Editorial

Citation

Radnor, Z. (2009), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2009.07958haa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Volume 58, Issue 8

I, Zoe Radnor, write this editorial as my last one as co-editor of IJPPM. I have taken the difficult decision to stand down as co-editor after just over six years working on the journal due to a range of other commitments. It has been a brilliant time, which has seen the journal build on the strength of Work Study to become one of the significant journals within the performance and improvement discipline. Over my time involved in the journal there has been a 40 increase in its downloads, expansion in the number of special issues and inclusion on many of the “Journal lists” used by Business Schools to judge the quality of journal papers (e.g. ABS and BARDsnet) leading to a rise in the number of citations. The future of the journal looks strong as the number of submissions and the accepted paper list rises every month. There are also a healthy number of special issues on the horizon focusing on third sector, accountability and human resources management – so watch out!

Although this is normally done at the end, I am going to say this near the start … an almighty thanks to both John Heap and Kay Sutcliffe who have been key in the success of the journal and have kept me sane many times during the past six years! Without them this journal really would have not succeeded. Also a big thanks to all the Emerald staff particularly the numerous managing editors over the years – Nancy, Rosie, Lucy and, more recently, Andrew as well their supporting staff who have been excellent in managing the process (and organising some editorial meetings in “nice” places!). It has also been nice to see Emerald grow in strength reflected in the excellent new facilities they now own and the introduction of the book series. I am hoping my connections and relationship with Emerald will continue in other forms over the years.

So, reflecting on some of the many questions, which both John and I have asked in the editorial over the years … Is performance measurement and management still creating distorted or at times unethical or gaming behaviour? Yes … is probably the answer … especially when targets are involved – the behavioural aspects of performance measurement and management are very strong and although we have published a number of papers on tools and techniques to manage this more successfully (such as the Balanced Scorecard in its various forms) we still hear and read examples where people and organisations have gone to great lengths to hit targets! Will the move from productivity and output towards more focus on performance and outcome continue? Again, probably yes but the core measures of productivity do not seem to be disappearing and actually, at the moment, in a time of cost cutting and efficiency the focus on productivity does appear to be rising again. However, organisations do, thankfully, appear to be developing better links between performance measurement and management and strategy. Are all organisations interested in performance measurement and management and is it relevant to all organisations? Again … yes … the papers over the past six years have included papers from all sectors from private to charity, many disciplines from operations to accounting to marketing and, internationally from the UK, the USA to India and Africa. It has been wonderful to see the multi-coloured nature of the topic, which embraces and includes so many views and perspectives. This is one aspect that has made my job so interesting!

So, what of this issue? This issue focuses on a set of papers, which are my own personal research interests – performance measurement and management in the service sector, particularly the public services and, the introduction of Lean as a tool in these sectors to help drive improvement and performance. The first paper by Battisti and Iona gives an interesting connection between these two topics. It considers the relationship between management practices (including Lean, Just in Time, etc.) and productivity as a measure of performance in order to support organisations trying to “close the productivity gap”. You would think that they would find a strong relationship between the two. However, what the paper suggests is that management practices are an ambiguous driver of higher firm performance. They suggest what is needed is more in-depth studies and maybe more sophisticated modelling techniques in order to understand the mechanics by which management practices affect productivity and thereby performance. This relationship between management practices and performance measurement is a key one and one which many practitioners and researchers aim to try and understand – instinctively we know it should exist and the theory tells us it should but the actual practice often leads to difficulty in proving it! Let’s hope the future work of Battisti and others help in this exploration.

The second paper by Bamford and Chatziasian again picks up on UK organisations – this time Healthcare – and the relationship between measurement and practices. This paper focuses on how capacity can be measured in an Outpatients department in relation to demand. This is also related to tools like Lean, which are rapidly being rolled out in public services, especially health services, which rely on capacity and demand measures as a means to manage flow (one of the key principles of Lean). During my own research I have often seen a great lack of understanding of demand in hospitals with departments often being “capacity focused” i.e. capacity is available based on when people want to work etc. rather than on when the service is needed or required. Creating a greater understanding of the effect of this is key to changing the way public services operate and hopefully tools, based on the Balanced Scorecard, like the one suggested in this Bamford and Chatziasian paper is a start to help that understanding and knowledge.

The third paper by Sarrico and Rosa moves into another public service – education – this time in Portugal. This paper raises the issue of quantitative versus qualitative data related to performance. It shows that results from focusing on the quantitative data vary significantly from the results created from more qualitative means, which does not take into account some of the important socio-economic variables. The paper proposes that what should occur is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative measurement and assessment in order to evaluate the performance of an organisation, in this case a school, effectively. This is good advice probably relevant to many organisations and one message, which have been often mentioned in other papers over the years. It reminds us again that performance measurement is only a tool!

The final research paper by Rautiainen is again focusing on the public sector – this time local government and this time in Finland. This paper considers why and how performance measurement tools are used i.e. the decision-making rationale around introducing the Balanced Scorecard. It finds that there are three reasons labelled as “Mimetic”, “Rational” and “Normative – experimental” factors (in order of the strength). In other words many organisations are doing it because others are; and it tends to be seen as a “simple” tool, separate from the strategy. This is what can lead to gaming behaviour. Let’s hope that the continuing strength of this journal allows more discussion and debate on the role of productivity, performance measurement and performance management to continue so that we better understand and can address some of the more “negative” aspects them.

The final – Reflective Practice – paper fits into the overall theme of this issue … and is timely in that it addresses the introduction of Lean principles and practises as a strategy for survival in recessionary times … using higher productivity as a means of reducing costs and securing market share.

So, my departing comment … someone once said “what gets measured gets done”. Reflecting the strength of the behavioural aspects of performance measurement and management in much of my own research I often see “what gets measured gets measured”! It is my goal through future research and teaching to move away from both of these concepts to one where “what is measured at the point of requirement by those who need it drives improvement and performance” so productivity, performance measurement and performance management no longer are industries in themselves but part of the organisational fabric. The early pioneers of work measurement – Taylor, the Gilbreths et al. – have got a lot to answer for!

Enjoy this issue and future issues … and all your future research in the topic!

Zoe Radnor