Resume Performance Measurement Quotionaire (PMQ)

“Model Cambridge”

Dosen Pembimbing:

Beny Rahim, S.Psi., M.Psi.

Disusun Oleh (Kelompok 3):

Gideon Tunas Karunia Ginting (G1C117027)

M Shafwan (G1C117028)

Nur Kholisoh (G1C117055)

Puji Zakia Dewi (G1C117057)

Sisfaizal Adam Habib (G1C117059)

Randy Ashari (G1C117073)

Tio Lestari Lumban Gaol (C1A018059)

Betrik Monika Dorhana Sihombing (C1A018096)

Rio (C1A018114)

Titin Hotmaria Siringo Ringo (C1A018119)

PROGRAM STUDI ILMU PSIKOLOGI

FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN DAN ILMU KESEHATAN

UNIVERSITAS JAMBI

2020
 1

DAFTAR ISI

DAFTAR ISI.............................................................................................................................................1
RANGKUMAN PMQ MODEL CAMBRIDGE..............................................................................................2
A. Pengertian Performance Measurement Qoutionaire (PMQ).........................................................2
B. Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Berbasis Model Cambridge................................................................2
JURNAL PMQ CAMBRIDGE MODEL........................................................................................................6
A. Diktat Kuliah Pengukuran Kinerja Universitas Widyagama Malang (oleh Chauliah Fatma Putri,
SE, ST, MT.)........................................................................................................................................6
B. Int. J. Business Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003 1.................................................8
Implementing performance measurement systems:.........................................................................8
a literature review.............................................................................................................................8
C. A Overview of Popular Performance Measurement Models and Frameworks..........................13
D. A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: A review of
systems and frameworks.................................................................................................................14
 2

RANGKUMAN PMQ MODEL CAMBRIDGE

A. Pengertian Performance Measurement Qoutionaire (PMQ)
Kuesioner pengukuran kinerja diciptakan pada tahun 1990 oleh Dixon di mana
kuesioner ini merupakan alat yang memberikan keputusan pada manajer untuk memutuskan
suatu kebijakan akan kompatibilitas sistem ukuran kinerja perusahaan dalam kaitannya
dengan tujuan dan sasaran perbaikannya. Kuesioner ini menganalisis antara kesesuaian,
keselarasan, consensus, dan kebingungan antara strategi perusahaan, pelaksanaannya, dan
tindakan perbaikannya agar mencapai tujuan untuk mencapai tujuan yang berkelanjutan.

 Analisis keselarasan: memberikan peringkat pada pentingnya area yang ditingkatkan

dan ditekankan pada proses pengukuran.
 Analisis kesesuaian: memberikan penilaian antara kesesuaian antara strategi dengan
tujuan pada peningkatan manajemen kinerja.
 Analisis consensus: merupakan penilaian akan proses komunikasi yang terjadi dalam
upaya untuk menyampaikan fungsi masing-masing manajemen berdasarkan tingkatan
dan fungsinya dalam kaitannya dengan manajemen kinerja.
 Analisis kebingungan: memberikan informasi varian respons yang diberikan di dalam
suatu organisasi.

Adapun tujuan yang ingin dicapai dalam PMQ adalah, menilai kinerja dari
diterapkannya suatu sistem pengukuran kinerja, memungkinkan adanya pengembangan
pengukuran kinerja, relatif cepat pada fase auditing, kegiatan yang menghimpun kepentingan
pihak konsultan dikarenakan pihak manajemen tidak terlalu berperan dalam kegiatan
auditing.

B. Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Berbasis Model Cambridge

Cambridge model menggunakan product group sebagai dasar untuk mengidentifikasi
KPI dan dari pengelompokkan produk tersebut dilakukan penentuan tujuan bisnis untuk
product groupnya. Produk dikelompokkan berdasarkan:

 Penjualan sebagai persentase total penjualan

 Kontribusi sebagai persentase total kontribusi
 Market share, dan banyaknya pesaing
 Pertumbuhan penjualan
 3

Pertumbuhan pasar atau life cycle stage Pada awalnya, tujuan dari setiap product group harus
disepakati, setelah itu baru diidentifikasikan hubungan performance measurement dengan
aktivitas-aktivitas kunci. Implementasi didefinisikan sebagai fase di mana sistem dan
prosedur diberlakukan mengumpulkan dan memproses data yang memungkinkan
pengukuran yang akan dilakukan secara teratur. Menggunakan ukuran kinerja dibagi menjdi
dua sudivisi utama. Pertama, sebagai ukuran berasal dari strategi, penggunaan awal yang
mana mereka harus meletakkan adalah mengukur keberhasilan penerapan strategi itu (Kaplan
dan Norton 1996). Kedua, file informasi dan umpan balik dari tindakan tersebut harus
digunakan untuk menantang asumsi dan menguji validitas strategi (Feurer dan Chaharbaghi
1995b; Kaplan dan Norton 1996).

Berikut ini adalah struktur dari Cambridge Model:

Proses grouping dilakukan untuk mendapatkan kesepakatan mengenai pengukuran

kinerja untuk mencapai tujuan bisnis. Hal ini meliputi basis strategi bisnis (part 3) dan key
activities (part 6). Adapun dalam penentuan key activities didasarkan pada pengelompokan
produk berdasarkan kontribusi dan market sharenya. Yang selanjutnya kegiatan kunci
ditentukan melalui kegiatan evaluasi untuk menghasilka ukuran kinerja berbasis aktivitas
kunci. Dan selanjutnya dilakukan proses uji dan implementasi.

Proses penentuan sistem pengukuran kinerja dilakukan dalam tahapan-tahapan

sebagai berikut:

1. Mengidentifikasi kelompok produk yang memiliki syarat-syarat berdasarkan

kontribusi dan market share.
 4

2. Menyetujui tujuan bisnis dengan mengembangkan tujuan bisnis dari pemangku

kepentingan dan kebutuhan pelanggan dengan output tujuan bisnis yang telah
disepakati.
3. Menyetujui ukuran kinerja dengan merancang ukuran kinerja individu berdasakan
tujuan yang disepakati pada bagian 2.
4. Menandatangani ukuran kinerja tingkat atas dengan meninjau ukuran yang
dikembangkan pada bagian 3, dan menguji untuk kelengkapan dan koherensi sebelum
mendapat persetujuan untuk implementasi. Selanjutnya apabila ada koreksi pada
bagian 4 akan dievaluasi kembali sehingga akan terjadi penambahan dan penguranan
ukuran kinerja.
5. Menanamkan ukuran kinerja tingkat atas dan memberikan saran implementasi dan
tinjauan kinerja.
Adapun proses Performance Measurable Cambridge (Bourne et al, 2000; Neely et al,
1996) memenuhi semua kriteria yang perlu diperhitungkan, outcome yang ingin
dicapai, dan proses yang dilakukan jika dibandingkan dengan model pengukuran
kinerja lainnya. Berikut merupakan table yang memuat kriteria dan perbandingan
antara tiap model pengukuran kinerja yang ada.:
 5

Oleh karena itu, PM Cambridge merupakan proses yang komprehensif untuk

pengembangan sistem PM yang strategis. Perkembangan langkah-langkah
operasional, bagaimanapun digambarkan sebagai proses opsional, agar
diklasifikasikan secara komprehensif, baik tindakan strategis maupun operasional
perlu dikembangkan. Sistem ini memberikan proses yang sangat rinci untuk
mengembangkan dan menerapkan sistem PM. Akan tetapi dalam hal ini PM
Cambridge gagal menentukan pendekatan yang seimbang untuk dimensi kinerja yang
kritis, sehingga terkadang terkesan terlalu rumit dan memerlukan biaya riset dan
pengembangan yang tidak murah.

JURNAL PMQ CAMBRIDGE MODEL

A. Diktat Kuliah Pengukuran Kinerja Universitas Widyagama Malang (oleh Chauliah
Fatma Putri, SE, ST, MT.)

DAFTAR ISI
Halaman Halaman
Sampul Rencana Pembelajaran Semester
 6

Daftar Isi Daftar

Gambar Daftar Tabel
BAB I DEFINISI PENGUKURAN KINERJA1
BAB II. PERKEMBANGAN PENGUKURAN KINERJA
BAB III HUBUNGAN PROSES MANAJEMEN KINERJA & SISTEM PENGUKURAN KINERJA
BAB IV HUBUNGAN MANAJEMEN KINERJA & STRATEGI PERUSAHAAN
BAB V PENGUKURAN KINERJA KARYAWAN 14
BAB VI PENGUKURAN KINERJA KEUANGAN PERUSAHAAN
BAB VII BALANCED SCORECARD1 BAB VIII CAMBRIDGE MODEL
BAB IX INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (IPMS)
BAB X PERFORMANCE PRISM
BAB XI AHP SEBAGAI ALAT BANTU PENGUKURAN KINERJA
BAB XII OMAX SEBAGAI ALAT BANTU SCORING SYSTEM
BAB XIII CONTOH PENERAPAN BALANCED SCORECARD
BAB XIV CONTOH PENERAPAN PERFORMANCE PRISM DAFTAR PUSTAKA
BAB VIII CAMBRIDGE MODEL
Selain menggunakan bisnis strategi sebagai starting point, Cambridge Model menggunakan
product group sebagai dasar untuk mengidentifikasi indikator kinerja (Neely et al, 1997).
Produk dikelompokkan berdasarkan:

 Penjualan sebagai persentase total penjualan

 7

 Kontribusi sebagai persentase total kontribusi

 Market share, dan banyaknya pesaing
 Pertumbuhan penjualan
 Pertumbuhan pasar atau life cycle stage
Pada awalnya, tujuan dari setiap product group harus disepakati, setelah itu baru
diidentifikasikan hubungan performance measurement dengan aktivitas-aktivitas kunci.
Berikut ini adalah struktur dari Cambridge Model. Gambar 7. Struktur Cambridge Model
Dari model pengukuran kinerja Cambridge Model, dapat diidentifikasi 13 karakeristik yang
tercantum dalam tabel berikut. (Suwignjo, 2000) Tabel 2. Karakteristik Cambridge Model.

Tabel 2. Karakteristik Cambridge Model

Model: Cambridge Model

Framework Ya
Starting point Product Groups
Control/Improvement Keduanya
Prioritisation Ya
Relate to strategy/objectives Ya
Deployment procedure Tidak
Levels of organization Tidak
Stated specific objective Integrasi, mempertimbangkan
behavioural implications
Review Ya
External monitor Tidak
Timely Feedback Ya
Integration Ya
Interaction Tidak

B. Int. J. Business Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003 1

Implementing performance measurement systems:

a literature review

Abstract: Currently, there is a great interest in performance measurement with many companies
attempting to implement the balanced scorecard. However, there is also evidence that many of
these implementations are not successful. This paper reviews the different performance
measurement system design processes published in the literature and creates a framework for
comparing alternative approaches. The paper then proceeds to review the literature on
 8

performance measurement system implementations and concludes that the performance

measurement literature is at the stage of identifying difficulties and pitfalls to be avoided based on
practitioner experience with few published research studies. This paper is the first of two, the
second going on to consider performance measurement implementation from the point of view of
the change management literature. Keywords: Performance measurement; management process
implementation. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J.
and Platts, K. (2003) ‘Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review’, Int. J.
Business Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.1-24.

Performance measurement definitions In answering the question, ‘what is performance

measurement?’ it is useful to start with definitions which have been used in the literature. To quote
Neely et al. [9] “Performance Measurement is a topic often discussed but rarely defined”. Following
their comment concerning definitions, Neely et al. [9] went on to propose definitions of
performance measurement, a performance measure and a performance measurement system.
These were: “Performance measurement can be defined as the process of quantifying the efficiency
and effectiveness of action.”

“A performance measure can be defined as a metric used to quantify the efficiency and/or
effectiveness of action.” “A performance measurement system can be defined as the set of metrics
used to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions.” These definitions are precise, but
their very precision means that they do not convey what is now being labelled in the literature and
in practice as ‘performance measurement’ [10]. For example, the literature review in this paper will
show:

• Performance measurement (as promoted in the literature and practised in leading companies)
refers to the use of a multi-dimensional set of performance measures. The set of measures is multi-
dimensional as it includes both financial and non-financial measures, it includes both internal and
external measures of performance and it often includes both measures which quantify what has
been achieved as well as measures which are used to help predict the future.

• Performance measurement cannot be done in isolation. Performance measurement is only

relevant within a reference framework against which the efficiency and effectiveness of action can
be judged. In the past, performance measurement has been criticised for judging performance
against the wrong frame of reference and now there is widespread support for the belief that
performance measures should be developed from strategy.
 9

• Performance measurement has an impact on the environment in which it operates. Starting to

measure, deciding what to measure, how to measure and what the targets will be, are all acts which
influence individuals and groups within the organisation. Once measurement has started, the
performance review will have consequences, as will the actions agreed upon as a result of that
review. Performance measurement, is therefore, an integral part of the management planning and
control system of the organisation being measured.

• Performance measurement is now being used to assess the impact of actions on the stakeholders
of the organisation whose performance is being measured. Although this can be considered ‘as
quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action’, in the case of measuring the impact of the
organisation’s performance on customer satisfaction, it is not as obvious in the cases of measuring
the impact of the organisation’s actions and performance on employee satisfaction or local
community satisfaction.

The main performance measurement design processes

In this section the main performance measurement design processes are briefly described and
reviewed in turn.

Getting the measure of your business (Cambridge Model)

This is the title of a workbook [49] which details the performance measurement system design
process developed and tested by Cambridge University between 1992 and 1995. Implementing
performance measurement systems: a literature review 11 The process combines existing concepts
such as the balanced scorecard [3], ‘Order Winners and Order Qualifiers’ [78] and Ford’s QOS with
other techniques developed at Cambridge. The process is built on the work of Keegan et al. [30],
Wisner and Fawcett [79] and Azzone et al. [80], among others. A fuller description of the process
testing and development is provided in Neely et al. [42]. Figure 4 shows an outline of the process. In
the workbook [49] parts 1 to 5 of the process contain the tools and procedures for developing the
top level set of business objectives and designing performance measures for a business unit. For
completeness, parts 6 to 10 should be mentioned. These cascade the business objectives by
deploying performance measures throughout the organisation. In summary, the first five parts of the
process comprise:

Part 1 Grouping products

• by identifying groups of products (or markets) which have distinct competitive requirements. This
is done as different products or markets may have differing customer needs
 10

Part 2 Agreeing business objectives

• by developing business objectives from customer and stakeholder needs to create a coherent set
of top-level business objectives

Part 3 Agreeing performance measures

• by designing individual performance measures for each of the business objectives agreed in part 2

Part 4 Signing off the top-level performance measures

• by reviewing the measures developed in part 3, testing them for comprehensiveness and
coherence before obtaining agreement for implementation

Part 5 Embedding the top level performance measures

• by providing advice on implementation and performance reviews.

It is a ‘facilitator led’ process, as the facilitator takes the senior management team through a series
of workshop exercises in which they analyse their business. The facilitator’s role is to conduct the
workshops, steering and guiding the management team through the process, but the business
knowledge and expertise come from the individuals running the business and not the facilitator.

The key features of this process are that:

• it is a ‘facilitator led’ top down approach

 11

• it explicitly takes into account the views of customers and other stakeholders (this adds a
dimension not seen in previously published processes)

• the process is described at a level of detail which makes it usable by trained facilitators. This detail
has been developed through testing and refinement within manufacturing companies [6,42]

• the process describes the development of the actual performance measures with guidelines for
their design and definition. With the exception of ECOGRAI [54] and more recently Krause and
Mertins [65], this aspect is mainly ignored within other processes.

5.4 The performance measurement questionnaire

This approach uses a performance measurement questionnaire (PMQ) for evaluating and developing
the measures already in use in an organisation [53]. This is based on the premise that measures
should appraise, reinforce and reward improvements in performance. Managers need an effective
process for designing measures which they can use to meet their unique and evolving needs.
Schmenner and Vollmann [81] have pointed out the problems of pursuing the wrong measures. The
PMQ is structured in two main parts [72].

Part 1 asks respondents to score the importance of specific improvement areas for the business and
to score how effectively the current performance measures gauge improvement.

Part 2 asks respondents to score specific performance measures on the extent to which they believe
that achieving excellence on the measure is important for the long term health of the company and
the extent to which they believe that the company places emphasis on that measure.

The PMQ is used as a step in the process. The first stage of the process involves the development of
the improvement areas and measures to be addressed by the questionnaire. Once this has been
done the questionnaire can be administered to a wide range of managers, supervisors and
employees. The PMQ results are then analysed to identify alignment, congruence, consensus and
confusion.

• Alignment analysis ranks the importance of the improvement areas and the emphasis on
measurement. These rankings can be used to assess fit with strategy and fit between the importance
of improvement and the emphasis placed on measurement.

• Congruence analysis shows the differences between what is considered important to improve and
whether the measures support this improvement. They also show which performance measures are
important to the company and whether the company emphasises these measures. The term ‘gap’ is
 12

used where the business is failing to measure what matters and ‘false alarms’ where the business is
reacting to measures which do not matter [53].

• Consensus analysis partitions the data between management levels and functions. The comparison
of results can lead to the identification of communication problems when the scores do not agree.

• Confusion analysis assesses the variation in responses within groups. The results of the data
analysis are shared with the respondents in a workshop. They are used as a catalyst for changing the
performance measurement system to improve its alignment, plug the gaps, remove the false alarms,
increase consensus by communication and reduce confusion where this exists. However, the format
and content of these workshops are not described. The key points of this process are that the PMQ
process:

• assesses the performance of the existing performance measurement system

• allows the development of the existing performance measurement; Eccles [82] has argued that
grafting new measures onto an existing system is not the answer, but this is a viable alternative
approach for constructing a radical review of the performance measurement system

• is relatively light on management time during the audit phase

• can be categorised as a ‘consultant led’ approach as management is not greatly involved in the
audit process. The workshop development of the new performance measurement system may be
more ‘facilitator led’, but the detail is not sufficient to establish this.

C. A Overview of Popular Performance Measurement Models and Frameworks

Managing Business Performance: The Science and the Art By Umit S. Bititci Copyright © 2015 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A.3 THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PMQ)

The PMQ was created by Dixon et al. (1990) to serve as a decision tool for managers. Essentially, it is
a structured questionnaire that audits the compatibility of a firm’s performance measures in relation
to its improvement aims and objectives. The questionnaire analyses alignment, congruence,
consensus and confusion – helping maintain consistency between the firm’s strategy, improvement
actions and measures. Essentially it is different from previous frameworks and models as it does not
attempt to provide a framework for designing a performance measurement system, rather it is a tool
for auditing the appropriateness of a performance measurement system.

A.4 THE RESULTS AND DETERMINANTS FRAMEWORK

 13

The Results and Determinants Framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) has a structure composed of six
performance dimensions classified under two categories: results and determinants (Figure A.3).

The results category covers financial- and competitiveness-related performance measures. The
framework conceptualises these measures as lagging indicators that reflect the ultimate objectives
of an organisation. The determinants category includes performance measures for service quality,
flexibility, resource utilisation and innovation, which are conceptualised as leading indicators.

A.6 THE CAMBRIDGE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT DESIGN PROCESS

The Cambridge Performance Measurement Design Process, illustrated in Figure A.5, was developed
in order to improve the design of performance measurement systems (Neely et al., 1996). The
process is documented in the form of a workbook, which is available from the Institute for
Manufacturing.1 The main contribution of this work is to show how all internal, external, financial
and non-financial elements are integrated with the strategy to create a coherent performance
measurement system. The framework can assist with identifying conflicting performance measures
whilst maintaining a balance between external and internal measures.
 14

D. A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation: A

review of systems and frameworks

Kit Fai Pun1 and Anthony Sydney White

Measuring organizational performance plays a very important part in translating corporate strategy
into results. Various emerging (non-traditional) performance systems have recently been devised to
aid firms in selecting and implementing measures. This paper discusses the strategy/measurement
initiatives and compares ten emerging performance measurement systems with respect to a list of
performance dimensions, the characteristics of performance measures, and the requirements of
development process. Although these systems have constraints borne with their own application
domains, they stand by themselves empirically and/or theoretically, and provide guidance about
what to measure and how to design performance measures that could be linked to the corporate
strategy and objectives of an organization. This paper concludes that there is a need to develop a
paradigm for integrating strategy formulation and performance measurement in organizations.

Emerging Performance Measurement Systems

The complexity of managing an organization today requires that managers be able to measure
performance and to analyse the impacts of different performance dimensions on organizational
excellence (Ghalayini and Noble 1996; Neely and Bourne 2000). Over the last two decades, there has
been an increasing awareness of a more integrated approach to SF and PM (Feurer and Chaharbaghi
1995b; Pun 2003). Measurement systems incorporating financial and non-financial measures have
been a topic of considerable interest to both business practitioners and academics (Medori and
 15

Steeple 2000). Many researchers and practitioners became interested in developing integrated,
rather than piecemeal, measurement systems (Neely and Bourne 2000). Many commentators in the
field have started to talk about the importance of measurement as a means of communication and
encouraging implementation of strategy. Table 2 summarizes those from a vast amount of literature
on PM systems (De Toni and Tonchia 2001; Neely et al. 1995), which can be considered to be the
main changes and trends in development that have been affected by or now concern these systems.

As a result of the limitations of traditional performance measures, the characteristics of emerging

(non-traditional) performance measures have been discussed in the literature (De Toni and Tonchia
2001; Dixon et al. 1990; Ghalayini and Noble 1996; Maskell 1992; Neely and Bourne 2000). These
characteristics are mainly related to company strategy and primarily based on non-financial
measures. Based on the literature, consultancy experience and action research, numerous processes
have been developed that organizations can follow in order to design and implement PM systems
(Bourne et al. 2002). Despite those PM models that emphasize selfassessment (such as the Deming
Prize, the Baldrige Award and the EFQM Excellence Model), many other PM systems have also been
devised to support the processes and aid manufacturing organizations to select and implement
measures. In order to investigate a PM paradigm that helps managers measure and improve
business processes, a list of ten emerging PM systems is provided in Table 3. These systems are
selected because each has distinct features and would contribute important ingredients for holistic
performance measures. A common theme in these systems has been a determined attempt to tie
performance metrics more closely to a firm’s strategy and long-term vision. The main features and
characteristics of individual systems are described as follows.

A performance measurement paradigm for integrating strategy formulation

Performance Measurement Questionnaire

Dixon et al. (1990) developed an approach of performance measurement questionnaire to help

managers identify the improvement needs of their organization, to determine the extent to which
the existing performance measures support improvements and to establish an agenda for
performance measure improvements. The questionnaire consists of four parts. The first part
provides general data to be used to classify the respondents. Part two of the questionnaire assesses
the companies’ competitive priorities and PM system. It consists of items labelled as ‘improvement
areas’. They are placed in the centre of the questionnaire as shown in Figure 2.

The respondents (e.g. senior management and representatives from middle management or front-
line personnel) are asked to circle a number on each side of the table. The third part of the
 16

questionnaire is similar to Part two except the focus is on performance factors (i.e. performance
measures). The final part of the questionnaire asks the respondents to provide performance
measures that best evaluate their own performance and any other general comments. The results of
the performance measurement questionnaire (PMQ) are evaluated in four ways. These are: (1)
alignment analysis is conducted to investigate in general terms how well a company’s actions and
measures complement its strategy; (2) congruence analysis is conducted to provide a detailed
understanding of how well the measurement system supports an organization’s actions and
strategy; (3) consensus analysis shows the effect of communication and is carried out by grouping
the data by management level or by functional group, and (4) the goal of the confusion analysis is to
determine the extent of consensus (i.e. standard deviation) regarding each improvement area and
performance measure.

Cambridge Performance Measurement

Process Neely et al. (1996) have developed a management process which is fully described in the
workbook Getting the Measure of Your Business. It is proposed that the development of
performance measurement systems can be divided into three main phases (see Figure 6). These are:
first, the design of the performance measures; secondly, the implementation of the performance
measures; and thirdly, the use of the performance measures (Neely et al. 1996). According to
Bourne et al. (2000), the design phase can be subdivided into identifying the key objectives to be
measured and designing the measures themselves. Implementation is defined as the phase in which
systems and procedures are put in place to collect and process the data that enable the
measurements to be made regularly. The use of performance measures is split into two main
subdivisions. First, as the measures are derived from strategy, the initial use to which they should be
put is that of measuring the success of the implementation of that strategy (Kaplan and Norton
1996). Secondly, the information and feedback from the measures should be used to challenge the
assumptions and test the validity of the strategy (Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1995b; Kaplan and Norton
1996).
 17

The Cambridge PM process (Bourne et al. 2000; Neely et al. 1996) fulfils all the criteria of the
typology and is, therefore, a comprehensive process for the development of strategic PM systems.
The development of operational measures, however, is described as an optional process. For it to be
classified as comprehensive, both strategic and operational measures need to be developed. The
consistent PM system (Flapper et al. 1996) gives a very detailed process for developing and
implementing PM systems, but fails to specify a balanced approach for critical dimensions of
performance. In contrast to this, the integrated PM system.