Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Shortcomings of Current Performance Measurement and
Management Systems: A Literature Review
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Czech Republic
anna.dvorakova2@student.upce.cz
michaela.kotkovaStriteska@upce.cz
Abstract: The performance measurement system as a tool for knowledge sharing and continuous improvement plays a key
role in the knowledge management development. Previous research indicates that performance measurement and
management systems are not always successfully implemented to improve decision-making or knowledge management.
Many failures relate to the behavioural aspects of performance management, but a systematic review of this topic is lacking.
Therefore, the main aim of the paper is to explore the shortcomings of current performance measurement and management
systems. The study conducted a systematic review of the literature of peer-reviewed articles over the past 20 years. The
main shortcomings are analysed within the individual categories of technical and social control, especially in terms of design,
implementation, and behavioural aspects. The findings revealed that the most common causes of shortcomings of
measurement and management performance systems include technical problems, insufficient or late knowledge sharing, or
the inability to effectively implement the entire system. An ineffective performance measurement and management system
encourages bad decisions and wastes resources by misallocating them. Subsequently, this results in dysfunctional employee
behaviour and deterioration in overall performance, which often even increases fear, reduces employee trust, and
engagement. Based on the synthesis of the results, the paper suggests how to prevent the identified shortcomings to cause
a rapid change in the behaviour of employees. From a theoretical contribution point of view, the research provides a
comprehensive and clear view of the currently available theory of performance measurement and management systems. In
terms of managerial implications, point out the shortcomings of current performance measurement and management
systems and outline how to overcome them.
Keywords: Performance measurement system, Shortcomings of performance measurement, Performance management
systems, Knowledge sharing
1. Introduction
In today's world, where changes are occurring at an increasingly rapid pace, businesses need to know and be
able to effectively measure and manage performance (Micheli and Mura, 2017). The need to correctly measure
performance in the company is even greater than ever before (Kotkova Striteska & Zapletal, 2020), as
performance measurement is an obvious but often overlooked variable that can mediate the link between
knowledge management (KM) and organizational performance (Asiaei and Bontis, 2020). In the past, research
has gone in the direction of the technical aspects of performance measurement (Reznakova et al., 2017), while
the behavioural aspects of performance management have been neglected. This very often resulted in a
mismatch between performance measurement and the organisational environment, leading to frequent failures
of the contemporary performance measurement and management system (hereinafter PMMS) (Van Camp and
Breat, 2016).
Although there is a considerable amount of literature on PMMSs, there is no universally accepted theory or
consensus on the specific factors and contexts that influence their successful implementation and improvement.
Taylor and Taylor (2014) state that it is necessary to explore the factors that significantly affect the
implementation of PMMS, as to date there are only a few studies that have dealt with this topic. Similarly,
Bourne et al. (2018) emphasise the inadequacy of current approaches within PMMS and Blasini and Leist (2013)
point out the need to look for factors that influence successful development, implementation and functioning
of PMMS in practise. To meet these challenges, it is necessary to identify the main shortcomings of the current
PMMS. Therefore, the main aim of the article is to explore the shortcomings related to design, implementation,
and behavioural aspects of current PMMS.
With the help of a systematic review of the literature, the PMMS concept according to Smith and Bititci (2017)
is defined. Based on it, the failures of current PMMS are divided according to technical and social control,
especially in terms of design, implementation, and behavioural aspects. Finally, the conclusions, limitations, and
future research opportunities are outline. From a theoretical point of view, the paper deepens the
understanding of existing knowledge related to effective performance measurement and management systems
as tools for knowledge sharing and continuous improvement and learning. From a managerial perspective, the
findings can provide inspiration on how to effectively manage PMMS in a current dynamic and turbulent
environment.
318
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
2. Performance Measurement and Management Concept
The current approach to PMMS has evolved from a focus on what to measure to how to manage it (Smith and
Bititci, 2017) and is recently understood in the context of organisational control theory (Nudurapati et al., 2021).
In this context, performance measurement is a technical control that includes processes related to setting goals,
collecting, analysing, and interpreting performance data (Bititci et al., 2015). The social control dimension is then
represented by a performance management system, which encompasses processes for assessing differences
between actual and desired outputs, identifying differences that are critical (thus warranting management
intervention), understanding whether and why these deficiencies have occurred, knowledge sharing and, if
necessary, implementing (and monitoring) corrective actions aimed at closing significant performance gaps
(Melnyk et al., 2014). In the context of KM, the social control dimension plays crucial role to successfully cope
with the difficulties of the management of the company’s most strategic assets, i.e., knowledge resources (Asiaei
and Jusoh, 2017). However, in the literature, we often find two separate concepts (performance measurement
and performance management), which are not complementary (Kotkova Striteska and Zapletal, 2020).
Therefore, the key role of PMMS as a tool for KM, continuous improvement, and learning must be redefined (de
Lima et al., 2013). A system must be created that uses the information and knowledge gained from performance
measurement to create positive changes in corporate culture, business systems, and processes (Melnyk et al.,
2014) and effectively identify, capture, and utilize relevant knowledge to enhance the overall performance
(Cardoni et al., 2020). For this, companies need to establish a formal process for reviewing and revising strategic
goals and performance indicators, which will ensure the dynamism and flexibility of the developed system
(Kotkova Striteska and Zapletal, 2020). If PMMS is designed correctly, it can cause a rapid change in employee
behaviour, which automatically leads to improved performance (Souza and Beuren, 2018). On the contrary, if
this is not the case, the use of performance indicators can and does lead to dysfunctional employee behaviour,
demoralisation, reduced confidence, and increased fear (Hamel, 2009). Therefore, for the purposes of this
research study, PMMS is understood as a set of cultural and behavioural practises that determine the ways in
which it is used (Bititci, 2015), with the goal being learning and KM rather than control (Davenport et al., 2010).
3. Methodology
Systematic literature reviews should be updated regularly to ensure they are relevant and include the latest
available evidence (Tricco et al., 2021). Our systematic literature review is limited to literature published
between 2000 and 2021. This time frame is considered appropriate given the great development and
diversification of various aspects of performance measurement and management (Nudurupati et al., 2021). As
a starting point, the question of what gaps exist in the field of business PMMS was defined. A search for peer-
reviewed English articles was then conducted in the following databases: Web of Science and Scopus, which are
the most widely used sources for academic publications in the field of business and management. A narrow
search criterion was chosen using keywords (performance measurement system, shortcomings of performance
measurement and management systems, failures, and challenges). Articles were selected for the subject areas
of business, management, and business finance as searchable sources of academic publications (for the
categories title, abstract, author keywords). Subsequently, the selection of studies, data extraction, synthesis of
results, and interpretation of results were carried out (Machado et al., 2019). Research studies focused on public
administration or PMMS for supply chain or sustainability were not included in the review due to their narrow
and specific focus. In total, 25 studies were included in the research study. The entire methodological process
of developing a research study is shown in figure 1.
4. Results and Discussion
To be precise, as conceptualised by Smith and Bititci (2017), diagnostic (measures, targets, feedback) and
boundary (goals, policies, procedures) systems represent technical control, and belief (leadership, purpose,
values) and interactive (participation, engagement, and KM) systems represent social control. Therefore, we
include in the technical control aspects of PMMS design related to the selection of appropriate metrics and the
use of resources to support data collection and analysis (Bourne et al., 2018) and aspects of PMMS
implementation related to infrastructure and alignment of strategies (Taticchi et al., 2012).
319
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Figure 1: Methodological Process of Developing a Research Study
4.1 Technical Control
According to Bititci (2015), technical controls are more formal and explicit with specific methodologies,
technologies, and analyses to achieve the objectives. The following table provides an overview of the findings of
the main shortcomings related to design aspects of PMMS.
Table 1: Shortcomings Related to Design Aspects of PMMS
Scientific
Study
Research
Method Key Findings
Neely and
Bourne (2000)
Action
research
The time, effort, and resources required to create the system make it a long
and slow process, and therefore, top management must continually
increase the energy level to complete the process.
Hudson et al.
(2001)
Action
research
Lack of consistency and objectivity; limited resources to invest in the
development of PMMs.
Mol and
Beeres (2005)
Action
research
Environment with inadequate control of outputs; PMMS may be too
focused on inputs or activities rather than outcomes; lack of appropriate
incentives to motivate staff.
Folan and
Browne (2005)
Literature
review
Financial metrics (profitability and return on investment) are often
emphasised, factors such as customer satisfaction and employee well-
being are neglected; alignment with the organisation's strategic goals is
missing.
Paranjape et
al. (2006)
Literature
review
Matric mismanagement - too many metrics and heavily weighted internal
finance data.
320
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Scientific
Study
Research
Method Key Findings
Garengo and
Bititci (2007)
Empirical
study
PMMS in SMEs may be less effective than in larger organisations due to a
lack of resources, expertise, and formal procedures.
Adler (2011) Case study Lack of focus on non-financial aspects of performance such as customer
satisfaction or innovation.
Rahbek and
Sudzina (2012) Survey Lack of understanding or awareness of the benefits of PMMS.
Pellinen et al.
(2016) Case study Inability to capture intangible benefits (KM or innovation).
Van Camp and
Breat (2016)
Conceptual
study
Lack of a clear, unique and transparent definition of metrics, copying from
others, unavailable data, difficulties in measuring intangible assets,
unbalanced set of indicators, limited resources, i.e. time, people, money.
Forcada et al.
(2017) Survey Absence of selected performance metrics, strong emphasis on price;
inadequate consideration of communication performance.
Smith and
Bititci (2017)
Action
research
Inadequate consideration of nonfinancial factors (employee involvement,
innovation, and sustainability) leading to a narrow focus on financial
results.
Twenty years ago, Itner and Larker (2003) pointed out the insufficient consideration of nonfinancial aspects in
PMMS. Table 1 shows that performance aspects strongly related to competitiveness, such as innovation, KM,
employee engagement, and sustainability, are still not sufficiently integrated into contemporary PMMS. At the
same time, it is precisely these performance measures that can effectively contribute to strategic alignment,
organisational learning, and knowledge dissemination in organisations (Michaeli and Manzoni, 2017). The main
reason is that measuring nonfinancial measures that usually reflects intangible value accurately, efficiently, and
in a timely manner is very difficult, time-consuming, and expensive (Chow and Van der Stede, 2006). Even
managers have already widely acknowledged the limitation of traditional financial measures, yet still prefer
them because they consider them to be less ambiguous and more objective. The results also revealed other
challenges related to PMMS, including lack of consistency and objectivity, focus on inputs rather than outcomes,
and limited resources to develop integral systems.
Other factors that influence the success or failure of PMMS include the need to align measures with strategy,
involve stakeholders, and use multiple perspectives (Taticchi et al., 2012).
Table 2: Shortcomings Related to Implementation Aspects of PMMS
Scientific
Study
Research
Method
Key Findings
Neely and
Bourne (2000)
Action
research
Infrastructure - the problem is that data in the enterprise come from
separate databases, often in inconsistent form.
Pongatichat
and Johnston
(2008)
Interviews
Poor aligned with an organisation's strategy; PMMS may not effectively
measure what is important to the organisation; suboptimal decision-
making and resource allocation.
Garengo a
Bititci (2007)
Empirical
study
Insufficient alignment with the strategic objectives of the organisation,
leading to a lack of focus on the most important aspects of performance -
corporate governance structure, corporate culture, KM, and management
information systems.
Davenport et
al. (2010)
Nudurapati et
al. (2011)
Book /
systematic
literature
review
Outdated, irrelevant, and inaccurate information; most of today's PMMS
are outdated, not dynamic, and sensitive to changes in the internal and
external environment of the enterprise.
321
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Scientific
Study
Research
Method
Key Findings
Adler (2011) Case study
Deficiencies in performance management and organisational strategy;
performance measurement and management must be tailored to suit and
support the implementation of a confrontational strategy.
Pellinen et al.
(2016) Case study
Vertical and horizontal integration: limited understanding of the impact of
integration on performance; identification of relevant performance
measures that reflect the impact of integration on performance; lack of
consideration of interorganisational relationships.
Van Camp a
Breat (2016)
Conceptual
study
Frameworks – clear scope of implementation, choice of a range of
different methods and frameworks, lack of KM, understanding, lack of
feedback and learning, complex dynamics.
Table 2 confirms the importance of appropriate infrastructure to support the measurement and management
of business performance (Bititci, 2015), including technologies, data management systems, and reporting
(Micheli and Mura, 2017). Outdated and inaccurate information, inconsistent data, and poor alignment with
strategy may neglect important drivers of future performance. Open communication, data visualization and a
formalized review process of strategy, performance indicators, processes and projects are necessary to ensure
an effective dialogue that enables the exchange of knowledge and the sharing of experiences between
individuals (Couturier and Sklavounos, 2019).
4.2 Social Control
According to Okwir et al. (2018) or Bititci (2015), social complexity, which includes leadership, organisational
structure, motivation, and culture, is critical to effective PMMS. In the same vein, Bourne et al. (2018) mention
leadership support and employee engagement as key topics for the effective functioning of PMMS, among
others. Asiaei and Jusoh (2017) add that knowledge-related factors can predict the design and implementation
of PMMS.
Table 3: Shortcomings Related to Behavioural Aspects
Scientific
Study
Research
Method
Key findings
Neely and
Bourne (2000) Action research
People feel threatened; top management use performance measurement
data to gain the upper hand over managers to prove that they are not
delivering the required performance; blame culture.
Bourne et al.
(2002); Bourne
(2005)
Case study
The determining factor of success or failure is purpose; a high level of
commitment from top management in favour of better management is a
key element; intervention by the parent company often interrupts the
implementation; culture that reduces fear of measurement.
De Waal
(2003)
Literature
review
Concerns about change related to staff workload or fear of failure; lack of
coordination and collaboration; lack of trust in the PMMS and lack of
timely feedback on performance to staff; lack of engagement and
communication.
Pongatichat
and Johnston
(2008)
Interviews Incentives are misaligned and employees are not sufficiently motivated.
Elzinga et al.
(2009) Case study
Resistant to change; inadequate feedback and knowledge transfer;
inadequate training and support; insufficient trust and employee
participation.
Davenport et
al. (2010)
Nudurapati et
al. (2011)
Book /
systematic
literature review
Lack of commitment from top management to the implementation of the
PMMS; problems with change management, such as resistance from
people who often do not understand the objectives and potential benefits;
management tends to use the PMMS as a control and attribution
mechanism.
Kruis and
Widener
(2014)
Case study
Strong emphasis on financial indicators (to the detriment of non-financial
ones); ability of managers to manipulate performance measures to
achieve their own objectives and possible resistance to the introduction of
PMMS (threat to managerial power).
322
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Van Camp and
Breat (2016)
Conceptual
study
Governance – lack of leadership commitment, linkage to strategy, reward
system, formal governance, IT support, user involvement, participation in
decision making.
Pavlov et al.
(2017) Survey
Mismatch between PMMS and HR strategies; lack of communication
between managers and employees about goals and performance
measures; limited employee participation in the process, resulting in a
lack of engagement and commitment to performance goals.
Ramberg
(2017) Case study
Individual focus on short-term goals and immediate results; lack of
communication and coordination between stakeholders; difficulty in
changing organizational culture and practices within the company;
reluctance to adopt new practices.
Skoczylas and
Waśniewski
(2017)
Literature
review
Achieving goals that differ from overall company goals; suboptimal
decision-making and actions; manipulation of PMS-related data;
information overload; short-term focus; employee resistance to change.
Smith and
Bititci (2017) Action research
Lack of integration with other practises; the limited involvement of
employees in company processes (lack of employee engagement and
inability to use the full potential of employees).
Striteska and
Jelinkova
(2018)
Conceptual
study
Employee reluctance to implement new PMMS, bias, and subjectivity;
overemphasis on short-term performance; lack of alignment with
corporate strategy; lack of communication between employees and
management.
Hassan a kol.
(2020)
Quantitative
study
Stakeholder engagement; leadership and quality management practices
have a significant positive impact on the PMS.
Murphy (2020) Conceptual
study
Possible bias; focus on individual performance (rather than team
performance); use of performance appraisals as a tool for punishment
rather than development - possible fear and mistrust, lack of employee
motivation and commitment.
Uddin et al.
(2021) Case study
Incentivisation to achieve individual employee goals; overemphasis on
and reliance on financial indicators; employee resistance to change; lack
of alignment of key performance indicators with the organisation's
strategic objectives.
The Table 3 reveals that purpose, structure, culture play a significant role in the success or failure of PMMS in
terms of behavioural aspects. The purpose-related results show that PMMS should primarily be used for
continuous improvement, learning and knowledge sharing, not for control and command. In this context,
employee engagement in the design, implementation, and use of PMMS can play a key role in spreading
knowledge and creating a performance-orientated corporate culture (Kotkova and Zapletal, 2020). Management
should actively support employee development and learning and create a culture in which KM is seen as an
important part of corporate strategy (Pellegrini et al., 2020). Similarly, our findings correspond with research
studies that consider top management commitment and a proper leadership style essential for the effectiveness
of PMMS use (Razzoli, 2017; Bourne et al., 2013).
As stated by Okwir et al. (2018), well-defined roles and responsibilities, trust, knowledge sharing and transfer,
and regular training are essential components in ensuring effective functioning of PMMS. Adler (2011) adds task
clarity and effectiveness, along with positive relationships and minimal conflicts within the company, as crucial
factors for successful PMMS. All these factors help to build a performance-driven culture that supports the right
purpose of PMMS and is considered a major predictor of a company's ability to respond to the external
conditions of the current dynamic environment (Dubey et al., 2017). This is another important finding that our
research study outlines. Similarly, Melnyk et al. (2014) revealed that current PMMSs are often inflexible and
resistant to change in today's business environment. According to Kolehmainem (2010), a balance between
alignment and empowerment is necessary for the use of flexible and adaptive PMMS. Furthermore, the ability
of PMMS to address KM issues and the challenges of information, flows of information and interaction
mechanisms (Jordão and Novas, 2017) plays a role in greater flexibility and adaptability.
5. Conclusion
The results of the research study showed that several shortcomings related to the design, implementation, and
use of PMMS have been identified in the past. A very interesting finding is that connections can be found
323
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
between them. If the PMMS is not balanced, i.e., it does not sufficiently measure nonfinancial aspects, it cannot
make the necessary changes in corporate strategy, culture and KM that contribute to continuous learning and
improvement. At the same time, how the company can effectively respond to changes in the surrounding
environment is determined by culture, strategy, and KM (Melnyk et al., 2014). It is therefore clear that if we
want to avoid PMMS shortcomings, it is first necessary to change the way we look at the company culture and,
style of leadership and KM.
This study also has limitations as it includes studies selected by us in the time range 2000-2021 and there may
be studies not included in the paper that would differ from our results. Articles were filtered based on the
appropriateness of the selection criteria, while there may be limitations in the aspects we selected. The choice
of other aspects provides an opportunity for future research. To sum up, findings of our research study support
Beer a Micheli (2018) statement that future research must encourage a shift away from the technical aspects of
measurement mechanisms that seek to obtain valid and reliable performance information in an objectified and
standardised manner, to knowledge-based approaches that generate human-centred measurement practises
and positive experiences. Furthermore, our results point to the importance of considering behavioural aspects
in the performance measurement and management process, both at the level of the performance measures
themselves and at the level of compliance with the organisational environment. Future research should also
explore how PMMS may support and facilitate KM development.
Acknowledgment
This paper was supported by grant No. SGS_2023_010 supported by the Student Grant Competition.
References
Adler, R.W. (2011). Performance management and organizational strategy: how to design systems that meet the needs of
confrontation strategy firms. British Accounting Review, 43, pp. 251–263.
Asiaei, K., & Bontis, N. (2020). Translating knowledge management into performance: the role of performance
measurement systems. Management Research Review, 43(1), 113-132.
Asiaei, K. and Jusoh, R. (2017), “Using a robust performance measurement system to illuminate intellectual capital”,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 26, pp. 1-19.
Beer, H. A., & Micheli, P. (2018). Advancing performance measurement theory by focusing on subjects: Lessons from the
measurement of social value. International journal of management reviews, 20(3), 755-771.
Bititci, U. S., Garengo, P., Ates, A., & Nudurupati, S. S. (2015). Value of maturity models in performance measurement.
International journal of production research, 53(10), 3062-3085.
Bititci, U.S. (2015). Managing Business Performance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Blasini, J., & Leist, S. (2013). Success factors in process performance management. Business Process Management Journal.
Bourne, M. (2005). Researching performance measurement system implementation: the dynamics of success and failure.
Production Planning & Control, 16(2), 101-113.
Bourne, M., Pavlov, A., Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Mura, M. (2013). Generating organisational performance: The
contributing effects of performance measurement and human resource management practices. International journal
of operations & production management, 33(11/12), 1599-1622.
Bourne, M., Steven M., & Bititci, U.S., (2018). Performance measurement and management: Theory and practice.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38: 2010–21.
Cardoni, A., Zanin, F., Corazza, G., & Paradisi, A. (2020). Knowledge management and performance measurement systems
for SMEs’ economic sustainability. Sustainability, 12(7), 2594.
Couturier, J., & Sklavounos, N. (2019). Performance dialogue: A framework to enhance the effectiveness of performance
measurement systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(4), 699-720.
Chow, C. W., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2006), The use and usefulness of nonfinancial performance measures. Management
Accounting Quarterly, 7(3), 1-8.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Morison, R. (2010). Analytics at work: Smarter decisions, better results. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
De Lima, E. P., da Costa, S. E. G., Angelis, J.J., & Munik, J. (2013). Performance measurement systems: A consensual analysis
of their roles. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2), 524-542.
De Waal, A. A. (2003). Behavioral factors important for the successful implementation and use of performance
management systems. Management decision, 41(8), 688-697.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., Giannakis, M., & Roubaud, D. (2017). Examining the
effect of external pressures and organizational culture on shaping performance measurement systems (PMS) for
sustainability benchmarking: Some empirical findings. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 63-76.
Elzinga, T., Albronda, B. and Kluijtmans, F. (2009). Behavioral factors influencing performance management systems’ use.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58, pp. 508–522.
Folan, P. and Browne, J. (2005). A review of performance measurement: towards performance management. Computers in
Industry, 56, pp. 663–680.
324
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Forcada, N., Serrat, C., Rodríguez, S., & Bortolini, R. (2017). Communication key performance indicators for selecting
construction project bidders. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(6), 04017033.
Garengo, P., & Bittitci, U. S. (2007). Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: an empirical study in
Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 802-825.
Hassan, A. S. A., Nordin, N., & Azamin, A. A. (2020). The Influence of the External and Internal Factors on the Adoption of
the Performance measurement System in the Construction Industry in Yemen. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 864(1).
Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard business review, 87(2), pp. 91-98.
Hudson, M., Lean, J. and Smart, P. (2001). Improving control through effective performance measurement in SMEs.
Production, 12, pp. 804–813.
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2003). Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. Harvard Business Review,
81(11), 88-95.
Jordão, R.V.D. and Novas, J.C. (2017), “Knowledge management and intellectual Capital in networks of small and medium-
sized enterprises”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 667-692.
Kolehmainen, K. (2010). Dynamic strategic performance measurement systems: balancing empowerment and alignment.
Long Range Planning, 43(4), 527-554.
Kotkova Striteska, M., & Zapletal, D. (2020). The role of corporate culture in performance measurement and management
systems. International Journal of Financial Studies, 8(4), 75.
Kruis, A. M., & Widener, S. K. (2014). Managerial influence in performance measurement system design: A recipe for
failure? Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(2), 1-34.
Machado, L., Rasekaba, T. M., & Cardoso, J. R. (2019). Protocol for a systematic review of the prevalence, risk factors and
management of asthma exacerbations in pregnant women. BMJ open, 9(4), e026921.
Melnyk, S.A., Bititci, U.S., Platts, K., Tobias, J. and Andersen, B. (2014). Is performance measurement and management fit
for the future? Management Accounting Research, 25, pp. 173–186.
Micheli, P., & Mura, M. (2017). Executing strategy through comprehensive performance measurement systems.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
Mol, N.P. and Beeres, R.J.M. (2005). Performance management in a setting of deficient output controls. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54, pp. 533–550.
Murphy, K. R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13-
31.
Neely, A. & Bourne, M. (2000). Why measurement initiatives fail? Measuring Business Excellence, 4(4), 3-6.
Nudurupati, S. S., Garengo, P., & Bititci, U. S. (2021). Impact of the changing business environment on performance
measurement and management practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 232, 107942.
Okwir, S., Nudurupati, S. S., Ginieis, M., & Angelis, J. (2018). Performance measurement and management systems: a
perspective from complexity theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 731-754.
Paranjape, B., Rossiter, M., & Pantano, V. (2006). Performance measurement systems: successes, failures and future–a
review. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 4-14.
Pellegrini, M. M., Ciampi, F., Marzi, G., & Orlando, B. (2020). The relationship between knowledge management and
leadership: mapping the field and providing future research avenues. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6),
1445-1492.
Pellinen, J., Teittinen, H. and Järvenpää, M. (2016). Performance measurement system in the situation of simultaneous
vertical and horizontal integration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36, pp. 1182–
1200.
Pongatichat, P. and Johnston, R. (2008). Exploring strategy-misaligned performance measurement, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 57, pp. 207–222.
Rahbek, Gjerdrum, Pedersen, E. and Sudzina, F. (2012). Which firms use measures? International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 32, pp. 4–27.
Ramberg, U. (2017). Transformational change and the vacuum of performance measurement: How a story of success
became a failure. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(3), 249-263.
Razzoli, P. L. (2017). Consequences of performance measurement system (PMS) on people and organisations. Insights on
how leadership affects PMS effectiveness.
Reznakova, M., Karas, M., & Strnadová, M. (2017). Non-Financial Factors of Performance: The Case of Mechanical
Engineering Companies in the Czech Republic. Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of
Economics and Administration, 25(2), 865
Skoczylas, W., & Waśniewski, P. (2017). Behavioral aspects of performance measurement systems in enterprises. In
Neuroeconomic and Behavioral Aspects of Decision Making: Proceedings of the 2016 Computational Methods in
Experimental Economics (CMEE) Conference (pp. 185-200). Springer International Publishing.
Smith, M., & Bititci, U. S. (2017). Interplay between performance measurement and management, employee engagement
and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 37(9), 1207-1228.
Souza, G. E. D., & Beuren, I. M. (2018). Impact of an enabling performance measurement system on task performance and
job satisfaction. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 29, 194-212.
Striteska, M., & Jelinkova, L. (2018). Critical Issues of Comprehensive Performance Measurement and Management
Process. In International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations. Springer, Cham, 36-47.
325
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
Anna Dvorakova and Michaela Kotkova Striteska
Stříteská, M., Zapletal, D., & Jelínková, L. (2018). An empirical study of key factors to effectively operate strategic
performance management system. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, volume 17, issue: 6.
Taticchi, P., Balachandran, K., & Tonelli, F. (2012). Performance measurement and management systems: state of the art,
guidelines for design and challenges. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(2), 41-54.
Taylor, A., & Taylor, M. (2014). Factors influencing effective implementation of performance measurement systems in
small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms: a perspective from Contingency Theory. International Journal of
Production Research, 52(3), 847-866.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2021). PRISMA extension for
scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473.
Uddin, S., Popesko, B., Papadaki, Š., & Wagner, J. (2021). Performance measurement in a transitional economy: unfolding a
case of KPIs. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(2), 370-396.
Van Camp, J., & Braet, J. (2016). Taxonomizing performance measurement systems’ failures. International journal of
productivity and performance management, 65(5), 672-693.
Vij, S., & Bedi, H. S. (2016). Are subjective business performance measures justified? International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 65(5), 603-621.
326
Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2023
