Sammendrag

Sammendrag

I de senere årene har prestasjonsmåling kommet i fokus, og særlig ikke-finansielle nøkkeltall og såkalt balansert målstyring har blitt stadig viktigere. I denne studien ser vi nærmere på bruk av ikke-finansiell prestasjonsmåling i norske produksjonsbedrifter. Resultatene viser at bedriftene måler både finansiell og ikke-finansiell informasjon. Ansattrelaterte og finansielle mål er de to mest brukte kategoriene prestasjonsmål. Selv om det er ulik grad av viktighet blant prestasjonsmålene, er alle perspektivene i balansert målstyring representert blant de mest brukte prestasjonsmålene. Studien viser også at bedrifter som bruker balansert målstyring, ikke er de bedriftene som har fokus på de ikke-finansielle prestasjonsmålene, noe som indikerer at utstrakt bruk av prestasjonsmål er uavhengig av om bedriften bruker balansert målstyring. Resultatene tyder på at bedrifter som opplever usikkerhet i omgivelsene eller bruker elementer av Just-in-Time, bruker et bredt spekter av prestasjonsmål. Under de andre betingelsene er man mer selektiv i valg av prestasjonsmål. For eksempel vil valg av prestasjonsmål i forbindelse med strategi avhenge av hvordan bedriften forsøker å differensiere seg. Resultatene tyder også på at norske produksjonsbedrifter har en tendens til å ha en sentralisert beslutningsstruktur, men at dette avhenger noe av de andre betingelsene.

Nøkkelord

  1. prestasjonsmåling
  2. produksjonsbedrifter
  3. ikke-finansiell prestasjonsmåling
  4. finansiell prestasjonsmåling
  5. balansert målstyring
  6. Just-in-Time
  7. betingelsesteori

Abstract

In recent years, the interest in the topic of performance measurement has grown considerably. In this study, we examine the use of non-financial performance measurements in Norwegian manufacturing firms. The results show that firms measure both financial and non-financial information. Employee and financial measurements are the two most widely used categories of performance measurement. Even though the measurements vary in importance, all of the Balanced Scorecard perspectives are represented among the most widely used measurements. The study shows that firms that use a Balanced Scorecard are not among the firms that place a strong emphasis on non-financial performance measurements. This indicates that widespread use of performance measurements is not dependent on the use of a Balanced Scorecard. Firms that perceive environmental uncertainty or use elements of Just-in-Time utilize a broad spectrum of performance measurements. Under the other contingencies, firms are more selective in their choice of performance measurements. For example, the choice of performance measurements depends on strategic orientation and how the firm seeks to differentiate itself from its competitors. Finally, the results indicate that Norwegian manufacturing firms tend to have centralized decision structures, but this depends to some extent on the other contingencies.

Keywords

  1. performance measurement
  2. manufacturing firms
  3. non-financial measures
  4. financial measures
  5. Balanced Scorecard
  6. Just-in-Time
  7. contingency theory

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Referanser

Abdel-Maksoud, A., Dugdale, D. & Luther, R. 2005. Non-financial performance measurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review 37(3): 261–297.
Anthony, R. & Govindarajan, V. 1995. Management control systems. New York: McGrew-Hill Inc.
Baines, A. & Langfield-Smith, K. 2003. Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(7–8): 675–698.
Bjørnenak, T. 2010. Økonomistyringens tapte relevans, del 1 og 2 eller fra ABC til Beyond Budgeting på 20 år. Magma 13(4): 49–54.
Brignall, S. & Ballantine, J. 1996. Performance measurement in service businesses revisited. International Journal of Service Industry Management 7(1): 6–31.
Chenhall, R.H. 2003. Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(2–3): 127–168.
Chenhall, R.H. 2006. Theorizing contingencies in management control systems research. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research 1: 163–205.
Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompson, R.L. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60(6): 821–836.
DeBusk, G.K., Brown, R.M. & Killough, L.N. 2003. Components and relative weights in utilization of dashboard measurement systems like the Balanced Scorecard. The British Accounting Review 35(3): 215–231.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
Fullerton, R.R. & McWatters, C.S. 2002. The role of performance measures and incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(8): 711–735.
Garengo, P., Biazzo, S. & Bititci, U.S. 2005. Performance measurement systems in SMEs: a review for a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 7(1): 25–47.
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S. & Crowe, T.J. 1997. An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics 48(3): 207–225.
Gosselin, M. 2005. An empirical study of performance measurement in manufacturing firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54(5/6): 419–437.
Govindarajan, V. 1986. Decentralization, strategy, and effectiveness of strategic business units in multibusiness organizations. Academy of Management Review 11(4): 844–856.
Hinings, C.R. & Greenwood, R. 2017. The Opening Up of Organization Theory: Open Systems, Contingency Theory, and Organizational Design. In A. Wilkinson, S.J. Armstrong, & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Management: 127–144: Oxford University Press.
Hoque, Z. 2003. Total quality management and the balanced scorecard approach: a critical analysis of their potential relationships and directions for research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14(5): 553–566.
Hoque, Z. 2004. A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance measurement: impact on organizational performance. International Business Review 13(4): 485–502.
Hudson, M., Smart, A. & Bourne, M. 2001. Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(8): 1096–1115.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. 1996. The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Kornbrot, D. 2005. Pearson Product Moment Correlation. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mia, L. & Winata, L. 2014. Manufacturing strategy and organisational performance: The role of competition and MAS information. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 10(1): 4-4.
Mitchell, M. & Jolley, J. 2012. Research design explained. Cengage Learning.
Modell, S. 1996. Management accounting and control in services: structural and behavioural perspectives. International Journal of Service Industry Management 7(2): 57–80.
Otley, D. 2016. The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Management Accounting Research 31: 45–62.
Otley, D.T. 1980. The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 5(4): 413–428.
Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Shih, T.-H. & Fan, X. 2008. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods 20(3): 249–271.
Stemsrudhagen, J.I. 2004. The structure of balanced scorecards: empirical evidence from Norwegian manufacturing industry. In M.J. Epstein & J. Manzoni (Eds.), Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting: Performance Measurement and Managerial Control: Superior Organizational Performance: 303–321. Oxford: Elsevier.
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Beta
Volume 32Number 115 May 2018
Pages: 100126

History

Published online: 15 May 2018
Issue date: 15 May 2018

Authors

Affiliations

Jonas Frydenlund [email protected]
Master i økonomi og ledelse, Høgskolen i Sørøst-Norge
Dag Øivind Madsen [email protected]
Førsteamanuensis, Høgskolen i Sørøst-Norge
Tonny Stenheim [email protected]
Førsteamanuensis, Handelshøyskolen BI
Bjørn Ove Grønseth [email protected]
Høgskolelektor, Høgskolen i Sørøst-Norge

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Buy Digital Article
Perpetual access
NOK127.20
Add to cart
Local taxes may change at checkout
Buy digital issue
Perpetual access
NOK343.20
Add to cart
Local taxes may change at checkout

Login Options

Restore guest purchases

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF

Download PDF

Full Text

View Full Text

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share on social media

Share on Messenger