Editorial

Citation

Radnor, Z. and Heap, J. (2005), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2005.07954daa.001

Editorial

Expect the unexpected

This morning the coffee machine in the office did not work when we switched it on. This upset our rhythm for the day: it always works, and we expect it to work. Are we just getting too set in our daily rituals? Has our coffee machine decided we need to be extricated from our comfort zone to join the ever changing, dynamic “real” world.

The search for the answer in the real world!

The endless debates, discussions and even journal articles on the merits of the balanced scorecard over the EFQM model over the performance prism are in the attempt to search for the magical performance system that will allow managers to solve their performance problems. The truth is that probably the debates are meaningless because the reality is that the performance system does not have the magical answer – it is just the model that does the work. People are the magical ingredient that improves the performance; hence performance management is about the conscious effort of managers to motivate people to do better and improve the service or product that can be greater valued. All too often we use the phrase performance management when all we are talking about is really a performance measurement system

Introducing this issue …

In focusing on the role of the most senior managers and their responsibility to drive performance the first paper by Ravi, Shankar and Tiwari considers the “Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply chain”. The paper considers “reverse logistics” which relate to the operations and supply chain concerned with the reuse of products coming back from the customers, disassembly and processing of used products and/or materials. An interpretive structural modeling approach has been used to model reverse logistics in order to determine the variables which top management should focus on to improve the performance of the computer hardware supply chain.

The second academic paper by Min and Pheng reflects on elements of economic order quantity (EOQ) and just in time (JIT) that enhance purchasing performance. They suggest that the traditional materials purchasing technique – EOQ – can be considered alongside the successful approach of JIT by evaluating a JIT purchasing threshold value (JPTV). In so doing, the limitations of each can be addressed (i.e. EOQ needs space but in saving space JIT does not always optimize process benefits) in order to adopt the purchasing that best suits the organization.

The practitioner paper by Denton explores the need for – and suggests a way of – “Measuring relevant things”. Denton argues that companies do not give serious attention to what and how they measure; what is important is that measures are timely and are relevant measures. He points out that we can get lost in the number of measures available (and often do!); we need to keep a focus on the inputs, process and outputs in order to keep the big picture in mind and not get lost in the detail. We were reminded above that measures are only a part of a “system” and it is the managers and leaders and what they do with the measures that really transform performance measurement into performance management and (hopefully) realize performance improvement.

The final paper from Cumming considers the relevance of less tangible factors to and within performance management systems. Many organizations claim to be wholly committed to environmentalism, to ethical practices, to risk management, to compliance with regulation … yet their performance measurement and management systems make no reference to these factors. This paper uses a case example to explore issues underlying the gap between rhetoric and reality, and suggests ways in which this gap can be narrowed.

Final thoughts …

Sub-optimal

In most large organizations most people are positive and motivated, want to do a good job and want to be efficient at what they do (and want to be appreciated for doing it – but that is another story). However, in many large organizations, all this positive energy results in inefficiency and waste. This is because individuals, groups and departments are working to maximise their own narrow efficiency – and this is often sub-optimal in the greater scheme of things. Performance and productivity management is supposed to override this local sub-optimization by showing and explaining the routes to a wider efficiency for all. Too often, it is the explaining that fails – people fail to see their place in that greater scheme, and continue to work well but narrowly, trying – but failing – to make the organisation a better place.

Dis-stressed

Research (meaning a quick survey around the office) seems to suggest that more people are reporting themselves to be suffering from high levels of stress at work. Is this because work is more stressful these days – or because we are more “sensitized” to the concept of stress, and therefore “suffer” from it. Many of you – like us – might truthfully say that you have never been really – reportedly – highly stressed. Of course we all endure the stress of deadlines, awkward issues, etc – but it was ever thus. Methinks, the lady (and the gent) doth protest too much (nowadays).

Zoe Radnor, John HeapCo-Editors