Purpose -This paper aims to go some way towards addressing the dearth of research into performance measurement systems and metrics of supply chains by critically reviewing the contemporary literature and suggesting possible avenues for future research. Design/methodology/approach -The article provides a taxonomy of performance measures followed by a critical evaluation of measurement systems designed to evaluate the performance of supply chains. Findings -The paper argues that despite considerable advances in the literature in recent years, a number of important problems have not yet received adequate attention, including: the factors influencing the successful implementation of performance measurement systems for supply chains; the forces shaping their evolution over time; and, the problem of their ongoing maintenance. Originality/value -The paper provides a taxonomy of measures and outlines specific implications for future research.

Kuhn's concept of paradigm and Burrell and Morgan's paradigms continue to exert considerable influence on contemporary thinking in business and management research. Indeed, recent contributions to the 'paradigm wars' have provoked scholars to remark upon the longevity of this debate. Consequently, this paper argues that it is timely to revisit the concepts of paradigm(s) and the controversy surrounding them. It begins by discussing how Kuhn's and Burrell and Morgan's paradigm(s) are underpinned by structural linguistics and how scholars have argued this is problematized by deconstruction. Next, the methodology describes the literature search, offers a brief introduction to rhetoric, and introduces the form of rhetorical analysis employed in this study. Moving on, a rhetorical analysis of key articles from the paradigm wars is presented. This develops understanding of this dispute by illustrating how it is inherently dialogic; arguments for paradigm incommensurability, paradigm integration, paradigm pluralism and paradigm dissolution are constructed to counter each other. The paper identifies three main rhetorical strategies employed by scholars in these arguments: constructing identities for individuals and groups by attributing assumptions, values and interests to them; transferring agency to concepts; and managing accountability for their claims. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the analysis for understanding of the paradigm wars, the concept of paradigm incommensurability, and the practice of reflecting on one's own metatheoretical assumptions. Finally, potential applications of rhetorical analysis to contemporary debates in management research are identified.

No abstract

In this paper we offer a critique of The National Programme for Information Technology’ (NPfIT) currently being undertaken in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. We begin by offering a brief introduction to the project. Next, we review the lessons learned from a wide range of experience with IT and business change projects and comment on why changes in the NHS are likely to be harder than in most other organizations. We then elaborate the implications of these ideas and identify potential areas for change, with particular focus on the current guiding mindset that this project is about the provision of a technical infrastructure. We argue that this is, thus far, a technology project and question whether the current strategy is the most appropriate way forward to achieve service improvements. We suggest changes in the underlying mindset, along with the leadership, ownership, metrics and labelling of the project.

This paper presents a multi-method analysis of the implementation of an enterprise resource planning system. It argues the majority of research treats these systems as having essential technical properties that enable them to bring about positive organisational effects. In contrast, we adopt a post-essentialist perspective that understands discourse as constructing ERP systems, rather than reflecting their essential properties. Discourse analysis of interviews and focus groups was used to compare justifications for the implementation produced by members of the ERP project team with end users' reactions to the system. In contrast to previous studies, this opens the ERP black box by illustrating how the capabilities of these systems, and their organisational effects, are constructed through language. Moreover, it demonstrates the important function these constructions perform in legitimising or undermining ERP implementation. Statistical analysis of post-implementation questionnaires identified the predictors of established measures of users' reactions to IT systems. By comparing these data with end users' discursive reactions to the project, we identify several constructs for inclusion in future studies of users' reactions to ERP systems. The paper concludes by summarising the contributions and limitations of the study and its implications for future research and practice.