Has this large number of performance measurement publications contributed to its better understanding? A systematic review for research and applications

Abstract

This paper uses a systematic review to answer two research questions: (1) has this large number of performance measurement systems (PMS) publications contributed to a better understanding of performance measurement? and (2) what would a better understanding of PMS lead us to? This paper found that the field has not evolved substantially for the past 30 years. While various PMS are discussed and proposed, there are many instances of a common ground on what were discussed but in a few instances, there is little to no agreement concerning the activities and characteristics used to describe them, and there is also a great deal of overlap in the meaning of definitions and terms. Nevertheless, the synthesis review revealed that many of the discussions of the fundamental characteristics useful and in certain cases, interesting and insightful. Research gaps were identified and narrowed by synthesising instances of a common ground, and if a common ground is not forthcoming, references to non-PMS articles were made in order to ascertain the ‘true’ meaning of terms, purposes and applications of PMS. This improves our understanding of PMS, and thus we can use the result of the review to conceptualise and present coherent arguments in the pursuance of a good PMS. This research has important implications for both practitioners and academics in the area of performance measurement within an organisation, and shall provide a basis on which ongoing and future research efforts on this field can be built upon.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 82 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.