Organizational Performance Essay

AbstractThe cadence of organisational act has undergone changes in relation to its measurement focus. From a uniquely monetary perspective, it began to discoer some another(prenominal) non pecuniary perspectives, as well as to include a character and effect relation between the operational attri savee and the strategical dimension of governings. Based on this current view, exercise optical prism presents itself as a execution measurement agreement alternative to be utilise by organizations, with its main focus being the stakeholders in its field of operation. The clinical of this occupy is to present a conceptual set about to the measurement of organizational surgical procedure by means of a review of literature, introducing the surgery optical prism as the arranging for this measurement. Besides introducing the entire conceptual structure, based on the authors who proposed the ensample, Andy Neely and Chris Adams, this paper introduces a theoretical review con strueing the concepts of instruction execution measurement, differentiating the in the raw tendencies of new arisees and showing the relation between surgery measurement systems and the direction of organizational carrying into action.The public presentation prism put presents itself as a new proceeding measurement system alternative within the current need that goes beyond the financial approach. In relation to the Balanced Snitty-grittycard, a gener eithery apply model nowadays, procedure Prism stands out for having a broader aspect with regard to the stakeholders rented, which ar the models core focus. However, literature shows that the exertion Prism does non stand out yet as a broadly used model in the world. We conclude that this model idler fetch towards organizations that translatek changes in how they manage acts, mainly due to the fact that nigh often the stakeholders that belong to the environment in which they are inserted are who stimulate the sus tainability of these organizations, and therefore it is reasonable that they should be the focus of this organizational performance.Keywords performance measurement performance prism stakeholders.1. IntroductionThe measurement of organizational performance has undergone changes in relation to its measurement focus. From a uniquely financial perspective, it began to charter other nonfinancial perspectives, as well as to include a cause and effect relation between the operational dimension and the strategic dimension of organizations. Based on this current view, slaying Prism presents itself as a performance measurement system alternative to be used by organizations, with its main focus being the stakeholders in its field of operation. The objective of this use up is to present a conceptual approach to the measurement of organizational performance by means of a review of literature, introducing the Performance Prism as the system for this measurement.2. criterion performance in th e new contextFor a long time, performance measurement was focused only on financial indications, failing to address other perspectives influencing an organizations global performance. Eccles (1998) understands that not considering financial indicators as the basis for performance measurement and treating them only as a single aspect in a broader array of indicators is a requirement for this current belligerent environment.Bogan and English (1997) present a preeminence among performance indicators in past and current contexts. send off 1 shows the indicator set known as old performance indicators, focused on finance.Source Bogan and English, 1997, p. 60 example 1 Old performance indicators regard 2 shows the approach with quality seen together with the financial aspects. Currently, other non-financial dimensions are included, as well as stakeholders such as clients and employees. In this context, changes shown in juts 1 and 2 contemplate the transformation of this perform ance measurement approach employ only financial indicators into a set of financial and non-financial indicators.harmonize to Cavenaghi (2001), for years financial performance measurement was seen as the only way, the fix and legitimate way of assessing persuasiveness and efficiency in an organization. Drucker (1998) stresses that, regarding performance, it is important to consider the strategic approach that goes over an organizations internal boundaries, overcoming the raft contemplating cost centers and approaching issues like proprietary and third-party technologies, changes in economy, markets, clients and future(a) targets and financial markets.Source Bogan and English, 1997, p. 60 Figure 2 New performance indicators Dornier et al. (2000) see performance indicators as a guide for reservation investments, defining goals and withal benchmarking vs. the actual status, in adjunct to a facilitating instrument for predicting and reducing uncertainties, identifying exalted p riority litigates, helping in engaging and managing staff and being a dynamic tool reflecting the organizationsbehavior.For Simons and Dvila (2000, p. 73), genuine financial indicators for measuring performance, i.e. return on net assets, return on assets and return on sales, are useful, but are not specifically destined to reflect the companys quality of work when implementing strategies. match to Corra and Caon (2002), traditional collective performance measurement systems, in asset to focusing al closely exclusively on financial indicators, did not give seemly decision making by the executives, since they did not adequately reflect the level in which the organization is being able or inefficient to r from each one meet strategic goals. accord to Miranda and Silva (2002), any action to be implemented in a company inescapably follow-up to know to what extent it is progressing regarding defined goals and which corrective actions should be adopted if required. According to t hese authors, companies need to valorize performance measurement for the following factors Controlling the companys operating activities Feeding employees motivator systems and Controlling mean. Thus, performance measurement needs to be a part of the control suffice, involving strategic, tactic and operating levels, interminably assessing prep and actions implemented under different perspectives, such as clients, processes, collaborators, shareholders and other that can interfere with an organizations global performance, not solely contemplating the financial perspective.3. Performance Management and Performance measuring rod SystemTo Neely et al. (1995), a performance measurement system essential contain individual indicators, but inter-related regarding a specific environment, as shown in Figure 3. According to these authors, when excogitation a performance measurement system the following aspects essential(prenominal) be considered What performance indicators are to be used? What are they used for? How often will they cost? What benefits will they bring?Source Neely et al, 1995, p. 81 Figure 3 A structure for the performance measurement system initiation According to Lebas (1995), measuring performance and managing performance are not separated. He states that there is an interactive process between those two aspects. Performance worry is an organizational philosophy supported by performance measurement. According to the author, approach types are different, but in the first case, it is worried with related issues, such as training, incentives, compensation, management style and communication. In the second case, it is aimed at measuring potential, inputs, outputs and deviations. Bititci, Carrie and Mcdevitt (1997) understand the performance measurement system as the information system that represents the core of the performance management process. Figure 4, presents the performance management system according to the authors and the pos ition of the performance measurement system.Source Bititci, Carrie and Mcdevitt (1997) Figure 4 The performance management process and the position of the performance measurement system. For these authors, performance management is the process in which a company manages its performance adjust with corporate and functional strategies. The goal of this process is to promote a continuous, proactive control system where functional and corporate strategies are outspread to all product line process, activities, tasks, and people and feedback is obtained through a performance measurement system, allowing for an adequate decision making management. According to Martins (1998), the performance management process must be the way in which a company manages performance, adjust with corporate and functional strategies and goals derived from these strategies.According to this author, strong market competitiveness characterizes corporate environment, requiring products with libertine technol ogic innovationand short life cycles, forcing the performance management to be aligned to these concepts, as presented below- Acknowledgement of manufacturing(operations) as the missing link in company strategies and a subsequent source of competitive advantage bearing of Total Quality management as a management philosophy continuous improvement for products and processes Leaving the mechanistic view of the world for a systemic view Company aimed at the satisfaction of its stakeholders Multiple competitive criterions quality, cost, reliability, time, flexibility, innovation and service Importance of consolidation the companys bring out chain, both external and internal and Valuing teamwork and proactive decision making, anticipating potential future problems.Regarding the performance measurement system, Martins (1998) sees it in the core of the performance management process, integrating all relevant system information, such as strategy tuition and review, managerial acc ounting, management by objectives, nonfinancial performance indicators, bonus incentive structure and individual performance evaluations. For this author, new performance measurement systems must possess the following characteristics Be aligned with competitive strategy meditate financial and non-financial indicators Drive and support continuous improvement Identify trends and advancements Be clear in cause-effect relationships Be easily understood by employees- embrace the entire supply chain process Real -time information and be dynamic and Evaluate the group, not the individual, in addition to influencing the attitude of collaborators. For Corra and Corra (2005), performance measurement systems are part of the control and planning cycle, crucial for operations management, provided that performance indicators provide the means for collecting performance data that, after evaluated according to certain standards, support the decision making process.According to these autho rs, establishing an adequate performance evaluation system is crucial for influencing desire behaviors in people and in operations systems so that certain strategic intentions are more likely to become actions aligned to the desired strategy. Thus, performance measurement systems provide, through a set of information, support for the performance management process, which has a broader approach. When designinga performance measurement system, one must understand the adoption of me measurements, in terms of acquisition costs, justification and exercising and these must be inter-related, being part of the organizations planning and control cycle.4. Performance Prism as a Performance Measurement SystemEvaluating organizational relationships with its main stakeholders and their links to strategies, processes and competencies can be a way to leverage and improve corporate performance. For Frost (2000), depending on affair nature, stakeholders can be external, internal clients, regulatio n authorities, shareholders and others. This author understands one should consider all stakeholders involved with the organization, to the extent of if one is forgotten inthe management and evaluation system, consequences can be dramatic for the business. Our business is to create judge for our stakeholders our first job is to know who those stakeholders are and what they value in our performance (FROST, 2000, p.31). The Performance Prism was created by Nelly and Adams (2000). These authors proposed the model from the premise that several approaches or methodologies for measuring performance have their own context nonetheless, they all taste to measure performance. In this context, these authors propose the Performance Prism, stating that it is a broader models, since it considers the basketball team surfaces of a prism.According to Adams and Neely (2003), in the structure of the Performance Prism, stakeholder satisfaction, as well as its contributions act at the core of the sea rch for success in an organization. For the authors, button up though process perspectives, strategies and competencies are involved and serving as backing perspectives to reach stakeholder satisfaction or receive their contribution, as shown in Figure 5, stakeholders are the focal point of Performance Prism. According to Neely, Adams, and Crowe (2001), the model has been apply in a real number of situations. It has also been used in mergers and acquisitions, aimed at improving these processes. Adams andNeely (2006) understand that the Balanced card, proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), takes only collar stakeholders into account investors, clients and employees. The Performance Prism also considers employees, vendors, intermediaries, regulation authorities and the community. The model considers stakeholder satisfaction and contribution in a unique way.Source Adams and Neely (2003) Figure 5 Performance Prism in action Since this model is derived from the process strategy, th us acknowledging the required competencies, the Performance Prism promotes a more comprehensive approach and stimulates views at a magnified angle, in other business dimensions, where possibly performance is missing in the measurement structure. The result is such(prenominal) more realistic for business leadership (ADAMS NELLY, 2006). Each of the fine surfaces of the Performance Prism represents a key area crucial to success. The weight of each surface will depend on established strategic goals, such as cost reduction, brand increase, research synergies and others.Figure 6 presents the five surfaces of the Performance Prism model and its approaches. Each surface of the Prism must represent an approach perspective processes, strategies, competencies, contribution and stakeholder satisfaction in performance measurement.Source Adams and Neely (2006, p.2) Figure 6 The five surfaces of the Performance Prism model For Adams and Neely (2006), the following are fundamental questions tha t must be considered when approaching the Performance Prisma) Who are our key stakeholders and what do they want and need?b) What strategies are we using to meet their needs and desires?c) What processes are needed to put them into practice and reach these strategies?d) What competencies are required to operate and augment these processes?e) What do we want and need from the stakeholders to maintain and develop these competencies?This way, the Performance Prism model, in addition to considering perspectives of processes, strategies and competencies, also considers stakeholders contribution and satisfaction. It focuses on stakeholders involved in the environment of an organization through five perspectives, considering stakeholders satisfaction, stakeholders contribution ad deriving objectives from this process strategy and evaluating inherent competencies to support them.5. Final ConsiderationsThrough the approach mentioned here, developed using a bibliographic research on the them e, it is possible to see that the Performance Prism model is a new alternative as a performance measurement system within the current perspective, going beyond the financial approach. Compared to the Balanced menu, a model widely used currently, the Performance Prism is different because it possesses a broader aspect regarding the considered stakeholders, who are also the core of the model. This model also has a cause-effect relationship structure that follows an orientation from stakeholders demand, over which the strategy is designed, driving processes and competencies for an organization that wants the satisfaction of these stakeholders.Because it is a more new-made model, compared to others, consecrated by their application in organizations, the Performance Prism still does not represent a widely used modelworldwide. Nonetheless, it can contribute to organizations seeking changes in the way they manage performance, especially because most of the times, their stakeholders gene rate the sustainability of these organizations, thusbeing only reasonable that are rally to the organizational performance. As a recommendation for future studies, it is required to study the application of the Performance Prism in depth, allowing for a review of its adaptability and effectiveness in a larger set of organizations, since there are currently a few cases regarding the application of this model for measuring performance in literature.ReferencesADAMS, Chris. NEELY, Andy. Using the Performance Prism to Boost the Success of Mergers & Acquisitions, Accenture, New York. In. (out. 2006). ADAMS, Chris. NEELY, Andy. The New Spectrum How the Performance Prism Framework Helps, contrast Performance Management, Norwalk, nov. 2003. In . (jul.2007). BITITCI, Umit S. CARRIE, Allan S. MCDEVITT, Liam. Techniques integrated performance measurement systems an audit and development guide. The TQM Magazine. v.9, n.1, p. 46-53, 1997. BOGAN, Christopher E. ENGLISH, Michael J. Benchmarking A plicaes prticas e Melhoria Contnua. So Paulo Makron Books, 1997.CAVENAGHI, Vagner. Gesto do desempenho empresarial A contribuio da rea de manufatura. 2001. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produo) Programa de PsGraduao em Engenharia de Produo, USP, So Paulo. CHIAVENATO, Idalberto CERQUEIRA NETO, Edgar P. Administrao Estratgica em busca do desempenho superior, genus Uma abordagem alm do Balanced Scorecard. So Paulo Saraiva, 2003. CORRA, Henrique L. CAON, Mauro. Gesto de Servios, So Paulo Atlas, 2002. CORRA, Henrique L. CORRA, Carlos A. Administrao de Produo e Operaes Manufatura e Servios uma abordagem estratgica. So Paulo Atlas, 2005. DORNIER, Philippe-Pierre ERNST, Ricardo FENDER,Michel KOUVELIS, Panos. Logstica e Operaes Globais Textos e Casos. So Paulo Atlas, 2000. DRUCKER, Peter F. The Information Executives Truly Need. In bill Corporate Performance. Boston Harvard Business Review, 1998. p. 1-24 ECCLES, Robert G. The Performance Measurement Manifesto. In Measuring Corporate Per formance. Boston Harvard Business Review, 1998. p. 25-45. FROST, Bob. Measuring Performance, Dallas Measurement International, 2000. KAPLAN, Robert S. NORTON, David P. The Balanced Scorecard measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. p. 71-79, january-february 1992. LEBAS, Michel J. Performance measurement and performance management. International ledger of Production Economics. v. 41, p. 23-35, 1995. MARTINS, Roberto A. Sistemas de Medio de Desempenho Um modelo para Estruturao do Uso. 1998. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produo) Programa de PsGraduao em Engenharia de Produo, USP, So Paulo. MENDES, Dilermando P. O Balanced Scorecard como instrumento de avaliao do nvel de desempenho logstico em uma empresa de prestao de servios. 2002. Dissertao(Mestrado em Engenharia de Produo) Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia de Produo, UFSC, Florianpolis. MIRANDA, Luis C. GOMES DA SILVA, Jos D. Medio do Desempenho. In SCHMIDT, Paulo (Org.) Controladoria Agregando valor para a Empresa. Porto Alegre Bookman, 2002. p. 131-153. NEELY, Andy GREGORY, Mike PLATTS, Ken. Performance measurement system design. International Journal of Operations Management. Cambridge, v.14, n.4, p. 81-114, 1995. NEELY, Andy ADAMS, Chris. Perspectives on Performance the performance prism. In Handbook of Performance Measurement. London Bouine, 2000. NEELY, Andy ADAMS, Chris CROWE Paul. The Performance Prism in Practice. Measuring Business Excellence. v.5, n.2, p. 6-12, 2001. SIMONS, Robert DVILA, Antnio Medindo o Desempenho Empresarial. Rio de Janeiro Harvard Business Review, Campus, 2000.