Strategic analysis based on Performance Measurement System (PMS) guidelines allows managers to better plan ahead, communicate, and collaborate. Motivating rational, rather than emotional, discussion amongst team members about strategic options helps ensure that the set goals are understood, that managers are coordinating their teams effectively, and that the set goals are actually carried out. Support from upper management is essential to the success of the performance management process, as is support from managers at all levels. But internal and external factors can influence an organization's goals, leading to shifts over time that strain limited resources and the time managers have available, setting the stage for natural resistance. This paper provides an analysis of performance measurement and benchmarking using the European Network for Advanced Performance Studies (ENAPS) methodology. The ENAPS methodology has been used as a basis for comparing factories because it offers a framework for developing comparable and comprehensive performance indicators.
Keywords
European Network for Advanced Performance Studies (ENAPS), Key Performance Indicator (KPI), Performance Measurement System (PMS)
M. Alrashed, T. Nikolaidis, P. Pilidis, S. Jafari, and W. Alrashed, “Key performance indicators for turboelectric distributed propulsion,” Int. j. product. perform. manag., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1989–2008, 2022.
W. Mu, C. E. van Middelaar, J. M. Bloemhof, B. Engel, and I. J. M. de Boer, “Benchmarking the environmental performance of specialized milk production systems: selection of a set of indicators,” Ecol. Indic., vol. 72, pp. 91–98, 2017.
Y. Yuliansyah and J. Jermias, “Strategic performance measurement system, organizational learning and service strategic alignment: Impact on performance,” Int. J. Ethics Syst., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 564–592, 2018.
B. Zaadoud, Y. Chbab, and A. Chaouch, “The performance measurement frameworks in healthcare: Scopus study,” J. Health Manag., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 275–293, 2021.
T. Kadak and E. K. Laitinen, “How different types of performance management systems affect organizational performance?,” Meas. Bus. Excel., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 315–327, 2021.
M. Yüzükrmz and M. Pinarbai, “A new framework for balancing and performance evaluation in stochastic assembly line using queueing networks,” Eur. J Ind. Eng., vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1, 2023.
S. Ganguly, S. Das, and S. Pandya, “Influence of strategy typology on innovation: Evidence from the manufacturing sector,” Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–16, 2022.
A. Reinstein and M. E. Bayou, “FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) issues new accounting rules for debt and equity securities,” Healthc. Financ. Manage., vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 34–41, 1994.
A. Yasinska and Lviv Polytechnic National University, “Accounting procedures digital transformation for business processes improvement,” Econ. Entrep..Manag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 44–50, 2021.
X. Wang, H. Hu, and Y. Wei, “Multi-period two-stage DEA model: measuring performance of integrated production and service systems in Chinese cable TV industry,” INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 385–406, 2022.
M. Long, P. Paniagua, G. Grimstad, A. Trafford, S. Degago, and J.-S. L’Heureux, “Engineering properties of Norwegian peat for calculation of settlements,” Eng. Geol., vol. 308, no. 106799, p. 106799, 2022.
T. R. Merlo, “Strategic implications of key performance indicators for knowledge management success in organizations: The balanced scorecard framework,” in Understanding, Implementing, and Evaluating Knowledge Management in Business Settings, IGI Global, 2022, pp. 210–235.
J. J. Hoppner, P. Mills, and D. A. Griffith, “Navigating the demands of increasing customer participation through firm and individual job resources,” Ind. Mark. Manag., vol. 97, pp. 173–182, 2021.
E. Domínguez, B. Pérez, Á. L. Rubio, and M. A. Zapata, “A taxonomy for key performance indicators management,” Comput. Stand. Interfaces, vol. 64, pp. 24–40, 2019.
R. Nehme, A. Michael, and A. E. Kozah, “Performance appraisal and premature sign-offs and underreporting of chargeable time of external auditors – internal benchmarking of experience and gender,” Benchmarking, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, 2020.
Acknowledgements
Authors thanks to Department of School of Management for this research support.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of data and materials
No data available for above study.
Author information
Contributions
All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Julia Armenian
Julia Armenian
School of Management, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina NT 0810, Australia.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Cite this article
Julia Armenian, “A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Benchmarking in SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise and Business Intelligence, vol.2, no.3, pp.121-130, July 2022. doi: 10.53759/5181/JEBI202202013.
