2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0925-5273(99)00061-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative models for performance measurement system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
116
0
5

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 199 publications
(121 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
116
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…In other word, a PMS can be seen as a multicriteria tool, based on performance expressions (Suwingjo et al, 2000).…”
Section: Aggregation Of Performance Measurement Expressionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other word, a PMS can be seen as a multicriteria tool, based on performance expressions (Suwingjo et al, 2000).…”
Section: Aggregation Of Performance Measurement Expressionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By their very nature, PMS require the use of multi-criteria methods (Santos et al, 2002). The primary quantitative frameworks found in the literature on PMS are intended to reduce dimensionality and hence a product of the MAUT (Multi-Attribute Utility Theory) aggregation model school (Diakoulaki et al, 1992;Lee et al, 1995;Rangone, 1996;Kim et al, 1997;Suwignjo et al, 2000), although a few studies have been based on outranking models (Mareschal et al, 1991;Babic et al, 1998). MAUT models allow defining the overall performance of a company with respect to its various elementary objectives (Berrah et al, 2004).…”
Section: Problem Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, upon all the existing evidence of such relationships, there are very rare studies on how both intellectual capital and entrepreneurial orientation impact multilevel performance (i.e., both financial and non-financial performance). Financial and non-financial measurement system considered the most appropriate way of measuring today's performance (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) as against the traditional financial measures, which is solely concerned with historical nature of the firm (Bourguignon, Malleret, & Nørreklit, 2004;Norreklit, 2000), and that can, of course, give misleading indicators for today's competitive environment (Kaplan & Norton, 1992;Suwignjo, Bititci, & Carrie, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%