An analysis of the consequences of traditional performance measurements and modern performance measurements

ABERDEENBUSINESSSCHOOL

Undergraduate

COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENTELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

MATRICULATION NUMBER: 1416782DATE DUE: 6th July 2015Office use only

Module Number: BS3234Module Name: Literature ReviewCourse: BSc AccountingStage: 1/2/3/4 (please delete as appropriate) Lecturer responsible: Professor Kennedy GunerwardaneAssignment number: BS3234

Before submitting assignments, you should check through it to ensure that: All material identified as originally from a previously published source has been properly attributed by the inclusion of appropriate citations within the text. Correspondingentries have been made in the list of references at the end of the text. Direct quotations are marked as such (using quotation marks at the beginning and end of the selected text).Before submitting ensure:

a) that the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely your own and that you have not made use of any unauthorised assistance;b) that the sources of all reference material have been properly acknowledged;c) a statement of the word count is included at the front of yourwork and you have retained an electronic copy of your work.

BY SUBMITTING THIS DOCUMENT YOU ARE CONFIRMING STATEMENTS (a) (b) and (c) above.

Forename(s): Warnakulasuriya WadumesthrigeUdani AmalkaSurname: Mendis

Word Count: 3907

An analysis of the consequences of traditional performance measurements and modern performance measurementsA stakeholder approach

Udani Mendis7/6/2015

A literature review submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of BSc in Accounting and Finance

Abstract

For over centuries performance measurements have been in use, debated over and developed into new and better measures of performance. There has been a recent growth in sustainable performance measures that are looking at satisfying all stakeholder needs unlike the conventional measures where only a financial performance of an organization was considered. Therefore, this literature review is focused on analyzing the consequences of conventional performance measures and modern performance measures to stakeholders. Hence, the literature review first describes the evolution of modern performance measures from traditional. It goes on to define performance measures and measurements.Finally, it analyses the consequences performance measures has on the main three stakeholders: consequences to shareholder wealth and value creation, consequences in the decision making of employees and the effect of performance measures on customer satisfaction is discussed in detail.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to those who contributed in conducting research and for those who supported me in writing this literature review. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Kennedy, who gave me the initial guidance and support. To Kasun Rosa, who never ceased in helping and keeping me accompanied throughout. Sincere thanks to all of my colleagues for their unwavering emotional and moral support. Above all, my utmost gratitude goes to the Holy Trinity for the divine intervention in this academic endeavor.

Table of contents

PageIntroduction7Definitions of performance measurement 8Share Holder Value 11Impact on decision making and incentives 16Performance measures and customers 20Conclusion 23References 25

Introduction

The practice of traditional performance measures dates back to the early 1900s where decision making was a focal point of an organization and the respective responsibilities in decision making were clearly defined (Sharma and Kumar 2012). Performance measurement systems were designed to measure accountability to confirm that people met their budget and followed orders states Knight (1998).The preparation of budgets initially spread as industrial organizations developed and initiated sophisticated management accounting systems (Johnson 1972) such as standard costing and variance analysis (Bourne and Neely 2003). For example, a research study carried out by Sord and Welsch in 1962 showed that in over 95% of the 424 participating US companies, budgets were used to control overall company performance in the time period. However, the conventional performance measures used at the time were widely scrutinized due to many different reasons. Not taking to account the full cost of capital and the undue effect of accrual accounting leading to poor decision making which therefore failed to capture an organization's strategy is among those criticisms (Sharma and Kumar 2012). The dysfunctional behavior brought on by the characteristics of traditional performance measures (Fry and Cox 1989), encouragement towards short term decision making (Hayes and Garvin 1982) and damaging businesses due to being focused on internal, financial and departmental performance (Johnson and Kaplan 1989) (Olve, Roy and Wetter 1999).To overcome the shortcomings of the earnings based performance measures; alternative, new and more balanced performance measurements were developed in the 1980s and early 1990s (Bourne and Neely 2003). One of the main concepts behind the development of modern performance measures was the shareholder value approach which estimates the economic value of an organization (Stewart 1991). Most commonly associated performance variants of this concept are: Economic Value Added (EVA), Shareholder Value Added (SHV), Economic Profit (EP) and Cash flow return on investment (CFROI) (Maditinos, Sevic and Theriou 2005). Although there are still new performance measures being developed, the traditional measures mainly appearing in this document are ROI, ROE, EPS and RI. Whereas, the modern measurements mainly discussed are EVA and measures derived from the Balance Score Card (BSC) technique.

Definitions of performance measurement

Performance measurement, whether conventional or modern, is a topic that has been subjected to vast discussions in various contexts. However, it is also a topic that has been rarely defined.

Performance measurement is generally defined as a regular measurement of outcomes and results, which generates reliable data on the effectiveness and efficiency of programs ( Bureau of educational and cultural affairs).Neely, Gregory and Platts (1995) define performance measurement, performance measure and performance measurement system as follows.Performance measurement can be defined as the process of quantifying theEfficiency and effectiveness of action.A performance measure can be defined as a metric used to quantify theEfficiency and/or effectiveness of action. A performance measurement system can be defined as the set of metrics usedto quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions.

Performance measures and measurement is about quantifying efficiency and effectiveness of operations so that value is created for all stakeholders who are interested or involved in the business. To create value, resources must be used effectively. One of the uses of performance measures in evaluating whether proper use has been taken in arriving at the end outcome. A famous saying that is used among practitioners about this is that what gets measured gets done. Even though the above definitions are clear and precise, it is the opinion of some that the very precision has become a barrier in conveying what really a performance measure is (Bourne, Neely, Mills and Platts 2003). These performance measures are multi dimensional. They are financial, non-financial, internal, external and also measures that predict future performance of organizations as well as quantifying achievements of the past. Although all three definitions are similar as they all refer to measuring effectiveness and efficiency, it is important to know that performance measures are not implemented in isolation and that it has an effect on the environment it operates in.

The purpose of this literature review is to analyze the consequences of traditional performance measures and modern performance measures. Even though there are many aspects to be discussed in terms of consequences relevant to performance measures, a stakeholder approach has been taken due to the increased popularity and interest in the concept of balancing stakeholder needs and an organization's performance. Although there are many different stakeholders such as shareholders, employees, regulators and customers; the three main types of stakeholders who have a significant impact and interest in an organizations operation have been focused on this study. Therefore, the consequences of shareholder wealth maximization, effects on decision making of employees and impact on the customers due to performance measurements implemented by a management are discussed.Share Holder Value

Shareholder requirements of an organization have become more and more sophisticated with the change in the global economy. This shift in the economic momentum in the 1980s caused capital markets and most financial institutions to change their outlook to a more global context (Maditinos, Sevic and Theriou 2005).Furthermore, as Meditinos, Sevic and Theriou discusses in their research, that previously organizations used accounting earnings based performance measures because conventional shareholders were mainly interested in dividends (2005). Some of the most popular traditional performance measures such as; Return on Investment (ROI), Return on Equity (ROE) and Earnings Per Share (EPS) are discussed in this paper.ROI which is defined as the performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or to compare the efficiency of a number of different investments (Botchkarev and Andru 2011) while ROE is defined as a companys profitability measured by its income divided by its equity (Traub 2001). Another conventional technique of performance measurement widely used is EPS, which is a measured by dividing the net profit or loss for the period attributable to equity shareholders outstanding during the period (IAS 33 2003).During the 1950s and 1960s the main measure of an organizations performance was its share price. Even though it is the same concept addressed in the current era under shareholder wealth, the lackluster performance in 1970s meant that the share price failed to reflect a companys real worth. Therefore, the executives whose rewards were connected to share option schemes shifted the performance techniques into more controllable, internal financial techniques (Rappoport 1983) such as EPS, ROI and ROE described above. According to a study, these performance methods were initially adopted in 1971 where 46 out of 82 largest industrial companies at the time were using EPS and 5 of them were following ROE (Rappoport 1983). Nevertheless, the shift in performance measures questions the validity of these techniques in relation to a companys main objective of creating value for its shareholders. However, Rappoport further states that these traditional performance techniques do not provide a strong basis for increasing shareholder value (1983). Thus, more modern performance measures such as EVA were introduced as an alternative to earnings based performance measures that are said to reflect the real value of an organization leading to maximization of shareholder wealth. Introduced as an indicator of shareholder wealth maximization, EVA is a measure arrived by modifying RI (Sharma & Kumar 2012). Stewart defines it as the difference between return on invested capital and the weighted average cost of capital for the year multiplied by the average amount of invested capital (1991).Many studies have been carried out in finding the relationship between shareholder wealth and performance measures in the past decades. Studies conducted by Auret and Villiers (1998), Sharma and Kumar (2012), Biddle, Bowen and Wallace (1997), Chen and Dodd (2001) and Black, Bright and Bachman (1997) reveals that there is a positive association between EVA and stock price. Even though the said relationship is not perfect, it still suggests that EVA has a strong effect on share price, thus, yields information deemed important by shareholders (Sharma and Kumar 2012). However, according to the above mentioned studies; RI has the highest association with the market value of an organization between traditional and modern performance measures despite the perceptions of superiority of EVA and other new performance methods.In terms of the information presented in the capital gains and losses by each performance measure, EPS proves to provide more valuable information than EVA according to Meditinos, Sevic and Theriou (2005). Copeland (2002) also found similar results that prove EPS is more superior to EVA even though both measures have a low explanatory power. However, studies conducted by Worthigton and Wallace (2001) and Biddle, Bowen and Wallace (1997) both show that RI and EVA provide less information in explaining stock returns than other performance measures such as Earnings Before Extraordinary Items (EBEI) despite the highest correlation with stock price. Chen and Dodd (2001) also report results consistent with the above mentioned, proving that some measures like operating income has a higher explanatory power than both RI and EVA.Irrespective of the irrelevance of the information provided by individual performance measures, they prove to be more valuable when combined together. For example, Meditinos, Sevic and Theriou (2005) states that the combination of EPS and EVA represents the most satisfactory explanation for stock returns in Greek stock market. Worthington and West (2001) and Chen and Dodd (2001) presents results that suggest EVA proves to be a useful measure in measuring financial performance when combined with EPS.On the other hand, some academics and practitioners are of a different opinion about performance measures and its effect on increasing shareholder wealth. Copeland (2002) explains that it is not earnings or earnings growth, and or EVA or the change in EVA that drives the stock price. He further goes on to explain that performance measures such as EVA and EPS and its growth is all uncorrelated to the changes in shareholder wealth of the same period. According to the research conducted by Copeland (2002), it is the expectations that create value of an organization, thus increasing shareholder wealth through increased share prices not performance measures. An example quoted by Copeland (2002) to prove this fact is the fall in Intels stock value by 6% in 1998 even though earnings and EVA were positive with an earnings growing by 19% over 1997. The same could be said regarding the fall in Apples share price in 2013 even after reporting the companys highest profit (Ashby 2013). Hence it is important to meet expectations of shareholders while implementing performance measures.The research data collected proves that there has been a recent shift towards fulfilling shareholder requirements from a business due to the increased investment opportunities worldwide and the risks it creates. However, the shift towards shareholder value addition attracted the interest of investors, academics, practitioners and regulators. Shareholder wealth is associated with the stock price of an organization. Thus the relationship performance measures have with the share price changes have been studied across the world for many decades. Even though modern performance measures were introduced as alternative techniques, superior to earnings based measures; both EVA and RI showed a strong positive relationship with stock market changes. However, this attributed superiority of modern performance is questioned due to its low explanatory power of the changes in shareholder wealth compared to more traditional methods such as EPS. Although both conventional performance measures (e.g. EPS, RI and ROI) and modern performance measures (e.g. EVA) does not yield the best results in increasing shareholder value, a combination of the two methods is founded to provide valuable information for investors. However, academics such as Copeland (2002) argue that what really matters is not the association or the information provided by various performance measures; but the expectations of shareholders. Which is a valid point considering performance measures do not operate in isolation and the fact that the environment has an effect on these measures the same way it effects the environment.

Impact on decision making and incentives

In the past two decades, there has been a rise in the interest of performance measures with frameworks on performance measurement such as BSC and bench marking gaining popularity among academics and consultants (Hoque 2004). With the additional advantage in falling cost of information technology (Borthick and Roth 1997) and the increased attention towards performance evaluation, the pressure to improve an organizations performance has increased. Thus, leading to increased pressure on managers in making smart decisions incorporating both qualitative and quantitative information.However, before considering the decisions to be made, it is vital to understand the objectives of decision making and the performance measures that influence these objectives. As shareholders are one of the most important stakeholder groups of a business, shareholder wealth maximization is the center of all management decisions made. In increasing shareholder wealth, as discussed above, Eva is considered the superior performance measure to be implemented. This is because it takes into account the cost of capital and cash flows which has a greater association with the share price unlike earnings (Kaplan 2012). Nonetheless, opponents of modern performance measures choose profit based measures such as ROE and ROI due to its simplicity and familiarity despite the lack of relationship with share value (Kaplan 2012).It is a widely stated fact that traditional profit based performance measures encourage short termism (Ittner, Larcker and Meyer 2003). Short termism, defined as a cognative limitation that effects decision making (Miller 2002) or is generally used with myopia to denote a temporal orientation that prioritizes the near term over the longer term (Marginson, McAulay, Roush and Zijl 2009. Merchant and Van der Stede (2007) state that management short termism or myopia is an inevitable side effect of basing decisions based on results built on accounting based performance measures. In response to these shortcomings of backward looking financial performance measures, non-financial performance measures have been introduced (Ittner, Larcker and Meyer 2003). These future oriented performance measures include satisfaction of customers, staff attitude and quality (Sliwka 2002). One of the main implications of performance measures is that it creates dysfunctional and defensive behavior that might force an employee to give false information (unintended or intended) to their superiors. This is a consequence that performance measures have on self esteem of employees. Employees may be encouraged to pursue actions that build a positive image of themselves among their subordinates and superiors (Roberts 1991) in order to maintain self esteem or to avoid embarrassment, vulnerability or threat (Argyris 1999). Therefore, an effective reward system that motivates employees to contribute their best effort in achieving the performance targets is crucial. Armstrong (2006) explains that an effective reward system will motivate employees, their commitment and progress discretionary behavior in obtaining a set financial or non-financial target. Although many studies conducted favors non-financial performance measures such as customer satisfaction or quality, many studies support accounting performance measures (Hashim 2000). Nonetheless, it is the opinion of other academics that as a consequence of implementing of non-financial performance measures, financial targets are indirectly achieved (Roger 1996) (Chritina and Gursoy 2009). As discussed earlier in this literature review, an increasing number of organizations have adopted modern performance measures ( e.g. Norton and Kaplans BSC and Accentures performance Prism) in measuring non-financial performance measures such as employee satisfaction and customer loyalty which are believed to increase earnings ultimately (Ittner and Larcker 2003). The consequence of this is that employees are provided with valuable information needed in achieving strategic objectives. Also, it gives managers an advantage to glimpse the progress of the company before any financial decision is pronounced. Even though these positive consequences are supposed to result in increased company performance, few companies realize them due to failure in identifying, analyzing an acting on the correct non-financial and financial performance measures (Ittner and Larcker 2003). This lack of integration of the performance measures with company value, cash low or earnings lead to self serving employees manipulating measures to earn higher rewards. For example, Ittner and Larcker (2002) explains a situation where managers have taken undue advantages as follows. Bricks and Mortar, a large retail bank implements a reward scheme based on the customer satisfaction scores. A polling company is hired by the bank to record the customer satisfaction. However, the polling company only surveyed customers who physically entered the bank branches. So, a bank manager who had earlier received a lower score in customer satisfaction; coax customers by offering them food and beverages. Therefore, the said superiority of modern non-financial measurements are false because it is clear that both traditional and modern performance measurements are subject to manipulation equally. According to Ittner and Larcker (2002), non-financial performance measures are more damaging than conventional performance measures which are at least governed by rules. It cannot be determined for sure that performance measures, whether conventional or modern, cause managers and other employees to take wrong decisions or whether it is in the inherent nature of humans to feel superior amongst fellow colleagues. By the research data collected, it seems that reward schemes implemented with the use of performance measures might be influencing these decisions of employees.

Performance measures and customers

Customers are one of the major set of stakeholders in an organization. Therefore, all activities of an organization must be in line with customer satisfaction. However, conventional companies did not have separate performance measures to measure customer satisfaction, but they rather attached the level of customer satisfaction to the bottom line profit (Soderlund and Colliander 2015). The financial dimension alone will not provide a holistic view of the company (Sordo et al 2012), since non-financial aspect of a business accounts for 50% to 80% of a firms value (Kim and Lee 2007). Therefore, in order to bring both financial and non-financial aspects of an organization into the spotlight, Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as an innovative performance measure. Balanced Scorecard offers managers a better platform to measure the performance of the business (zpeynircia, Ycenurenb, Apakc and Polatc 2014). BSC discusses about four dimensions which are important to a business. They are financial, customer, internal processes, learning and growing dimensions. The importance of the customer dimension is that, if the customers are not satisfied, they are likely to opt for substitutes. Therefore, even though the company is financially stable at the moment, they will be vulnerable going into the future (Kaplan and Norton 1996). They go on to explain, when developing metrics to measure customer satisfaction, different types of the customers and the processes which are used to satisfy customers must be analyzed. As soon as it gained recognition, 60% of the Fortune 1000 were using the BSC (Silk 1998). Furthermore, the topic BSC became a dominant topic related to performance measures in academic journals as Kaplan and Nortons (1992) publication had been one of the most cited articles (Neely 2005). However, in contrast to the popularity gained by BSC, there were some studies which suggest that there are failures of BSC and they question the effectiveness and the validity of some assumptions associated with BSC (Ittner and Larcker 2003) (Lipe and Salterio 2000) (Norreklit 2000). For example, in China implementing BSC has been faced with some difficulties due to the unavoidable strategic limitations associated with BSC. (Brignall 2002) (Neely 2005)(Norreklit 2000). According to the researchers, Zeng and Luo (2013), the main reasons for the inconstancy of BSC in China are, ambiguous validity of the cause-and effect relationship, strategic control barrier, common measure bias and obese and static nature. Traditionally, customer satisfaction is assumed to be implied by the profit of the company. However, in a study which was done on universities, Lynch and Cross (1991) mention that, due to the following two reasons, financial performance of a company does not project the level of customer satisfaction.1. Financial measurements neglect the contribution of intangible assets, such as customer loyalty. Therefore, the assumed connection between financial performance and customer satisfaction is not valid.1. The financial measurements refer to past management, whereas, in order to drive business dynamics, lead to factors such as customer satisfaction must be considered. Therefore, in order to get a proper idea about a holistic view of the organization, lagging measures must be integrated with the performance drivers (Goold & Quinn, 1990).

Traditional financial measurements are also seen as short term oriented, since strategic approach, which looks into the future, has not been involved in such measures. (Sordoa, Orellia, Padovania, Gardinia 2012). Therefore, traditional financial measurements are unlikely to provide a proper picture about the customer satisfaction of a company. In order to overcome this weakness of traditional financial measures, Newman (1975) suggests that, traditional performance measures should be backed by quantitative and qualitative leading measures. The level of customer satisfaction is a main factor which has a direct impact on the sustainability of an organization. Therefore, companies must be attentive about how satisfied their customers are and they should use a proper set of performance measurements to evaluate the level of customer satisfaction. When analyzing the academic researches carried out on measuring customer satisfaction of an organization, it can be clearly visible that the modern thinking is to use a holistic approach such as BSC, rather than using financial measurements to measure the level of customer satisfaction effectively. The main reason for this can be identified as financial measurements follow an empirical approach which does not consider about the future conditions of the organization. Due to this belief, many companies are currently using the defined concept of BSC. However, there are some instances where it has been proved that BSC approach has failed due to the way it has been adopted by the organizations. Conclusion

In conclusion,, the literature review on traditional performance measurements and modern performance measures has identified the and analyzed the consequences the respective measures has on shareholders, employees and customers. As shareholders are considered as the most important stakeholder I the stakeholder group, naturally, the ultimate objective of an organization becomes delivering what is expected from them by the main stakeholder group. Therefore, it is the main financial objective to increase shareholder wealth. In achieving this, performance measures play a key role by measuring whether a companys operations are using its resources effectively in creating value for the shareholders. Hence, the use of different performance measures (modern or conventional) has consequences in how value is created due to their inherent flaws and benefits. On the other hand, performance measures are attached to reward schemes of managers so that the business strategy and individual needs of employees are aligned. The implication of this is that some employees will take advantage and manipulate the outcome of the set performance measures to gain undue benefits. However, performance measures could de motivate and pressurize employees into taking short term decisions. Although there are significant disadvantages of using either traditional or modern performance measures, it is also crucial to keep employees motivated and satisfied. Happy internal customers, in other words employees, lead to satisfied external customers. With the recent growth in the economy to satisfy not only shareholders but all other stakeholder groups, modern performance measures such as BSC have been introduced. This is because the conventional accounting based performance measures were mainly focused on internal attributes I creating value for a company. With globalization and the development of markets, it is not appropriate for organizations to be measuring its performance using backward looking financial measures. After all, for a business to succeed, market satisfaction and perceptions are important. Therefore, the implementation of modern performance measures has resulted in satisfied customers due to the developments in quality and service.

ReferencesASHBY, S., 2013.Apple stock prices drop despite record-breaking Q1 earnings.[online] Dorset: Icreate. Available from:http://www.icreatemagazine.com/news/apple-stock-prices-drop-despite-record-breaking-q1-earnings/[Accessed June 2015]Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd edition), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.ARMSTRONG, M., STEPHENS, T., 2006. A handbook of employee reward management and practice. United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited.BIDDLE, G.C., BOWEN, R.M. and WALLACE, J.S., 1997. Does EVA beat earnings? Evidence on associations with stock returns and firm values.Journal of Accounting and Economics,24(3), pp. 301-336BLACK, A. P., WRIGHT and J. E. BACHMAN 1998, In Search of Shareholder Value: Managing the Drivers of Performance, London: Pitman Publishing.BOTCHKAREV, A., and ANDRU, P., 2011. A Return On Investment as a Metric for Evaluating Information Systems: Taxonomy and Application. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6, pp. 245-269BONNER, S.E., and SPRINKLE, G.B., 2002. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27, pp.303345BORTHICK, A. F., & Roth, H. P., 1997. Faster access to more information for better decisions. Journal of Cost Management, 10(4), pp.1924BOURNE, M., NEELY, A., MILLS, J., and PLATTS., K. 2003. Implementing Performance Measurement Systems: a literature review, International Journal of Performance Management. 5(1), pp. 1-19BRIGNALL, S., 2002. The balanced scorecard: An environmental and social critique. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Performance Measurement, Boston.BUREA OF EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS,Preformance measurement definitions.[online] BUREA OF EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS. Available from:http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/performance_measurement_definitions.pdf[Accessed June/27 2015]CARDINAELS, E. and VAN VEEN-DIRKS, P.M.G., 2010. Financial versus non-financial information: The impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced Scorecard.Accounting, Organizations and Society,35(6), pp. 565-578CHEN, S. and DODD, J. L., 2001. Operating Income, Residual Income and EVA: Which Metric is More Value Relevant?, Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(1), pp. 65-86.CHRISTINA, G.C., GURSOY, D. 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 245253.COPELAND, T., 2002, What Do Practitioners Want?, Journal of Applied Finance, 12(1), pp. 5-12.DAVIS, T.R.V., 1992,"Part I: Satisfying internal customers: The link to external customer satisfaction". Planning Review, 20(1), pp. 34 - 40DEL SORDO, C. et al., 2012. Assessing Global Performance in Universities: An Application of Balanced Scorecard.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,46(0), pp. 4793-4797DE VILLIERS, J., and AURET, C. J., 1998, A Comparison of EPS and EVA as Explanatory Variables for Share Price, Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 22(2), pp. 47-63.CLIFFS, E., and NIVEN, N. J., 2003. Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. FRY, T.D., and COX, J.F., 1989 Manufacturing performance; local versus global measures, Production and Inventory Management Journal, 2nd Quarter, pp.5256.GOOLD, M., & QUINN, J.J., 1990. Strategic control: milestones for long-term performance. Hutchinson: The Economist books. GRAFTON, J., LILLIS, A.M. and WIDENER, S.K., 2010. The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance.Accounting, Organizations and Society,35(7), pp. 689-706GREATBANKS, R., & TAPP, D., 2007. The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment; Empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8).HASHIM, M.K., 2000. Business strategy and performance in Malaysian SMEs: A recent survey. Malaysian Management Review, 35(2).HAYES, R.H., and GARVIN, D.A., (1982) Managing as if tomorrow mattered, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp.7079.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), pp. 485-502International Accounting Standard 33 Earnings per Share. 2015. [online] (2012). Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/docs/consolidated/ias33_en.pdf[Accessed 27/6/2015]ITTNER, C. D., & LACKER, D. F., 2003. Coming up short on non- financial performance measurement. Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 8895.ITTNER, C. D., & LACKER, D. F., and RANDALL, T., 2003. Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial service firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7-8): 715-741.JOHNSON, H.T., and Kaplan, R.S. (1987) Relevance Lost: the Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.JOHNSON, H.T., 1972. Early cost accounting for internal management control: Lyman Mills in the 1850s, Business History Review, Vol. XLVI, No. 4, Winter, pp.466474.KNIGHT, J., 1998. Value Based Management: Developing A Systematic Approach to Creating Shareholder Value, McGraw-Hill, USA. LEE, S. and KIM, W.G., 2009. EVA, refined EVA, MVA, or traditional performance measures for the hospitality industry?International Journal of Hospitality Management,28(3), pp. 439-445LIPE, M. G., & SALTERIO, S. E., 2000. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. Accounting Review, 75(3), 283298LOVATA, L.M. and COSTIGAN, M.L., 2002. Empirical analysis of adopters of economic value added.Management Accounting Research,13(2), pp. 215-228LYNCH, R.L., & CROSS, K.F., 1991. Measure Up! Yardsticks for Continous Improvement, Massachussets: Basil Blackwell. MADITINOS, D.I., SEVIC, Z., and THERIOU, N. G., 2005. Performance measures: Traditional accounting measures versus modern value-based measures. The case of earnings and EVA in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE)MAGNI, C.A., 2009. Splitting up value: A critical review ofRESIDUAL INCOMEtheories.European Journal of Operational Research,198(1), pp. 1-22MAGNI, C.A., 2010.RESIDUAL INCOMEand value creation: An investigation into the lost-capital paradigm.European Journal of Operational Research,201(2), pp. 505-519Marginson, D., McAulay, L., Roush, M. and T. van Zijl, 2009. Performance measures and short-termism: An Exploratory Study. MERCHANT, K.A., and VAN DER STEDE, W.A., 2007. Management control systems: performance measurement, evaluation and incentives (Second edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.MILLER, K. D.,2002. Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 689-706.MOURISTEN, J., THORSGAARD, L., & BUKH, P.N., 2005. Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1).NEELY, A.D., MILLS, J.F., GREGORY, M.J., and PLATTS, K.W., 1995 Performance measurement system designa literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.80116.

NEELY, A. D., 2005. 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, 25(12), 12641277.

NEWMAN, W.H., 1975. Constructive Control Design and Use of Control Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc., NORREKILT, H., 2000. The balance on the balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), pp. 6588OLVE, N., ROY, J., and WETTER, M., 1999. Performance Drivers: a Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard, John Wiley and Sons, UKZPEYNIRCIA, R., YUCENURSENB, M., APAKC, I., and POLAT, Y., 2014. A comparative analysis of accounting educations effectiveness with the balanced scorecard method: A case study of KMU. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, pp. 1849 1858RAPPAPORT, A., 1983. "CORPORATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SHAREHOLDER VALUE". Journal of Business Strategy, 3(4), pp. 28 - 38ROBERTS, J., 1991. The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(4), pp. 355-368ROGER, H., 1996. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: an empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), pp.27-42SILK, S., 1998. Automating the balanced scorecard. Management Accounting, 79(11), pp. 3844SLIWKA, D., 2002. On the use of nonfinancial performance measures of management compensation. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 11(3), pp. 487-511.SODERLUND, M., and COLLIANDER, J., 2015. Loyalty program rewards and their impact on perceived justice, customer satisfaction, and repatronize intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 25, pp.47-57SORD, B.H., and WELSCH, G.A., 1962 A survey of management planning and control practices. Controllership Foundation, New York, USA.STEWART, G. B., 1991, The Quest for Value: A Guide for Senior Managers, First Ed., New York: Harper Business.TRAUB, E., 2011. Using ROE to analyze stocks: What you need to know about. AAII Journal, pp. 4-7Ulf Johanson Matti Skoog Andreas Backlund Roland Almqvist, 2006. "Balancing dilemmas of the balanced scorecard". Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), pp. 842 - 857VAN VEEN-DIRKS, P., 2010. Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of production managers.Accounting, Organizations and Society,35(2), pp. 141-164VILLIERS, C. J., ROUSE, P., and HARRISON, J. A., 2012. Accountability and Performance Measurement: A Stakeholder Perspective. JCC: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(2), pp. 243-258WALLACE, J.S., 1997. Adopting residual income-based compensation plans: Do you get what you pay for?Journal of Accounting and Economics,24(3), pp. 275-300WORTHINGTON, A. C., and WEST, T., 2001, The Usefulness of Economic Value-Added in the Australian Context, Accounting, Accountability and Performance, 7(1), pp. 73-90.ZENG, K., and LUO, X., 2013. The balanced scorecard in China: Does it work?Business horizons,56(5), pp. 611-620

Page | 13