Abstract Number: 011-0218
Operations strategy and sustainability: a discussion about their locus and
boundaries
Edson Pinheiro de Lima1, Sérgio Eduardo Gouvêa da Costa2 and
Paula Andréa da Rosa Garbuio3
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program – PPGEPS
Pontifical Catholic University of Parana – PUCPR
Curitiba – Brazil
Tel.: +55 41 3271 1333
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
POMS 20th Annual Conference
Orlando, Florida U.S.A.
May 1 to May 4, 2009
Abstract
Firm theoretical concepts are being redefined in order to match new value propositions,
which are being managed in a multivariable perspective. These multi aspects that define
value cover economic, environmental and social issues and they are the new design
requirements for the operations systems. These new concepts result in new models for
describing and explaining production processes, operations strategy and performance
measurement systems. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss and position these
new drivers of value creation in an operations strategic management framework. A model
is constructed based on literature review and secondary data obtained from enterprise
sustainability reports. Secondary data is used to populate the proposed framework. The
framework proposed in this paper was discussed previously in two research seminars that
took place in Norway and Brazil. Some evidences show how sustainability factors are
related to technical system design, operations strategy decision areas and performance
dimensions.
Keywords: sustainability, production processes, operations strategy, performance
measurement
Introduction
Enterprises’ relationships complexity and between those and their ‘operational’
environment, when referring to aspects related to their services and manufacturing
operations, communication and information technologies, process automation and
resources deployment, are constituting change drivers for designing, implementing and
using their operations strategy. Particularly, the change process development is
contributing for a specific capabilities set creation called dynamic capabilities. These
capabilities allow companies to study and to manage their positions, processes and
trajectories, bounded by a strategic architecture framework. This approach improves
companies’ change process management capabilities (TEECE et al., 1997; HAMEL &
PRAHALAD, 1989).
Companies are improving their consciousness about environmental and social effects of
their operations systems outputs. They are reviewing their technical and management
systems in order to have a sustainable operation. Nowadays, great attention is being paid
to their operations systems’ manufacturing processes, product design and production
management in aspects related to environmental issues, quality of working life and social
responsibility. Enterprises’ strategic agenda is being built upon topics like: business
ethics, local communities development investments, environment preservation, corporate
governance, human rights, markets and competition, workplace, corruption and product
life cycle responsibility (ZUIDWIJK & KRIKKE, 2008; BOYD et al., 2007;
MICHELSEN et al., 2006; PORTER & KRAMER, 2006).
Boyd et al. (2007) state that in a general sense, Corporate Social Responsibility – CSR;
reflects obligations to society and stakeholders within societies impacted by the firm. It is
important to observe the importance to identify companies’ stakeholders.
Porter and Kramer (2006) propose to companies engage in addressing social issues by
creating shared value. This will lead to self-sustaining solutions that do not depend on
private or government subsidies. They also comment that a well-run business applies its
resources, expertise and management talent to problems that it understands and in which
it has a stake; it can have a greater impact on social good than any other institution or
philanthropic organization. This mindset could be used to rethink the ‘enterprise root’.
Margolis and Walsh (2003) argue that we need a better understanding between social
performance and real benefits to society. In their opinion, it should be questioned
corporate social performance and competing conceptions of the firm down to their very
roots.
Based on the presented context, companies are reviewing their management systems.
They want to develop a more ‘balanced’, ‘integrated’, ‘linked’, ‘flexible’, ‘multifaceted’
and ‘multidimensional’ management system. These characteristics will contribute to
integrate social responsibility to the strategic management system redesign (GOMES et
al., 2004).
It could be said that the pointed characteristics had a direct influence in performance
measurement systems design, taking this system as an important part of the strategic
management system. However, those requisites are not fully developed and incorporated
to performance measurement system design. It does not offer proper conditions for
companies to better understand their operations dynamics, and consequently to develop
improvement projects strategically aligned (NEELY & NAJJAR, 2006; NEELY, 2005;
FOLAN & BROWNE, 2005, BOURNE, 2005; SLACK, 2000; PLATTS, 1995).
In this revision process is important to define the social responsibility role, and with this
objective several ‘visions’ are being constructed. These visions are grouped in reactive
approaches or proactive approaches. It is observed that a strategic vision should in its
essence deals with enterprise versus ‘environment’ interaction, and this is the great
challenge for modern enterprises, that is, reinvent their strategies in order to have real
sustainable operations.
Taking the purpose of regulating and establishing standards for environmental and social
affairs, several standards and recommendation are being conceived. Some examples are:
Accountability - AA 1000; Social Accountability - SA 8000; Global Reporting Initiative –
GRI; Environmental Management Standards - ISO 14000; International Guidelines for
Social Responsibility - SR ISO 26000 ( CASTKAA & BALZAROVAB, 2008; MITRA
& WEBSTER, 2008; PORTER & KRAMER, 2006).
Franco-Santos and Bourne (2003) identified that organisations devote time and effort
developing strategic performance measurement systems. Their research is looking for an
understanding about why some organisations are better able to ‘manage through
measures’ than others. This question is related to the strategic dimension of the
organizations’ performance and needs an in-depth comprehension about the interplay
between action and measurement, the performance information use in their decision-
making processes and their subsequently actions. It is not clear what critical factors
enable organisations to effectively use their strategic performance measurement system.
The presented paper furthers this discussion in the level operations management systems,
developing an understanding about the relationships between performance and strategic
management systems. An understanding about social responsibility role in designing,
implementing and managing operations strategic management systems takes a critical
importance, when these themes are worked as strategic ones.
The presented paper intends to discuss a model to improve our comprehension of the
social responsibility role in companies’ operations strategic management systems.
The paper is organised into two main parts, the first one develops a set of
recommendations for performance strategic management, where social responsibility
assumes a strategic importance. In the second part a model for integrating social
responsibility to operations strategy is proposed and social responsibility is treated as a
performance dimensions and also drives the creation of a specific set of capabilities.
Strategic performance management
A well known performance measurement frameworks is Kaplan and Norton’s (1992)
‘balanced scorecard’, which provides a planning technique and performance
measurement framework within the same system. It can be classified as a strategic
management framework since it integrates strategic map processes to performance
dimensions. The system creates customer focused value through the improvement and
development of business processes. The balanced scorecard model is based on
‘innovation action research’ and uses a methodology that integrates design,
implementation and operation of a strategic management system (KAPLAN, 1998).
Through the evolution of performance measurement frameworks, the balanced integrated
approach expands to a total integrated approach, with evidence of an evolutionary or co-
evolutionary process. Some characteristics could be used to define an evolutionary or life
cycle model and they are embedded in the following models:
- The performance measurement matrix integrates different dimensions of
performance, employing the generic terms ‘internal’, ‘external’, ‘cost’ and
‘non-cost’. The matrix enhances the perspective to external factors
(KEEGAN et al., 1989).
- The strategic measurement, analysis, and reporting technique – SMART –
developed by Cross and Lynch (1989) uses a hierarchic, performance
pyramid structure to represent the integration between organizational
vision and operations actions. There is a interplay between external and
internal orientations to improve the internal efficiency and the external
efficacy.
- The performance measurement model proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1991)
integrates determinants and results of the operations systems performance,
exploring causalities between them. Measures are related to results
(competitive position, financial performance) or are focused on the
determinants of the results (e.g. cost, quality, flexibility).
- The Balanced Scorecard (BSC), proposed by Kaplan & Norton (1992)
constitute a multidimensional framework, based on financial, customer,
internal processes and learning and growth dimensions, which integrates
structural and procedural frameworks for designing a strategic
management system.
- The integrated dynamic performance measurement system – IDPMS –
conceived by Ghalayini et al. (1997) incorporates the performance the
dynamic features and the integrative properties. The integration process
involves the management function, process improvement teams and the
factory shop floor. The system creates a dynamic behaviour that articulates
its specification and the reporting process.
- The dynamics features are presented in the Neely et al. (2002)
performance prism. This is a scorecard based system for measuring and
managing stakeholder relationships. The framework is conceived to cover
stakeholder satisfaction, strategies, processes, capabilities, stakeholder
contribution dimensions. The main objective of the strategic management
system is to deliver stakeholder value.
It could be noted when analyzing the presented models that they are not directly related
to social responsibility issues. The great question is how to integrate social issues to those
management models. Environment issues like resources use and deployment, water, air
and soil pollution, gas emission, energy and material waste e question related to product
life cycle management, as well quality of working life; should be managed in operations
strategic management systems in order to strategically manage social responsibility.
(MICHELSEN et al., 2006, KRIKKEB et al., 2006, KRIKKEB et al., 1999).
To understand processes related to the application of performance measurement systems,
one may refer to the work of Simons (1991) and Henry (2006). They found two patterns
in managing a measurement system: simple feedback control or diagnostic, and
‘interactive control’. Bourne et al. (2005) use Simons’ (1991) framework to compare the
results of average-performing and high-performing business units. In the former, the
logic of the strategic management system is adherent to the simple feedback control
approach. In the latter, the strategic management systems are based on the interactive
control approach, while also employs the simple feedback control approach. The
diagnostic use defines the role of the performance measurements system as a
measurement tool and the interactive use defines the role of the performance
measurements system as a strategic management tool.
Henry (2006) and Simons (1991) models have common approaches that may be used in a
normative way to develop some special dynamic properties as:
- The diagnostic use or the simple feedback control systems represent the
single-loop learning process proposed by Argyris and Schön (1978). They
state that the development of a single loop learning process is a
prerequisite for developing a double-loop learning process. Thus, the
strategic management process combines both types of learning processes.
- The strategic management control system creates a dynamic tension when
jointly using both approaches to manage the performance measurement
system. Dynamic tension is defined by a ‘competitive’ and ‘cooperative’
behaviour stated between interrelated elements (ENGLISH, 2001; LEWIS,
2000).
- Control systems should develop a strategic capability to not be reduced to
an implementation role, but to contribute to the emergence of strategies
(Simons, 1991).
- Strategic performance measurement system could be operated focusing
organizational attention on strategic priorities. In that way, the
organizational model could be seen as ‘knowledge creating company’
(NONAKA & TAKEUCHI, 1995).
- Market orientation, entrepreneurship, innovativeness, and organization
learning capabilities developments are closely related to the strategic
management approach used to manage the performance management
system. Thus, the use of the measurement system could specifically
contribute for capability development (HENRY, 2006).
The management of a strategic performance measurement system defines its use, stating
how the data are acquired, analysed, interpreted, communicated and acted upon the
organizational business processes. The literature indicates that the intensity of
engagement and interaction with the performance measurement processes could have a
great impact on the business overall performance (Bourne et al. 2005).
Operations mode and design recommendations for operations strategic management
systems are suitable and adaptable for managing social responsibility issues. Arasa &
Aksen (2007), Walther et al. (2006), Farahania & Elahipanah (2006) e Fleischmann
(2000) research works illustrate how to built a social responsible operations, however,
they are incomplete solutions as they focus on specific problems as product life cycle
management. It is important to recognize that social responsibility issues should have a
systemic approach and this could be done when analyzing operations strategy.
Strategic management model development
The theoretical development that is presented in this section is founded in a strategic
management system redesign process, applied to a company operations function.
Particularly, sustainability issues as a broad and social responsibility in specific will
incorporated to that construction.
Operations strategy could be defined as a pattern of decisions, both structural and
infrastructural, which determine the capability of a manufacturing system and specify
how it will operate in order to meet a set of operations objectives which have been
derived from business objectives (PLATTS, 2007).
The concept of a strategic control system was presented when performance measurement
systems were introduced. The measurement system is a part of a wider system, which
includes goal setting, feedback, and reward functions (NEELY et al., 2005).
An operations strategic management system may be defined as a system that uses the
information to produce a positive change to organisational culture, systems and
processes. In this sense a performance measurement system should be conceived based
on consensus about objectives definition, resources deployment, priorities definitions and
performance results benefits sharing (AMARATUNGA & BALDRY, 2002).
The initial building blocks of all performance measurement initiatives, as they are
materialized in a performance measurement system, are performance measurement
recommendations. These recommendations define the content and structures of the
measures and they could be organized in a framework that informs the performance
measurement system design (FOLAN & BROWNE, 2005).
A framework for the measures selection process may be founded in the competitive
dimensions of manufacturing or service operations: price (cost/operational efficiency);
quality (process and product); time (dependability and agility); flexibility (process and
product); and innovation (process and product). Sustainability issues could create new
performance dimensions as environment (pollution, sustainability); society (quality of
working life, life quality). Performance dimensions define competitive domains and
patterns (PLATTS, 1995; LEONG et al., 1990; SLACK, 1987).
An operations strategy model based on performance dimensions and decision areas
constitute a basic building block for starting to study sustainability issues and operations
strategy. Environmental and social responsibility could be modeled, defining
relationships with performance dimensions and decision areas, in the same way that
Porter e Kramer (2006) did for the value chain. Figure 1 shows schematically three axes
that represent performance categories, based on simple input-output model. These
categories define sustainability in terms of economic, environmental and social aspects.
Having defined the role of the performance measurement system, in the context of
operations strategic management system, the core ‘functionalities’ associated to that
system are identified next. The association between roles, functions and capabilities of
the operations strategic management system are very useful for its design specification by
establishing causality between roles and organisational resources. Globerson’s (1985)
performance criteria define the system functionalities as: strategic orientation as
performance criteria are chosen from the organization’s objectives; evaluated
organizational unit has control over the performance criteria; and the performance criteria
definition should be a result of a participative interaction of the involved actors (e.g.
customers, suppliers, employees, managers). There may be a strategic realization
function, as the criteria follow the organization’s objectives. Another function emerges
from the management definitions, which state that the system should have a participative
conception process and also have ‘control’ over the evaluated organizational unit. A
strategic management function can be identified based on those assumptions.
Figure 1 – Performance dimensions and decision areas
Source: adapted from Platts (2007)
Structural•Capacity•Facilities
•Vertical Integration•Manufacturing Processes
Infrastructural•Organisation
•Production Control Policies•Quality Policies
•Human resources•New product Introduction
•Performance measurementMarket DemandsFeaturesQualityDeliveryPrice
ManufacturingPerformanceFeaturesQualityDeliveryFlexibilityCost
Environmental DemandsLess material InputLess energy input
Inputs from renewable sources
Environmental DemandsLess material InputLess energy input
Inputs from renewable sources
Environmental PerformanceReduced Greenhouse gases
Reduced wasteReduced toxic output
Increased reuse and recycling
Environmental PerformanceReduced Greenhouse gases
Reduced wasteReduced toxic output
Increased reuse and recycling
Social Responsibility
Demands
? Social Responsibility Performance
?
The synthesis developed by Globerson (1985) states an implicitly role for the
performance measurement system, which is to implement a strategic management
capability.
Maskell (1991) has also developed relevant principles for the performance measurement
system design: a changing nature in measures; measures conceived as part of a fast
feedback subsystem (the performance measurement subsystem); and measures designed
to stimulate the development of a continuous improvement capability rather than simply
monitor the operations strategy. Although a strategic management function is identified
in the implementation of performance measurements, this role is related to continuous
improvement development.
Although a strategic management function is identified by Maskell (1991) in the
implementation of performance measurements, this role is related to a capability
development of continuous improvement.
Blenkinsop and Davis (1991) expand the functional definitions of measurement systems
when they identify properties that the system should have, especially, when those are
related to organizational integration and differentiation. The properties cover
improvements of management system integration and differentiation in both horizontal
and vertical dimensions of the organizational structure. They also emphasise the
importance of covering the long, medium and short term perspectives of the life cycle of
an organization when designing the performance measurement system.
Based on a literature review, Gomes et al. (2004) identify several characteristics of
performance measurement systems:
- Measures must involve relevant non-financial information based on key
business success factors (CLARKE, 1995).
- Systems should be implemented to articulate strategy and monitor
business results (GRADY, 1991).
- Measures and related systems should be based on organizational
objectives, critical success factors, and have a customer orientation. One
of the main tasks should be monitoring both financial and non-financial
aspects of the obtained results (MANOOCHEHRI, 1999a).
- Performance system must dynamically follow the strategy (BHIMANI,
1993).
- Performance system should accomplish the requirements of specific
situations in operations, be long term oriented, and be simple to
understand and implement (SANTORI & ANDERSON, 1987).
- Performance system should be linked to reward systems (TSANG et al.,
1999).
- Financial and non-financial set of measures should be coherent and
consistent with the strategic framework (DRUCKER, 1990; MCNAIR &
MOSCONI, 1987).
It can be seen from Gomes et al. (2004) analysis that there is a changing nature in the
(re)design and management of performance systems. These should be integrated with the
business strategy, adapting to and monitoring its financial and non-financial aspects. The
performance measurement system is an integrative management system that interrelate
business performance dimensions with functions action plans (e.g. strategy of operations,
human resources, technology, marketing, and finance). Hence, the performance system is
defined in an organic way, developing an adaptative behaviour.
Band (1990) indicates that the measures should be useful and relevant for managers and
employees in performing their daily activities. Therefore, the measures must be part of a
feedback loop that links them to manager and employee performance evaluations and
analyses. Such feedback functionality helps the managers and employees to understand
the utility of the performance in conducting their activities and relating them to the
functional strategy. Interaction and participation are properties founded in the feedback
functionality.
Having discussed questions related to performance measurement systems functional
aspects, it is important to have a process view from organisational performance.
There are four main processes related to performance measurement: design,
implementation, operation and ‘refresh’, the latter process being a continuous system
redesign or review (BOURNE et al., 2005; NEELY et al., 2000; BOURNE et al., 2000).
The performance measurement system is the motive power that moves the strategic
management system and social responsibility practices effects should be evaluated by
that system. It should be noted that when an action is evaluated, it could evolved as result
of a learning process. It could be established an evolutionary cycle for social
responsibility as it is being integrated to the strategic management system and their
performance indicators (CASTKAA & BALZAROVAB, 2008; ZUIDWIJK & KRIKKE,
2008; BOYD et al., 2007; PORTER & KRAMER, 2006; MICHELSEN et al., 2006).
Exhibit 1 compares sustainability reports from three companies from Brazilian Energy
Sector. Data was obtained from public domain sources available on internet and are based
on GRI guidelines (COPEL, 2008; ITAIPU, 2008; PETROBRAS, 2008).
Exhibit 1 – Social reports and operations strategy
Determinant COPEL ITAIPU PETROBRAS
Economic Added value approach focused on relative investment or cost indexes. Not directly defining value for stakeholders.
Added value approach focused on relative investment or cost indexes. Stakeholders and defined, but their demands are not individually managed.
Added value approach focused on relative investment or cost indexes. Operations network defined and their strategy is segmented.
Environment Focus on energy and raw materials management. A reactive approach for product and technology processes, looking for operational efficiency improvement and safety.
Environment politics well defined. Energy, raw materials and facilities are managed looking for quality and safety standards. Product and production processes are not directly related to environment policies.
An integrated system manages health, safety and environment. Product and process technology follow environment standards. Operations network follow companies environment standards.
Social Social policies confined mostly to internal aspects. Social value and practices are not integrated to functional strategies, although a integrated management system is being adopted.
Social policies defined to internal and external elements, but not fully coherent. An integrated planning system is implanted and performance measures defined by strategic objectives. Social measures are not fully comprehended.
Social standards define for all operations network. An integrated planning system interrelates social and environmental issues, but not in an economic sense.
Labour Practices Safety standards established.
Safety and motivational standards defined.
Safety, motivational and technical standards defined.
Human Rights Conduct code defined by stakeholders and applied to all operations network.
Contracts with special clauses and focused projects in its local environment.
Internal focus based on universal standards.
Product Responsibility Focus on environmental issues.
Focus on environmental and social issues.
Focus on environmental, social and economic issues.
Exhibit 1 needs an in-dept study and perhaps maturity models could be applied to defined
sustainability development levels.
Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed a procedural framework to manage the organization
strategy, through the processes of design, implementation, use and refresh. The proposed
four stages to implement the balanced scorecard could be stated as follow:
1. ‘Translating the vision’ is closed related to the design process, developing and
‘operationalizing’ the organization’s strategic vision.
2. ‘Communicating and linking’ is the process associated with implementation,
linking the vision to functional objectives.
3. ‘Business planning’ is the process of assessing the value creation through the
integration of business and financial plans. The process of managing and
‘using’ or realizing the vision.
4. ‘‘Feedback and learning’’ process develops the capability of strategic
learning, and it could be used to refresh the conception of the strategic
management system.
The recent literature on performance measurement systems is looking for an in-depth
understanding of why performance measurement initiatives fail, in order to improve the
understanding of the main role of a performance measurement system, which is in the last
instance the development of a strategic management system (BOURNE, 2005; NEELY,
2005).
A performance measurement system may lose its effectiveness over time if it is not
redesigned to better attend new environmental and organisational demands (BOURNE et
al., 2005; FRANCO-SANTOS & BOURNE, 2005).
The strategic management of the performance measure system will enable an
organisation to develop continuous improvement and organisational learning capabilities
through continuous reviews of the measurement system (KENNERLEY & NEELY,
2003; KENNERLEY & NEELY, 2002; JOHNSTON et al.., 2002; KAPLAN &
NORTON, 2001; NEELY et al.., 2000; GHALAYINI & NOBLE, 1996).
The measurement system should sustain their importance and utility for the organisation
and its users (MANOOCHEHRI, 1999b). The refreshing process can be settled as an
embedded functionality of a strategic management system. Its main role is to co-ordinate
review or redesign of the performance measurement system as a result of its use and
interaction with its environment.
The presented work is founded in a strategic management system constitued by multiple
feedback loops. This system develops capabilities related to learning process and also
assuring strategy realization. Figure 2 shows the strategic management system that
embraces performance measurement and creates the scenario for strategic social
responsibility management integration.
The strategic management system should be designed and studied in a perspective that
goes far beyond strategic control, that is, it should be able to help organisations
management system to identify and develop change process, using performance results
for that purpose. Historic charts, scenarios and statistical analysis are tools that could be
informed by performance information. This information could also be used to generate
social responsibility reports.
Figure 2 – Operations strategic management system
Source: adapted from Pinheiro de Lima et al. (2008)
It has a special importance for the purposes of this article, understand and figure how to
position social responsibility in management system domain and it could be proposed two
actions. The first one is related to strategic alignment of operations strategic management
system and performance dimensions, as social responsibility could be defined as one of
them. The second action is associated to learning and improvement process and the
capabilities that result from them, as the strategic management system evolves. There are
Strategic Alignment
Performance Measures
Continuous Improvement
Learning
and Innovation
Stakeholders Vision
Operations Strategy Realization –Projects and Processes
Operational Performance Measurement
Performance
Even
ts
Operations System
+ +- +
Operations Strategy
Strategic Performance Measurement
+
-Business Strategy
capabilities that are related to social responsibility practices. These capabilities could be
organised in a maturity model.
Conclusions
A strategic management model proposition is not a trivial task as complexity and
dynamics are strong intervening variables between strategy formulation and environment
demands (or stakeholders demands).
There are many questions to be answered when the subject is sustainability, particularly
those associated to social responsibility and its integrations to operations strategic
management system. In order to develop sustainable operations is important to know
what are the enterprise value creation drivers, defining new performance dimensions or
competitive patterns; rethink and redefine the firm concept, enhancing the economic
approach to focus on benefits for its stakeholders; define the capabilities that an
operations system should develop to be social responsible; develop design
recommendations for an operations strategic management system, based on social
responsibility; standards and recommendations as AccountAbility - AA 1000; Social
Accountability - SA 8000, Global Reporting Initiative - GRI, Environmental
Management Standards - ISO 14000, International Guidelines for Social Responsibility -
SR ISO 26000, they should studied with the objective of extracting fundamentals or
premises for strategic management of sustainable operations.
Finally, it could be concluded that social responsibility strategic management and its
integration to operations system imply: in reviewing the enterprise strategic management
system design; in conceiving a new operations strategy vision; and in renewing
operations capabilities and competences.
Acknowledges
We thank the many contributions made by professor Annik Magerholm Fet (Department
of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology – NTNU), Dr. Carlos Mataix Aldeanueva (Grupo de Organización,
Calidad y Médio Ambiente – GOCMA, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Industriales - ETSII, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - UPM), Dr. Jannis Jan Angelis
(Operations Management Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick) and
Dr. Ken Platts (Institute for Manufacturing – IFM, University of Cambridge), that
inspired the presented discussion in several opportunities that the authors had to discuss
operations sustainability issues.
References
AMARATUNGA, D. & BALDRY, D. Moving from performance measurement to
performance management. Facilities, v.20, n.5/6, p. 217–223, 2002.
ARASA, N. & AKSEN, D. Locating collection centers for distance and incentive-
dependent returns. International Journal of Production Economics, v.111, n.2, p. 316-
333, 2008
ARGYRIS, C. & SCHÖN, D.A. Organizational learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley,
1978.
BAND, W. Performance metrics keep customer satisfaction programmes on track.
Marketing News, v.24, n.11, May 12th, 1990.
BHIMANI, A. Performance measures in UK manufacturing companies: the state of play.
Management Accounting, v.71, n.11, p.20-22, 1993.
BLENKINSOP, S. & DAVIS, L. The road to continuous improvement. Insight, v.4, n.3,
p. 23-26, 1991.
BOURNE, M. C. S.; KENNERLEY, M. & FRANCO-SANTOS, M. Managing
through measures: a study of impact on performance. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, v.16, n.4, p. 373-395, 2005.
BOURNE, M.C.S. Researching performance measurement system implementation: the
dynamics of success and failure. Production Planning & Control, v.16, n.2, p.101-113,
2005.
BOURNE, M.C.S.; MILLS, J.F.; WILCOX, M.; NEELY, A.D. & PLATTS, K.W.
Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International
Journal of Operations and& Production Management, v.20 n.7, p. 754-71, 2000.
BOYD, D.E.; SPEKMAN, R.E.; KAMAUFF, J.W. & WERHANE, P. Corporate
social responsibility in global supply chains: a procedural justice perspective. Long
Range Planning, v.40, n.3, p. 341-356, 2007.
CASTKAA, P. & BALZAROVAB M. ISO 26000 and supply chains: on the diffusion
of the social responsibility standard. International Journal of Production Economics,
v.111, n.2, p. 274-286, 2008.
CLARKE, P. Non-financial measures of performance in management. Accountancy
Ireland, v.27, n.2, p. 22-24, 1995.
COPEL. Corporate Sustainability Report, 2007. Available on: www.copel.com.
Accessed on February 3rd 2009.
CROSS, K.F. & LYNCH, R.L. The SMART way to define and sustain success.
National Productivity Review, v.9, n.1, p. 23-33, 1989.
DRUCKER, P.E. The emerging theory of manufacturing. Harvard Business Review,
v.68, n.3, p. 94-102, 1990.
ENGLISH, T. Tension analysis in international organizations: a tool for breaking down
communication barriers. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, v.9, n.1, p.
58-83, 2001.
FARAHANIA, R.Z. & ELAHIPANAH, M. A genetic algorithm to optimize the total
cost and service level for just-in-time distribution in a supply chain. International Journal
of Production Economics, v.111, n.2, p. 229-243, 2008.
FITZGERALD, L.; JOHNSTON, R.; BRIGNALL, S.; SILVESTRO, R. & VOSS,
C. Performance Measurement in Service Business. London: CIMA, 1991.
FLEISCHMANN, M., KRIKKE, H., DEKKER, R. & FLAPPERC, S. A
characterisation of logistics networks for product recovery. Omega, v.28, n.6, p. 653-666,
2000.
FOLAN, P. & BROWNE, J. A review of performance measurement: towards
performance management. Computers in Industry, v.56, n.7, p. 663-680, 2005.
FRANCO-SANTOS, M. & BOURNE, M.C.S. Factors that play a role in managing
through measures. Management Decision, v.41, n.8, p.698-710, 2003.
GHALAYINI, A.M. & NOBLE, J.S. The changing basis of performance measurement.
International Journal of Operations and& Production Management, v.16, n.8, p. 63-80,
1996.
GHALAYINI, A.M.; NOBLE, J.S. & CROWE, T.J. An integrated dynamic
performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness.
International Journal of Production Economics, v.48, n.3, p. 207-225, 1997.
GLOBERSON, S. Issues in developing a performance criteria system for an
organization. International Journal of Production Research, v.23, n.4, p. 639-646, 1985.
GOMES, C.F.; YASIN, M.M. & LISBOA, J.V. A literature review of manufacturing
performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and
direction for future research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v.15,
n.6, p. 511-530, 2004).
GRADY, M.W. Performance measurement: implementing strategy. Management
Accounting, v.72, n.12, p. 49-53, 1991.
HAMEL, G. & PRAHALAD, C.K. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, v.63,
n.4, p. 17-30, 1989.
HENRY, J.F. Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, v.31, n.6, p. 529–558, 2006.
ITAIPU. Corporate Sustainability Report, 2007. Available on: http://www.itaipu.gov.br.
Accessed on February 4th 2009.
JOHNSTON, R.; BRIGNALL, S. & FITZGERALD, L. Good enough performance
measurement: a trade-off between activity and action. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, v.53, n.3, p. 256-62, 2002.
KAPLAN, R. S. Innovation action research: creating new management theory and
Practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, v.10, n.1, p. 89-118, 1998.
KAPLAN, R.S. & NORTON, D.P. The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, v.70, n.1, p. 71-79, 1992.
KAPLAN, R.S. & NORTON, D.P. The strategy focused organization: how balanced
scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 2001.
KEEGAN, D.P.; EILER, R.G. & JONES, C.R. Are your performance measures
obsolete? Management Accounting, v.70, n.12, p. 45-50, 1989.
KENNERLEY, M.P. & NEELY, A.D. A framework of the factors affecting the
evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v.22, n.11, p. 1222-1245, 2002.
KENNERLEY, M.P. & NEELY, A.D. Measuring performance in a changing business
environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v.23, n.2,
p. 213-229, 2003.
KRIKKE, H.; LE BLANC, I.; VAN KRIEKEND, M. & FLEURENC, H. Low-
frequency collection of materials disassembled from end-of-life vehicles: on the value of
on-line monitoring in optimizing route planning. International Journal of Production
Economics, v.111, n.2, p. 209-228, 2008
KRIKKE, H.; VAN HARTENB, A. & SCHUURB, P. Business case Roteb: recovery
strategies for monitors. Computers & Industrial Engineering, v.36, n.4, p. 739-757, 1999.
LEONG, G.K.; SNYDER, D.L. & WARD, P.T. Research in the process and content of
manufacturing strategy. Omega, v.18, n.2, p. 109-22, 1990.
LEWIS, M.W. Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of
Management Review, v.25.n.4, p. 760-776, 2000.
MANOOCHEHRI, G. Overcoming obstacles to developing effective performance
measures. Work Study, v.48, n.6, p. 223-229, 1999b.
MANOOCHEHRI, G. The road to manufacturing excellence: using performance
measures to become world-class. Industrial Management, v.41, n.2, p. 7-13, 1999a.
MARGOLIS, J. & WALSH, J. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
business. Administrative Science Quarterly, v.48, n.2, p. 268-305, 2003.
MASKELL, B.H. Performance measurement for world class manufacturing: a model
for American companies. Cambridge: Productivity Press, 1991.
MCNAIR, C.J. & MOSCONI, W. Measuring performance in an advanced
manufacturing environment. Management Accounting, v.69, n.1, p. 28-31, 1987.
MICHELSEN, O.; FET, A.M. & DAHLSRUD, A. Eco-efficiency in extended supply
chains. Journal of Environmental Management, v.79, n.3, p. 290-297, 2006.
MITRA, S. & WEBSTER, S. Competition in remanufacturing and the effects of
government subsidies. International Journal of Production Economics, v.111, n.2, p.
287-298, 2008.
NEELY, A. D., ADAMS, C. & KENNERLEY, M. P. Performance prism: the
scorecard for measuring and managing stakeholder relationships. London: Financial
Times/Prentice Hall, 2002.
NEELY, A.D. & NAJJAR, M.A. Management learning not management control: the
true role of performance measurement. California Management Review, v. 48, n.3, p.
101-114, 2006.
NEELY, A.D. The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the
last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, v.25, n.12, p. 1264-1277, 2005.
NEELY, A.D.; GREGORY, M.J. & PLATTS, K.W. Performance measurement
system design: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, v.25, n.12, p. 1228-1263, 2005.
NEELY, A.D.; MILLS, J.F.; PLATTS, K.W.; RICHARDS, H.; GREGORY, M.J.;
BOURNE, M.C.S. & KENNERLEY, M.P. Performance measurement system design:
developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v.20, n.10, p. 1119-1145, 2000.
NONAKA, I. & TAKEUCHI, H. The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
PETROBRAS. Corporate Environment and Social Report, 2007. Available on:
www.petrobras.com.br. Accessed on February 5th 2009.
PINHEIRO DE LIMA, E.; GOUVÊA DA COSTA, S.E. & ANGELIS, J.J. The
strategic management of operations system performance. International Journal of
Business Performance Management, v.10, n.1, p. 108-132, 2008.
PLATTS, K.W. Integrated manufacturing: a strategic approach. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, v.6 n.3, p. 18-23, 1995.
PLATTS, K.W. Strategies for sustainable manufacturing, in International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management – ICIEOM 2007, Plenary Lecturer,
Foz do Iguassu, Brazil, 2007.
PORTER, M.E. & KRAMER, M.R. The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, v.84, n.12, p. 1-14, 2006.
SANTORI, P.R. & ANDERSON, A.D. Manufacturing performance in the 1990s:
measuring for excellence. Journal of Accountancy, v.164, n.5, p. 141-147, 1987.
SIMONS, R. Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems.
Strategic Management Journal, v.12, n.1, p. 49-62, 1991.
SLACK, N. Flexibility, trade-offs and learning in manufacturing system design.
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, v.1, n.4/5, p. 331-
348, 2000.
SLACK, N. The flexibility of manufacturing systems. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, v.7, n.4, p. 35-45, 1987.
TEECE, D.; PISANO, G. & SHUEN, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, v.18, n.7, p. 509-533, 1997.
TSANG, A.H.C.; JARDINE, A.K.S. & KOLODNY, H. Measuring maintenance
performance: a holistic approach. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, v.19, n.7, p. 691-715, 1999.
WALTHER, G.; SCHMID, E. & SPENGLER, T.S. Negotiation-based coordination in
product recovery networks”, International Journal of Production Economics, v.111, n.2,
p. 334-350, 2008.
ZUIDWIJK, R. & KRIKKE, H. Strategic response to EEE returns: product eco-design
or new recovery processes. European Journal of Operational Research, v.191, n.3, p.
1206-1222, 2008.
Top Related