies [Bozarth, C., McDermott, C., 1998. Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a review and directions for future research. Journal of Operations Management 16 (4) 427–439]. Using data from 196 respondents in 98 manufacturing units, this study develops a taxonomy of small manufacturers based on their emphasis on several competitive priorities. The annual sales for 64% of the participating units in this study are below US$50 million, which is on the lower side as compared to other studies in this area [cf., Miller, J.G., Roth, A.V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Management Science 40 (3) 285–304]. The study findings indicate that different groups of manufacturers — Do All, Speedy Conformers, Efficient Conformers, and Starters — emphasize different sets of competitive priorities, even within the same industry. Further, the Do All types, who emphasize all four competitive priorities, seem to perform better on customer satisfaction than their counterparts in the Starters group. The above findings lend support to the sandcone model but contradict the traditional trade‐off model.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…cluding Morrison and Roth 1993, Ritzman et al Ž. Ž. Ž. 1993, Nemetz 1990, Wood et al 1990, and Ž. Roth and Miller 1990 . Manufacturing managers rated all items on a five-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being extremely important.…”

Section: Competitiõe Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive priorities and managerial performance: a taxonomy of small manufacturers

Kathuria

2000

J of Ops Management

262

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Correlations between responses from managers at the same firm for the same item(s) provide a means of checking the degree of inter-rater reliability [34]. Correlations…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manufacturing Proactiveness and Performance

Ward¹,

Leong²,

Boyer³

1994

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Skinner's [40] landmark article depicting the manufacturing function a s the "missing link" in corporate strategic processes, a portion of the blame for inferior performance in many f m s has been attributed to the subordinate strategic position of manufacturing. It has been argued that part of the solution to misalignments between the capabilities possessed by manufacturing and the requirements dictated by customers is for manufacturing to take a more proactive stance. However, little research has been reported which examines manufacturing proactiveness empirically. In this paper, we address this gap by developing an operational definition of manufacturing proactiveness and testing empirically whether a link exists between proactiveness and performance based on data collected from a sample of manufacturers.Based on the manufacturing strategy literature, we identify two major dimensions of manufacturing proactiveness: (1) the degree of manufacturing's involvement in the strategic processes of the business unit; and (2) the degree of commitment to a long-term program of investments in manufacturing structure and infrastructure aimed at building capabilities in anticipation of their need. We develop reliable scales for measuring each of the dimensions of proactiveness and use the data to provide evidence of a clear link between manufacturing proactiveness and business performance. We show that investments in structural programs coupled with either high levels of manufacturing involvement in strategic processes or planned investments in infrastructural programs correlate with higher than average performance.

show abstract

“…While objective measures are easily quantifiable and establishing benchmarks is straight forward, subjective measures are judgemental and establishing benchmarks is complex and often difficult. Nemetz (1990) identified in her research that it is always not possible to gather accurate, standard and objective performance data and hence it is necessary to rely on subjective or perceptual performance data. A survey done by Van Der Stede, Chow, and Lin (2006) concluded that organisations with extensive performance measurement systems that included both subjective and objective non-financial measures will achieve higher performance.…”

Section: Implementing Pmsmentioning

confidence: 97%

State of the art literature review on performance measurement

Nudurupati

Bititci

Kumar

et al. 2011

Computers & Industrial Engineering

374

269

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance measurement revolution started in the late 1970s with the dissatisfaction of traditional backward looking accounting systems. Since then the literature in this field is emerging. Most of the focus was on designing performance measurement system (PMS), with few studies illustrating the issues in implementing and using PMS. Although Management Information Systems (MIS) and change management are important enablers of PMS, their role is not very well understood. Hence the objective of this paper is to review literature on the role of MIS and change management throughout the lifecycle of performance measurement, i.e. design, implementation and use stages. This paper not only discusses the role of MIS and change management throughout PMS lifecycle but also discusses PMS in the context of emerging business environment such as globalization, servitization, and networking in the context of multi-cultural environment. Finally it identifies research challenges for PMS in the emerging business environment

show abstract

Bridging the Strategic Outcome Measurement Gap in Manufacturing Organizations

Cited by 28 publications

References 8 publications

Competitive priorities and managerial performance: a taxonomy of small manufacturers

Competitive priorities and managerial performance: a taxonomy of small manufacturers

Manufacturing Proactiveness and Performance

State of the art literature review on performance measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About