PurposeThe purpose of this paper aims to make contributions to the debate on “performance measurement in practice” focussing on how organisational participants respond to the “new regime” of key performance indicators (KPIs) and whether KPIs materialise as intended in a transitional economy.Design/methodology/approachInspired by the epistemological instruction of Schatzki's practice theory, this paper draws on qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews, observations and documentary analysis of a single organisation.FindingsKPIs were introduced at PK (a manufacturing concern in Czech Republic) but widely seen as contradictory, inconsequential, top-down and unrealistic. These lead organisational participants to adopt a pragmatic approach towards PM embracing KPIs' subjective assessment and manipulation, common sense or doing the job as given, and superficial compliance (symbolism).Research limitations/implicationsThe paper would be interesting to researchers because of its explanation of performance measurement practice in a distinct empirical setting, for its application of a practice theory inspired by Schatzki, and for inspiring new research agendas in transitional economies.Practical implicationsThe paper recommends the mobilisation of artefacts, such as various forms of bottom-up discussions, to encourage interactions between organisational members and influence individual beliefs and practical understandings of the intended managerial projects.Originality/valueThe paper has focussed on “organisations of practice” to unravel the “doings” of organisational participants to explore the micro-processes of PM which otherwise would have been ignored. These “doings” and “sayings”, linked by pools of understanding, rules or instructions, and a teleoaffective structure, enabled the authors to unmask inherent tensions and contradictions in a new regime of performance measures such as KPIs.

351 The aim of the paper is to compare the principles, information outputs and consequent managerial implications of the variable costing method and throughput accounting, according to their different perceptions of cost variability. These two approaches could give rise to various product mix decisions and findings relating to effect on profitability. The paper also provides a practical example of limitations experienced on two production lines for certain items. Comparison is made between these two approaches as to which elicits a relevant decision on production mix. Both the variable costing method and throughput accounting represent very similar methods based on variable costs that do not reflect fixed costs. Variable costing methods examine costs that change in accordance with volume of output. On the contrary, throughput accounting merely acknowledges total variablecosts, and focuses on limitations which exist in a given company.