The Japanese Association of Management Accounting NII-Electronic Library Service

NII-Electronic Library Service

NII-Electronic Library Service

特集 ^{： “} 業績評価^{” につ い て}

　　　　　編集 委 員長^{あい さつ}

伏 見 　 多美 雄 ^★

　学 会誌 『管^理会計 学』^{で は}，初の試^み とし て特 集論文^{の コ} ー_ナー_{を 設 け ました}

。 本号^での特集テー

マ は “

業 績 評 価”

で す．_{学 会 誌 編 集}委員 会^{で は}， か ねて か ら^い ろ^い ろな専 門^{を お}持^ちの委 員^の方^に ， 特集^テー_{マ の 企}

画 を^お願^い して き ましたが，^その第 1回^の 成果^{と して}，^{この よ うに魅 力に富 む 論 文で} 特集^を組^{むこ とが で き たこ とはご}同慶^{のい た}り^です．

業 績 評価 ^とい う^テー_{マ は}，^会計技法^{とし て の 測}定 ・_{評 価の 側 面 と 同 時に}，^人問の心 理 的 側 面 を 取 り扱 う行 動科学^{と も}深^{い 関 わ り を もつ ため}，^{管 理 会 計の み な らず}，^{経 営 管 理の}多 ^{くの分 野に またがる チ ャ}

レ^ン ジ^ング な ト ピッ ク です．

　 業^{績 評 価は}， 企 業 そ^の他^の組 織 体^{の コ ン} ト^ロ ー_ル ・_{シス テム の中 心をな す もの で あ り}，予 算 管^{理 シ}

ス テ^{ム の} 構築^や，各階層^の 管^理者^の 計 画 管 理 行動 ，お^{よ び}多様な 従 業 員^の 動 機 付 け，さ らに は企 業 内 外^{の ア カ ウ ン タビ} リ^{テ ィ} ー_{の 問 題な ど}，^{さ ま ざ ま な}経 営 問 題^を解 決 す^{る た めの}基 礎 ^{に な る もので}す．

ま た，優^{れ た}業 績 評 価 ^{シス テ ム を}も^{つ こ} とは，将来^の経営業績^{をよ りよ く}す^{る た め に} も不可欠 だ と晋 わ れ て^い ます．

　本^{号 に掲 載 さ れ た}3^{つ の}論 文^は， 業 績 評 価 に関 す^るさ ま ざ ま な 適 用 分 野 ^を取 り扱^{っ てお} り， そ^れぞ れの分 野^の複 雑^な問 題 を^理論 ^と実践^{の両 面 か ら}解 明^{して い} ます ．

改めて言 う まで もな^い こ とですが ，特 集 号^{へ の} 執 筆 原 稿 ^とい え ど も， 「論 文 」 ^と し^{て ご}投 稿^{い た だい} た も^のは，当学会^の基 本 原 則である 「ダ ブ^ル ・_{ブライン ド方 式に よ るレ フ ェ リ}ー_{制 度 」 が しっ か り適} 用 さ れ ま す．そ^{の よ}う な^ルー_{ル をご承 知の 上で}論 文 を 投 稿 さ れ， 査 読 者^{の コ メ ン トに} も辛 抱 強 く対応 し^て 下^{さっ た}著 者^の方・_々，す^{な わ}ちMs ．　Lin　Fitzgerald_，　 Dr ，　Philip　Moon ，　 Dr ．　NathalieHalgand，

ProfessorTakeo Yoshikawa _，ProfessorJohnlnnes_，ProfessorFalconerMitchell^の 各氏^に対 ^{し て}，

心 か ら敬^{意 と}感謝^を申^{し 述べ ま す}．

＊学会 誌編 集委員長，東 京^理科大 学教授

Tamio 　Fushimi （Editor　in　Chief），^Professor，SCienceUniversity 　ofTokyo

NII-Electronic Library Service 管^{理 会}．

計 学 第5巻 第2号

　^{今 回の特 集は， た ま た ま英 文 に よ る論 文だけで し たので，読 者へ の便宜を考えて ，各 著者の ア ブス}

ト ラ ク トを邦^{訳 し て}， 本 稿の あ とに^つ けて お き ま す．た^だ し， 投 稿 論 文に対 し^て解 説や ^{コ メ ン} トを^つ け^{る こと は}筋違^{い で} す^{の で} ， あ く^まで 論 文^の大要^を紹介す^{るこ と}を目的^{と して} ， 著者^ご自身^{の アブス}

トラ ク ト を邦 訳 す^{る に}と ど め ま し た．多少^は意訳^{し た}部 分^があ^るこ と を^ご了解^{下 さい} ．

な お ，今回^の特 集号^{で は}，編集副委員・_長で国際担 当常務理事^の 吉^川武男教授^に企画段 階か ら 種^々の ア レ ン ジ メ ン トの段 階まで，「縁の 下 の力持ち」的 な仕 事を サ ポー_{ト してい た だ き ました}．^{こ こ} に記 し て謝 意 を表した^{い と}思^い ま す．

　^{特 集 号 とい う企 画は， 私 ど もの 学 会 誌 『}管 理 会 計 学 』^{で は}初^{め て の}試み で し^たが， 今 後 も折にふれ て取 り^上 げ^{るつ も} り^です．ま た，今 回^の特集^は英文^{に よ る}論 文集^{に な} り^{ま し た が}，日 本 語^{に よ る}特集 号 が 組 ま れ^る可 能 性 も お お^い にあ り ましょ う．^この 企 画 ^{につ い て の} 会 員 諸 兄 諸 姉^{の ご}理 解 ・_{ご協 力 を}

お願^い す^{る と と}もに， ご意 見 ・_{ご要 望 もお 聞 かせい た だけ れば幸い で す}．

＊

This^issue　ofJoumal^ofManagement Accounting，　Japan （JMAJ ）Bisdedicatedtothesubject 　of

“perf^｛）rmancemeasurement 。^”　Justification　for　thi_昌　lies　in　the　varied 　but　central 　role　which 　per − f（）rmance 　measurement 　playsin　e幵bctive^{ma 皿}agement 　and 　in　the^researchchallenge 　providedby

atopic 　whieh 　closely 互inks　the　technical　and 　behavioral　aspects 　of　management 　accounting ． Performance 　measurement 　providesthecore 　of　management 　contr 。l^system ，　namely _，　afocusfor budget　design ，^abasis　for　incentiVising　employees 　and 　a　foundationforboth^{internal　and 　external}

measurement 　systems 　to　initiate　and 　supPort 　constructive 　improvement 　in　future　performance ． 　JMAJ 　welcomes 　to　add 　three　papers^writtenin　English　in　this　issue_，　which 　exemplif ン^andillu−

minate 　many 　of　theabove 　attributes 　of　perfbrmance measurement 　and 　so　contribute 　todeepen

our 　understanding 　ofboth 　practice^andtheory　in　this　complex 　area ．

　We ^wouldlike　to　express 　our hbartfulthanks 　to ］Ms．　Lin　Fitzgerald，　Dr．Philip　Moon ，　Dr ． Na 七halie　Halgand _，　Professor　Takeo 　Yoshikawa ，Professor　JohnIr^nes ，^andProfessorFalconer Mi七chell 　who 　submitted 　their　papersfbr　JMAJ ．

4

N工 工一_{Eleotronio 　Library}

NII-Electronic Library Service

The Journalof Management Accounting,Japan Vol.5,No. 2 1997

The

on

Influence of Service Process Performance Measurement

LinFitzgerald*,andPhilipMoont

Abstract

There isan increased recognition that companies compete on a wide range of

dimensions^{whose evaluation cannot} be^confhed tonarrow financialperformance indicatorsThe challenge istodevelopnon-frnancial indicatorswhich capture the quality, ^{service and} flexibilityissues of today's^{customer oriented} competitive strategies For ^service businessesthe challenge isintensified;^{services are} _perish-

able so fiuctuationsindemand cannot bemEmaged using thestock control policies

common inmanufacturing environments. Further, relatively juniorpersonnel ^are

ftequently^{the key} _points^{of contact with customers inthe deliveryof the service;}

so ensuring consistency of qualityisdirncult.This_paper explores theinfluenceof service process ^on performance measurement systems, by investigating the

approaches adepted within two successfu1 UK organisations, one a professional

service (Arthur^{Andersen), the other a mass service} (TNT).^{There are three com-}

mon properties^{of the} performance measurement systems and two areas of diver- gence.The common properties^{are clarty;} there isclear communication of strate-

gy toindividuals^within the organisation, consistenay; the perfbrmance ^measures

adopted support the corporate strategy, and range; both organisations measure performance ^{over a range of} financialand non-financial dimensionsas advocated

inthe literature.Diffbrences^emerge inthe mechanisms used tomeasure quady

and the apphoach toprovidingflexibilby,^{the how} ofperfbrmance measurement.

SubmittedJuly1996.

AcceptedNovember 1996.

* Warwick BusinessScheel tUniversityefLeeds

NII-Electronic Library Service The Infiuenceof ServiceProcessonPerfomance Measurernent

1. Inroductiton

A central question fbrmanagement of any organisation ishow well are we doing9 The answer tothishas traditionallybeen expressed interms of financialperfbrmance but as organisations faceincreasinglychallenging competitive environments the focus has switched to other measures such as quality,flexibilityand customer service; con-

centrating on a single indicatorof performance, ^{such as} profit,isno longer enough.

How, though, doesan organisation decide^{which measures are relevant} toitspartcular business? The act of measuring something can itselfdrivethe business,fbras most managers now understand ^"what gets ^mesured gets managed". Equally what isnot

measured tends tobeignored,so a company must ensure that those ^things are ^mea-

sured which itbelievesare itstrue driversof success. Additionally,many factorsinter-

relate so improvement on one dimensioncan lead to deteriorationon another, hence

any measurement activity must be integrated into^{a coherent} performance ^measure-

ment system. The fbcus^of thispaper istoinvestigatehew two successfu1, yet ^very dif ferenttypes of ^service business inthe UK ^{are coping with thesechallenges by compar-} ingtheirperformance measurement systems with prescriptionsfromrecent literature

on performance measurement; that is,how does the ser'vice process influence the

choice of performance measurement system. The two organisations considered are

Arthur Andersen, the professional ^{accounting and} consultancy firm, and TNT, the

mass distributor^of parcels.

This _paper isarranged in six sections. The next section identifiesa set of common

prescriptionsforperformance ^measures from ^{a review of} three performance ^measure-

ment frameworks.Sectionthree ^explores the ^special characteristics of service busi-

nesses leading toimplicationsforperformance maesurement. A briefcommentary on

the perfbrmance measurement systems used inthe two case organisations isprovided insection fbur(fbr^{more detailreaders are referred to Moon and Fitzgerald} [5]^and

Fitzgerald and Moon[1]).The discussionin section fivecompaLres the empirical ^results with theprescriptionsinthe literatureand the finalsection odifbrs some conclusions.

2. pmrameworksforPerformanceMeasurement'

Traditionalperformance measurement systems which fe/cuslargelyon financial indicatorshavebeen criticised fortheirfailuretomeasure and monitor non-financial

indicatorswhich "directly

answer questions ^about quality,^{service and} flexibility...

(and^{are) ... more} appropriate forthe customer-oriented strategies that have emerged

duringthe past decade"(Nanni^{et al.} [6]).In^respQnse tothisdissatisfactiona ^number of performance measurement frameworks have been developedwithin the lastfive

years. Threeofthese are outlined below.

8

The Journal ofManagement Accounting,1997

The Perfor,nanceIlyramid

The performance pyramid (Lynch^and Cross [4])proposes ^{that we measure} perfbr-

mance on nine dimensions;market satisfaction, financialmeasures, customer satisfac- tion,flexibility,productivity, quality, delivery,_process time and waste. The horizontal divisionsinthe pyramid (see^{exhibit 1)represent} organisational levelswith organisa-

tionalstrategy and operations being linked by translatingobjectives, basedon cus- tomer priorities,from the top down and performance ^measures from the bottom up.

Objectives

TheVision

Market Satisfaction

Financial

Measures _Measures

Customer

Satisfaction Flexibility Productivity

Quality ^Delivery ProcessTime Cost

Operations

Exhibit 1 : 71hePerfornzancellyramid

Atthe toplevela ivision'forthebusinessisarticulated bycorporate management.

This istranslatedat the ^next levelinto individual businessunit ^ohjectives definedin

market and financialterms; that is,inthe ^{`language</sup> of money'. Strategiesare then developedfor<sup>meeting</sup> theseobjectives and translatedat thethirdlevelinto<sup>objectives</sup> definedintemis <sup>of customer</sup> satisfaction, fiexibility<sup>and</sup> productivity.the<sup>`laiiguage} of

money and things'.At thebaseof the pyramid ^{objectives are converted} intospecific

operational criteria: quality, delivery,cycle time,waste, ^`the languageofthings'.

The model addresses both extemal effbctiveness and internal efficiency. External

effbctiveness can betracked down the leftside of the pyramid, ^{with market measures}

such as market share being ^supported by the buildingblocks^{of customer} satisfaction and flexibility.The righthand side measures internalefficiency in_producing ^the _goods

and services with financialmeasures being supported by productivity ^and flexibility.

NII-Electronic Library Service The Influence^{of Service} ProcessonPerfomance Measurement

77ieBalanced Scorecard

The second framework istheBalanced Scorecard(Kaplan^{and Norton 13],see exhib-}

it2).It_proposes that performance ^should be measured in a balanced way fromfour

alternative perspectives^-that ^{of customers, the} internalbusinessperspective(what

must ^{we excel at),} innovation and learning(can^{we continue to improve and create}

value), and the financialperspective(howdo ^we looktoshareholders). Supplementing traditionalfinancial^{measures with} criteria that ^measure performance from three

additional perspectives^{enables companies} totrack financial^{results while simultane-}

ously monitoring progress inbuildingcapabilities and acquirimg the intangible^assets

needed forfuture_growth. The framework implies^{that mangers select a} limitednum-

ber of critical indicators,grounded in the organisation's strategic objectives, ^within each ofthe fourperspectives.

Financial Perspective

docustomersseeus.?

CustomerPerspective GoalsMeasures

GoalsMeasures ^Hbw do ^we look^to

shareholders.?

IPVhatmust we excel at?

Internal Business Perspective

GoalsMeasures

Innovation ^and

Learning Perspective GoalsMeasures

Can ^{we continue} to

i)mproveand create value?

Exhibit2: 71heBalancedScorecard

10

^{The Jeurnal} ofManagement Accounting, 1997

Dimensionsof TYpesofMeasures Performance

Competitiveness Relativemarketshareandposition

Salesgrowth

Measuresofthecustomerbase RESULTS Financialperflormance Profitability

Liquidity

Capitalstructure

Marketratios

Qualityofservice Reliability

Responsiveness

Aestheticslappearance Cleanlinessltidiness Comfort

Friendliness

Communication

Courtesy Competence

AccessAvailability

Security

DETERMINANTSFlexibility

Volumeflexibility

Deiiveryspeedflexibility Specificationflexibility Resourceutilisation Productivity

Efficiency

lnnovation Performanceoftheinnovation proeess

Performanceofindividual

imovations

Exhibit 3 ^: 7he Results^and DeternzintsMatrix

The results and determinants firamework (Fitzgerald^{et al} [2])^{has been developed}

from research inthe service sector, though itcould be applied just^{as easily tothe}

manufacturing sector. Itproposes ^six genericdimensions of performance; competitive perfbrmance, financialperformance, quality ^{of service,} flexibility_, resource utilisation, and innovation.These ^six dimensions fa11intotwo conceptually different^categories

(see^{exhibit 3).Measures of the firsttwo refiect the success or `results' of the chosen}

strategy, while the other fourfactorsare `determinants'

of competitive success. While

all companies will wish tomeasure the results ofimplementing their _strategy, the mix of factorsthat determinethat ^strategic success will ^vary. In consequence, there may

be relatively littledifferencebetween companies' definitionsand use of competitive- ness and financial^measures but ^{their measures} of determinants ^and the ^weightings

applied will diflbracoording'to theirstrategy. This framework addresses the ^`short-

NII-Electronic Library Service

The Infiuenceof ServiceProcesson^Perfomance Measurement

temism' criticism frequentlylevelledat financiallyfocused reports by emphasising the

notion that improvements in_quality.forexample, ^{may not} hitthe bottom linein the current period,but ifthese quality improvements are valued by customers future financial^results will ^reflect this.

Some common threads emerge from the three performance measurement frame-

works. First,that performance ^{measures should} be linked to^corporate strategy; sec- ond thatthey should includebothexternal (customer^{service type and competitor com-}

parisons)^and intemal measures; third,they should include bothfinancialand non-

imancialmeasures and finallythatthere^{needs to}be^a balance ofmeasures.

3. CharaeteristicsoftheServieeSector

Service businesses ^{are not} homogeneous; the ^service sector isdiverseembracing

tourism, frnancialservices, ^retail businesses,health care, catering and conununica-

tions.There are some commonalties among these organisations which havebeen used

to identifythree generic ^service archetypes: professional^{services, service shops and}

mass seivices (Silvestro^{et al} [8]).^Theirkey characteristics are represented in exhibit

4.Previous research suggests that the service archetype influencesthe measurement

mechanisms for^service quality,^{the scope} forproviding flexibility^and the means by

which flexibilityisprovided (Fitzgerald^{et al} [2]).^{The current study explores thisfur-}

ther by ^{comparing the} performance measurement system adopted within a profession-

al (Arthur^{Andersen)and a mass service} (TNT),^{thetwo extre]me} archetypes.

HIGH {

MEDIUM {

LOW{

Colltacttime Customisation Discretien Peoplefocus Frontoffiee orientated

Processorientated

Centacttime Customisaton Discretien People/Equipment Frontoffice/Back oence

ProcessMroduct Contacttime Customisaton Discretion Equipment focus Back office orientated

ProductorientatedLow

Mgh Number of customers proeessed byatypicalunit per day

Exhibit 4 : ServiceClassijfcationScheme

12