Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Emerald Article: A literature review of manufacturing performance measures

and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction
for future research
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa

Article information:
To cite this document: Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin, João V. Lisboa, (2004),"A literature review of manufacturing
performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research", Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 6 pp. 511 - 530
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410380410547906
Downloaded on: 12-07-2012
References: This document contains references to 203 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 5 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 5005 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

François Des Rosiers, Jean Dubé, Marius Thériault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property
Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376

Laura C. Engel, John Holford, Helena Pimlott-Wilson, (2010),"Effectiveness, inequality and ethos in three English schools",
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 30 Iss: 3 pp. 140 - 154
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443331011033337

Aryati Bakri, Peter Willett, (2011),"Computer science research in Malaysia: a bibliometric analysis", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63
Iss: 2 pp. 321 - 335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135727

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDADE DO MINHO

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A literature review of
manufacturing
performance measures
and measurement in an
organizational context: a
framework and direction
for future research
Carlos F. Gomes
Mahmoud M. Yasin and
João V. Lisboa
The authors
Carlos F. Gomes is Instructor and João V. Lisboa is Professor of
Management, both in the Faculdade de Economia da Universidade
de Coimbra, Instituto de Sistemas e Robótica, Coimbra, Portugal.
Mahmoud M. Yasin is Professor of Management, Department
of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, Tennessee, USA.
Keywords
Manufacturing industries, Literature, Competitive advantage,
Performance measurement (quality)
Abstract
Competitive pressures in the global manufacturing environment
are forcing manufacturing organizations to re-engineer in order
to become more competitive in the marketplace. Toward that
end, management of these organizations is paying closer
attention to the changing nature of manufacturing performance,
and the systems, processes and measures used in its evaluation.
Examines the literature concerned with issues related to the
different facets of manufacturing organizational performance.
Reviews and classifies articles published in relevant journals
between 1988 and 2000. Based on this extensive literature
review, identifies and discusses several issues relevant to both
practice and theory of manufacturing performance
measurement. Concludes by presenting a conceptual framework
outlining the evolution of manufacturing performance measures
and measurement in an organizational context.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · pp. 511-530
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410380410547906
511
Introduction
Owing to the increasing competitive pressure,
resulting from the globalization of manufacturing
activities and markets, manufacturing
organizations have to reorient their strategies,
operations, processes and procedures to remain
competitive. However, to achieve such competitive
standing, these organizations must be able to
measure the different facets of their performance.
Without the ability to understand and measure
performance, benchmarking efforts aimed at
deploying the best manufacturing practices will
not bear fruits. In this context, managers of
manufacturing organizations are often frustrated,
due to the lack of practical performance
measurement systems (Birchard, 1995; Clinton
and Chen, 1998; Schmenner and Vollmann,
1994). Researchers have attributed this apparent
lack of such performance measurement systems to
internal organizational realities, as well as some
external factors (Neely, 1999).
The objective of this research is to examine
systematically the literature dealing with the
different facets of manufacturing performance
measurement. In the process, issues relevant to the
advancement of the theory and practice of
manufacturing performance measurement are
identified and discussed. A conceptual framework
highlighting the evolution of manufacturing
performance measures and measurement in an
organizational context is derived based on this
literature review.
Background
According to Ghalayini and Noble (1996), the
literature concerning performance measurement
evolved through two phases. The first phase was
started in the late 1880s, while the second phase in
the late 1980s. The first phase was characterized
by its cost accounting orientation. This orientation
aimed at aiding managers in evaluating the
relevant costs of operating their firms. This
approach was later modified in an attempt to
incorporate some financial measures such as profit
and return on investment. However, even with
somewhat of a financial focus, this approach
received considerable criticisms. Critics argued,
with justification, about focusing solely on
financial measures, when measuring performance
tends to encourage short-term thinking (Banks
and Wheelwright, 1979; Hayes and Garvin, 1982;
Received: July 2002
Revised: March 2003
Accepted: March 2003
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Kaplan, 1983). This argument was further
reinforced on the ground that traditional
financially-based performance measurement
systems failed to measure and integrate all the
factors critical to business success (Kaplan, 1983,
1984).
The mid-1980 was a turning point in the
performance measurement literature, as it marked
the beginning of the second phase. This phase was
associated with the growth of global business
activities and the changes brought about by such
growth. The book published by Johnson and
Kaplan (1987) entitled, Relevance Lost – The Rise
and Fall of Management Accounting, perhaps
signified the end of the first phase and the start of
the second phase. This book underscored the need
for better integrated performance measurement, as
it criticized the traditional performance measures,
due to their focus on the minimization of variance
rather than on continuos improvement. The
authors contended that traditional accounting/
financial measurement systems are, for the most
part, irrelevant because they ignore clients and
their needs. Based on similar grounds, McNair
and Mosconi (1987) called for the development of
better integrated performance measurement
systems. They underscored the need for the
alignment of financial and non-financial measures
in order to be in accordance with business strategy.
Santori and Anderson (1987) stressed the
importance of non-financial measures in
monitoring and motivating the progress of the
human factor of the organization. They also
outlined some of the key attributes and features
that should be considered when developing
measures of performance for the organization. In
the late 1980s, some frameworks, which attempted
to present a broader view of performance
measurement started to appear (Cross and Lynch,
1988-1989; Khadem, 1988).
Literature review and classification
methodology
For the purpose of this research, an exhaustive
search of the literature related to manufacturing
performance measurement was conducted. The
time frame for this literature review extends from
1988 to the end of 2000. This literature search was
conducted using the following electronic
databases: ABI Inform (UMI), Emerald (MCB
Press), Infotrac (Gale Group), JSTOR, and
Science Direct. In addition, library-based search
was conducted in an attempt to include related
books.
The literature review was conducted with the
primary goal of seeking works that directly or
512
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
indirectly dealt with performance measurement in
a manufacturing operational environment. In this
context, this literature review was not intended
merely to focus on performance measuring
systems, rather it also attempted to survey
reported projects, programs, and organizational
systems, machines, people, having direct or
indirect relation to performance measurement. In
total 388 articles were reviewed. Of these 342
reviewed articles were published in 114 journals
between the beginning of 1988 and the end of
2000 (Table I). In addition, relevant conference
proceedings (1998-2000) were also reviewed. A
total of 140 of the articles reviewed, which
accounted for 40 percent of the articles reviewed,
were published in the following ten journals:
(1) Computers & Industrial Engineering.
(2) European Journal of Operational Research.
(3) Harvard Business Review.
(4) Industrial Management.
(5) International Journal of Operations &
Production Management.
(6) International Journal of Production Economics.
(7) Journal of Operations Management.
(8) Management Accounting.
(9) Omega: International Journal of Management
Science.
(10) Production and Inventory Management
Journal.
The journals of Management Accounting and
Production and Inventory Management are singled
out as providing the most coverage of the topic
investigated in this study during the period under
consideration. It is to be noted that these journals
are associated with professional organizations
(IMA and APICS, respectively) which have been
attempting to establish strong linkages between the
practioners and academia. It is also worth noting
that International Journal of Production &
Operations Management and International of
Production Economics contributed the most to the
topic of interest in the last five years. Perhaps this is
a reflection of the increasing importance of this
topic.
Several of the articles reviewed utilized a
corporate approach to the performance
measurement process. On the other hand, some
articles presented performance measures, in
association with the implementation of different
types of organizational change efforts dealing with
specific projects or functions.
After a systematic content analysis was
performed it was determined that the articles
reviewed contained some redundant information.
Therefore, 154 articles were selected for further
analysis. These articles are presented in Table II.
The table provides the author name(s),
publication year, scope of the content, and the
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table I Classification of articles by year and by journals

Journal 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Total
ACA Journal 1 1
Academy of Management Journal 2 1 3
Accountancy 1 1
Accountancy Ireland 1 1
Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal 1 1
Asia Pacific Journal of
Management 1 1
Australian CPA 1 2 3
Benchmarking Quality Management & Technology 1 1 2 4
Beverage World 1 1
Business Economics 1 1
Business Horizons 1 1
Business Process Management Journal 1 1
Business Process Re-engineering &
Management Journal 3 1 1 5
California Management Review 1 1
Canadian Business Review 1 1
CFO: The Magazine of
Senior Financial Executives 1 1
CMA Magazine 1 1
Communications 1 1
Compensation and Benefits Review 1 1 2
Computers & Industrial Engineering 1 1 1 1 2 6
Converting Magazine 1 1
Corporate Controller 1 1
Decision Sciences Journal 2 1 1 1 5
Decision Support Systems 1 1
Directors and Boards 1 1 2
European Business Review 1 1
European Journal of Marketing 1 1
European Journal of Operational
Research 1 1 2 1 5
Executive Excellence 1 1
Facilities 3 2 2 1 8
Financial Executive 1 1
Harvard Business Review 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 13
Hospital Material Management Quarterly 1 1
IIE Solutions 2 2 4
IIE Transactions 1 1
Industrial and Commercial Training 1 1
Industrial Distribution 1 1
Industrial Engineering 1 1 2
Industrial Management 2 1 1 1 5
Industrial Management & Data Systems 1 2 3
Industry Week 4 4
Information Management & Computer Security 1 1 2
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 3 1 4
International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 1 1 2
International Journal of Material
& Productivity 1 1
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 2 3 5 7 3 7 5 7 39
International Journal of Production
Economics 3 2 5 2 4 16
International Journal of Production
Research 1 1 1 3
(continued)

513
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table I
Journal 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Total
International Journal of Public
Sector Management 1 1
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management 1 2 1 4
International Journal of Quality
Science 1 1
International Journal of Service
Industry Management 1 1 1 3
International Journal of Technology
Management 1 1
Journal for Quality & Participation 1 1
Journal of Accountancy 1 1
Journal of Accounting, Auditing
and Finance 1 1
Journal of Business Logistics 1 2 3
Journal of Business Research 1 1
Journal of Economic Literature 1 1
Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 1 1
Journal of European Industrial
Training 1 1
Journal of Management 2 1 3
Journal of Management Development 1 1 1 3
Journal of Operations Management 1 2 7 6 16
Journal of Political Economy 1 1
Journal of Product & Brand Management 1 1
Journal of Product Innovation
Management 2 2 4
Journal of Professional Services
Marketing 1 1
Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 1 1
Journal of Systems Management 1 1
Journal of the Operational
Research Society 1 1 2
Journal of Workplace Learning 1 1
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 1 1
Logistics Information Management 1 1
Magazine of Senior Financial
Executives 1 1
Management Accounting 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 3 5 21
Management Accounting – London 3 1 4
Management Decision 1 2 1 1 5
Management Review 1 1 2
Management Science 1 1 2
Management Services 2 2
Managerial Auditing Journal 1 1 2
Managerial Finance 1 1
Manufacturing Systems 2 1 3
MIS Quarterly 1 1
Modern Machine Shop 1 1
National Productivity Review 2 1 1 1 1 6
Omega – International Journal of Management
Science 1 1 1 1 4 8
Operations Research 1 1
Organizational Dynamics 1 1
Personal Review 1 1
Personnel Management 1 1 2
(continued)

514
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table I
Journal 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Total
Planning Review 1 1
Production & Inventory Management Journal 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 11
Professional Engineering 1 1
Quality Assurance in Education 1 1
SAM Advanced Management Journal 1 1
Sloan Management 1 1 1 3
Strategic Management Journal 1 1 2
Strategy & Leadership 1 1
Supply Chain Management 1 1 1 3
Team Performance Management 1 1
The Accounting Review 2 2
The American Economic Review 1 1
The Engineering Economist 1 1
The Executive’s Journal 1 1
The McKinsey Quarterly 1 1
The TQM Magazine 1 1 2 1 5
Total Quality Management 1 1
Training & Development 1 1
Water Engineering & Management 1 1
Work Study 1 1 2 2 6
Works Management 1 1
World Class Design to
Manufacture 1 1 2
Conference Proceedings 2 4 2 8
(114 journals) Total no.
of papers by year 3 16 15 15 7 11 20 38 53 54 40 39 31 342

domain of the application. Out of the 154 articles
presented in Table II, a total of 88 (57.1 percent)
utilized a corporate approach, 44 (28.6 percent)
focused on production, 4 (2.6 percent) focused on
strategy, 2 (1.3 percent) focused on
benchmarking, 6 (3.9 percent) stressed product
design, 3 (1.9 percent) stressed logistics, 6 (3.9 per
cent) focused on human resources issues, and 1
(0.7 percent) focused on finance.
An examination of the reviewed literature
revealed the extent of the discontent with
traditional financial based measurement
approaches. Articles dealing with different facets
of this discontent are cited as follows:
.
Encourage local optimization (Fry and Cox,
1989).
.
Are focused on the past (McNair et al., 1990).
.
Has been an impediment to implementation
of just-in-time manufacturing strategies or the
attainment of their potential benefits (Green
et al., 1991; Hendricks, 1994; Najarian, 1993;
Upton, 1998).
.
Do not provide adequate information for
productivity measurement and improvement
programs (Banker et al., 1989).
.
They are lagged performance indicators
because they are historical in nature, by
definition reporting on activities that have
occurred already (Clinton and Hsu, 1997;
515
Eccles and Pyburn, 1992; McNair et al.,
1990).
.
Are the result of management action and
organizational performance, and not the cause
of it (Eccles and Pyburn, 1992; Hazell and
Morrow, 1992).
. Have failed to measure and integrate all the
factors critical to success of a business (Eccles,
1991).
.
Are not externally focused (Kaplan and
Norton, 1992).
.
Are inappropriate in modern manufacturing
settings (Drucker, 1990).
.
Say nothing about the factors, such as
customer service innovation, the percent of
first-time quality, and employee development,
that actually help grow market share and
profits (Birchard, 1995).
.
Lack the ability to guide the firm in its efforts
to achieve manufacturing excellence (Wisner
and Fawcett, 1991).
In response to the criticisms associated with
traditional financial based measurement systems, a
large number of performance measurement
systems (PMSs) have been proposed. Among the
most widely cited of these PMSs are: the SMART
(Cross and Lynch, 1988-1989; Lynch and Cross,
1991), the performance measurement matrix
(Keegan et al., 1989), the Balanced Scorecard
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table II Selected articles reviewed by the authors (ascendant sorted by publication year)
Authors (s) Scope D
Cleveland et al. (1989) Promotes production competence as theoretical link between production C
process and business strategy
Hayes et al. (1989) Suggests ways of identifying and measuring the total factor productivity P
Mishra and Pandey (1989) Develops a simulation-based dynamic scheduling algorithm for performance P
evaluation of a flexible manufacturing system
Saraph et al. (1989) Presents operational measures for eight critical factors of quality C
management in a business unit
Crawford and Cox (1990) Provides ten propositions concerning performance criteria, standards, C
measurements techniques, and reporting methods that are appropriate in
JIT environments
Goold and Quinn (1990) Identifies some of the difficulties that may be associated with establishing a S
strategic control system and suggests a framework for exploring a
contingency theory
Leong et al. (1990) Presents two complementary models of manufacturing strategy: a process P
model and content model
Lippa (1990) Discusses some of the factors inherent in a synchronous management- C
based performance measurement system
Beischel and Smith (1991) Presents a framework for measuring manufacturing performance C
Bevan and Thompson (1991) Suggests that improved organizational performance in the private sector is C
associated with the operation of a formal PMS
House and Price (1991) Presents a management tool that provides a useful indicator of the D
effectiveness of new product development and introduction
Shenoy and Kasilingan (1991) Develops a simulation model to analyze the performance of a particular P
cellular manufacturing system
Lee (1992) Suggests a way to turn incompatible data into information available for C
quantitative management decisions
Barker (1993, 1995) Presents a model that combines analysis, measurement and strategy to help C
restructuring manufacture companies
Bradley and Baron (1993) Introduces a technique that allows performance measurement across units C
in a multiproduct firm
Kaplan (1993) Presents some insights on the Balanced Scorecard implementation at FMC C
Corporation
Kaplan and Norton (1993) Presents some insights on the Balanced Scorecard implementation at Apple C
Computer, Advanced Micro Devices and Rockwater companies
Fitz-Enz (1993) Presents an asset management model to measure the staff performance H
Griffin (1993) Presents a method to obtain product development cycle time performance D
baselines
Kaplan (1994) Examines the use of the Balanced Scorecard at Rockwater Corporation C
Dumond (1994) Examines the effects of different performance measurement systems and C
greater access to supporting information about internal operations and
external events
Halachmi and Bouckaert (1994) Addresses the problem of relating the measurement of performance to C
organizational design and structure in the context of information
technology
Hart and Hart (1994) Presents methods for evaluating the precision of a measurement system P
Kazazi (1994) Presents a method to measure the performance of a JIT implementation P
Kincaid (1994) Based on the work done by IBM-UK, presents some insights into C
performance and cost-managed building
Lavy (1994) Presents some insights into the influence of manufacturing self-control on P
performance
McGrath and Romeri (1994) Introduces the R&D Effectiveness Index to measure the overall success of D
product development efforts
McMann and Nanni (1994) Proposes and describes a new diagnostic tool for assisting organizations’ C
strategy, actions, and performances measures
Vitale et al. (1994) A six-step methodology is presented that shows how strategic C
measurement systems should be designed and implemented
(continued)

516
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table II
Authors (s) Scope D
Ward et al. (1994) Develops scales for measuring each of the dimensions of proactiveness and C
to provide evidence of a link between manufacturing proactiveness and
business performance
Azzone et al. (1995) Provides some guidelines to assist managers to create a resource P
measurement system and to link it to overall performance expressed in
terms of shareholder value
Brown and McDonnell (1995) Examines how the Balanced Scorecard can be used in hotel organizations C
De Toni et al. (1995) Present an instrument for evaluating the quality performance measurement P
level and the quality performance results
Griffin et al. (1995) Suggests, based on a best practices study, some ways companies can C
improve their customer satisfaction measures
Little et al. (1995) Provides a framework for the analysis of scheduling performance by P
industrial sector and by scheduling tool
Motwani et al. (1995) Presents a model which can be used by construction organizations to C
manage productivity
Newman and Sridharan (1995) Provides some insights into the relationship between the environmental C
characteristics faced by the manufacturing function and manufacturing
performance of firms
Popplewell and Bing (1995) Identifies the measures of factory performance, which are susceptible to C
prediction through approximate factory modeling, and to propose
corresponding reporting modes
Ron (1995) A measure for the technical performance is introduced which is clear, timely C
and relevant for the shopfloor and the operating departments
Sinclair and Zairi (1995b) Presents a model for total quality-based performance measurement systems C
Stockton and Bateman (1995) Proposes a methodology to enable probability measures for each type of C
flexibility that contributes to the production range flexibility of a
manufacturing system
Tannock (1995) Shows the quality-related costs associated with various inspections P
strategies for a range of quality performance
Tranfield and Akhlaghi (1995) Discusses flaws in the widely adopted competitive-forces model and C
considers the strategic-capabilities approach as an alternative and
potentially crucial model
Vitale and Mavrinac (1995) Present seven warning signs that suggest the need to redesign a firm’s C
performance measurement system
Vokurka and Fliedner (1995) Presents an operations performance measurement system developed by C
one firm based on the Balanced Scorecard
Banker et al. (1996) Reports the results of a longitudinal field study examining the impact of P
work teams on manufacturing performance
Basu and Wright (1996) Presents an internal benchmarking approach that enables organizations to B
self-appraise against established world-class manufacturing standards
Chang et al. (1996) Uses data evolvement analysis (DEA) to measure multiple performance P
criteria for 42 dispatching rules in a job shop environment
Chenhall (1996) Examines the role of manufacturing performance measures to evaluate C
managers’ performance
Crowther (1996) Argues that corporate performance operates in three dimensions: (i) C
perspective (ii) purpose and (iii) focus
Daugherty et al. (1996) Presents the results of a survey of logistics executives concerning their L
perceptions regarding integrated logistics. Develops a list of six logistics
performance measures
Davis (1996) Describes the process of implementing a Balanced Scorecard system C
developed by General Electric Lighting Business Group (USA)
Epner (1996) Presents a methodology with nine basic steps to creating a successful C
measurement program
Flapper et al. (1996) Presents a systematic method for designing a performance management C
system
Forker et al. (1996) Examines whether and how quality affects firm performance C
(continued)

517
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table II
Authors (s) Scope D
Hedges and Moss (1996) Discusses the difficulties in measuring the cost-effectiveness of training H
programs
Hicks (1996) Proposes a results-centered approach to production or service delivery P
system improvement
Hwang (1996) Develops a general design and performance evaluation model for integrated P
manufacturing systems
Kirkavak and Dincer (1996) Presents a performance evaluation model for a non-tandem-queue P
equivalent pull production system
Klassen and McLaughlin (1996) Proposes a theoretical model that links strong environmental management C
to improved perceived future financial performance, as measured by stock
market performance
Lemak et al. (1996) Presents a conceptual model for developing customer-based performance C
measures
Letza (1996) Reports on three separate studies undertaken for three companies, to C
determine, develop and implement a balanced business scorecard to deliver
strategy
Loch et al. (1996) Develops a two-step model for measuring the performance of the new D
product development
Mathiyalakan and Chung (1996) Presents a methodology for evaluating efficiency-effectiveness relationship P
of quality circles
Pandey and Khokhajaikiat Reports the results of a case study concerning the design and performance P
(1996) evaluation of a multistage, hair-dryer production line
Rangone (1996) Presents a framework that can be applied to assess and compare the overall C
performance of several departments within the same company
Sunderland and Kane (1996) Presents a value-based productivity model C
Walker (1996) Describes how a company implemented a philosophy of dynamic C
management reporting
Westra et al. (1996) Outlines how a company used a synchronous approach to map, analyze and P
redesign their business process
White (1996) Develops a measures taxonomy and presents a framework which suggests C
how this taxonomy can be used in selecting strategy-related performance
measures
Winstanley and Stuart (1996) Questions whether it is possible to develop an ethical approach to C
measuring and managing performance
Allender (1997a, b) Presents the Objectives Matrix created by James L. Riggs C
Bititci et al. (1997) Develops the concept of performance management as key business process C
and focuses on the criticality of the performance measurement system
embedded within
Boyd and Cox III (1997) Presents a cause-and-effect approach to analyzing within-plant P
performance measures
Bozarth and Berry (1997) Presents a measurement methodology for evaluating the congruence S
between market needs and manufacturing plant capabilities
Bozarth and Edwards (1997) Examines the relationship between market requirement focus, P
manufacturing characteristics focus and manufacturing performance
Cameron and Pierce (1997) Describes the experimental literature on the rewards, interest and H
performance
Carder (1997a) Presents the Performance Pyramid Model, which can assist the interface C
managers
Carder (1997b) Explains the application of the Performance Pyramid Model using a fictional C
case study
Chaneski (1997) Presents nine techniques for measuring the performance of different C
aspects of manufacturing business
Daniels and Burns (1997a) Analyzes an existing performance measurement system from an operational P
viewpoint and develops a cell-generated system to drive and direct cell
activities
(continued)

518
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table II
Authors (s) Scope D
Daniels and Burns (1997b) Identifies the performance and production drivers acting on the shopfloor. P
Examines relationships between these drivers perceived at each level of the
production hierarchy
Ghalayini et al. (1997) Presents an integrated dynamic performance measurement system C
developed in conjunction with the Missouri Plant of Square D Company
Kim et al. (1997) Proposes a new performance measurement system under activity-based C
costing environment in order to consider financial and non-financial criteria
simultaneously
Lau (1997) Reports the results of a survey regarding a number of operational C
characteristics and their effects on a firm’s performance
Martin (1997) Presents a generic model for linking performance measures that achieve the C
strategic objectives of an organization
Martinez et al. (1997) Proposes incorporating a performance perspective into the project-oriented P
production model
Roest (1997) Presents ten “golden rules” to help the Balanced Scorecard practical C
implementation
Sarkis (1997) Studies the relationship of productivity performance of FMS as they become P
more complex
Savery and Soutar (1997) Studies the relationship between various measurements of workplace C
performance
Schiemann and Lingle (1997) Identifies and discusses seven myths that impair management’s effective C
use of measurement
Slater et al. (1997) Provides a framework that can help match the components of a company’s C
control system to its market strategy
Small and Yasin (1997) Investigates the relationship between adoption of various AMTs, the way C
that firms plan for and implement them, and their eventual performance
Stainer (1997b) Presents some insights into productivity and performance measurement in L
logistics
Wong and Ngin (1997) Studies the impact of production automation on organizational performance P
in manufacturing firms and identifies four dimensions of organizational
performance
Akright and Kroll (1998) Presents a set of measures related with performance Cell Formation in P
Group Technology and Cellular Manufacturing
Azzone and Noci (1998) Identifies the performance measures most appropriate to evaluate green P
strategies and their impact in manufacturing operational effectiveness
Bukchin (1998) Presents a comparative study of performance measures for through-put of a P
mixed model assembly line
Burney and Al-Darrab (1998) Presents an application of statistical quality control to the area of human H
performance evaluation in a service industry
Dowlatshahi (1998) Provides a systematic framework for implementing early supplier S
involvement
Gadd (1998) Describes the frameworks of the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality C
Award and European Quality Award as examples of business self-
assessment instruments
Grundy (1998) Explains the business value system and gives practical guidance on how to C
apply it
Looy et al. (1998) Develops an integrated methodology that allows one to assess both P
productivity and quality at the level of the concrete service deliveries
McKenzie (1998) Presents nine guidelines for effective incentive design and implementation H
Marsh and Meredith (1998) Compares and contrasts the typical manufacturing performance measures P
used prior to and after shopfloor layout switch
Srinidhi (1998) Develops a system framework to help the alignment of quality initiatives C
Teo and Wong (1998) Examines the relationships between the intensity of information technology C
investments and four performance impact measures relating to
computerization
Thompson (1998) Develops a cause-manifestations-outcomes model to embrace the relevant C
issues and possible measures
(continued)

519
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Table II
Authors (s)
Tsang (1998)
Tvorik et al. (1998)
Van Hoek (1998)
Van Schalkwyk (1998)
Beamon (1999)
Berry and Cooper (1999)
Bond (1999)
Cannon and St John (1999)
Firth et al. (1999)
Frei and Harker (1999)
Ketchen Jr and Palmer (1999)
Klassen and Whybark (1999)
Koste and Malhotra (1999)
Martinsons et al. (1999)
Palaniswamy et al. (1999)
Plenert (1999)
Post and Spronk (1999)
Samson and Terziovski (1999)
Sink and Smith (1999)
Stoop et al. (1999)
Tracey et al. (1999)
Waggoner et al. (1999)
Yasin et al. (1999)
Beal and Yasai-Ardekani (2000)
Bourne et al. (2000)
Boyer and Pagell (2000)
Braglia and Petroni (2000)
Brewer and Speh (2000)
Busby and Williamson (2000)
De Toni and Nassimbeni (2000)
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
Scope D
Presents a strategic maintenance performance management process P
Articulates a logical structure of performance as represented by a model F
used to guide value-based management
Develops a framework for measuring “unmeasurable” performance C
Provides ten guidelines on how performance measurement systems have C
typically changed in companies that have been successful
Presents a framework for selection of supply chain performance measures C
Reports some methods that can be used to measure product mix flexibility P
and manufacturing performance
Describes the division of key performance factors into six categories: quality, P
delivery reliability, customer satisfaction, cost, safety, and morale
Develops a testable measurement model of manufacturing flexibility P
Examines the determinants of senior executives’ remuneration and bonus H
payments
Presents a new methodology for determining a composite measure C
performance
Examines what are the strategic responses to poor organizational C
performance
Presents a methodology based on an environment technology portfolio to C
help in managing the natural environment in manufacturing firms
Presents a theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of C
manufacturing flexibility and to develop generalizable measures
Develops a Balanced Scorecard for information systems (IS) that measures C
and evaluates IS activities
Shows the enhanced manufacturing performance due to the C
implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems
Shows the results of a study on the relationship between the introduction of C
new performance measuring and motivating techniques into a company and
resulting employee performance
Presents a procedure for performance benchmarking B
Examines the TQM practices and operational performance in order to C
determine the relationships between these practices and firm performance
Describes a methodology for building more effective measure systems C
Proposes a model that can be used for short-term performance predicting as P
well as short-term performance diagnosing at the shopfloor level
Develops measures of advanced manufacturing technology and C
manufacturing managers’ participation in strategy formulation as well as
the competitive capabilities of a firm
Identifies four generic categories of forces that can be said to shape the C
evolution and change of organizational performance measurement systems
Proposes a framework for addressing the optimal cost of quality within the P
context of operational efficiency and strategic effectiveness
Examines the performance consequences of aligning managerial functional S
experiences with generic competitive strategies
Concludes that specific processes are required to continuously align the C
performance measurement system with strategy
Examines measures used to assess operations strategy and advanced P
manufacturing technology
Presents an empirical verification of knowledge levels and the perceived P
strategic relevance of manufacturing flexibility
Examines how the Balanced Scorecard can be used to develop a framework C
for assessing supply chain performance
Describes the outcome of a research programme on measuring the D
performance of engineering design activity
Develops a measurement instrument for “operational” and “supplier P
development” just-in-time purchasing practices
(continued)
520
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table II
Authors (s)
Devise and Pierreval (2000)
Driva et al. (2000)
D’Souza and Williams (2000)
Duberley et al. (2000)
Ellinger and Daugherty (2000)
Forza and Salvador (2000)
Golden and Powell (2000)
Hughes II (2000)
Kotha and Swamidass (2000)
Lipe and Salterio (2000)
Lofsten (2000)
Mapes et al. (2000)
Medori and Steeple (2000)
Shea and Howell (2000)
Suwignjo et al. (2000)
Ylvinger (2000)
Notes: A total of 154 articles are included in this Table; S – strategy; P – production; H – human resources; B – benchmarking;
D – product engineering design; L – logistics; and C – corporate
Scope D
Presents some existing and several new indicators of performance useful to P
help in finding a good solution for morphology and choice of material-
handling systems
Presents the results of two international surveys that indicate current D
practice and future intentions in the performance measurement for product
development
Proposes a theoretically-grounded operationalization of manufacturing P
flexibility construct
Examines the impact of performance evaluation and control systems on P
behavior and the potentially problematic nature of the change
Shows the relationships between marketing/logistics interdepartmental L
integration and firm performance
Investigates the basic characteristics with which an effective performance C
feedback should comply
Investigates the phenomenon of flexibility and provides a definition which C
enables operationalization and measurement
Examines the relation between the market value of equity and non-financial C
pollution measures that capture firms’ exposure to future environmental
liabilities
Investigates the relationships among strategy, advanced manufacturing C
technology and performance
Examines how the Balanced Scorecard that includes some measures C
common to multiple units and other measures that are unique to a
particular unit affects superiors’ evaluations of that unit’s performance
Presents a partial productivity model, where the output prices of the C
produced products and input prices will change over time
Determines the factors which enable a manufacturing plant to P
simultaneously achieve high labour productivity, fast, reliable delivery and
high quality consistency
Presents a framework for auditing and enhancement measurement systems C
Examines the pattern of the relationship between self-efficacy and C
performance
Presents a model for identifying factors affecting performance and their C
relationships
Shows that average-unit structural efficiency measures do not measure the C
level of technical efficiency in a firm model of an industry

(Kaplan and Norton, 1992), and the integrated
dynamic PMS (Ghalayini et al., 1997). It is to be
noted that based on the literature reviewed, the
Balance Scorecard appears to be the most often
cited PMS. Perhaps this is an indication of the
Balanced Scorecard wide acceptability among
scholars and practioners. The Balanced Scorecard
is conceptually similar to the “Tableau de Bord”
used throughout the twentieth century, especially
by French companies. (Epstein and Manzoni,
1997). For specific information about the
Balanced Scorecard, the reader is referred to
Hepworth (1998). While this PMS is the most
cited in the literature in terms of implementations,
it has been criticized on the ground of
oversimplicity. Brignall (1991) contended that the
approach used by the Balanced Scorecard is not
521
consistent with a complete performance
measurement system, rather it merely provides
senior managers with a tool to monitor
performance against strategic and operational
objectives (Sinclair and Zairi, 1995a). In this
context, even those who proposed the Balanced
Scorecard agreed that it is more like a strategic
management tool, rather than a true complete
PMS (Kaplan and Norton, 1996a, b, c).
Perhaps more focused on the intrinsic
characteristic of each organization, some authors
tended to stress the design and implementation
aspects of a PMS, rather than the general utility of
a given PMS across organizations (Beamon, 1999;
Dixon et al., 1990; Eccles and Pyburn, 1992;
Flapper et al., 1996; Neely et al., 1995, 1996). This
approach to performance measurement tended to
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
stress a case by case orientation to PMS, rather
than a uniform theory driven framework approach.
The characteristics of modern performance
measurement systems are:
.
must reflect relevant non-financial
information based on key success factors of
each business (Clarke, 1995);
.
should be implemented as a means of
articulating strategy and monitoring business
results (Grady, 1991);
.
should be based on organizational objectives,
critical success factors, and customer needs
and should monitor both financial and non-
financial aspects (Manoochehri, 1999);
.
must accordingly change dynamically with the
strategy (Bhimani, 1993);
.
must meet the needs of specific situations in
manufacturing operations and should be long-
term oriented as well as simple to understand
and implement (Santori and Anderson, 1987);
.
must make a link to reward systems (Tsang
et al., 1999); and
.
financial and non-financial measures must be
aligned and fit within a strategic framework
(Drucker, 1990; McNair and Mosconi,
1987).
Discussion
Examining the most recent literature, words like
“balanced”, “integrated”, “linked”,
“multifaceted” or “multidimensional” are used to
describe PMSs. However, phrases such as
“successful implementation”, “multi-
implementation” or “repeatability” are still not
forthcoming in the literature with regard to
performance measurement. While there is
evidence that some firms are increasingly utilizing
non-financial performance measures in their day-
to-day decision-making processes (Burns et al.,
1997), there appears to be very little evidence that
these measures are formal and directly linked to
the firm’s strategy and effectiveness.
The framework shown in Figure 1 highlights the
stages of manufacturing performance measurement
evolution. It represents an attempt to refine the two-
phase of evolution proposed by Ghalayini and Noble
(1996). The stages in the figure are derived based on
the nature of measures used, the nature and
orientation of the measurement system, and the
manner and extent of organizational use of these
measures. The organizational context utilized to
trace the evolution of the nature, scope and use of
the manufacturing performance measures serves to
underscore the association, which exists between the
organization as an operational system and the
522
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
process it uses to measure its performance. Thus, it
is logical to expect an organization, operating as a
closed system with emphasis on efficiency to utilize
manufacturing performance measures which are
conclusive to the efficiency orientation of the closed
system organization. Therefore, over-utilization of
traditional accounting and financial measures in
closed system organizations appear to be consistent
and logical. On the other hand, the dynamic nature
of open system organizations requires the use of
non-traditional and multifaceted measures. In
focusing on the organizational context of the
manufacturing performance measurement effort,
the framework in Figure 1 is designed to underscore
the linkage between the organization, as an
operational system, and its manufacturing
performance measurement approach. In this
context the framework is not designed to establish
definitive evolution stages.
Managers have the tendency to measure, what is
easy to measure, rather than what is necessary to
measure. With the proliferation and
implementation of quality programs, information
systems, continuous improvement programs, and
the strong presence of excellence awards,
managers, nowadays, have access to online
information and databases which are easy to
manipulate and mine for relevant information.
The availability of such information may facilitate
the use of non-financial measures in the
performance measurement process. Now that
financial and non-financial measures are being
accepted as indicators of performance, coupled
with the fact that more and more powerful
enterprise resource planning systems are starting
to emerge, perhaps this may indicate that achieving
practical integrated performance measurement
systems is within reach. However, the road toward
achieving such systems is not without difficulties,
due to the following reasons: there are many non-
financial measures that can be used by
organizations. The problem is which measures
from the many different organizations available
companies should use (Medori and Steeple,
2000). Perhaps it all depends on the nature of the
organization and its industry.
Also, there are difficulties with regard to the
aggregation and integration of performance
measurement systems, such as:
.
problems with output measurability and
timeliness of information (Noci, 1995);
.
little or no consideration is given for the
existing measurement systems that companies
may have in place (Medori and Steeple,
2000); and
.
they take a long time to implement (Noci,
1995).
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Figure 1 The evolution of manufacturing performance measurement in an organizational context
In 1991, Eccles wrote: “Within the next five years,
every company will have to redesign how it
measures its business performance” (Eccles, 1991,
p. 617). After more than ten years, manufacturing
companies are still attempting to redesign their
performance measurement systems. Based on this
literature review, it appears that, when managers
are asked about the ideal PMS, the answers
received are more likely to convey on visions of
such system, rather than on specific
characteristics. These visions are likely to
incorporate, in general term, the following
features:
.
provide an early warning detection system
indicating what has happened;
.
diagnose reasons for the current situation, and
.
indicate what remedial action should be
undertaken.
The question, therefore, is how long must
managers wait before their visions are translated
into practical, realistic and integrated PMS? At this
stage, it appears that the state-of-the-art is simply
not ready to offer practicing managers an
integrated PMS, with characteristics and features
such as inclusiveness, completeness, timeliness,
universality, measurability, consistency, integrity,
flexibility and ethical (Table III).
523
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
Conclusion
Based on the literature tendency to the complexity
of the measurement systems, more important than
the performance system design or measures design
process, must be the implementation and daily
measurement process. Thus, the future of
manufacturing performance measurement must
be grounded on information availability, reliability
and responsibility. As such, the availability facet of
information underscores the need for a systematic
performance measurement information system,
where information is not only tracked and stored,
rather it is made readily available to management
and relevant external entities. Reliability
encompasses the reliability of the manufacturing
resources, the reliability of the information flow
obtained from the shop-floor, as well as the
reliability of information from the marketplace.
Responsibility means the responsibility of all
elements of the organization, as they attempt to
execute their tasks with efficiency within the
context of strategic effectiveness guidelines.
Therefore, the future of PMSs will not be judged
only based on their aggregation or integration
features, but also on their abilities to incorporate
the dynamic relationships among efficiency-
specific and effectiveness oriented organizational
measures, whether the measures are financial or
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530

Table III Terminology used in the context of performance measurement

Completeness of a PMS The extent to which the model can take account of all the Azzone and Noci (1998)
relevant performance factors in the environmental field
Consistency of a PMS Measures consistent with organization goals Beamon (1999)
Cost of analysis of a PMS The amount of time and human resources needed to Azzone and Noci (1998)
implement the PMS
Deployment of a PMS Refers to the deployment of business objectives and policies Bititci et al. (1997)
throughout the hierarchical structure of the organizations
Inclusiveness of a PMS Measuring of all pertinent aspects Beamon (1999)
Integrity of a PMS Integrity of a system refers to the ability of the performance Bititci et al. (1997)
measurement system to promote integration between various
areas of the business
Measurability of a PMS Data required are measurable Beamon (1999)
Performance management Process The PMP is the process by which the company manages Bititci et al. (1997)
its performance line with its corporate and functional
strategies and objectives
PMS The PMS is seen as the information system, which Bititci et al. (1997)
enables the performance management process to
function effectively and efficiently
SMART Strategic measurement analysis and reporting technique Cross and Lynch
(1988-1989) (1988-1989)
Timeliness of a PMS Aims to describe how long the PMS takes to analyze the Azzone and Noci
collected data (1998)
Universality of a PMS Allow for comparison under various operations Beamon (1999)
conditions

non-financial in nature. Thus, the performance manufacturing performance and measurement.

measurement organizational effort must be viewed
as a complete organizational system rather than a
collection of standalone models and tools.
While it is easy to criticize efficiency-based
measures, the criticism, in truth, should be directed
at behavior(s) that these measures induce, as
opposed to the measures themselves. In this context,
a system is needed to track efficiency indicators
(management by variance) in order to uncover
possible problems related to inefficient use of the
resources, and/or alert management to potential
problems associated with sub-optimization. The
management by variance process, which is a
learning process by nature, will afford managers the
opportunity to track better both behavior(s) and
efficiency of used measures. Since performance
measuring can profoundly affect the motivation of
individuals (Sinclair and Zairi, 1995a), the
performance measurement system must take the
human factor into consideration. In this context, it is
critical to keep in mind that the additional
responsibility for performance measurement related
activities must not come at the expense of the
productivity and efficiency of workers.
The future of performance measurement,
measures and systems must be viewed from a
continuous improvement perspective. In this
context, the PMS must be viewed as a collection of
procedures, techniques, processes, and more
importantly, people working together toward
continuously improving the multifacets of
524
Perhaps future research should examine whether
this systematic approach to performance
measurement and measures should be based on a
top-down or a bottom-up orientation. Future
research should also empirically examine the
effectiveness of the integrated approach to these
efforts versus the measure-specific approach. In
the context of manufacturing performance
measurement, practitioners and scholars need to
combine their efforts in order to validate what is
known and build on it. The results of this joint
effort may lead to the deployment of practical
philosophies, systems and measures, which the
practice of manufacturing performance
measurement badly need. This research is a small
step toward that end.
References
Akright, W.T. and Kroll, D.E. (1998), “Cell formation performance
measures: determining when to change an existing
layout”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 159-71.
Allender, H.D. (1997a), “Objectives matrix provides information
balance”, Water Engineering & Management, Vol. 144
No. 9, pp. 30-3.
Allender, H.D. (1997b), “Awakening the power of the objectives
matrix”, Industrial Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 23-5.
Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1998), “Identifying effective PMSs for
the deployment of green manufacturing strategies”,
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 308-36.
Azzone, G., Bertele, U. and Rangone, A. (1995), “Measuring
resources for supporting resource-based competition”,
Management Decision, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 57-62.
Banker, R.I., Datar, S.M. and Kaplan, R.S. (1989), “Productivity
measurement and management accounting”, Journal of
Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 528.
Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G. and Sinha, K.K. (1996),
“Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: a
longitudinal field study”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 867-90.
Banks, R.I. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979), “Operations versus
strategy: trading tomorrow for today”, Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp. 112-20.
Barker, R.C. (1993), “Time-based performance measurement: a
model to aid competitive restructuring”, Management
Decision, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 4-9.
Barker, R.C. (1995), “Financial performance measurement: not a
total solution”, Management Decision, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 31-9.
Basu, R. and Wright, N. (1996), “Measuring performance:
against world-class standards”, IIE Solutions, December,
pp. 32-5.
Beal, R.M. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2000), “Performance
implications of aligning CEO functional experiences with
competitive strategies”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 733-62.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3.
Beischel, M.E. and Smith, K.R. (1991), “Linking the shopfloor to
the top floor”, Management Accounting, Vol. 73 No. 4,
pp. 25-9.
Berry, W.L. and Cooper, M.C. (1999), “Manufacturing flexibility:
methods for measuring the impact of product variety on
performance in process industries”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 163-78.
Bevan, S. and Thompson, M. (1991), “Performance management
at the crossroads”, Personnel Management, Vol. 23
No. 11, pp. 36-9.
Bhimani, A. (1993), “Performance measures in UK
manufacturing companies: the state of play”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 71 No. 11, pp. 20-2.
Birchard, B. (1995), “Making it count”, CFO: The Magazine of
Senior Financial Executives, Vol. 11 No. 10, pp. 42-4, 47-8,
50-1.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and McDevitt, L. (1997), “Integrated
performance measurement systems: a development
guide”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 522-34.
Bond, T.C. (1999), “The role of performance measurement in
continuous improvement”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 12,
pp. 1318-35.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000),
“Designing, implementing and updating performance
measurement systems”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 754-71.
Boyd, L.H. and Cox, J.F. III (1997), “A cause and effect approach
to analyzing performance measures”, Production and
Inventory Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 25-32.
Boyer, K.K. and Pagell, M. (2000), “Measurements issues in
empirical research: improving measures of operations
strategy and advanced manufacturing technology”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 361-74.
525
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
Bozarth, C.C. and Berry, W.L. (1997), “Measuring the
congruence between market requirements and
manufacturing: a methodology and illustration”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 121-50.
Bozarth, C. and Edwards, S. (1997), “The impact of market
requirements focus and manufacturing characteristics
focus on plant performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 161-80.
Bradley, M. and Baron, D.M. (1993), “Measuring performance in
a multiproduct firm: an application to the US postal
service”, Operations Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 450-8.
Braglia, M. and Petroni, A. (2000), “Towards a taxonomy of
search patterns of manufacturing flexibility in small and
medium-sized firms”, OMEGA: The International Journal
of Management Science, Vol. 28, pp. 195-213.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), “Using balanced scorecard to
measure supply chain performance”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Brignall, S. (1991), “Performance measurement systems as
change agents: a case for further research”, Warwick
Business School Research Papers, No. 72, December.
Brown, J.B. and McDonnell, B. (1995), “The balanced scorecard:
short-term guest or long-term resident?”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7
No. 2-3, pp. 7-11.
Bukchin, J. (1998), “A comparative study of performance
measures for through-put of a mixed model assembly line
in a JIT environment”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 36 No. 10.
Burney, F. and Al-Darrab, I. (1998), “Performance evaluation
using statistical quality control techniques”, Work Study,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 204-12.
Burns, J., Scapens, R. and Turley, S. (1997), “The crunch for
numbers”, Accountancy, Vol. 119 No. 1245, pp. 86-7.
Busby, J.S. and Williamson, A. (2000), “The appropriate use of
performance measurement in non-production activity: the
case of engineering design”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 336-58.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, D.W. (1997), “Rewards, interest and
performance: an evaluation of experimental findings”,
ACA Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4.
Cannon, A.R. and St John, C.H. (1999), “A framework and
measurement instrument for realized manufacturing
flexibility”, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the
Decision Sciences Institute, New Orleans, 20-23
November, Vol. 3, pp. 1229-31.
Carder, P. (1997a), “The interface manager’s toolkit”, Facilities,
Vol. 15 No. 3/4, pp. 84-9.
Carder, P. (1997b), “Interface management: a fictional case
study”, Facilities, Vol. 15 No. 5/6, pp. 142-9.
Chaneski, W.S. (1997), “Using manufacturing performance
measures”, Modern Machine Shop, Vol. 69 No. 12,
pp. 48-9.
Chang, Y.L., Sueyoshi, T. and Sullivan, R.S. (1996), “Ranking
dispatching rules by data envelopment analysis in a job
shop environment”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 631-42.
Chenhall, R.H. (1996), “Strategies of manufacturing flexibility,
manufacturing performance measures and organizational
performance: an empirical investigation”, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 25-32.
Clarke, P. (1995), “Non-financial measures of performance in
management”, Accountancy Ireland, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 22-4.
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G. and Anderson, J.C. (1989),
“A theory of production competence”, Decision Sciences
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 655-68.
Clinton, D.B. and Chen, S. (1998), “Do new performance
measures measure up?”, Management Accounting, Vol. 80
No. 4, pp. 38-43.
Clinton, D.B. and Hsu, K.C. (1997), “JIT and the balanced
scorecard: linking manufacturing control to management
control”, Management Accounting, Vol. 79 No. 3,
pp. 18-24.
Crawford, K.M. and Cox, J.F. (1990), “Designing performance
measurement systems for just-in-time operations”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28
No. 11, pp. 2025-36.
Cross, K.F. and Lynch, R.L. (1988-1989), “The SMART way to
define and sustain success”, National Productivity Review,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Crowther, D.E.A. (1996), “Corporate performance operate in
three dimensions”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 11
No. 8, pp. 4-13.
Daniels, R.C. and Burns, N.D. (1997a), “A framework for
proactive performance measurement system
introduction”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 100-16.
Daniels, R.C. and Burns, N.D. (1997b), “Behavioral consequences
of performance measures in cellular manufacturing”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 1066-80.
Daugherty, P.J., Ellinger, A.E. and Gustin, C.M. (1996),
“Integrated logistics: achieving logistics performance
improvements”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 25-33.
Davis, T.R.V. (1996), “Developing an employee balanced
scorecard: linking frontline performance to corporate
objectives”, Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 14-18.
De Toni, A. and Nassimbeni, G. (2000), “Just-in-time purchasing:
an empirical study of operational practices, supplier
development and performance”, OMEGA: The
International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28,
pp. 631-51.
De Toni, A., Nassimbeni, G. and Tonchia, S. (1995), “An
instrument for quality performance measurement”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 38
No. 2-3, pp. 199-207.
Devise, O. and Pierreval, H. (2000), “Indicators for measuring
performance of morphology and material-handling
systems in flexible manufacturing systems”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 64, pp. 209-18.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New
Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World-
class Competition, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Dowlatshahi, S. (1998), “Implementing early supplier
involvement: a conceptual framework”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 143-67.
Driva, H., Pawar, K.S. and Menon, U. (2000), “Measuring product
development performance in manufacturing
organizations”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 147-59.
Drucker, P.E. (1990), “The emerging theory of manufacturing”,
Harvard Business Review, pp. 94-102.
D’Souza, D.E. and Williams, F.P. (2000), “Toward a taxonomy of
manufacturing flexibility dimensions”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 557-93.
Duberley, J., Johnson, P., Cassell, C. and Close, P. (2000),
“Manufacturing change: the role of performance
526
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
evaluation and control systems”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 427-41.
Dumond, E.J. (1994), “Make best use of performance measures
and information”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 16-31.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), “The performance measurement manifesto”,
Harvard Business Review, pp. 617-35.
Eccles, R.G. and Pyburn, P.J. (1992), “Creating a comprehensive
system to measure performance: financial results should
not generate the most rewards”, Management
Accounting, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 41-4.
Ellinger, A.E. and Daugherty, P.J. (2000), “The relationship
between marketing/logistics interdepartmental integration
and performance in US manufacturing firms: an empirical
study”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Epner, S.A. (1996), “Do you have a read on your numbers?”,
Industrial Distribution, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 86-7.
Epstein, M.J. and Manzoni, J.F. (1997), “The balanced scorecard
and Tableau de Bord: translating strategy into action”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 28-36.
Firth, M., Tam, M. and Tang, M. (1999), “The determinants of top
management pay”, OMEGA: The International Journal of
Management Science, Vol. 27, pp. 631-51.
Fitz-Enz, J. (1993), “The mythology of measuring staff
performance”, Canadian Business Review, pp. 17-20.
Flapper, S.D.P., Fortuin, L. and Stoop, P.P.M. (1996), “Towards
consistent performance management systems”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 27-37.
Forker, L.B., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C.L.M. (1996), “The
contribution of quality to business performance”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 44-62.
Forza, C. and Salvador, F. (2000), “Assessing some distinctive
dimensions of performance feedback information in high-
performing plants”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 359-85.
Frei, F.X. and Harker, P.T. (1999), “Measuring aggregate process
performance using AHP”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 116, pp. 436-42.
Fry, T.D. and Cox, J.F. (1989), “Manufacturing performance: local
versus global measures”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 52-6.
Gadd, K.W. (1998), “Business self-assessment: a strategic tool
for building process robustness and achieving integrated
management”, Business Process Re-engineering &
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 66-85.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), “The changing basis of
performance measurement”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8,
pp. 63-80.
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S. and Crowe, T.J. (1997), “An
integrated dynamic performance measurement system for
improving manufacturing competitiveness”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 207-25.
Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000), “Towards a definition of
flexibility: in search of the holy grail?”, OMEGA: The
International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28,
pp. 373-84.
Goold, M. and Quinn, J.J. (1990), “The paradox of strategic
controls”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11,
pp. 43-57.
Grady, M.W. (1991), “Performance measurement: implementing
strategy”, Management Accounting, Vol. 72 No. 12,
pp. 49-53.
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Green, F.B., Amenkhienan, F. and Johnson, G. (1991),
“Performance measures and JIT”, Management
Accounting, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 50-3.
Griffin, A. (1993), “Metrics for product development cycle time”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 112-25.
Griffin, A., Gleason, G., Preiss, R. and Shevenaugh, D. (1995),
“Best practice for customer satisfaction in manufacturing
firms”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 87-98.
Grundy, T. (1998), “Managing the business value system”,
Management Accounting, pp. 30-2.
Halachmi, A. and Bouckaert, G. (1994), “Performance
measurement, organizational technology and
organizational design”, Work Study, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 19-25.
Hart, M.K. and Hart, R.F. (1994), “The evaluation of a
measurement system”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 22-6.
Hayes, R.H. and Garvin, D.A. (1982), “Managing as if tomorrow
mattered”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 70-9.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1989),
“Measuring manufacturing performance”, The McKinsey
Quarterly, Winter, pp. 73-82.
Hazell, M. and Morrow, M. (1992), “Performance measurement
and benchmarking”, Management Accounting, pp. 44-5.
Hedges, P. and Moss, D. (1996), “Costing the effectiveness of
training: case study 1: improving parcelforce driver
performance”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 14-18.
Hendricks, J.A. (1994), “Performances measures for a JIT
manufacturer: the role of the IE”, Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-9.
Hepworth, P. (1998), “Weighing it up: a literature review for the
balanced scorecard”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 17 No. 8.
Hicks, P. (1996), “Operations improvement now”, Industrial
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 22-6.
House, C.H. and Price, R.L. (1991), “The return map: tracking
product teams”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 92-100.
Hughes, K.E. II (2000), “The value relevance of non-financial
measures of air pollution in the electric utility industry”,
The Accounting Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 209-28.
Hwang, H.S. (1996), “A performance evaluation model for FMS
based on RAM and LCC using FACTOR/AIM”, Computers
& Industrial Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 3/4, pp. 593-8.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise
and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. (1983), “Measuring manufacturing performance: a
new challenge for managerial accounting research”,
Accounting Review, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 686-703.
Kaplan, R.S. (1984), “Yesterday’s accounting undermines
production”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62 No. 4,
pp. 95-101.
Kaplan, R.S. (1993), “Implementing the balanced scorecard at
FMC Corporation: an interview with Larry D. Brady”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 143-7.
Kaplan, R.S. (1994), “Devising a balanced scorecard matched to
business strategy”, Planning Review, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 15-48.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard:
measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced
scorecard to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71
No. 5, pp. 134-42.
527
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996a), “Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996b), “Linking the balanced
scorecard to strategy”, California Management Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996c), “Strategic learning and
the balanced scorecard”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 24
No. 5, pp. 18-24.
Kazazi, A. (1994), “A method for assessing JIT effectiveness”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 94 No. 7,
pp. 14-17.
Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G. and Jones, C.R. (1989), “Are your
performance measures obsolete?”, Management
Accounting, Vol. 71, pp. 45-50.
Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Palmer, T.B. (1999), “Strategic responses to
poor organizational performance: a test of competing
perspectives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 683-706.
Khadem, R. (1988), “One page management: a unified approach
to productivity”, National Productivity Review, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 45-57.
Kim, G., Park, C.S. and Yoon, K.P. (1997), “Identifying investment
opportunities for advance manufacturing systems with
comparative-integrated performance measurement”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50
No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Kincaid, D. (1994), “A starting-point for measuring physical
performance”, Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 24-7.
Kirkavak, N. and Dincer, C. (1996), “Performance evaluation
models for single-item periodic pull production systems”,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 239-50.
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1996), “The impact of
environmental management on firm performance”,
Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1199-214.
Klassen, R.D. and Whybark, D.C. (1999), “The impact of
environmental technologies on manufacturing
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42
No. 6, p. 599.
Koste, L.L. and Malhotra, M.K. (1999), “A theoretical framework
for analyzing the dimension of manufacturing flexibility”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 75-93.
Kotha, S. and Swamidass, P.M. (2000), “Strategy, advanced
manufacturing technology and performance: empirical
evidence from US manufacturing firms”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 257-77.
Lau, R.S.M. (1997), “Operational characteristics of highly
competitive manufacturing firms”, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 17-21.
Lavy, N. (1994), “Integrated manufacturing self-control”, The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 18-21.
Lee, J.Y. (1992), “How to make financial and non-financial data
add up”, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 174 No. 3, pp. 62-6.
Lemak, D.J., Austin, W., Montgomery, J.C. and Reed, R. (1996),
“The ABCs of customer-centered performance measures”,
SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 4-10.
Leong, G.K., Snyder, D.L. and Ward, P.T. (1990), “Research in the
process and content of manufacturing strategy”, OMEGA:
International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 109-22.
Letza, S.R. (1996), “The design and implementation of the
balanced business scorecard: an analysis of three
companies in practice”, Business Process Re-engineering
& Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 54-76.
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Lipe, M.G. and Salterio, S.E. (2000), “The balanced scorecard:
judgmental effects of common and unique performance
measures”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 75 No. 3,
pp. 283-98.
Lippa, V. (1990), “Measuring performance with synchronous
management”, Management Accounting, Vol. 71 No. 8,
pp. 54-9.
Little, D., Kenworthy, J., Jarvis, P. and Porter, K. (1995),
“Scheduling across the supply chain”, Logistics
Information Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 42-8.
Loch, C., Stein, L. and Terwiesch, C. (1996), “Measuring
development performance in the electronics industry”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 3-20.
Lofsten, H. (2000), “Measuring maintenance performance: in
search of maintenance productivity index”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 47-58.
Looy, B.V., Gemmel, P., Desmet, S., Van, D.R. and Serneels, S.
(1998), “Dealing with productivity and quality indicators
in a service environment: some field experiences”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 359-76.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure up: The Essential
Guide to Measuring Business Performance, Mandarin,
London.
McGrath, M.E. and Romeri, M.N. (1994), “The R&D effectiveness
index: a metric for product development performance”,
World-Class Design to Manufacture, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 24-31.
McKenzie, F.C. (1998), “Avoiding performance measurement
traps: ensuring effective incentive design and
implementation”, Compensation and Benefits Review,
Vol. 230 No. 4, pp. 57-64.
McMann, P. and Nanni, A.J. Jr (1994), “Is your company really
measuring performance?”, Management Accounting,
Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 55-8.
McNair, C.J. and Mosconi, W. (1987), “Measuring performance
in an advanced manufacturing environment”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 28-31.
McNair, C.J., Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1990), “Do financial and
non-financial performances measures have to agree?”,
Management Accounting, pp. 28-36.
Manoochehri, G. (1999), “The road to manufacturing excellence:
using performance measures to become world-class”,
Industrial Management, pp. 7-13.
Mapes, J., Szwejczewski, M. and New, C. (2000), “Process
variability and its effect on plant performance”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 792-808.
Marsh, R.F. and Meredith, J.R. (1998), “Changes in performance
measures on the factory floor”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 36-40.
Martin, R. (1997), “Do we practise quality principles in the
performance measurement of success factors?”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 429-44.
Martinez, E.C., Duje, D. and Perez, G.A. (1997), “On performance
modeling of project-oriented production”, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 509-27.
Martinsons, M., Davison, R. and Tse, D. (1999), “The balanced
scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of
information systems”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 25,
pp. 71-88.
Mathiyalakan, S. and Chung, C. (1996), “A DEA approach for
evaluating quality circles”, Benchmarking for Quality
Management and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 59-70.
Medori, D. and Steeple, D. (2000), “A framework for auditing and
enhancing performance measurement systems”,
528
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 520-33.
Mishra, P.K. and Pandey, P.C. (1989), “Simulation studies of
flexible manufacturing systems using statistical design of
experiments”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Novakoski, M. (1995), “Measuring
construction productivity: a practical approach”, Work
Study, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 18-20.
Najarian, G. (1993), “Performance measurement: measure the
right things”, Manufacturing Systems, pp. 54-7.
Neely, A. (1999), “The performance revolution: why now and
what next?”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-8.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance
measurement system design: a literature review and
research agenda”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F., Gregory, M.J., Richards, A.H., Platts, K.W.
and Bourne, M.C.S. (1996), Getting the Measure of Your
Business, Findlay, London.
Newman, W.R. and Sridharan, V. (1995), “Linking manufacturing
planning and control to the manufacturing environment”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 36-42.
Noci, G. (1995), “Accounting and non-accounting measures of
quality-based performances in small firms”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15
No. 7, pp. 78-105.
Palaniswamy, R., Frank, T., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Ariss, S.
(1999), “Enhanced manufacturing performance through
enterprise resource-planning systems: case analysis of
antecedents, characteristics and performance”,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the
Decision Sciences Institute, Athens, 4-7 July, Vol. 2,
pp. 1620-2.
Pandey, P.C. and Khokhajaikiat, P. (1996), “Performance
modeling of multistage production systems operating
under hybrid push/pull control”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Plenert, G. (1999), “How a measurement system change
motivates performance improvements”, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 21-7.
Popplewell, K. and Bing, Y. (1995), “Reporting requirements and
performance measures in integrated approximate factory
modeling”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6
No. 5, pp. 4-12.
Post, T. and Spronk, J. (1999), “Performance benchmarking using
interactive data envelopment analysis”, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 115, pp. 472-87.
Rangone, A. (1996), “An analytical hierarchy process framework
for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing
departments”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 104-19.
Roest, P. (1997), “The golden rules for implementing the
balanced business scorecard”, Information Management
and Computer Security, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 163-5.
Ron, A.J. (1995), “Measure of manufacturing performance in
advance manufacturing systems”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 41 No. 1-3, pp. 147-60.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The relationship between
total quality management practices and operational
performance”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 393-409.
Santori, P.R. and Anderson, A.D. (1987), “Manufacturing
performance in the 1990s: measuring for excellence”,
Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 164 No. 5, pp. 141-7.
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An
instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality
management”, Decision Sciences Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 810-29.
Sarkis, J. (1997), “An empirical analysis of productivity and
complexity for flexible manufacturing systems”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Savery, L.K. and Soutar, G.N. (1997), “Relationships between
various measurements of workplace performance”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 34-42.
Schiemann, W.A. and Lingle, J.H. (1997), “Seven greatest myths
of measurement”, Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 5,
pp. 29-32.
Schmenner, R.W. and Vollmann, T.E. (1994), “Performance
measures: gaps, false alarms and the ‘usual suspects’”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 58-69.
Shea, C.M. and Howell, J.M. (2000), “Efficacy-performance
spirals: an empirical test”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 791-812.
Shenoy, S.M. and Kasilingan, R.G. (1991), “Performance analysis
of machine cell configurations using simulation”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 1-4,
pp. 279-83.
Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M. (1995a), “Effective process
management through performance measurement. Part I:
applications of total quality-based performance
measurement”, Business Process Re-engineering &
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M. (1995b), “Effective process
management through performance measurement. Part III:
an integrated model of total quality-based performance
measurement”, Business Process Re-engineering &
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 50-65.
Sink, D. and Smith, G.L. (1999), “Reclaiming process
measurement”, IIE Solutions, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 41-6.
Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. and Reddy, V.K. (1997), “Strategy-based
performance measurement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 37-44.
Small, M.H. and Yasin, M.M. (1997), “Advanced manufacturing
technology: implementation policy and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15, pp. 349-70.
Srinidhi, B. (1998), “Strategic quality management”,
International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 38-70.
Stainer, A. (1997b), “Logistics: a productivity and performance
perspective”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 53-62.
Stockton, D. and Bateman, N. (1995), “Measuring the
production range flexibility of a FMS”, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 27-34.
Stoop, P.P.M., Bertrand, J.W.M. and Dirn, C.W.G.M. (1999),
“Short-term performance predicting and diagnosis for
shopfloor control”, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference of the Decision Sciences Institute, Athens,
4-7 July, , Vol. 2, pp. 1713-15.
Sunderland, F.O. and Kane, M.E. (1996), “Measuring productivity
on value basis”, National Productivity Review, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 57-76.
Suwignjo, P., Bititci, U.S. and Carrie, A.S. (2000), “Quantitative
models for performance measurement systems”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 64,
pp. 231-41.
529
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
Tannock, J.D.T. (1995), “Choice of inspection strategy using
quality simulation”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 75-84.
Teo, T.S.H. and Wong, P.K. (1998), “An empirical study of the
performance impact of computerization in the retail
industry”, Omega, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 611-21.
Thompson, J.L. (1998), “Competency and measured performance
outcomes”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 219-31.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J.S. (1999),
“Manufacturing technology and strategy formulation:
keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving
performance”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 411-28.
Tranfield, D. and Akhlaghi, F. (1995), “Performance measures:
relating facilities to business indicators”, Facilities, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 6-14.
Tsang, A.H.C. (1998), “A strategic approach to managing
maintenance performance”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 87-94.
Tsang, A.H.C., Jardine, A.K.S. and Kolodny, H. (1999),
“Measuring maintenance performance: a holistic
approach”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 691-2.
Tvorik, J., Boissoneau, R. and Pearson, N. (1998), “Performance
parameters as indicators of success and predictors of
failure in strategic management”, Journal of Professional
Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 41-67.
Upton, D. (1998), “Just-in-time and performance measures
systems”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 11, pp. 1101-11.
Van Hoek, R.I. (1998), “Measuring the unmeasurable and
improving performance in the supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 187-92.
Van Schalkwyk, J.C. (1998), “Total quality management and the
performance measurement barrier”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 124-31.
Vitale, M.R. and Mavrinac, S.C. (1995), “How effective is your
performance measurement system?”, Management
Accounting, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 43-7.
Vitale, M.R., Mavrinac, S.C. and Hauser, M. (1994), “New
process/financial scorecard: a strategic performance
measurement system”, Planning Review, Vol. 44,
pp. 12-16.
Vokurka, R. and Fliedner, G. (1995), “Measuring operating
performance: a specific case study”, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 38-43.
Waggoner, D.B., Neely, A.D. and Kennerley, M. (1999), “The
forces that shape organizational performance
measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60-61,
pp. 53-60.
Walker, K.B. (1996), “Corporate performance reporting revisited:
the balanced scorecard and dynamic management”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 96 No. 3,
pp. 24-30.
Ward, P.T., Leong, G.K. and Boyer, K.K. (1994), “Manufacturing
proactiveness and performance”, Decision Sciences
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 337-58.
Westra, D., Srikanth, M.L. and Kane, M. (1996), “Measuring
operational performance in a through-put world”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 77 No. 10,
pp. 41-7.
White, G.P. (1996), “A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related
performance measures for manufacturing”, International
 A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin and João V. Lisboa
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 42-61.
Winstanley, D. and Stuart, S.K. (1996), “Policing performance:
the ethics of performance management”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 66-84.
Wisner, J.D. and Fawcett, S.E. (1991), “Linking firm strategy to
operating decisions through performance measurement”,
Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 5-11.
Wong, P.K. and Ngin, P.M. (1997), “Automation and
organizational performance: the case of electronics
530
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Volume 15 · Number 6 · 2004 · 511-530
manufacturing firms in Singapore”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 257-68.
Yasin, M.M., Czuchey, A.J., Dorsch, J.J. and Small, M.H. (1999),
“In search of an optimal cost of quality: an integrated
framework of operational efficiency and strategic
effectiveness”, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 16, pp. 171-89.
Ylvinger, S. (2000), “Industry performance and structural
efficiency measures: solutions to problems in firm
models”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 121, pp. 164-74.