PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically examine what senior supply chain executives measure and how they perceive performance measurement from a balanced scorecard (BSC) perspective.Design/methodology/approachA survey designed from the four perspectives of the BSC framework is conducted on senior executives involved in the supply chain functions of client firms, and those executives from the logistics service provider industry.FindingsDespite the need to provide a balanced approach to performance measurement, firms remain focused on traditional financial measures (gross revenue, profit before tax, and cost reduction). From a supply chain perspective, the non‐tangible measures such as customer satisfaction are most measured. Other key logistics performance indicators include on‐time delivery, and customer satisfaction.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings are based on a sample size of 113. Thus, some respondent clusters are smaller than others. Hence, the results may not be representative of the individual clusters.Practical implicationsEach supply chain entity must adopt a more balanced perspective in its performance measurement and management. Companies need to recognize the importance of the drivers of strategic future performance. Managing a given supply chain's overall performance necessitates the coordination of measures across the different entities on the supply chain, often requiring all entities to adopt a common balanced perspective in their performance management to facilitate the overall performance and competitiveness of the entire supply chain.Originality/valueThis paper is the first attempt to apply the BSC framework on the logistics industry.

IntroductionCompetition, technological advancement and the changing sophistication of consumers' needs have led to the constant evolution of competitive paradigms. In this evolution, time-based competition has emerged apparently as the competitive paradigm of the 1990s.This time-based paradigm was first highlighted explicitly in the literature in the late 1980s by Stalk [1] who argued that traditional manufacturing began by focusing on achieving low production cost through the utilization of low-cost labour. By the early 1960s, as a result of rising wage rates and technological advancement, the developed industrial nations moved into the era of scalebased strategies, using highly specialized machinery to produce large volumes of a particular product at very low unit cost. By the mid-1970s, the progressive manufacturers' attempt to achieve even higher levels of productivity led to a new source of competitive advantage: the focused factory. By focusing on specific products and key elements of production competence, complexity was reduced, thereby enabling these focused manufacturers to attain higher productivity and lower cost than broad-line producers. However, the strategy of adopting a focused factory imposed restrictions on the variety of products that could be produced. The recognition of such a limitation on competitiveness and growth potential directed leading Japanese manufacturers towards another new source of competitive advantage: the flexible factory. With flexibility, the trade-off between scale and variety no longer exists. Finally, according to Stalk, this fiercely competitive arena then resulted in the need for variety-driven competitors to introduce new products and ever greater variety at rapid rates, leading to the emergence of today's newest competitive paradigm: time-based competition.Time-based competition mandates a strategy of customer responsiveness and rapid new product introduction, together with competitive quality and cost. The essence of time-based competition involves compressing time in every phase of the product creation and delivery cycle. This translates into a significant source of competitive advantage. Increasingly, only time-based competitors will have the ability to dominate their industries. This is because customers have become sophisticated and sensitive to the magnitude of choice and the degree of responsiveness provided by businesses in both the manufacturing and the service sectors. Only time-based firms will be able to

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract