Editorial

Citation

Radnor, Z. and Heap, J. (2005), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2005.07954baa.001

Editorial

I (Zoe Radnor, esteemed co-editor!) have just returned from a parents evening at my daughter’s school where we discussed the metrics of assessing six and seven year-old children. The feeling from the school was that measurement can be good for both teacher and children in realising and raising their performance but “dangerous” in terms of the use of such measures to construct “external” league tables. This is particularly true for my daughter’s school where they have a “hearing unit”, to meet the needs of children with hearing difficulties. Although this means that the majority of children (of all abilities) in the school can use sign language, it also means that “standard” attainment levels are not always as high as at schools without such a specialist facility. This impacts on external views of the school’s performance. This is just one example of why caution needs to be exercised when constructing or using performance measures: they are as much abused as used. One of the aims of this journal – reflected within this issue – is to provide information to create both enthusiasm for, and a healthy scepticism towards, performance measurement.

The first paper in this issue, by O’Regan and Ghobadian, considers innovation in small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Through a questionnaire to over 1,000 SMEs, in the engineering and electronics sectors, the authors have investigated the role and impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions on innovation and supporting mechanisms. The study shows that SMEs can be categorised as either prospectors (likely to engage in new product development, including radical or breakthrough innovation) or defenders (more likely to modify an existing product via incremental innovation). Defenders are also often seen to play “catch up” in the innovation of their products and their process technologies. Understanding this essential attitude and the resulting behaviour can help shape the strategic orientation of a company, ensuring that its declared strategy and policy is consistent with its essential nature: this is much more likely to support the improvement of productivity and performance of the organisation as a whole.

The second paper by Burgess, Shaw and de Mattos is less concerned with product or process innovation than with managerial innovation – via such techniques as total quality management (TQM), reengineering and even enterprise resource planning (ERP). The paper examines the adoption of a self-assessment tool, which is part of a wider methodology that has been developed to improve the performance of new process development within the chemical industry. The findings of the study illustrate for practitioners how prior commitment can obscure rational considerations when introducing managerial innovations and, for academics it raises some interesting ideas about the design and use of self-assessment routines that precede the adoption and implementation of managerial innovations. This paper allows us to reflect more widely on the use of many managerial innovations, including performance management tools, and the effect that they have on managers in terms of their ability to take onboard and manage such innovations.

The final academic paper that has been subjected to a rigorous refereeing process is one by Oke which presents an analytical model for the optimisation of maintenance profitability. It presents a mathematical model that the author hopes will stimulate further research in the area of maintenance performance measurement. The model measures the profitability of a maintenance system based on the traditional accounting definition of profitability (revenue/cost). The study of a particular instance illustrates that maintenance profitability measurement is easily calculated. The author argues that measuring such profitability is important: a maintenance department should be as accountable for its use of resources as any other revenue-generating or cost-incurring department.

Our final paper of the issue is by Robson and is from a practitioner standpoint. It was first presented at the Performance Management Association Conference in Edinburgh, 2004, where it was well received as it raises a number of issues worthy of further academic study and brings us back to the theme of the misuse of performance data and performance management. The paper introduces the impact of behavioural factors on performance, and gives some brief, but clear, examples of practical situations where the behaviour created by a “performance management” regime was at odds with the expectations of those creating the regime.

So, some final thoughts … sticking with the theme of the misuse of performance targets. First, never speed on the roads in the last week of the month, as there may be targets for the generation of income from fines that has not yet been reached. And second, when looking at academic journals, do not count the pages or the number of references – read, understand and evaluate the ideas!

Hope you enjoy this issue of the journal – look out for some more (small) changes to the format in the next issue!

Zoe Radnor, John Heap