Performance measurement: Some conceptual issues

Terence Connolly, Stuart Jay Deutsch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Measures of how well a system is operating are clearly of interest to a wide range of users, from organizational researchers to system managers. The current literatures in such areas as "performance measurement, " "organizational effectiveness, " and the like show little consistency in their definitions of terms or in their methods for generating measures. The present paper attempts a clarification of these issues in the form of a conceptual minimalist position which requires only three basic definitions, and leaves, as far as possible, all remaining issues open to empirical investigation. We first review the literature on "organizational effectiveness" contrasting the organizational goals and systems paradigms, and note the lack of either theoretical or empirical convergence between the two. An examination of the nature of effectiveness statements suggests that this failure of convergence flows mainly from the different criterion sets generated by the two paradigms - and, importantly, that one should not expect convergence on a single measure or set of measures which uniquely define how well a system is performing. One's view of how well a given system is performing is a function of where one stands (either theoretically or in relationship to the system), and pursuit of the one true set of performance measures is a futile exercise. Instead, we propose to redirect attention to the identification of the various individuals and groups ("constituencies") with an interest in system performance, and to the investigation of those items of system relevant information (their "performance measure sets") which do, in fact, change their evaluations of how well the system is performing. This perspective will, we hope, redirect effort from futile theoretical debate to empirical investigations of what measures are used, by whom, and to what effect, in specific settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-43
Number of pages9
JournalEvaluation and Program Planning
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1980
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Organizational Objectives
performance measurement
Information Systems
Research Personnel
information system
paradigm
performance
organizational goal
Performance measurement
manager

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business and International Management
  • Strategy and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Education
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Performance measurement : Some conceptual issues. / Connolly, Terence; Deutsch, Stuart Jay.

In: Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1980, p. 35-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Connolly, Terence ; Deutsch, Stuart Jay. / Performance measurement : Some conceptual issues. In: Evaluation and Program Planning. 1980 ; Vol. 3, No. 1. pp. 35-43.
@article{9e2cea0316a443809dc003807f9af6db,
title = "Performance measurement: Some conceptual issues",
abstract = "Measures of how well a system is operating are clearly of interest to a wide range of users, from organizational researchers to system managers. The current literatures in such areas as {"}performance measurement, {"} {"}organizational effectiveness, {"} and the like show little consistency in their definitions of terms or in their methods for generating measures. The present paper attempts a clarification of these issues in the form of a conceptual minimalist position which requires only three basic definitions, and leaves, as far as possible, all remaining issues open to empirical investigation. We first review the literature on {"}organizational effectiveness{"} contrasting the organizational goals and systems paradigms, and note the lack of either theoretical or empirical convergence between the two. An examination of the nature of effectiveness statements suggests that this failure of convergence flows mainly from the different criterion sets generated by the two paradigms - and, importantly, that one should not expect convergence on a single measure or set of measures which uniquely define how well a system is performing. One's view of how well a given system is performing is a function of where one stands (either theoretically or in relationship to the system), and pursuit of the one true set of performance measures is a futile exercise. Instead, we propose to redirect attention to the identification of the various individuals and groups ({"}constituencies{"}) with an interest in system performance, and to the investigation of those items of system relevant information (their {"}performance measure sets{"}) which do, in fact, change their evaluations of how well the system is performing. This perspective will, we hope, redirect effort from futile theoretical debate to empirical investigations of what measures are used, by whom, and to what effect, in specific settings.",
author = "Terence Connolly and Deutsch, {Stuart Jay}",
year = "1980",
doi = "10.1016/0149-7189(80)90005-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "35--43",
journal = "Evaluation and Program Planning",
issn = "0149-7189",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance measurement

T2 - Some conceptual issues

AU - Connolly, Terence

AU - Deutsch, Stuart Jay

PY - 1980

Y1 - 1980

N2 - Measures of how well a system is operating are clearly of interest to a wide range of users, from organizational researchers to system managers. The current literatures in such areas as "performance measurement, " "organizational effectiveness, " and the like show little consistency in their definitions of terms or in their methods for generating measures. The present paper attempts a clarification of these issues in the form of a conceptual minimalist position which requires only three basic definitions, and leaves, as far as possible, all remaining issues open to empirical investigation. We first review the literature on "organizational effectiveness" contrasting the organizational goals and systems paradigms, and note the lack of either theoretical or empirical convergence between the two. An examination of the nature of effectiveness statements suggests that this failure of convergence flows mainly from the different criterion sets generated by the two paradigms - and, importantly, that one should not expect convergence on a single measure or set of measures which uniquely define how well a system is performing. One's view of how well a given system is performing is a function of where one stands (either theoretically or in relationship to the system), and pursuit of the one true set of performance measures is a futile exercise. Instead, we propose to redirect attention to the identification of the various individuals and groups ("constituencies") with an interest in system performance, and to the investigation of those items of system relevant information (their "performance measure sets") which do, in fact, change their evaluations of how well the system is performing. This perspective will, we hope, redirect effort from futile theoretical debate to empirical investigations of what measures are used, by whom, and to what effect, in specific settings.

AB - Measures of how well a system is operating are clearly of interest to a wide range of users, from organizational researchers to system managers. The current literatures in such areas as "performance measurement, " "organizational effectiveness, " and the like show little consistency in their definitions of terms or in their methods for generating measures. The present paper attempts a clarification of these issues in the form of a conceptual minimalist position which requires only three basic definitions, and leaves, as far as possible, all remaining issues open to empirical investigation. We first review the literature on "organizational effectiveness" contrasting the organizational goals and systems paradigms, and note the lack of either theoretical or empirical convergence between the two. An examination of the nature of effectiveness statements suggests that this failure of convergence flows mainly from the different criterion sets generated by the two paradigms - and, importantly, that one should not expect convergence on a single measure or set of measures which uniquely define how well a system is performing. One's view of how well a given system is performing is a function of where one stands (either theoretically or in relationship to the system), and pursuit of the one true set of performance measures is a futile exercise. Instead, we propose to redirect attention to the identification of the various individuals and groups ("constituencies") with an interest in system performance, and to the investigation of those items of system relevant information (their "performance measure sets") which do, in fact, change their evaluations of how well the system is performing. This perspective will, we hope, redirect effort from futile theoretical debate to empirical investigations of what measures are used, by whom, and to what effect, in specific settings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0019215518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0019215518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0149-7189(80)90005-1

DO - 10.1016/0149-7189(80)90005-1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0019215518

VL - 3

SP - 35

EP - 43

JO - Evaluation and Program Planning

JF - Evaluation and Program Planning

SN - 0149-7189

IS - 1

ER -