In recent years, literature has identified the increasing complexity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and highlighted their sensitivity to differences in managerial culture and management systems. Research has shown that performance measurement systems (PMSs) could play an important role in supporting managerial development in these companies. In this paper, the literature on performance measurement in manufacturing SMEs is reviewed and the diffusion, characteristics and determinants of performance measurement in SMEs are analysed. Shortcomings in the performance measurement systems are highlighted and the many factors that seem to constrain PMSs in manufacturing SMEs are defined, e.g. lack of financial and human resources, wrong perception of the benefits of PMS implementation, short-term strategic planning. Moreover, using dimensions defined according to the information found in the literature, two PMS models specifically developed for SMEs are compared with generic PMS models. The comparison points out an evolution in PMS models over time; in particular, the models developed in the last 20 years are more horizontal, process-oriented and focus on stakeholder needs. However, it is not clear whether these changes are due to the evolution of the generic models or an attempt to introduce models suited to the needs of SMEs. To clarify this matter and better to understand PMSs in SMEs, further theoretical and empirical studies are necessary. The main issues still requiring investigation are listed in a research agenda at the end of the paper.

A large body of research has pointed out the need for a contingent approach in the design of new product development processes, highlighting the risk of simply accepting a normative perspective that leads to the identification and diffusion of decontextualized ''best practices.'' In the literature there are contrasting views regarding the identification of the characteristics of product innovation processes in extremely uncertain and dynamic conditions. Some studies propose a fascinating dichotomy: the contraposition between flexible processes and Stage-Gate s processes. They maintain that Stage-Gate s processes are characterized by ''early and sharp'' product definition and clear separation between concept development and implementation (detail design and production ramp-up), whereas flexible development models seek to delay the concept freeze point and overlap product development stages going beyond concurrent engineering. Other studies have arrived at seemingly conflicting results; the suitability of the early and sharp product definition approach in turbulent environments is debated without supporting the dichotomy between flexible processes and Stage-Gate s processes. Moreover, additional reasons for questioning the contraposition between Stage-Gate s and flexible processes come from a series of studies on the management of discontinuous innovation. The aim of the present study was to develop a conceptual framework that can overcome this widely accepted but controversial dichotomy. The framework is based on the recognition of the orthogonality among three analytical dimensions: organizational, informational, and temporal. The organizational dimension refers to the structuration of the process. The informational dimension deals with classifying the development activities and investigating the firm's product definition approach (early and sharp mode vs. late freeze mode). The temporal dimension relates to the execution strategies of development tasks. The three-dimensional framework enables us to better understand the complex relationships between the degree of structuration in process design (organizational dimension), the degree of intersection between problem-formulation and problem-solving in product definition (informational dimension), and different types of execution strategies (temporal dimension).

Managing processes with the aim of improving them necessarily requires both analysis and critical evaluation of organizational practice. This article takes up the theme of business process analysis with the aim of highlighting and comparing alternative techniques and approaches. Four approaches have been identified: action analysis, process mapping, co-ordination analysis and social grammar analysis. An interpretative model of the fundamental differences between these approaches is proposed. This paper discusses both the limits and the possibilities offered by each approach and concludes with a reflection on the problem of integrating diverse analytical perspectives

No abstract