USING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF CHANGE:
THE MICRO ASPECTS OF ‘MANAGING THROUGH MEASURES’
Andrey Pavlov
Centre for Business Performance
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield MK43 0AL
United Kingdom
andrey.pavlov@cranfield.ac.uk
Mike Bourne
Centre for Business Performance
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield MK43 0AL
United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Performance management has integrated the insights from various fields of management
knowledge into a broad perspective that can offer a number of sophisticated and effective
ways of managing organizational development. However, in order to realize this potential, the
performance management field needs a strong theoretical foundation that can explain the
mechanics of its impact on organizational processes. We argue that such foundation is
provided by the organizational routines literature. We review the literature on performance
management and organizational routines to propose a model which explains the effects of
performance management on the evolution of routines. The model suggests that performance
management uses its measurement function to affect organizational routines in three distinct
ways: by triggering, leading, and stimulating the iterations between changes in the ostensive
and the performative dimensions of a routine. The paper closes with a discussion of research
implications stemming from the relationships proposed in the model.
Keywords: Organizational routines; Performance management; Performance measurement
Introduction
Performance management (PM) is a relatively new term in management literature. While the
issue of managing organizational performance has been a topic of interest for a long time, the
field itself did not emerge until the early 1990’s. Since then PM has progressed from
providing general recommendations on improving performance to formulating comprehensive
PM frameworks and systems (Folan and Browne, 2005), and finally to the issues of
implementing and using PM systems to manage organizational performance. As such the field
has come to realize that PM systems are an integral part of the organization, which means that
they accomplish their objectives by affecting multiple organizational processes that deliver
organizational performance (Bourne et al., 2003; Kennerley and Neely, 2002, 2003).
However, the field is lacking an organizational theory foundation that would allow it to
address adequately the challenge of managing performance in its organizational complexity.
1
In this paper, we argue that this challenge is best addressed by adopting an organizational
routines perspective on PM and treating organizational processes as routines. There are two
major reasons for this argument. First, this perspective lends the PM field a much needed
insight into the organizational structure and processes underlying performance. Second, we
suggest that PM has developed a number of distinct ways of influencing organizational
performance, which correspond remarkably closely to some of the key developments in the
organizational routines literature. This makes PM a suitable candidate for being used as an
instrument for affecting organizational routines. We assume the view that PM accomplishes
its objective of managing performance in its organizational complexity by influencing the
development of organizational routines. Responding to this view, we then propose a model
that links together the insights from PM and the organizational routines literature in order to
explain the dynamics of this effect. We argue that the evolution of organizational routines can
be influenced by performance measurement – a key tool of PM – in three distinct ways: by
initiating, guiding, and intensifying iterations between adjustments in the ostensive (abstract
concept) and the performative (concrete action) dimensions of a routine.
The paper is structured in the following way. It opens with a review of the literature on
organizational routines and performance management. First, the organizational routines
literature is reviewed in so far as it informs the main question of using PM to affect
organizational processes. Particular attention is devoted to the distinction between
understanding routines as cognitive regularities and behavioral patterns. We then review the
management control systems and performance management literature in order to identify the
key elements of the PM process that make it a useful instrument for managing the
development of organizational processes. Subsequently, a conceptual model is proposed that
spells out the role of PM in influencing the evolution of routines. The paper closes with a
brief discussion and outlines a number of possible avenues for further research based on the
proposed model.
Action and Representation in Organizational Routines
The concept of the organizational routine fully entered the field of management research after
the seminal work of Nelson and Winter (1982). In this contribution, the authors gave a broad
definition of organizational routines, which included organizational processes whose
complexity varied from simple operational routines to revisions in the corporate strategy. The
authors noted that the structure of organizational routines could be conceived of as a
hierarchy: while some routines play an operational role, other—higher-order—routines
perform an organizing function. A complete set of processes then determines organizational
boundaries at any given point in time. Nelson and Winter (1982) noted that these
organizational processes of different order evolve in response to performance feedback. If the
feedback received after the execution of a routine indicates that the performance is no longer
satisfactory, the organization initiates a “routine-guided, routine-changing” process of search
(Nelson and Winter, 1982: 18). As a result of this search, routines adapt to the new
environmental conditions.
In this sense, organizational routines are remarkably similar to performance programs (March
and Simon, 1963), which are learned routinized responses of organizational actors, or groups
of actors, to the problems presented by the external environment. Similar to routines,
performance programs incorporate a certain degree of discretionary action, which allows them
to evolve in response to the changing demands of the environment. This problem-centered
search that underscores the evolution of performance programs is a central characteristic of
the decision-making process (Simon, 1979) and is triggered when the appropriate
2
performance feedback is received (March and Simon, 1963; Cyert and March, 1963).
Performance feedback is the mechanism through which an organization learns about the
adequacy of its performance and which triggers the change in routines (Cyert and March,
1992).
Although the view of routines put forward by these scholars was aimed primarily at
explaining stability, continuity and repetitiveness, subsequent research made considerable
progress in understanding and explaining the dynamic aspects of routines (e.g., Pentland and
Rueter, 1994; Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003) and subsequently applying them
to the study of organizational change (e.g., Tranfield and Smith, 1998; Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003;
Bresnen et al., 2005). As Becker et al. (2005: 776) note, routines “…are fundamental to
understanding change partly because they provide a basic definition of what change ‘really is’
at the organizational level”. It is this definition of change-through-routines that is crucial for
the argument that underlies the model presented in this paper.
Following the work of Nelson and Winter and behavioral theorists, the concept of
organizational routines evolved to incorporate two meanings: routines as behavioral patterns
and routines as cognitive regularities. In other words, while for some researchers
organizational routines represent primarily recurrent patterns of behavior (e.g., Nelson and
Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997; Edmondson et al., 2001), others understand it as mental
rules or heuristics (e.g., Simon, 1976; Cohen, 1991). Similar to this is the distinction between
the ostensive (an abstract concept) and the performative (a concrete action) definitions of
routines proposed by Feldman (2000). Becker (2005b) uses the terms “representation” and
“action” to make the distinction between the understanding of routines as rules and as
concrete observable patterns of behavior. “Cognitive and behavioral”, “representation and
action”, “ostensive and performative” are different terms that have been used to describe the
key distinction between the two ways in which organizational routines can be conceptualized.
Other ways of understanding routines have been suggested. The most notable of these is the
view of routines as tendencies or dispositions to express certain behaviors (Hodgson, 2003;
Hodgson and Knudsen, 2004), which, as Becker (2005 a, b) states, reflects the deepest
ontological level of existence of routines. However, it is the distinction between the
understanding of routines as abstract rules and concrete behavioral patterns that underlies
most of the current research examining the organizational role of routines.
This distinction is very useful for understanding the nature and dynamics of change through
organizational routines. One of the most notable pieces of research that shed light on this
issue is Feldman’s (2000) study of organizational change in a university housing department.
On the basis of empirical observations, she concludes that change in routines can be
conceptualized as continuous iterations between reflection and action of individual agents
involved in the execution of a routine. Agency is thus a central element of the evolution of
organizational routines, and the agents’ cognitive and behavioral activity is the force
powering the evolution process. Routines change as the result of “people doing things,
reflecting on what they are doing, and doing different things (or doing the same thing
differently) as a result of the reflection” (Feldman, 2000: 625). In the process of such a
change, both the cognitive models and the behavioral patterns evolve, leading to the full
adaptation of a routine to the new conditions. Extending this idea, Feldman (2003) argues that
the distinction between the ostensive and performative levels lends an insight not only into the
dynamics of change, but also into the mechanism of preserving stability in organizational
routines. She argues that the ostensive dimension of a routine may be reinforced by the agents
3
who take into consideration a number of organizational factors in making a conscious
decision as to whether or not to bring about the change in behavior (see Espedal, 2006 for an
example of such factors albeit in a somewhat different context).
In this model of evolution of organizational routines, not only are the ostensive and the
performative levels conceptually distinct (Becker, 2005b), but also neither of these levels of
activity is superior to the other. In order to adjust the routine so as to generate sustainable
performance adequate to the new task at hand, both the mental model and the corresponding
pattern of behavior need to adjust. It would be misleading to state that in this process of
adjustment, one level of a routine leads the other. Rather, the routine evolves through the
interaction of agents’ mental models and their behavioral manifestations (Feldman 2003;
Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Both of these levels depend on each other for execution but at
the same time are open to unpredictable autonomous variations. The continuous interaction
between these levels determines the evolution of the routine. Feldman (2000) compares this
process to Argyris’ (1976) concept of single-loop and double-loop learning and Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation process.
Empirical work on this model of evolution of routines is scarce. The most notable application
of this framework was made by Huberman (2001), although he did not refer to it explicitly.
He modeled the process of organizational learning as creation of new or modified routines,
where routines were assumed to be stable patterns of behavior. The results of his study
suggest that if new action patterns are created faster than the decision rules are updated, the
rate of improvement in the system’s performance decreases. In terms of the characteristics of
organizational routines discussed earlier, this result may support the proposition that in order
to achieve optimal performance, changes in behavioral patterns must be balanced by the
corresponding changes in cognitive rules.
In summary, the concept of organizational routines provides a useful perspective for
investigating the nature of change in organizational processes. While performance feedback
triggers the change in organizational routines, the change itself is powered by the agents who
are involved in the execution of the routine. The nature of this change is best understood as
taking place through continuous iterations between the two levels of routines: cognitive
regularities and behavioral patterns. Neither of these leads the other. Rather, routines evolve
through the interaction between action and reflection, both of which need to be balanced in
order to produce optimal performance.
Management Control and Performance Management
The factors that make PM an effective instrument for influencing the development of
organizational routines can be found in the roots of the contemporary PM research. These
roots lie in the fields of accounting (Franco-Santos and Bourne, 2005) and management
control systems (Otley, 2003). It has been argued that all the major achievements in
accounting were accomplished by the early 20th century (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987) and that
accounting practices had lost their relevance to business reality, becoming more of an obstacle
than an enabler of effective PM (Kaplan, 1984; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). New accounting
frameworks, such as activity-based costing (Cooper, 1988), were put forward to address this
limitation and received some success. However, it has been noted that this success could be
attributed not so much to the replacement of the old accounting frameworks by a new
paradigm of managing performance, but to the fact that the new methods delivered their
benefits indirectly – by stimulating the debates about the drivers of performance and
encouraging organizational change (Neely et al., 1995).
4
The issue of control occupies a central place in management literature. It traces its history to
the work of Taylor (1911), who saw it as a prerequisite to achieving operational efficiency,
and Fayol (1949), who considered it to be one of the five functions of management.
Traditionally, control was seen as a function that ensured that business processes remained
aligned to the organization’s business objectives. As late as in the 1960s, management control
was still defined as “…the process by which managers ensure that resources are obtained and
used effectively and efficiently in the accomplishment of the organizational objectives”
(Langfield-Smith, 1997: 208). The limitation of this view of control as a coordinating activity
fuelled the development of research on management control systems (MCS).
In an early study of management control systems, Flamholz et al. (1985) identified four core
components of a MCS – planning, measurement, feedback and rewards. They further
discussed it in terms of their temporal orientation. While planning takes place before an action
is taken, feedback and rewards perform an ex post function – they are triggered by the action.
Measurement, however, has a dual role – it can act as an information provider ex post and as a
guide for learning ex ante. In its ex post function, it is very similar to feedback in the sense
that it communicates to the management the information about the performance of a process
that has already been executed. In its ex ante guiding role, however, it is prescriptive in nature
- it can focus organizational attention on critical areas before any action is taken. It helps to
create the goals towards which the performance will gravitate. The distinction between these
two functions is instrumental in understanding the effects of measurement on organizational
routines. Routines, as it was mentioned before, can incorporate diverse information in the
process of their development, and the way in which the information is “fed into” routines can
affect this process. The ex ante and ex post functions of measurement offer two distinct ways
of generating this information – by providing an input into the routine before it is executed
and by producing the feebdback about its historical performance.
Later research in MCS addressed this distinction explicitly and incorporated both functions of
measurement into the discussion of management control. Schreyogg and Steinman (1987)
introduce the term “feedforward” that corresponds to the ex ante function of measurement and
is used to differentiate this function from the traditional ex post feedback effect. Broadly,
feedforward refers to the data generated and communicated by performance measures when
the latter are used to inform an action before it is taken. Others note that feedforward is
preventive in nature and can be used to anticipate threats and lead change (Morgan, 1992) and
that it is an autonomous management function that allows management to make steering
decisions (Preble, 1992). Simons (1994, 1995) provides the most comprehensive model of a
management control system that builds on these propositions and is empirically tested. His
idea of diagnostic and belief control systems reflects the use of control in its feedback or
information-providing function, while interactive control systems are seen as performing the
feedforward function allowing prescriptive actions and leading the development of new
behavior in key areas.
A similar trend towards incorporating explicitly both functions of measurement can be
observed in PM literature. Performance measurement has always been a major instrument of
PM, as it provides and integrates all information relevant for making decisions related to the
task of managing performance (Bititci et al., 1997). The early contributions in the field of PM
thus focused on performance measurement frameworks and pursued the objective of ensuring
the alignment between an organization’s strategy and the measures it uses (Eccles, 1991;
Lynch and Cross, 1991; Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996; Neely et al., 1995). The behavioral
5
impact of measurement was discussed only in terms of eliciting behavior consistent with the
intended strategy (Neely et al., 1995; Neely, 1999). In most of these early studies,
measurement was used in its feedback function, providing the management with the
information necessary to challenge the assumptions underlying the organization’s business
model. However, more recent contributions reflect the use of measurement in its feedforward
role, where measures are used to prescribe learning domains and stimulate learning in
strategically important areas and where processes are allowed to evolve without being fully
predetermined by the management (e.g., Kerssens-van Drongelen and Bilderbeek, 1999).
Contemporary PM thus encompasses both ways of using measures – as feedback-generating
devices that provide information after an event takes place and as communication devices that
are used to prescribe the domains of development a priori.
Besides the useful distinction between the feedback and feedforward roles of management,
another aspect of performance measurement is important for creating a model of the impact of
PM on organizational routines. Recent contributions to the PM field, including both
qualitative (e.g., Johansson et al., 2001a; Askim, 2004; Vaivio, 2004) and quantitative (e.g.,
Chenhall, 2005) studies, demonstrated that PM often delivers its benefits indirectly – not
simply by encouraging behavior consistent with the determined strategy, but rather by
initiating and stimulating the debates about the factors that determine organizational
performance. This aspect of PM echoes the insight into the benefits of activity-based costing
mentioned earlier and is most pronounced in the stream of PM literature devoted to the
measurement of intangibles. Mouritsen (1998) and Johansson et al. (2001 a, b) note that the
primary value of measuring intangibles lies not in the accurate estimation of their value, but in
stimulating the process of discovering the drivers of organizational performance through the
localized search triggered by measurement. In the process of designing objective measures for
the resources and processes that are inherently difficult to quantify, the subjective perceptions
of such resources and processes surface and become the object of analysis and discussion,
during which learning takes place. The existing mental models are projected onto the existing
patterns of behavior in an attempt to form an agreed-upon model of organizational
performance drivers that could subsequently be measured. This process echoes the dynamics
of search that underlies the change in routines discussed earlier. Non-financial measures are
particularly powerful in stimulating this search (Vaivio, 2004). Measurement thus intensifies
the iterations between action and reflection in organizations.
The relationship between measurement and the evolution of organizational routines in not
unidirectional, of course. The change in the mental models and the patterns of behavior that
takes place as a result of PM efforts in turn influences the process of measurement. De Loo
(2006) notes that changes in routines caused by the measurement-fuelled debates become
incorporated into the structure of organizational processes, thus becoming higher-order
routines. Kloot (1997) points out that management control systems produce the learning
environment, in which they cannot but undergo changes themselves. These changes
subsequently become a part of new structures and systems and can ultimately lead to the
change in organizational boundaries. This parallels the most recent contributions to the field
of PM, which find that performance measurement processes can be viewed as a mechanism
powering organizational change (Bourne et al., 2003) and that PM systems are deeply
embedded in organizational processes and involve a number of individual and collective
behaviors (Neely and Bourne, 2000; Kennerley and Neely, 2002, 2003).
Summarizing the argument put forward in this section, it can be said that PM affects changes
in organizational processes through performance measurement. The performance
6
measurement process affects organizational development by fuelling the constant interaction
between reflecting on the performance and altering organizational behaviors and processes,
including the measurement process itself. By stimulating the iterations between action and
reflection, it intensifies the search for a better match between the mental models of
organizational performance and the corresponding patterns of behavior. Two particular
elements of the performance measurement process that allow it to be used as a tool of
influencing this interaction can be identified from the management control systems literature.
Feedback acts as an ex post information-providing mechanism communicating the
performance data after an event takes place. The feedback function of measurement is
necessary for the evaluation of past performance. Feedforward, on the other hand, is the
mechanism for communicating performance priorities ex ante in order to provide guidance for
the evolution of mental models and behavioral patterns.
Performance Management and Evolution of Organizational Routines
In this section, the conclusions drawn earlier are synthesized into a model that explains the
effect performance measurement has on the interaction and evolution of organizational
cognitive rules and patterns of behavior. Graphically, this model is represented in Figure 1.
current organizational boundaries
measures of routines (feedback)
representation
Performance
Feedforward
from management;
feedback;
Routines
Intensification
Intensification
action
measures of routines (feedback)
current organizational boundaries
Figure 1. Effects of PM on organizational routines.
Organizational processes are understood as routines, which in turn are conceptualized as
existing on two levels – action and representation. Changes in routines are described by
iterations between these levels.
Depending on the way in which performance measurement is used, it affects this process in
three distinct ways. When measurement is used in its feedback-generating function, measures
communicate the results of the past execution of the routine and indicate whether its
performance is adequate to meet the demands of the environment. If such measures indicate a
discrepancy, they essentially indicate the necessity to change the routine. As such, measures
act as triggers in the process of change in the organizational routines, initiating the process of
matching and adjusting existing patterns of behavior and their representations. When
measurement is used in its feedforward function, it can affect the direction of the change after
it was triggered. In this role of guiding the search, performance measurement can influence
the aspects of the routines that undergo change and – more importantly – the balance between
7
changes at the representational and behavioral levels of the organizational routines. In other
words, once the change is triggered, it can be guided, and measurement in its feedforward
function accomplishes this objective.
Finally, regardless of the role that measurement assumes, it makes another contribution to the
process of iterations between the representational and the behavioral levels of organizational
routines – it intensifies these iterations. As described earlier, measuring organizational
processes forces the search for the understanding of existing mental rules and behavioral
patterns and stimulates the process of adjusting them in order to respond to the new demands
of the environment. Thus, the measurement process itself intensifies the change in the
routines precisely through stimulating the interaction between mental models and behavioral
patterns.
It also has to be noted that in order for this model to be complete, there needs to be an
additional smaller feedback loop that would allow management to see where and whether the
changes in the routines take place and modify the measurement process accordingly. This
feedback is provided by measures of organizational routines, where measurement performs an
ex post feedback-generating role. A preliminary classification of related measures of
organizational routines is reported elsewhere (Pavlov and Bourne, 2007). As noted earlier,
this feedback may also lead to the adjustment of the performance measurement process itself.
Discussion and Avenues for Further Research
The model presented above is a conceptual model that aims to describe and explain the
impact of performance measurement on the evolution of organizational processes. This
evolution takes place through the interaction of agents’ mental models and corresponding
patterns of behavior. Performance measurement, being a key instrument of PM and offering a
number of distinct ways of affecting this interaction, can thus be a tool for initiating, leading
and stimulating the evolution of organizational processes.
The model responds to several key issues discussed in the opening section of this paper. First,
by virtue of employing organizational routines as one of its core constructs, it provides a rich
organizational context and a solid theoretical foundation that are lacking in the PM literature.
As it was mentioned earlier, the PM field is facing the challenge of using performance
measurement systems to manage organizational performance in its full complexity, and no
theoretical perspective is as suitable and provides as deep an insight into the relevant issues as
that of organizational routines. When organizational processes become the key object of PM
initiatives, it is necessary to clarify two key issues: first, what these processes are and how
they are related to organizational performance and, second, how they could be affected. The
model presented above draws on the insights from the organizational routines literature to
address the former issue and on the PM literature to respond to the latter one. As such, it is a
model that explains the impact of PM on organizational processes, which responds to the
contemporary challenges in the PM field.
While the argument laid out in the preceding paragraph describes the contribution of the
organizational routines literature to the PM research, the model also suggests that further
study of routines can likewise benefit from the insights of the PM field. Generally operational
and applied by nature, the PM field has accumulated vast experience with analyzing the
concrete methods of using performance measurement to affect performance (e.g., devising
and balancing measures (e.g., Ittner and Larcker, 1998; Melnyk et al., 2004) or evaluating
their impact on performance (Ittner et al., 2003)). Through its roots in the management
8
control systems research, it has also described the information-providing mechanism that
underlies this effect. As such, performance measurement is a relatively well-operationalized
tool for affecting organizational dynamics, and therefore is expected to be extremely useful in
designing empirical studies of organizational routines.
The main implications for further research likewise stem from the interdisciplinary nature of
the model. Some of the relationships that make up the structure of the model have been
empirically tested – most notably, the trigger effect of performance feedback demonstrated by
behavioral theorists and the ex ante effect of feedforward described in the works of MCS
scholars culminating in Simons’ (1994, 1995) system of levers of control. However, pulling
these findings together and adopting an organizational routines perspective, the model permits
asking more and deeper questions about the ways in which PM can be used as an instrument
for managing change. These questions will have to be answered empirically. Organized by the
function of measurement described earlier, they make up the empirical research agenda
offered by the model.
As far as the feedback effect of measurement is concerned, the trigger effect and the
subsequent search leading to the modification of the routine are well-documented. However,
in order for measurement to become an effective instrument for changing organizational
routines, its relative impact on the two levels of existence of routines needs to be evaluated.
Performance measurement in the wider sense has the power to trigger change in both
cognitive models and behavioral patterns. This means that balancing measures to affect both
as well as understanding which one should be the primary focus of measurement in which
context is necessary for an informed use of performance measurement as an instrument of
change. This can perhaps be taken forward by the stream of PM literature examining
cognitive mapping and the design of performance measures.
Another question pertaining to the feedback effect of measurement is the question of whether
the difference in routines’ responsiveness to the effect of feedback can be explained by the
dynamics of interaction between the ostensive and the performative dimensions of
organizational routines. If either of these dimensions is considerably more stable than the
other or the link between them is impaired, will the effect of feedback from performance
measures be sufficient to trigger change in the routine? Any PM initiative encounters cases in
which existing organizational processes resist change when the new behavior is incentivized
without considering the strength of the mental model underlying such processes and vice
versa. Whether this question could be answered through the dynamics of iterations between
the ostensive and the performative dimensions of routines needs to be evaluated empirically.
The feedforward effect of measurement offers even richer and more interesting avenues for
further research. First, performance measurement in its feedforward function may determine
the routines through which learning takes place. If it is prescriptive in nature and thus drives
localized change, it can be an instrument of focusing attention on particular organizational
routines. Second, by virtue of possessing tools for affecting both behavior and cognition,
performance measurement (again, in its ex ante, prescriptive function) must be able to
influence the ostensive and the behavioral level of organizational routines selectively. Third –
although at this point it is admittedly speculative – if performance measurement can influence
decisions ex ante and has a number of well-operationalized tools, then once the iterations
between cognitive and behavioral level of a routine are triggered, it can determine which
effect will prevail (i.e., whether the adjustment will take place through changes in mental
9
models or alterations in behavior). These questions stem from the relationships proposed in
the framework, and to answer them, more empirical work is necessary.
Finally, as far as the intensification effect of measurement is concerned, the model suggests
two major questions that need to be answered. First, the existence of the effect itself needs to
be validated within the organizational routines perspective. In other words, it remains to be
seen whether the process of performance measurement does indeed affect the intensity of the
iterations between adjustments on the representational and the behavioral levels of routines,
and hence the intensity of change in the routines. Second, if the effect does exist, the question
is whether the intensity of such iterations depends on whether performance measurement is
used in its feedback or feedforward role. Again, these questions need to be answered
empirically.
Performance management can be an effective tool for guiding organizational change by
affecting the development of organizational processes. However, in order to understand how
this potential can be realized, it is necessary to explain the mechanics of its functions. This
paper offers a step towards this goal by integrating the relevant findings from a diverse range
of literature domains to propose a model that explains the effects of PM on organizational
routines and by outlining an agenda for research that can advance our ability to understand the
ways in which change in organizational processes can be managed effectively.
10
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 363-375.
Askim, J. 2004. Performance Management and Organizational Intelligence: Adapting the
Balanced Scorecard in Larvik Municipality. International Public Management Journal,
7: 415-438.
Becker, M. C. 2005a. A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research:
linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction
patterns. Industrial & Corporate Change, 14(5): 817-846.
Becker, M. C. 2005b. The concept of routines: some clarifications. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 29: 249-262.
Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. 2005. Applying organizational
routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14:
775-791.
Bititci, U. S., Carrie, A. S., & McDevitt, L. 1997. Integrated performance measurement
systems: a development guide. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 17(5): 522-534.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J., and Platts, K. 2003. Why some performance measurement
initiatives fail: Lessons from the change management literature. International Journal of
Business Performance Management, 5(2,3): 245.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. 2005. Organizational routines, situated learning
and processes of change in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal,
36(3): 27-41.
Chenhall, R. H. 2005. Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic
alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30: 395-422.
Cohen, M. D. 1991. Individual learning and organizational routine: emerging connections.
Organization Science, 2(1): 135-139.
Cooper, R. 1988. The rise of activity-based cost systems: part I - what is an activity-based
cost system? Journal of Cost Management, 45-54.
Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. 1992. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
De Loo, I. 2006. Action and organizational learning in an elevator company. The Learning
Organization, 13: 204-214.
Eccles, R. G. 1991. The Performance Measurement Manifesto. Harvard Business Review,
11
69(1): 131-137.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted Routines: Team
Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46: 685-716.
Espedal, B. 2006. Do Organizational Routines Change as Experience Changes? Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4): 468-490.
Fayol, H. 1949. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization
Science, 11: 611-629.
Feldman, M. S., and Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a
source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94-118.
Flamholtz, E. G., Das, T. K., and Tsui, A. S. 1985. Toward an integrative framework of
organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10: 35-50.
Folan, P., & Browne, J. 2005. A review of performance measurement: Towards performance
management. Computers in Industry, 56 (7): 663-680.
Franco-Santos, M., and Bourne, M. 2005. An Examination of the Literature Relating to Issues
Affecting How Companies Manage Through Measures. Production Planning and
Control, 16: 114-124.
Hodgson, G. M. 2003. The mystery of the routine: The Darwinian Destiny of An Ecolutionary
Theory of Economic Change. Revue Economique, 54: 355-384.
Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. 2004. The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention:
the functions and implications of habit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
54(1): 19.
Huberman, B. A. 2001. The Dynamics of Organizational Learning. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory, 7: 145-153.
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. 1998. Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and
Research Implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research , 10: 205-238.
Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. 2003. Performance implications of strategic
performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations &
Society, 28(7/8): 715.
Johanson, U., Martensson, M., and Skoog, M. 2001a. Measuring to understand intangible
performance drivers. European Accounting Review, 10: 407-437.
Johanson, U., Martensson, M., and Skoog, M. 2001b. Mobilizing change through the
management control of intangibles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26: 715733.
Johnson, H. T., and Kaplan, R. S. 1987. Rise and fall of management accounting.
12
Management Accounting, 68: 22-30.
Kaplan, R. S. 1984. The Evolution of Management Accounting. The Accounting Review,
LIX: 390-418.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive
Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1): 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1): 75-85.
Kennerley, M., and Neely, A. 2002. A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of
performance management systems. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 22: 1222-1245.
Kennerley, M., and Neely, A. 2003. Measuring performance in a changing business
environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23:
213-229.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., and Bilderbeek, J. 1999. R and D performance measurement:
More than choosing a set of metrics. R and D Management, 29(1): 35-46.
Kloot, L. 1997. Organizational learning and management control systems: Responding to
environmental change. Management Accounting Research, 8(1): 47-73.
Langfield-Smith, K. 1997. Management control systems and strategy: A critical review.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22: 207.
Lynch, R., & Cross, K. 1991. Measure up-The essential guide to measuring business
performance. London: Mandarin.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. 1963. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Melnyk, S. A., Stewart, D. M., & Swink, M. 2004. Metrics and performance measurement in
operations management: dealing with the metrics maze. Journal of Operations
Management, 22(3): 209-218.
Morgan, M. J. 1992. Feedforward Control for Competitive Advantage: The Japanese
Approach. Journal of General Management, 17 (4): 41-52.
Mouritsen, J. 1998. Driving growth: Economic Value Added versus Intellectual Capital.
Management Accounting Research, 9: 461-482.
Neely, A. 1999. The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19: 205-228.
Neely, A., and Bourne, M. 2000. Why Measurement Initiatives Fail. Measuring Business
Excellence, 4(4): 3.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., and Platts, K. 1995. Performance measurement system design: A
literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 15(4): 80-116.
13
Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Otley, D. 2003. Management control and performance management: whence and whither?
British Accounting Review, 35: 309-326.
Pavlov, A., & Bourne, M. 2007 (forthcoming). Responding to contemporary challenges in
performance management: Measuring organizational routines. Proceedings of the 14th
International Annual EurOMA Conference, Ankara, Turkey.
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. 1994. Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 484-510.
Preble, J. F. 1992. Towards a Comprehensive System of Strategic Control. The Journal of
Management Studies, 29: 391-409.
Schreyogg, G., and Steinmann, H. 1987. Strategic control: A new perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 12(1): 91-103.
Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Simon, H. A. 1979. Rational decision-making in business organizations. American Economic
Review, 69: 493-513.
Simons, R. 1994. How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal.
Strategic Management Journal, 15: 169-189.
Simons, R. 1995. Control in an age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 8088.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management . New York: Harper.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
Tranfield, D., & Smith, S. 1998. The strategic regeneration of manufacturing by changing
routines. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 18(1/2):
114-129.
Vaivio, J. 2004. Mobilizing Local Knowledge with 'Provocative' Non-financial Measures.
European Accounting Review, 13(1): 39-71.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2003. Interruptive Events and Team Knowledge Acquisition.
Management Science, 49(4): 514-528.
14