The role of performance measurement models in multi level alignment

Rodney McAdam, Shirley-Ann Hazlett, Brendan Galbraith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose– Market deregulation in the utilities sector has led to increased competition and rising customer expectations in both established and new markets. This, in turn, has forced organisations such as electricity and telecoms to make rapid, enterprise-wide changes on an increasingly frequent basis which in turn has led to problems with alignment. Misalignment can occur at many levels and can result in misused resources, loss of competitiveness, excessive cycle times, higher costs and loss of agility. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Given the lack of overarching theory, the paper begins by borrowing from contingency, dynamic capability and organisational learning constructs, to explore the role that performance measurement models can bring to improve the alignment between business strategy and functional strategy (level 1 alignment). Second, the paper analyses the role of performance measurement models in developing functional practices aligned with supply chain management (SCM) strategies (level 2 alignment).Design/methodology/approach– The study adopts an exploratory theory-building approach using four case studies. These are used as key supply chains in both established and new business areas within two longitudinal university-industry research partnerships (each of three years duration). Data from repeat interviews (n=42), focus groups (n=10), documentation and observations is analysed and forms the basis for the development of a conceptual framework and a set of related propositions. The data analysis followed Radnor and Boaden's (2004) method for analysing interpretive research.Findings– The findings show the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods on alignment at two levels, i.e. level 1 alignment – between business strategy and functional (SCM) strategy, and level 2 alignment – between the functional strategy (SCM) and SCM routines and practices.Originality/value– To date, there are few studies which explore the development of theory and practice in relation to the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods in improving organisational alignment. This exploratory theory building study makes a contribution to this gap through the development of the conceptual framework and propositions.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1153-1183
JournalInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management
Volume34
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Aug 2014

Fingerprint

Supply chain management
Industry
Deregulation
Alignment
Measurement model
Performance measurement
Supply chains
Electricity
Costs
Business strategy
Measurement method
Theory building
Conceptual framework
Management strategy

Cite this

@article{ce04be7fd043490fb22aa371e17e1c2a,
title = "The role of performance measurement models in multi level alignment",
abstract = "Purpose– Market deregulation in the utilities sector has led to increased competition and rising customer expectations in both established and new markets. This, in turn, has forced organisations such as electricity and telecoms to make rapid, enterprise-wide changes on an increasingly frequent basis which in turn has led to problems with alignment. Misalignment can occur at many levels and can result in misused resources, loss of competitiveness, excessive cycle times, higher costs and loss of agility. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Given the lack of overarching theory, the paper begins by borrowing from contingency, dynamic capability and organisational learning constructs, to explore the role that performance measurement models can bring to improve the alignment between business strategy and functional strategy (level 1 alignment). Second, the paper analyses the role of performance measurement models in developing functional practices aligned with supply chain management (SCM) strategies (level 2 alignment).Design/methodology/approach– The study adopts an exploratory theory-building approach using four case studies. These are used as key supply chains in both established and new business areas within two longitudinal university-industry research partnerships (each of three years duration). Data from repeat interviews (n=42), focus groups (n=10), documentation and observations is analysed and forms the basis for the development of a conceptual framework and a set of related propositions. The data analysis followed Radnor and Boaden's (2004) method for analysing interpretive research.Findings– The findings show the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods on alignment at two levels, i.e. level 1 alignment – between business strategy and functional (SCM) strategy, and level 2 alignment – between the functional strategy (SCM) and SCM routines and practices.Originality/value– To date, there are few studies which explore the development of theory and practice in relation to the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods in improving organisational alignment. This exploratory theory building study makes a contribution to this gap through the development of the conceptual framework and propositions.",
author = "Rodney McAdam and Shirley-Ann Hazlett and Brendan Galbraith",
note = "Reference text: 1.Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2009), Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London. 2.Ambrosini, V. , Bowman, C. and Collier, N. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how firms renew their resource base”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 9-24. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 3.Argyris, C. and Sch{\"o}n, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 4.Baier, C. , Hartmann, E. and Moser, R. (2008), “Strategic alignment and purchasing efficiency: an exploratory analysis of their impact on financial performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 36-52. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 5.Barratt, M. , Choi, T. and Li, M. (2011), “Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 6.Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: a resource-based theory perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1217-1233. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 7.Basnet, C. , Corner, J. , Wisner, J. and Tan, K. (2003), “Benchmarking supply chain management practices in New Zealand”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-64. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 8.Bititci, U. , Mendibil., K. , Nudurupati, S. , Garengo, P. and Turner, T. (2006), “Dynamics of performance measurement and organisational culture”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1325-1350. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 9.Bozarth, C. and McDermott, C. (1998), “Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a review and directions for future research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 427-439. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 10.Brown, S. and Blackmon, K. (2005), “Aligning manufacturing strategy and business-level competitive strategy in new competitive environments: the case for strategic resonance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 793-815. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 11.Brown, S. , Squire, B. and Blackmon, K. (2007), “The contribution of manufacturing strategy involvement and alignment to world-class manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 282-302. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 12.Cao, Q. and Hoffman, J. (2011), “Alignment of virtual enterprise, information technology, and performance: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1127-1146. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 13.Duffy, M. (2009), “Is supply chain the cure for rising healthcare costs?”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 28-31. [Infotrieve] 14.EFQM (2011), The Business Excellence Model, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels. 15.Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550. [ISI] [Infotrieve] 16.Fisher, M.L. (1997), What is the Right Supply Chain for your Product? Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA. 17.Garengo, P. and Bititci, U. (2007), “Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: an empirical study in Scottish SMEs”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 802-825. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 18.Gattorna, J. (2009), Dynamic Supply Chain Alignment, Gower, London. 19.Giannakis, M. (2007), “Performance measurement of supplier relationships”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 400-411. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 20.Godsell, J. and van Hoek, R. (2009), “Fudging the supply chain to hit the number: five common practices that sacrifice the supply chain and what financial analysts should ask about them”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 171-176. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 21.Huang, X. , Gattiker, T. and Schroeder, R. (2008), “Structure-infrastructure alignment: the relationship between TQM orientation and the adoption of supplier-facing electronic commerce among manufacturers”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 40-54. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 22.Johnston, R. and Pongatichat, P. (2008), “Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping strategies”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 941-967. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 23.Jung, J. , Wang, Y. and Wu, S. (2009), “Competitive strategy, TQM practice and continuous improvement of international project management”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-183. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 24.Jusoh, R. and Parnell, J. (2008), “Competitive strategy and performance measurement in the Malaysian context: an exploratory study”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 5-31. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 25.Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2010), “Supply chain integration: cluster analysis of the impact of span of integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 207-215. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 26.Kauffman, A. , Wood, C. and Theyel, G. (2000), “Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic supplier typology”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 649-661. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 27.Lambert, D. and Cooper, M. (2000), “Issues in supply Chain management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 28.Lambert, D. , Cooper, M. and Pagh, J. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation issues and research agendas”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-18. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 29.Langfield-Smith, K. (1997), “Management control systems and strategy: a critical review”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 207-232. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 30.Lee, H. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-119. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 31.Lejeune, M. and Yakova, N. (2005), “On characterising the 4 C's in supply chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 81-100. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 32.Leseure, M. , Bauer, J. , Birdi, K. , Neely, A. and Denyer, D. (2004), “Adoption of promising practices: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 169-190. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 33.McAdam, R. , Hazlett, S. and Anderson-Gillespie, K. (2008), “Developing a conceptual model of lead performance measurement and benchmarking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1153-1185. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 34.Martin-Pena, M. and Diaz-Garrido, E. (2008), “Typologies and taxonomies of operations strategy: a literature review”, Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 200-218. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 35.Meadows, M and O'Brien, F. (2006), “Under pressure: visioning in a regulated environment”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 537-551. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 36.Melnyk, S. , Stewart, D. and Swink, M. (2004), “Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-217. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 37.Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA. 38.Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY. 39.Monahan, S. and Nardone, R. (2007), “How Unilever aligned its supply chain and business strategies”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 44-50. [Infotrieve] 40.Nair, A. and Boulton, W. (2008), “Innovation-orientated operations strategy typology and stage-based model”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 748-771. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 41.Pilkington, A. and Fitzerald, R. (2006), “Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1255-1275. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 42.Poole, M.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1989), “Using paradox to build management and organization theories”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-578. [ISI] [Infotrieve] 43.Radnor, H. (2001), Researching Your Professional Practice: Doing Interpretive Research, OU Press, London. 44.Radnor, Z. and Boaden, R. (2004), “Developing an understanding of corporate anorexia”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 424-440. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 45.Raymond, L. and Croteau, A. (2009), “Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: performance effects of strategic alignment”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 192-201. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 46.Rerup, C. and Feldman, M.S. (2011), “Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: the role of trial and error learning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 577-610. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 47.Roh, J. , Hong, P. and Park, Y. (2008), “Organizational culture and supply chain strategy: a framework for effective information flows”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 361-376. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 48.Schnetzler, M. , Sennheiser, A. and Schonsleben, P. (2007), “A decomposition-based approach for the development of a supply chain strategy”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 21-42. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 49.Schroeder, R. , Linderman, K. , Liedtke, C. and Choo, A. (2008), “Six Sigma definition and underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 50.Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 51.Sun, S. , Hsu, M. and Hwang, W. (2009), “The impact of alignment between supply chain strategy and environmental uncertainty on SCM performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 201-212. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 52.Teece, D.J. , Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 53.Vachon, S. , Halley, A. and Beaulieu, M. (2009), “Aligning competitive priorities in the supply chain: the role of interactions with suppliers”, The International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 322-337. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 54.Yin, R. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.",
year = "2014",
month = "8",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1108/IJOPM-09-2011-0313",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "1153--1183",
journal = "International Journal of Operations and Production Management",
issn = "0144-3577",
number = "9",

}

The role of performance measurement models in multi level alignment. / McAdam, Rodney; Hazlett, Shirley-Ann; Galbraith, Brendan.

In: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, 19.08.2014, p. 1153-1183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of performance measurement models in multi level alignment

AU - McAdam, Rodney

AU - Hazlett, Shirley-Ann

AU - Galbraith, Brendan

N1 - Reference text: 1.Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2009), Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London. 2.Ambrosini, V. , Bowman, C. and Collier, N. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how firms renew their resource base”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 9-24. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 3.Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 4.Baier, C. , Hartmann, E. and Moser, R. (2008), “Strategic alignment and purchasing efficiency: an exploratory analysis of their impact on financial performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 36-52. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 5.Barratt, M. , Choi, T. and Li, M. (2011), “Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 6.Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: a resource-based theory perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1217-1233. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 7.Basnet, C. , Corner, J. , Wisner, J. and Tan, K. (2003), “Benchmarking supply chain management practices in New Zealand”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-64. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 8.Bititci, U. , Mendibil., K. , Nudurupati, S. , Garengo, P. and Turner, T. (2006), “Dynamics of performance measurement and organisational culture”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1325-1350. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 9.Bozarth, C. and McDermott, C. (1998), “Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a review and directions for future research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 427-439. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 10.Brown, S. and Blackmon, K. (2005), “Aligning manufacturing strategy and business-level competitive strategy in new competitive environments: the case for strategic resonance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 793-815. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 11.Brown, S. , Squire, B. and Blackmon, K. (2007), “The contribution of manufacturing strategy involvement and alignment to world-class manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 282-302. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 12.Cao, Q. and Hoffman, J. (2011), “Alignment of virtual enterprise, information technology, and performance: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1127-1146. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 13.Duffy, M. (2009), “Is supply chain the cure for rising healthcare costs?”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 28-31. [Infotrieve] 14.EFQM (2011), The Business Excellence Model, European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels. 15.Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550. [ISI] [Infotrieve] 16.Fisher, M.L. (1997), What is the Right Supply Chain for your Product? Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA. 17.Garengo, P. and Bititci, U. (2007), “Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: an empirical study in Scottish SMEs”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 802-825. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 18.Gattorna, J. (2009), Dynamic Supply Chain Alignment, Gower, London. 19.Giannakis, M. (2007), “Performance measurement of supplier relationships”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 400-411. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 20.Godsell, J. and van Hoek, R. (2009), “Fudging the supply chain to hit the number: five common practices that sacrifice the supply chain and what financial analysts should ask about them”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 171-176. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 21.Huang, X. , Gattiker, T. and Schroeder, R. (2008), “Structure-infrastructure alignment: the relationship between TQM orientation and the adoption of supplier-facing electronic commerce among manufacturers”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 40-54. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 22.Johnston, R. and Pongatichat, P. (2008), “Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping strategies”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 941-967. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 23.Jung, J. , Wang, Y. and Wu, S. (2009), “Competitive strategy, TQM practice and continuous improvement of international project management”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-183. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 24.Jusoh, R. and Parnell, J. (2008), “Competitive strategy and performance measurement in the Malaysian context: an exploratory study”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 5-31. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 25.Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2010), “Supply chain integration: cluster analysis of the impact of span of integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 207-215. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 26.Kauffman, A. , Wood, C. and Theyel, G. (2000), “Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic supplier typology”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 649-661. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 27.Lambert, D. and Cooper, M. (2000), “Issues in supply Chain management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 28.Lambert, D. , Cooper, M. and Pagh, J. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation issues and research agendas”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-18. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 29.Langfield-Smith, K. (1997), “Management control systems and strategy: a critical review”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 207-232. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 30.Lee, H. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-119. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 31.Lejeune, M. and Yakova, N. (2005), “On characterising the 4 C's in supply chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 81-100. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 32.Leseure, M. , Bauer, J. , Birdi, K. , Neely, A. and Denyer, D. (2004), “Adoption of promising practices: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 169-190. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 33.McAdam, R. , Hazlett, S. and Anderson-Gillespie, K. (2008), “Developing a conceptual model of lead performance measurement and benchmarking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1153-1185. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 34.Martin-Pena, M. and Diaz-Garrido, E. (2008), “Typologies and taxonomies of operations strategy: a literature review”, Management Research News, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 200-218. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 35.Meadows, M and O'Brien, F. (2006), “Under pressure: visioning in a regulated environment”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 537-551. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 36.Melnyk, S. , Stewart, D. and Swink, M. (2004), “Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-217. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 37.Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA. 38.Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY. 39.Monahan, S. and Nardone, R. (2007), “How Unilever aligned its supply chain and business strategies”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 44-50. [Infotrieve] 40.Nair, A. and Boulton, W. (2008), “Innovation-orientated operations strategy typology and stage-based model”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 748-771. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 41.Pilkington, A. and Fitzerald, R. (2006), “Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1255-1275. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 42.Poole, M.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1989), “Using paradox to build management and organization theories”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-578. [ISI] [Infotrieve] 43.Radnor, H. (2001), Researching Your Professional Practice: Doing Interpretive Research, OU Press, London. 44.Radnor, Z. and Boaden, R. (2004), “Developing an understanding of corporate anorexia”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 424-440. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 45.Raymond, L. and Croteau, A. (2009), “Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: performance effects of strategic alignment”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 192-201. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 46.Rerup, C. and Feldman, M.S. (2011), “Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: the role of trial and error learning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 577-610. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve] 47.Roh, J. , Hong, P. and Park, Y. (2008), “Organizational culture and supply chain strategy: a framework for effective information flows”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 361-376. [Abstract] [Infotrieve] 48.Schnetzler, M. , Sennheiser, A. and Schonsleben, P. (2007), “A decomposition-based approach for the development of a supply chain strategy”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 21-42. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 49.Schroeder, R. , Linderman, K. , Liedtke, C. and Choo, A. (2008), “Six Sigma definition and underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 50.Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 51.Sun, S. , Hsu, M. and Hwang, W. (2009), “The impact of alignment between supply chain strategy and environmental uncertainty on SCM performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 201-212. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 52.Teece, D.J. , Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533. [CrossRef] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 53.Vachon, S. , Halley, A. and Beaulieu, M. (2009), “Aligning competitive priorities in the supply chain: the role of interactions with suppliers”, The International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 322-337. [Abstract] [ISI] [Infotrieve] 54.Yin, R. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

PY - 2014/8/19

Y1 - 2014/8/19

N2 - Purpose– Market deregulation in the utilities sector has led to increased competition and rising customer expectations in both established and new markets. This, in turn, has forced organisations such as electricity and telecoms to make rapid, enterprise-wide changes on an increasingly frequent basis which in turn has led to problems with alignment. Misalignment can occur at many levels and can result in misused resources, loss of competitiveness, excessive cycle times, higher costs and loss of agility. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Given the lack of overarching theory, the paper begins by borrowing from contingency, dynamic capability and organisational learning constructs, to explore the role that performance measurement models can bring to improve the alignment between business strategy and functional strategy (level 1 alignment). Second, the paper analyses the role of performance measurement models in developing functional practices aligned with supply chain management (SCM) strategies (level 2 alignment).Design/methodology/approach– The study adopts an exploratory theory-building approach using four case studies. These are used as key supply chains in both established and new business areas within two longitudinal university-industry research partnerships (each of three years duration). Data from repeat interviews (n=42), focus groups (n=10), documentation and observations is analysed and forms the basis for the development of a conceptual framework and a set of related propositions. The data analysis followed Radnor and Boaden's (2004) method for analysing interpretive research.Findings– The findings show the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods on alignment at two levels, i.e. level 1 alignment – between business strategy and functional (SCM) strategy, and level 2 alignment – between the functional strategy (SCM) and SCM routines and practices.Originality/value– To date, there are few studies which explore the development of theory and practice in relation to the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods in improving organisational alignment. This exploratory theory building study makes a contribution to this gap through the development of the conceptual framework and propositions.

AB - Purpose– Market deregulation in the utilities sector has led to increased competition and rising customer expectations in both established and new markets. This, in turn, has forced organisations such as electricity and telecoms to make rapid, enterprise-wide changes on an increasingly frequent basis which in turn has led to problems with alignment. Misalignment can occur at many levels and can result in misused resources, loss of competitiveness, excessive cycle times, higher costs and loss of agility. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Given the lack of overarching theory, the paper begins by borrowing from contingency, dynamic capability and organisational learning constructs, to explore the role that performance measurement models can bring to improve the alignment between business strategy and functional strategy (level 1 alignment). Second, the paper analyses the role of performance measurement models in developing functional practices aligned with supply chain management (SCM) strategies (level 2 alignment).Design/methodology/approach– The study adopts an exploratory theory-building approach using four case studies. These are used as key supply chains in both established and new business areas within two longitudinal university-industry research partnerships (each of three years duration). Data from repeat interviews (n=42), focus groups (n=10), documentation and observations is analysed and forms the basis for the development of a conceptual framework and a set of related propositions. The data analysis followed Radnor and Boaden's (2004) method for analysing interpretive research.Findings– The findings show the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods on alignment at two levels, i.e. level 1 alignment – between business strategy and functional (SCM) strategy, and level 2 alignment – between the functional strategy (SCM) and SCM routines and practices.Originality/value– To date, there are few studies which explore the development of theory and practice in relation to the role and impact of performance measurement models and methods in improving organisational alignment. This exploratory theory building study makes a contribution to this gap through the development of the conceptual framework and propositions.

U2 - 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2011-0313

DO - 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2011-0313

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 1153

EP - 1183

JO - International Journal of Operations and Production Management

T2 - International Journal of Operations and Production Management

JF - International Journal of Operations and Production Management

SN - 0144-3577

IS - 9

ER -