04 Chapter 4

University of Pretoria etd – Shackleton , C (2007)
CHAPTER 4: ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Performance measurement is virtually always important in management, especially in
highly competitive, dynamic, complex, and global environments where managers are
expected to have a strong grasp on dozens of issues (Fleisher, 2003). This is particularly
true in ensuring that organisations determine, implement and adapt organisational
strategies successfully. An organisation’s strategy is the rudder that steers the ship (Ross
& Kami, in David, 2003:1). The performance measurement system is the glue that holds
the strategy together by consistently evaluating the strategy's effectiveness amidst
unpredictable external forces. Kaplan and Norton’s (2001:2) philosophy, on creating a
strategy-focused organisation, is quite simple: “Measure the Strategy!”
According to Kaplan and Norton (2004:10), an organisation's strategy describes how it

intends to create value for its shareholders, customers, and stakeholders. Strategies are
also the means by which long-term objectives are achieved (David, 2003:11). Essentially,
the strategy should define a set of organisational activities / performances that have to be
accomplished in order to move the organisation in the desired direction. Strategic
organisational performance is thus the performance that the entire organisation
endeavours into, to obtain its goal and vision. Robbins (1987:42) explains that wherever
strategy changes, structure should follow and the structure should then typically
encompass various organisational facets such as; the corporate vision (end goal), mission
(statement of purpose), the various organisational departments or functions, the corporate
culture as well as the organisational activities / performances (David, 2003:7-25).
Considering the above, it would therefore only make sense to measure the impact or the
success of the strategy.
By measuring the impact or success strategy, executives are able to see where the
organisation is heading, how accurate the direction is and how quickly the organisation is
moving towards that direction (Ritter, 2003:44). Performance measurement is like a
speedometer, compass or mirror of a vehicle portraying information about past, current
and expected positions of the organisation (Bititci et al., 2004:28-30; Ritter, 2003:44-48;
Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 1

Robson, 2005:138). Kaplan and Norton (2001:9-17) as well as Bititci et al. (2004:28) claim
that measuring the strategy accomplishes seven fundamental principles:
• The ability to translate the strategy to operational terms;
• The ability to align and integrate the organisation to the strategy;
• The ability to make strategy everyone’s daily job, increasing buy-in at all levels;
• The ability to make strategy a continual process;
• The ability to mobilise change through executive leadership;
• The ability to improve participative and consultative management styles; and,
• The ability to move the organisational culture towards an achievement culture.
The previous chapters have expanded extensively on the scientific approach to

performance measurement in the general business management context. The age-old
saying, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it” (Total Quality Engineering, 2005),
finds its origin and existence in the organisational context, where the Scientific Scholarship
approach to inquiry, dominates. Due to this perception, society has structurally been
conformed into believing that the manageability of an organisation is only achievable
through the execution of quantitative performance measurement. However, if this is not
achievable in a specific area of the organisation, the area in question is then typically
perceived to be of lesser importance to management (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:21).
The meta-theoretical routes, in particular the nomothetic and practical theoretical

approaches, highlight and stress this perception. Where the nomothetic theoretical
approach is concerned with finding universal laws about behaviour and generalising it to
make predictions, the practical theory is designed to capture the rich differences among
situations and provide a set of understandings that allow alternative courses of action that
can be taken (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005:19). The general and quantitative results are the
tools that managers use to measure and adapt strategies. This chapter will therefore
attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the scientific approach that governs the
organisational context; by defining constructs related to performance measurement,
investigating how intangible assets are measured, and examining scientific organisational
performance measurement models and tools.

4.2 CLARIFYING THE CONCEPTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Organisations across the world have realised the importance of measuring their
performance, making this concept one of the most widely researched topics (Kaplan &
Norton, 2001:1). Despite the increased level of interest, expressed in performance
measurement and evaluation, a consensus surrounding the definitions of these terms,
remains elusive (Fleisher, 2003). In addition, Watson and Noble (2005:17) indicate that the
potential for confusion exists, especially because the terms are used interchangeably. The
following section examines the definitions of evaluation and performance measurement in
an attempt to clarify the differences.
4.2.1 Defining evaluation

Evaluation is the means of determining the relative effectiveness of a performance,
programme / campaign, or strategy (Fleisher, 2003), normally done through measuring
outputs and outcomes against a predetermined set of objectives (Macnamara, 2002:13).
The most important objective of evaluation is that it should be part of a programme, which
measures results and assesses its effectiveness (Watson & Noble, 2005:18). As
mentioned in Chapter 3, these stages of a programme or campaign i.e. before, during or
after, offer the ideal setting for evaluation research to be conducted (Grunig & Grunig,
2001:9).
The corporate communication discipline uses this term extensively to evaluate

communication programmes and campaigns (Watson & Noble, 2005:17). Because the
communication department does embark on various communication campaigns,
evaluation can be utilised as an effective means to capture value, by determining the
outcomes of the campaign. This is especially important for intangible assets and value
generated over a long period. In addition, evaluation provides the ability to measure and
benchmark campaigns repeated periodically, in order to make comparisons for continuous
improvement. Understanding that evaluation is programme or campaign based; initiates
the discussion to investigate the meaning of performance measurement.
Arguably, performance measurement should logically entail the measurement of a

performance to determine its success. However, there are many different interpretations
for this statement. The importance and necessity for a cohesive definition, will clarify the

purpose and nature of performance measurement. Identifying what and how something
should be measured, forms an integral part of defining what performance measurement
means to an organisation.
4.2.2 Defining performance measurement

Measurement is the process of assigning a specific quantitative or numerical indicator to
an activity or process (Fleisher, 2003). Seang (2003:1) theoretically defines performance
measurement as, “[t]he process of determining how successful organisations / individuals
have been in attaining their objectives”. This definition is an appropriate description, which
most organisations could generally accept; however, a brief inspection into the
understanding of this term, by industry as well as government, reflected the numerous
customised definitions that do exist for performance measurement today. Comprehensive
examination of all these definitions does not fall within the scope of this study; however, it
will become evident how different organisations provide their own understanding of the
term and reflect this in the type of performance measurement system implemented in their
respective organisations.
Firstly, Interoperability Clearinghouse (2005) identifies performance measurement as the

process of developing measurable / quantitative indicators tracked systematically, to
assess progress made in achieving predetermined goals, and using such indicators to
assess progress in achieving these goals. It is clear from the definition that this company’s
performance measurement system has a quantitative focus, revisited periodically over a
predetermined time. This system follows the typical positivistic process of inquiry,
neglecting valuable inputs otherwise captured through an interpretivistic / constructivist
approach.
Secondly, Daimler Chrysler (2005) provides another industry perspective defining

performance measurement to be, “[a] form of analysis that compares performance. It can
be critically affected by the time period selected. Good performance measurement should
include:
• An analysis of performance over a business cycle (typically 3-5 years);
• The guarantee that like is being compared with like; and,
• An analysis of the reason for any extreme out-or-under performance”.

This definition highlights the importance of conducting performance measurement over a

longer period for benchmarking purposes. It also warns against the tendency to compare
variables that are not similar just for the sake of comparing them. Lastly and most
importantly, it advises the investigation of extreme results for validation purposes.
The two definitions cited above, begin to colour the complexity of this concept. In addition,
governmental views further expand performance measurement; for example, the United
States Department of Transport (2005) defined it as the procedure that supports decision-
making processes. This interpretation unlocks an entirely new dimension to the
understanding of performance measurement. In this context, performance measurement is
not only seen as the ability to determine whether tasks are being performed successfully,
but also whether performance measurement contributes towards decision-making. Here
performance measurement must provide valuable and insightful information that is not only
universal but also comprehensive. Although governed by a nomothetic approach, this
interpretation potentially reveals a gap for the practical theoretical approach, where there
is a need for rich information that surpasses the need for generality.
The above differences in interpretation provide great insight into the way organisations
view their performance measurement systems. However, four aspects can be deducted
from these definitions:
• Performance measurement is used to provide information to decisions makers;
• Performance measurement is used to measure strategies and ensure that they remain
effective;
• Performance measurement is used to measure continuous improvement; and,
• The indicators are generally quantitative or numerical in nature.
From the above it is evident that the most important function of performance measurement
is to evaluate whether or not the organisational strategy is attained. It should also assist in
implementing the strategy by actually measuring the strategy. This in turn fulfils other
important roles of performance measurement such as providing information for decision-
making purposes; creating competitive advantage; systematically integrating and aligning
all levels within the organisation; enforcing continuous improvement; implementing best
practices throughout the organisation as well as creating a performance culture (Robson,
2005:137-145; Seang, 2003:1-5; Zhang, 2003:613-615).

4.2.3 Differentiating between evaluation and performance measurement

The main difference between evaluation and performance measurement is their
objectives. Where evaluation determines the success of a programme or campaign,
performance measurement holistically guides and monitors the entire organisation’s
direction towards achieving the corporate strategy. Performance measurement is a daily
measurement that takes place on every level of the organisation, and integrates the results
to provide a bird’s-eye view of what is going on. Performance measurement makes use of
evaluation to contribute information, about programmes and campaigns designed, to
achieve the strategy.
Where the communication discipline has extensively researched evaluation models (such
as the best practice evaluation models), a need exists to integrate the information gained,
from the evaluation models, into the larger organisational performance measurement
model. In this way, the value generated by corporate communication can be captured and
presented to the entire organisation. It is therefore necessary to investigate organisational
performance measurement models in more detail. However, before attention is awarded to
the various models implemented by organisations today, a discussion about how
performance measurement has changed since its origin and what it should entail is
provided.
4.2.4 The changing role of performance measurement

In the Traditional Management Theory, the dominant view is that all dimensions of
performance can be measured, and all phenomena can be placed in numerical terms (De
Waal, 2003:668; Fleisher, 2003). Fleisher (2003) explains that most measurement circles
have developed from accounting systems originating a millennium ago and are, “[s]till
being performed this way because it has always been done this way”. Tangen (2004:726)
supports this statement indicating that many companies still rely on the traditional
quantitative financial performance measurement systems. Additionally the Goal-Attainment
Approach (from the Organisation Theory) suggests that measuring the accomplishment of
the end goal, known as the bottom line, is the only means to determining organisational
effectiveness (Robbins, 1987:31). These traditional performance measurement theories
have been criticised for narrowly focussing on financial figures, failing to capture
organisational long-term business successes (Bititci et al., 2004:29). Additionally, it has
been said that these measures lack predicative power, reward the wrong behaviour, focus

on a single measure of performance, are inflexible, and do not identify key business
changes until it is too late (Robson, 2005:141; Sim & Koh, 2001:18; Tangen, 2004:727).
Du Plessis, Jooste and Strydom (2001:424) warn that financial measures prohibit the
guidance and evaluation of an organisation’s ability to create future value through
investments in customers, suppliers, employees, processes, technology and innovation.
Ritter (2003:45) expands that financial measures are like the rear-view mirror of a car, they
reflect the impact of decisions adopted in the past, leaving the forward-looking aspect
unattended.
Seang (2003:5) argues that the pressure for reporting on corporate performance today,
has confronted the traditional managerial mindset of historical models for performance
measurement, and has required them to be more innovative. De Waal (2003:669) supports
the argument claiming that a human element should be included in performance
measurement systems. This shift in mindset is illustrated in Table 4.1 where Seang
(2003:5) provided a comparison between traditional and more recent performance
measurement systems.
Table 4.1: The changing focus of performance measurement systems
Traditional Innovative
Based on cost / efficiency Value-based
Performance orientated Performance compatibility orientated
Profit-orientated Customer-orientated
Short-term orientation Long-term orientation
Prevalence of individual measures Prevalence of team measures
Prevalence of functional measures Prevalence of transversal measures
Comparison with standard Improvement monitoring
Aim at evaluating Aim at evaluating and involving
Adapted from: Seang (2003:4)
Table 4.1 clearly indicates that performance measurement systems are moving towards a
relationship-orientated understanding of how the organisation is performing. This view can
be equated to the Systems Approach in the Organisation Theory, as a means to
measuring organisational effectives. Here the end goal (financial) is not ignored, but
treated as only one element in a more complex set of criteria (Robbins, 1987:31). The
long-term survival of the organisation is emphasised as well as the organisation’s ability to
acquire resources, maintain them and interact successfully with its external environment

(Robbins, 1987:35). It can therefore be said that the means of achieving various end
goals, become more important than focusing on one specific financial end goal. In the
traditional performance measurement systems, the actual performance measurement
system is used as a communication device, to admonish employees when financial goals
are not achieved (De Waal, 2003:669). As mentioned earlier, a performance measurement
system should be used to execute and monitor the corporate mission and strategy, rather
than reprimand poor financial performance. There should also be a link between
performance, interaction between systems, human nature, and various outcomes in the
measurement system (De Waal, 2003:668), as there are after all people involved in the
entire measurement process.
The move towards including innovation, relationships and the consideration of the human
factor, might require the use of qualitative measures to capture in-depth information upon
which to base accurate decisions. According to Henning (2004:3-4) the objectives of
performance measurement can be accomplished with quantitative and qualitative means.
Henning (2004:3) distinguishes the two paradigms as being the ‘quest for the inquiry’. A
quantitative technique centres on controlling the components (variables) of investigation. It
also attempts to determine how the variables are related. Henning (2004:4) elucidates that
the process of inquiry is shaped around the ‘quantity of understanding’ thus following a
Scientific Scholarship. This technique allows researchers the ability to capture a
population’s characteristics and perceptions by making inferences from a sample of the
population. An example of this would be investigating an entire stakeholder group’s
perceptions (such as clients), by drawing a smaller representation / sample from the entire
client population. Generalisations are thus possible and are normally quite accurate. There
are many additional benefits resulting from this nomothetic approach, which explains its
popular appearance in organisational performance measurement systems.
Henning (2004:3) further clarifies that a qualitative technique usually evades controlling
variables in an attempt to capture in-depth information. The term qualitative stems from the
word ‘quality’, while Cooper and Schindler (2003:151-152) refer to quality as being the
essential character or nature of something. Qualitative techniques involve the quality of the
variables being investigated and can thus be equated to the Human Scholarship process
of inquiry. The principal benefit to this approach lies in the depth and richness of

information collected. To continue with the above example of client perceptions, this
practical approach can investigate why and how the perceptions are accruing over and
above what they perceive.
Innovative performance measurement models, required to achieve competitive advantage

in today’s day and age, need crucial in-depth information, which can add immense value to
understanding, justifying and predicting trends and behaviours. By combining quantitative
and qualitative measures in the performance measurement models, further synergy is
achievable.
The above discussion reveals that performance measurement systems and the corporate
strategy need to be tightly interwoven. It should evaluate the progress of the strategy on a
day-to-day basis, by means of financial and non-financial elements, and be measured with
both a quantitative and qualitative process of inquiry. Another important element
highlighted by Bititci et al. (2004:39) is that performance measurement systems should
also assimilate cross-functional issues at all levels of the organisation.
4.2.5 Integrating staff and line functions into performance measurement models
Line functionaries are perceived as being essential to the organisation’s survival and are
titled ‘line functions’ due to their ability for influencing and making decisions that affect the
organisation’s bottom line (De Villiers & Crous in Marx et al., 1998:347). Examples of line
functions include Finance, Purchasing, Productions / Operations and Marketing and are
more inclined to produce tangible outputs that are easily measured (De Villiers & Crous in
Marx et al., 1998:347). The tangible outputs that line functionaries produce ultimately
result in what Fleisher (2003) terms comparative economic activities. These include
market, commercial, and transaction exchange based metrics that translate into ROI,
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Product / Service Quality, Investment Intensity, Marketing
Expenditures, and Economic Value Added (EVA) (Fleisher, 2003). All these measures are
quantifiable and have a direct impact on the organisation’s bottom line.
De Villiers and Crous (in Marx et al., 1998:347) describe staff functionaries as the
functions inside an organisation positioned to support the line functionaries. These

functions typically do not affect the bottom line of the organisation but provide support, in
various forms, to assist line functions in achieving their tasks. Staff functionaries include
functions such as HR, Corporate Communication and Information / Knowledge
Management (Marx et al., 1998:32). In the past, these functions were not part of strategic
decision-making, presumably due to a lack of the ability to measure their performance (De
Villiers & Crous in Marx et al., 1998:347). Fleisher (2003), however, highlights the recent
trend to report on non-economic perceptions placed upon organisations, by their
stakeholders. These would include corporate image or reputation, community investment,
CSR, and political influence (Fleisher, 2003). With the development of the triple bottom
line, organisations wishing to achieve success have had to capture intangible values in
their performance measurement systems. In so doing, the need to capture and integrate
the contributions made by staff functionaries have become vital.
From the above, it is clear that the challenges organisations face today, call for new
approaches in their performance measurement systems. However, in changing the
performance measurement systems, transformations, to the business processes,
management styles, and organisational structure, must also take place (Hyman, 2004:2).
This is typical of the Systems Approach in the Organisation Theory, where synergy is
achieved by making the boundaries of various systems permeable and interactive
(Robbins, 1987:31). By allowing the staff and line functions to interact, the performance
measurement model would naturally capture both the quantitative and qualitative
contributions of both groups. The innovative performance measurement models have
identified this need and have started including the human element, as a means to attain
synergy (Sim & Koh, 2001:18). Attention is therefore awarded to way in which
performance measurement systems can incorporate and influence the organisational
culture to achieve competitive advantage.
4.2.6 Performance measurement and organisational culture

The design of performance measurement systems can either encourage a culture of high
performance, or act as a barrier (Robson, 2005:145). Bititci et al. (2004:30) classify drivers
of performance measurement implementations, to be the top management commitment as
well as the perceived benefits arising from designing, implementing and using the
performance measurement system. Sim and Koh (2001:18) state that a further driver of

the performance measurement system could also be the rewarding of behaviour that
contributes to organisational success. Bititci et al. (2004:30) then reveal blockers of
performance measurement implementations to be:
• The time and effort required;
• The difficulty of implementing the performance measurement systems;
• Constraints by the information available from the IT systems;
• Resistance to performance measurement systems; and,
• Whether or not it is a new parent organisational initiative.
When a performance measurement system is incorrectly designed, it can create the wrong
behaviours (Tangen, 2004:728). The minute the performance measurement system makes
employees feel, that they are ‘being controlled’ as opposed to being ‘in control’, rebellion
takes place (Robson, 2005:141). De Waal (2003:696) builds on this, indicating that the
behavioural factors employees want to see in managers, when implementing and using
performance measurement systems, are those of encouragement and support rather than
that of condescendence. Robson (2005:143) explains that developing a culture where
performance measurement is highly regarded and well accepted requires psychological
principles. Appealing to the employees’ sense of pride, and encouraging everyone in the
organisation to think smarter, rather than simply work harder are some examples of these
principles. Bititci et al. (2004:28-41) discovered that implementing the correct performance
management system, directly influences the management style, the buy-in from the whole
organisation, and the establishment of an achievement culture.
Seang (2003:3-4) provides guidelines for best practice performance measurement

systems. These guidelines created to serve specific purposes are most likely found in a
high performing culture:
• Planning, control and evaluation: The process of analysing measurement in order to
make decisions (evaluation) as well as making it central to the operation of an effective
and efficient planning, control or evaluation systems;
• Managing change: The measures should support management initiatives, and the
primary requirement should be to integrate measures vertically (across levels) and
horizontally (across functions);

• Communication: The measurement system should increase constructive problem

solving, increase influence, monitor progress, generate information sharing and feedback
and reinforce behaviour with recognition and reward;
• Measurement and improvement: The reason for measuring should be to support
improvement, and in the end provide the scorecard that reflects how well improvement
efforts are working;
• Resource allocation: The measures should help an organisation to direct scarce
resources towards the most attractive improvement activities;
• Measurement and motivation: The measurement systems should encourage improved
performances by setting individuals achievable and challenging targets;
• Long-term focus: An appropriate performance measurement should ensure that
managers adopt a long-term perspective.
Additional views on what best practice performance measures should entail are provided
by Besterfield, Besterfield-Michna, Besterfield and Besterfield-Sacre (2003:169-170);
Bititci, Turner and Begemann (2000:694); Sinclair and Zairi (1995:55); as well as Tangen
(2004:727). Table 4.2 summarises these criteria:
Table 4.2: Views of best practice performance measurement system and model
Tangen (2004:727-728) Besterfield et al. (2003:169-170) Bititci et al. (2000:694) Sinclair and Zairi (1995:55)
TQM Framework
Support strategic Be simple and understood by those Should reflect measures of inputs,
Should be a dynamic system
objectives who use them process and outputs
Be few in number (where two or
Have appropriate That monitors external and Have process measures monitor the
three be sufficient for a work group)
balance to measuring internal developments and activities of a process and motivate
distinguishing between important or
criteria changes people within a process
unimportant measures
Have a review system to use Have output measures to report the
Guard against creating Be developed by users to ensure
information for future results of a process and to control
unwanted behaviours ownership and buy-in
objectives resources
Have a limited number Have relevance to customer (either Should maintain integrity by Should have a performance appraisal
of measures internal or external) being agile and responsive and management facet built in
The performance appraisal should be
Have an internal deployment the process by which organisations
Retain and promote the focus of
Be easily accessible system to implement revised establish measures and evaluate
improvement
objectives individual employees’ behaviour and
accomplishments
The performance management
Differentiate between
Have comprehensible Show costs and profits and include should be a systematic data-oriented
improvement and control
specifications the costs of measurement approach to managing people at
measures
work on an on-going basis
Should have KPIs to quantitatively
Visibly post measures facility-wide Need to have an IT
assess performance against the
where everyone can see them automated support system
CSFs
Key result measures need to be Provides alarm signals for The KPI should be developed for
guided and balanced by the early warning of potential strategic monitoring at the
interests of all stakeholders performance problems organisational level by senior

managers
Align the measures to all activities Monitors that gains made are
with organisational goals maintained
Ensure that measures are done
Be able to quantify the results
timeously
Organisations across the world face increasing competition; this is because of

globalisation (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:1). To differentiate themselves, organisations are
currently investigating innovative avenues that will provide them with some sort of
competitive advantage over other organisations. Kaplan and Norton (2004:10) claim that
organisations are currently creating sustainable value from leveraging their intangible
assets. Additionally, Sim and Koh (2001:18) explain that strategically orientated
organisational performance measurement models should report on resources such as
intellectual capital, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction or innovation. Marr,
Schiuma and Neely (2004:551) agree, stating that the ‘true’ value of a organisation today
can only be assessed by considering the intangible assets.
4.3 INCORPORATING INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS A MEANS FOR COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE
Value is not tangible in nature, making it difficult to include in financial statements.
Conversely, Brønn, Roberts and Breunig (2004:3) explain that when intangible assets are
incorporated into financial accounting systems, competitive advantage increases.
Competitive advantage provides incremental value when compared to other offerings
(Dwyer & Tanner, 2002:23). This normally occurs in either one or a combination of
marketing principles associated with the product, price, place or promotion (Dwyer &
Tanner, 2002:23). Over the years, however, these principles have proved more difficult to
differentiate, as competitors easily mimic features, price, distribution and various
promotional efforts. In an attempt to gain competitive advantage, organisations are making
efforts to measure these intangible assets, to provide objective information that
management can use, to influence the business outcomes and behaviour of their
shareholders, customers, and employees (Hartman, 2002:12).
Intangible assets include aspects such as human capital (the knowledge and expertise of
employees), responsiveness, culture, customer relationships, customer loyalty, brand
equity / value, quality, innovation capabilities, management capabilities, access to

networks, employee relations, environmental and community issues, databases and

information systems, alliances, technology, high-quality business processes and
intellectual property rights (Brønn et al., 2004:3; Hartman, 2002:17; Kaplan & Norton,
2004:10). Hamrefors’ (2004:1) inclusion of an organisation’s ability to communicate as an
intangible asset is important to this study. These aspects, known as knowledge resources
of the organisation, can provide considerable competitive advantage (Brønn et al.,
2004:3). An organisation's intangible assets may easily represent more than 75% of its
value (Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10), making the strategy formulation, execution and
measurement crucial to the organisation.
When determining organisational direction, Dwyer and Tanner (2002:23) state that many
organisations begin with a vision and a mission – the reason for creating the organisation.
By realising the intangible value contained in these two crucial aspects, organisations are
bound to achieve the quality that will ensure continuous organisation improvement
(Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:1). Developing a vision statement is the first step in strategic
planning; answering the question, “What do we want to become?” (David, 2003:9). The
mission statement is the enduring statement of purpose that distinguishes one business
from other similar organisations (David, 2003:10), thus attempting to gain competitive
advantage. The inclusion of intangible assets in this phase, simplifies the measurement of
intangible assets (as well as the outcomes of staff functions) later on when organisations
execute and measure their performance.
At the strategy formulation process, when the value creation from intangible assets is
considered, Kaplan and Norton (2004:10) advise keeping in mind the following four
principles for measuring purposes:
• Value creation is indirect: Improvements in intangible assets affect financial outcomes
through chains of cause-and-effect relationships.
• Value is contextual: The value of an intangible asset depends on its alignment with the
strategy. If endeavours are not aligned with the organisation’s intentions, resources are
wasted and top managers are frustrated with efforts.
• Value is potential: Intangible assets, like trained employees, have potential value, but not
market value. Internal processes are required to transform the potential value of
intangible assets into tangible value.

• Assets are bundled: The value from intangible assets arises when combined effectively
with other assets, both tangible and intangible. Aligning the organisation’s intangible
assets with one another as well as with the organisation’s tangible assets and strategy
creates maximum value.
These principles have very important implications for measuring corporate communication
as an intangible asset. Brønn et al. (2004:5-7) have explored one such example where
corporate communication contributes to the intangible asset of the organisation’s
intellectual capital. Intellectual capital (otherwise known as ‘knowledge transfer’) consists
of human capital, structural capital and relational capital (Brønn et al., 2004:5; Hamrefors,
2004:13). These authors explain that human capital includes both the collective knowledge
of the organisation and the individual competencies, skills, and experience of people.
Structural capital is the only part of intellectual capital that the organisation does own and
consists of the ‘hard assets’. Relational capital is what makes human capital succeed. It
combines and relates people to each other, allowing them to exchange their knowledge,
skills and insights in different situations.
According to Brønn et al. (2004:6) corporate communication predominantly features in an

organisation’s relational capital, as illustrated in Figure 4.1, because it exchanges
information about an organisation’s reputation, image and identity, and provides the
communication support needed to build relationships. The real intangible value for
communication lies in the knowledge exchange process (Hamrefors, 2004:13). Corporate
communication can create knowledge, by communicating it from the information or tacit
knowledge state (otherwise known as liberated information), into the explicit knowledge
state (which is either communicated or captured information) (Brønn et al., 2004:10). This
is achieved by firstly facilitating contact between the knowledge seeker and the source of
knowledge and secondly, by facilitating other concerns during the transfer of perspectives
between people (Hamrefors, 2004:13). This explicit knowledge is measurable, and the
more knowledge an organisation has, the more intangible assets they have, resulting in
increased competitive advantage (Brønn et al., 2004:11).
When measuring this explicit knowledge, Brønn et al. (2004:13) warn against simply
measuring the amount of contact / exchange sessions that take place to assign a
quantitative figure to this asset (e.g., the number of events hosted for a certain stakeholder

group). These authors also suggest that the measurement system should measure the
quality of the contact / exchange. To achieve this, focussing on the venue where the
exchange process takes place as well as the quality of the network (parties) involved, is
essential.
Figure 4.1: The composition of communications contribution to intellectual capital
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
HUMAN CAPITAL RELATIONAL CAPITAL STRUCTURAL CAPITAL

Knowledge inputs Knowledge production Knowledge landscaping
- hired, leased - - facilitated, motivated - - owned, generated -
Value creation
Communication based:
Exchange selection - reputation, image, identity
Exchange process - communication
Adapted from: Brønn et al. (2004:12)
Apart from knowledge transfer, Hamrefors (2004:1) identifies other areas where
communication strategically contributes towards intangible assets. Naturally, these need to
be captured in the performance measurement system, and Hamrefors (2004:3) suggests
that this measurement take place on an individual and organisational level. In measuring
these intangible assets, Hamrefors (2004:9) centres on two factors namely the focus
(clarity and penetration capability of message) and the variability (degree of interest) of the
communication. Hamrefors (2004:9-15) mentions there are four areas where
communication must be measured according to its focus and variability:
• Knowledge Transfer: The transfer of knowledge facilitated via the intranet and in
meetings.
• Transparency: The use of the intranet, the organisation’s policy statements, and the
social climate, to provide a holistic understanding of the organisation, that will facilitate
transparency.

• Motivation: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are the two areas where communication
can facilitate the Human Resource function.
• Co-ordinating Logic: This facilitates the non-verbal communication such as processes
related to how people work, and the way processes are organised in an organisation.
The intranet is an extremely influential tool in this area.
Hartman (2002:12) provides another view on co-ordinating logic and proposes that an
overlooked intangible asset is an organisation's physical environment. The physical
environment and the messages it sends, should be measured in order to enhance and
report it as an intangible asset or a contributor to social capital (employee relations).
Hartman (2002:17) further recommends that the communication department should be
responsible for the communication encompassing the physical environment, especially for
the purposes of aligning the surroundings with the corporate culture, image, desirable
behaviours, and expected outcomes. The actual measurement or data collection of this
intangible asset may be done with a physical communication audit that raises awareness
of how and what is communicated by the surroundings, and how these align with other
perceptions of the organisation (Hartman, 2002:19).
The above-mentioned examples give an indication of the measurable intangible assets

that corporate communication may bring to the organisation. It is not within the scope of
this study to examine comprehensively all the communication intangible assets; however,
what is of concern to this study, is identifying how these values may be captured in the
greater organisational performance measurement system. This is the reason why the next
section investigates various innovative performance measurement models used by
organisations that incorporate KPIs.
4.4 IDENTIFYING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MODELS

During the last decade, innovative organisational performance measurement models have
shown a visible growth (Fleisher, 2003). Bititci et al. (2004:29) confirms that the past 15
years have seen significant research and development into the field of organisational
performance measurement and assessment. This period saw the creation of numerous
frameworks, models and tools that attempted to address all the new facets of performance
measurement, but only a few of these were entirely implemented in organisations (Kaplan
& Norton, 1996:2; Van Aken, Letens, Coleman, Farris & Van Goubergen, 2003:401).

Fleisher (2003) explains that these tools and models have reached varying degrees of
popularity and usage. Table 4.2 presents frameworks, models, and tools identified by
Bititci et al. (2000:693), Rensburg and Ferreira (2004:6), Seang (2003:4), Tangen
(2004:729-735), Van Aken et al. (2003:402), as well as Wongrassamee, Gardiner and
Simmons (2003:15). Important to this study, is the justification for omitting certain models
from the discussion. Table 4.3 presents these motivations, which include explanations
surrounding, the incapability of capturing intangible assets, the deficiency of
implementation in organisations, and / or the inability to construct and utilise KPIs.
Table 4.3: Performance measurement frameworks, models and tools not included in this study
Date
Model name Developed by Reason for omission
developed
Activity-based costing 1987 Johnson & Kaplan Does not incorporate non-financial or intangible assets.
Does not provide a mechanism to identify KPIs and is considered to

Theory of constraints mid 1980’s Goldratt
be too complex to be practically implement.
It is not a flexibility model that incorporates feedback as an intangible

Sink & Tuttle model 1989 Sink & Tuttle
asset. It also neglects measuring the customer perspective totally.
Performance Pyramid
1992 Cross & Lynch Does not provide a mechanism to identify Key Performance Indicators.
/ SMART system
Bititici, Carrie & Does provide a mechanism to identify KPIs but focuses on financial
Hierarchical Model 1997
McDevitt indicators and productivity.
IPMS - Integrated Does not have the ability to incorporate a communication aspect as an
performance 1998 Bititci & Turner intangible asset; is also a very complex model to implement
Measurement System practically.
Medori & Steeple’s
2000 Medori & Steeple Does not provide a mechanism to identify KPIs.
framework
Does not explain how performance measures are to be realised and

Performance Prism 2001 Neely & Adams
does not provide a mechanism to identify KPIs.
ISO 9000 1987 Various authors & Are standards and do not contain performance measurements models
ISO 14000 1996 institutions to measure those standards.
ISAT - Improvement Van Aken, Letens, Does not have the ability to incorporate a communication aspect as an
System Assessment 2003 Coleman, Farris & intangible asset; is also a very complex model to implement
Tool Van Goubergen practically.
Understanding the above parameters allows the discussion to elaborate on pertinent

performance measurement models. Commencing with a theoretical perspective, a brief
investigation into the Organisation Theory reveals fascinating thoughts appropriate to this
subject. The theory comprises four measurement premises to organisational effectiveness.
These premises (some were mentioned earlier in this chapter), include the Goal-
Attainment Approach; the Systems Approach; the Strategic-Constituencies Approach; and

the Competing-Values Approach (Robbins, 1987:31-49). The Competing-Values Approach

suggests interesting concepts on balancing financial and non-financial end goals and is
therefore the starting point of this discussion.
4.4.1 Examining the Competing-Values Approach

The underlying factor of this approach is that the evaluators, of an organisation’s
effectiveness, assess the performance according to values that are important to them
(Robbins, 1987:42). This approach assumes that these diverse preferences are
consolidated and organised to combine sets of competing values, against which the
organisation’s performance is graphically plotted (Robbins, 1987:43):
• The first set of opposing values is flexibility (concerned with innovation, adaptation and
change) versus control (favouring stability, order, and predictability).
• The second set of competing values includes the development and well-being of people
in the organisation as opposed to the development of the organisation itself.
• The last set relates to the means (stressing internal processes and long-term survival)
against the ends (final outcomes and short-term focus).
These sets are then further divided into eight criteria (or cells) as depicted in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Eight cells of performance measurement in the Competing-Values Approach
Cells Description Definition

OFM Flexibility Able to adjust well to shifts in external conditions and demands.
OFE Acquisition of resources Able to increase external support and expand size of work force.
OCM Planning Goals are clear and well understood.
OCE Productivity and efficiency Volume of output is high; ratio of output to input is high.
Channels of communication facilitate informing people about things that affect
PCM Availability of information
their work.
PCE Stability Sense of order, continuity, and smooth functioning of operations.
PFM Cohesive work force Employees trust, respect and work well with each other.
PFE Skilled work force Employees have training, skills, and capacity to do their work properly.
Source: Robbins (1987:44)
The eight criteria (cells) are then plotted to create a framework as illustrated in Figure 4.2.
While the X- and Y-axes represent the first two sets of values, the means and ends are

represented within the quadrants. As depicted in this framework, the four quadrants are
divided to identify four models of effectiveness values (Robbins, 1987:44).
The effectiveness values of an organisation clarify what is important to that organisation

and where the organisation places emphasis. The Human-Relations model defines
organisational effectiveness as being accomplishing a cohesive workforce (as a means)
and believes in obtaining a skilled work force (as the ends), thus encompassing the PFM
and PFE cells (as depicted in Figure 4.3). The Open-Systems model includes the OFM
and OFE cells and values flexibility (as a means) and ability to acquire resources (as the
end). The Rational-Goal model cherishes plans and goals (as a means) and high
productivity and efficiency (as the end), with cells OCM and OCE. The last quadrant is the
Internal-Process model and emphasises dissemination of information (as the means) and
stability and order (as the ends) including cells PCM and PCE (Robbins, 1987:45).
Figure 4.2: Four models of effectiveness values in the Competing-Values Approach
HUMAN-RELATIONS Flexibility OPEN-SYSTEM

MODEL MODEL
Ends: Skilled work force Means: Flexibility
Means: Cohesive work force Ends: Acquisition of resources
People Organisation
Means: Availability of information Ends: Productivity and efficiency
Ends: Stability Means: Planning
Control
INTERNAL- PROCESSES RATIONAL-GOAL
MODEL MODEL
Adapted from: Robbins (1987:45)
To identify what values are important to the organisation and its strategic stakeholders, the
strategic stakeholders are requested to rate the organisation’s performance on a
questionnaire. The eight criteria or cells (mentioned in Table 4.4) form the questions and
the ratings are done on a scale of 1 to 3 where 1 is ‘Do not agree’, 2 is ‘Somewhat agree’,

and 3 is ‘Strongly agree’. The answers are captured and plotted on the Four Models axis,
as illustrated in Figure 4.3, this identifies graphically, where stakeholders agree or
disagree and where perceptions need improvement (Robbins, 1987:46).
Figure 4.3: Comparing the effectiveness in the Competing-Values Approach
HUMAN-RELATIONS Flexibility OPEN-SYSTEM

MODEL MODEL
PFE OFM
Beta stakeholder group

PFM OFE
People Organisation
PCM OCE
Alpha stakeholder group
PCE OCM
Control
INTERNAL- PROCESSES RATIONAL-GOAL
MODEL MODEL
Adapted from: Robbins (1987:47)
As indicated in Figure 4.3, the two stakeholder groups (Alpha and Beta) have varying
perceptions of the organisation, especially relating to the Internal-Process model
concerning the sharing of information (PCM). Both stakeholder groups do, however,
perceive the organisation to be flexible and in a position to acquire resources (seen in the
OFM and OFE quadrant). An example will highlight the value of the above model. If the
organisation’s managers were group Alpha and the employees group Beta, the difference
in perceived information sharing could indicate a lack of communication between
managers and employees. Managers might think that employees are receiving
communication, while the employees perceive it differently. The problem is compounded
by the fact that both managers and employees believe that the company follows an Open-
System Model, in which the company should be in a position of financial flexibility. Lastly,
the low results obtained in the Human-Relations model for cohesive work forces indicate
that the organisation values financial achievement over employee satisfaction. To

conclude, it would appear that this company focuses more on maintaining financial goals
of acquisition and flexibility than on succeeding in other areas. This model can therefore
visually portray different perceptions of stakeholders and allow comparison against internal
and external perception. It is also useful for benchmarking, as a repeat of the survey would
determine whether any improvement took place.
Robbins (1987:47) explains that the Competing-Values Approach overcomes the problem
of being entirely goal orientated by including both the means and the ends. The author
also commends it for acknowledging that there are multiple criteria (including intangible
assets) and conflicting interests when measuring an organisation’s performance and
effectiveness. Additionally, the model has simplified many criteria into four conceptually
clear organisational models. This theoretical approach provides wonderful insight into
measuring balanced organisational performance, holistically. However, models of
performance measurement used in industry, must receive attention.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, ‘best practice’ refers to executing actions that will achieve
superior results or performance (Seang, 2003:1). This practice entails a belief that the
management of an organisation conducts business in the best manner possible, to
positively influence their shareholders, employees and other stakeholders. Hopefully
continued positive influence will lead these stakeholders to demonstrate loyalty towards
the organisation, thereby sustaining competitive advantage (Zhang, 2003:613-615).
Although best practice is typically exercised in areas such as customer focus and service,
corporate culture, structure, aligned goals and change strategies, Hyman (2004:3)
emphasises the importance of also exercising best practice in performance measurement.
With the notion of, “What you measure is what you get”, Hyman (2004:4) explains that
correctly measuring the right areas inside the organisation will provide the right information
needed to make the right decisions. The concepts of quality and excellence have been a
driving force from the 1980’s serving as underlying factor for measuring according to best
practice principles (Wongrassamee et al., 2003:17). Examples of such best practice
frameworks and models include the Total Quality Management; the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award; and the various Excellence Models (Marr et al., 2004:551).

4.4.2 Examining the Total Quality Management Model

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a philosophy and set of guiding principles that
represent the foundation of continuous improvement in an organisation. Besterfield et al.
(2003:1) analyse the concept TQM as follows: Total stands for ‘made up of the whole’
implying the whole organisation; Quality is the degree of excellence a product or service
provides; Management is the act, art, or manner of handling, controlling and directing.
Therefore, TQM is a way of managing to improve the effectiveness, flexibility, and
competitiveness of a business as a whole (Ho & Fung, 1994:24).
TQM was developed in the early 1980s, after managers, concerned with production (Ho &
Fung, 1994:25), had made frequent trips to Japan to learn about the success the
Japanese have in conducting business (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:6). At a time that only
a few theoretical models had effectively been implemented, literature reveals several
success cases where TQM guidelines were implemented and proved beneficial (Dayton,
2003:391; Ho & Fung, 1994:24; Zink, 1998:1). TQM requires six concepts that must be
adhered to, before the approach can be implemented (Besterfield et al., 2003:10); this
might prove to be one of the reasons for its success:
• A committed and involved management is paramount, to provide long-term top-to-bottom
organisational support;
• An unwavering focus on the customer is essential, both internally and externally;
• Effective involvement and utilisation must be obtained from the entire work force;
• A constant focus on the continuous improvement of the business and product processes,
is vital;
• Suppliers must be treated as partners; and,
• Establishing performance measures for the different processes is crucial.
According to Ho and Fung (1994:25) the basic TQM principles to implementing quality,
revolve around leadership, commitment, total customer satisfaction, continuous
improvement, total involvement, training and education, ownership, reward and
recognition, error preventions, as well as co-operation and teamwork. A study by Dayton
(2003:391-396) tested the current relevance of these principles and discovered that they
still hold true for professionals today. When executing TQM, each principle is looked at
individually, by following a set of unique criteria specific to that principle. These criteria
have to be implemented and measured in the policies and procedures. Although TQM

refers to various measurement tools and techniques for calculation purposes, the only
form of organisational performance measurement model identified is the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award (MBNQA) (Besterfield et al., 2003:191). This model as well as
other Excellence Models is examined in further detail.
4.4.3 Examining the Excellence Models

As derived from the above, quality and excellence, find their roots in TQM where the
MBNQA became the first means to measure the TQM guidelines (Besterfield et al.,
2003:10). The success of this model led to the creation of various similar models, called
the Excellence Models (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:6). These models based on the TQM
principles, vary in the criteria that are specific to the country it was designed for (Rensburg
& Ferreira, 2004:7). Table 4.5 provides a summary of the different Excellence Models, the
dates of creation and regions represented.
Table 4.5: The establishment of Excellence Models
Date Model name County or region

1951 Deming prize Japan
1981 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) USA
1988 Australian Quality Award Australia
1992 European Foundation Quality Award (EFQM) Europe
1994 United Kingdom Quality Award (UKQA) United Kingdom
1997 South African Excellence Model (SAEM) South Africa
Adapted from: Rensburg and Ferreira (2004:7)
The Excellence Models help organisations to integrate key requirements, within a results-
oriented, non-prescriptive framework (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:7; Wongrassamee et al.,
2003:16). The framework then creates a basis for action and feedback. The idea is to
award organisations that have demonstrated excellence, in the management of quality, as
the essential process for continuous improvement (Wongrassamee et al., 2003:16). The
models, worldwide, are based on fundamental criteria (which are embedded beliefs and
behaviours found in high-performing organisations), but differ in the number of criteria
suggested (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:7). A brief discussion of the MBNQA and EFNQA
follows, due to their popularity and international acceptance and owing to the South
African focus of this study, SAEM also receives referral.

The MBNQA consists of seven categories that include non-financial as well as financial
facets (Wongrassamee et al., 2003:16). Organisations are expected to evaluate their own
performance in each criterion, and the organisations’ examiners are given intense training
to qualify them to conduct the evaluations (Besterfield et al., 2003:196). The model is not
prescriptive about the tools, techniques and systems, used to evaluate each criterion, as
they are subject to the organisation’s size, type, stage of development, employee
capabilities and responsibilities (Besterfield et al., 2003:192). The model and scoring sheet
displayed in Figure 4.4 consist of the seven criteria, represented in the model, as well as
its relevant sub criteria. Each criterion has a sub-total, which adds to a total score of 1000.
The final figures in the scoring sheet provide benchmarks for competitive and industrial
stretch goals (Edkildsen, Kristensen & Juhl, 2001:793), simultaneously and ultimately
serving as improvement indicators for the organisation (Besterfield et al., 2003:199).
Figure 4.4: Baldrige criteria for performance excellence framework and scoring sheet
AWARD CATEGORIES AND ITEM LISTING WITH POINT VALUES
1. Leadership 110 5. Human Resource Focus 100

1.1 Leadership System…………………………………...... 80 5.1 Work Systems………………………………………….. 40
1.2 Company Responsibility & Citizenship………............ 30 5.2 Employee Education, Training, & Development……. 30
2. Strategic Planning 80 5.3 Employee Well-Being & Satisfaction…………………. 30
2.1 Strategy Development Process………………………. 40 6. Process Management 100
2.2 Company Strategy…………………………………....... 40 6.1 Management of Product & Service Processes……… 60
3. Customer and Market Focus 80 6.2 Management of Support Processes…………………. 20
3.1 Customer & Market Knowledge………………………. 40 6.3 Management of Supplier & Partnering Processes…. 20
3.2 Customer Satisfaction & Relationship Enhancement. 40 7. Business Results 450
4. Information and Analysis 80 7.1 Customer Satisfaction Results………………………... 125
4.1 Selection & Use of Information & Data…...…............ 25 7.2 Financial and Market Results…………………………. 125
4.2 Selection & Use of Comparative Information & Data.. 15 7.3 Human Resource Results.…………………………….. 50
4.3 Analysis & Review of Company Performance………. 40 7.4 Supplier & Partner Results……………………………. 25
7.5 Company-Specific Results……………………………. 125
TOTAL POINTS 1000

Adapted from: Besterfield et al. (2003:192,194)
The EFQM is a framework based on nine criteria for management practices, as illustrated
in Figure 4.5 (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:7; Wongrassamee et al., 2003:16). These criteria
represent validated, leading-edge practices for achieving performance excellence and are
divided into enablers (what the organisation does) and results (what the organisation
achieves) (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:8; Wongrassamee et al., 2003:17). The enablers
therefore cause the results and are weighted against them (Vos & Schoemaker, 2004:2).
Following a similar concept to the MBNQA, the criteria are weighted into percentages (as
seen in Figure 4.5) and are also assessed using non-prescriptive methods, tools and

techniques. Wongrassamee et al. (2003:17) explains that enablers are scored, according
to two factors, namely approach and deployment. The results factors are the degrees of
excellence of the results, as well as the scope of the results achieved. The ‘blue card’ is
the scoring sheet and works on a similar principle to the MBNQA.
Figure 4.5: The EFQM Excellence Model
Source: Wongrassamee et al. (2003:16)
The SAEM, duly recognised by both the MBNQA and EFQM, incorporates, in accordance
with South African priorities, eleven criteria that carry a local emphasis (Rensburg &
Ferreira, 2004:11). Following the same non-predictive scoring approach as the EFQM,
Figure 4.6 illustrates the criteria.
Various authors like Besterfield et al. (2003:199); Edkildsen et al. (2001:783); Rensburg
and Ferreira (2004:10-11) as well as Wongrassamee et al. (2003:16) highly acclaim the
Excellence Models. There is a range of advantages that these organisational performance
measurement models present. Wongrassamee et al. (2003:21) shed light on some of
these. Firstly, the models assist managers in making effective decisions, by indicating
areas where managers should focus their change initiatives. Secondly, a further benefit is
the focus on information flow. The results are direct feedback of the enablers, and are
implemented in the following year’s business improvement strategies and action plans.

Thirdly, an additional benefit is the non-predictive measurement tools and techniques. For
organisations that already have performance measurement systems in place, this model
can assist them in leveraging their prior investments.
Figure 4.6: The South African Excellence Model
Source: Rensburg and Ferreira (2004:9)
A downside to the models is that they do not suggest which strategies or plans should be
adopted to achieve continuous improvement. In addition, the models do not advise which
measurement methodologies are required to enable measuring the different criteria
(Wongrassamee et al., 2003:21). The fact that measurement methodologies are not
prescribed, can be seen as an advantage (as explained above), however, it can also be
seen as a great disadvantage where organisations are not sure how to implement and
apply their performance measurement models. These models are vague and do not walk
organisations through this journey.
Moreover, where the TQM principles still apply universally (Dayton, 2003:391-396),
Edkildsen et al. (2001:793) discovered that the criteria for the EFQM do not align with the
beliefs of all European organisations. One example indicates that Danish companies do

not consider enablers and results to be of equal importance (as with the EFQM), but have
embraced enablers such as intangible assets as being more important than results (mostly
considered as financial success). Considering Seang’s (2003:4) explanation of evolving
performance measurement systems (presented earlier in the chapter), it seems as if the
Excellence Models have failed to adjust accordingly.
From a communication’s perspective, the models do not refer to any form of

communication. As a result, the need to communicate is not identified and the ownership
of communication strategies and activities are not assigned. The measurement of
communication therefore does not feature in these models.
The TQM and Excellence Model movement led to the development of the ISO 9000 and
the ISO 14000 standards, where the ISO 9000 became the worldwide standard for a
quality management system (Ho & Fung, 1994:25). The ISO 14000 later usurped this
position as the worldwide standard for environmental management systems (Besterfield et
al., 2003:10). This study does not discuss these standards, as they merely prescribe a
standard and do not actually measure the performance of the standard. Although authors
like Ho and Fung (1994:28-30) make reference to the LETQMEX Model, that was
developed by the Leicester Business School, to assist organisations with the
implementation of the ISO 9000 standards, no mention is made of actually measuring
performance in general in the model. Furthermore, Seang (2003:2) argues that developing
KPIs from the ISO standards alone are not sufficient, because the ISO standards focus
only on customer satisfaction.
Due to the non-prescriptive approach, adopted in the Excellence Models, organisations

make use of an assortment of models to evaluate the organisation’s progress towards
excellence. Zink (1998:93-206) presents cases where organisations, entering the EFQM
awards, make use of their own customised models to measure their performance in each
criterion. Alternatively, Ritter (2003:48) explains that the Balanced Scorecard can be
utilised as both a means to evaluate the EFQM and to convert strategy into action.
4.4.4 Examining the Balanced Scorecard

Kaplan and Norton introduced the Balanced Scorecard in 1992 as an organisational
performance measurement model that links with the organisational strategy, by

communicating, implementing and measuring it (Du Plessis et al., 2001:424;

Wongrassamee et al., 2003:19). The Balanced Scorecard is one of the most popular and
widely used strategy implementation and measurement models globally (Hasan & Tibbits,
2000:440; Ritter, 2003:45; Seang, 2003:6). It aims to give managers a comprehensive
view of the business and allows them to focus on the critical areas that drive the
organisation’s strategy forward (Wongrassamee et al., 2003:18). It speaks a language that
executives can apply to direct and prioritise their organisations. It is also a system of
quality control that allows strategic measures to be viewed, not only as performance
indicators in the four independent perspectives, but also as a series of cause-and-effect
linkages among the objectives in the four Balanced Scorecard perspectives (Vos &
Schoemaker, 2004:1). Seang (2003:8) explains that without a comprehensive description
of a strategy, executives are unable to communicate the strategy amongst themselves as
well as towards their employees. Without a shared understanding of the strategy,
executives cannot create alignment around it. In addition, without alignment, neither can
executives implement their new strategies for the changed environment, caused by global
competition, deregulation, customer sovereignty, and advanced technology, nor can they
determine the competitive advantage their company has derived from intangible assets as
well as the human and information capital.
Kaplan and Norton (1996:7) identified two essential flaws in the Balanced Scorecard,
which affect many measurement systems. The first is the failure to measure intangible
assets, and the second, the inability to measure performance on all levels of the
organisation, because the process of strategy and measurement starts at the most senior
level of the organisation and cascades through all the business units and groups in an
integrated fashion (Hasan & Tibbits, 2000:440). The Balanced Scorecard calls on
managers to make a commitment, to introduce an array of financial as well as non-
financial measures and to aid organisations, in obtaining its vision and strategy (Du Plessis
et al., 2001:425; Sim & Koh, 2001:18). Financial measures that indicate past performance
are complemented by non-financial measures that drive future performance (Ritter,
2003:44-45). The model, depicted in Figure 4.7, links existing visions and strategies with
the financial and non-financial measures, and implements them throughout the
organisation, to extend to each employee’s performance measurement model (Cullen,
John, Hassall, & Broadbent, 2003:6).

Figure 4.7: The different levels of the Balanced Scorecard
Source: Ritter (2003:46)
Furthermore, the Balanced Scorecard is set up to focus attention on matters of both

internal and external concern to the organisation (Ritter, 2003:45). Bititci et al. (2004:28)
note that organisations perform better if managed through formalised, balanced and
integrated performance measures. The Balanced Scorecard therefore attracts managers
because of its ability to balance measures between short-term and long-terms objectives;
financial and non-financial measures; as well as lagging and leading indicators, and does
so throughout the entire organisation (Hasan & Tibbits, 2000:440). Moreover, it is
concerned with and about the organisation’s internal and external performance and
stakeholder perceptions.
The Balanced Scorecard addresses four areas where stakeholders’ perceptions may take
shape (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2003:5). These four areas, known as perspectives, are
depicted in Figure 4.8 alongside the questions the organisation should ask itself in each of
the four perspectives. These questions help identify KSFs or CSFs that the organisation
should address, to achieve its vision and strategy (Ritter, 2003:47). CSFs are defined by
Howe (2004:30-33) as those factors, if removed, or not done, that would inhibit the

achievement of the organisation’s vision. Kaplan and Norton (2004:10) explain that the
business strategies as well as its objectives, targets initiatives and measures flow from the
CSF.
Figure 4.8: The Balanced Scorecard
Financial
Improving Achieving
customer shareholders
satisfaction Objectives Measures Targets Initiatives expectation
CSF
CSF
CSF
To succeed financially, how

should we appear to our
shareholders?
Customer Internal Business

Processes
Vision & Strategy:
Objectives Measures Targets Initiatives Objectives Measures Targets Initiatives
CSF
Balanced CSF
CSF
Scorecard CSF
CSF CSF
To achieve our vision, how To satisfy our shareholders and

should we appear to our customers, what business
customers? processes must we excel at?
Learning and
Growth
Objectives Measures Targets Initiatives
CSF
CSF
The company's CSF Adaptability
innovating and inherent in
learning To achieve our vision, how will the company
capabilities we sustain our ability to
change and improve?
Adapted from: Kaplan and Norton (1996:9)
Kaplan and Norton (2004:10) draw attention to the financial perspective and explain that
the financial performance serves as a lag indicator that provides the ultimate definition of
an organisation's success. The strategy surrounding this area would typically describe how
an organisation intends to create sustainable growth, profitability and risk in shareholder
value (Kaplan & Norton, 2001:23). This single measure captures the primary reason for
the organisation’s existence, as most profit organisations’ visions and goals are to create,

sustain and develop profit. This perspective typically asks, “How do our shareholders view
us?” and links the corporate strategy to their financial objectives (Du Plessis et al.,
2001:424-427).
Success with customers is a principal component for improved financial performance

(Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). In addition to measuring the lagging indicators, Kaplan and
Norton (2004:10) explain that the customer perspective should also measure customer
success areas, such as satisfaction, retention, and growth. This perspective defines the
value proposition for customer segments; therefore, choosing the customer value
proposition as the central element of this strategy, it questions, “How should our customers
see us?” (Du Plessis et al., 2001:424; Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). Where a non-profit
organisation employs the Balanced Scorecard, then this perspective becomes the primary
driving force of the organisation (Kaplan & Norton, 2001:134-139).
The internal business processes perspective creates and delivers the value proposition for
customers (Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). Here managers can identify the CSFs within
processes (such as innovation, operations and after-sales service) that they should excel
at (Du Plessis et al., 2001:428). According to Kaplan and Norton (2004:10), the
performance of internal processes is a leading indicator of subsequent improvements in
customer and financial outcomes.
In the last perspective, intangible assets are the ultimate source of sustainable value
creation (Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). Learning and growth objectives describe how the
people, technology, and organisational climate combine to support the strategy.
Improvements in ‘learning and growth’ measures are lead indicators for internal processes,
customer, and financial performance. It thus identifies the importance of investing, for the
future, in areas that are not traditional areas of investment (Du Plessis et al., 2001:429;
Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). This perspective typically questions, “Can we improve what we
do?” (Du Plessis et al., 2001:428).
The Balanced Scorecard is concerned with balancing the four perspectives to achieve all-
round success. Nevertheless, an additional weighting may be allocated to these
perspectives, to address areas of the business that need greater improvement (Brackertz
& Kenley, 2002:133). Senior management usually conduct this process of weighting, with

reference to strategic goals, which can be normalised to any figure ranging from 10-100.
Hasan and Tibbits (2000:441) however caution against making one perspective more
important than another. These authors name cases where organisations have made the
financial perspective more prominent, because it is the easiest to measure. Moreover,
Hasan and Tibbits (2000:441) argue that the whole point of the Balanced Scorecard is not
to measure what is easy, but what really matters. The weighting should therefore be
reflective of the importance of each of the four perspectives, in relation to the
organisation's business aims (Brackertz & Kenley, 2002:134).
The criteria for the divisions may not always adhere to the above-mentioned four
perspectives due to the role they play in the organisation, allowing them to adjust their own
scorecard accordingly. In some cases, even the role of the organisation has resulted in the
adaptation of the corporate scorecard. Ahn (2005:5) describes that a reasonable
percentage of companies have faced problems with the restriction of the four perspectives
and have had to derive their own perspectives, based on their mission and circumstances.
Ahn (2005:7) provides a framework for developing perspectives based on the mission and
strategies of the organisation. A case study of a pharmaceutical company is cited, where
the four perspectives were expanded to five. These were an environmental perspective
(that addressed their environmental responsibility); a quality perspective (that raised the
level of quality); a HR perspective (that had to improve the skills of the employee); a
financial perspective (that would raise contributions); and the customer perspective (that
would increase customer satisfaction) (Ahn, 2005:9-10).
Another example is provided, as a case study, by Brackertz and Kenley (2002:127-135)

where the Balanced Scorecard had been modified to measure a service delivery approach
for an Australian local government authority. This scorecard reflected that facilities of the
building proved a significant contribution to the service experience and thus became a
perspective. The scorecard included the use of the usual financial perspective; a building
perspective (the building perspective brought together several tangible aspects of facility
performance); a services perspective (how well the facility delivered services to the
community in line with the objectives); and a community / customer perspective (the
accessibility to customers).

Apart from defining the correct perspectives, Kaplan and Norton (1996:333) also agree
that many factors could prohibit the successful implementation of the Balanced Scorecard,
and these normally relate to the lack of executive interest and support. Hasan and Tibbits
(2000:442) therefore state that leaders often make use of IT software, to ease in the
implementation of the Balanced Scorecard, because the process of performance
measurement is captured, stored and automated in the IT system, which ensures that
measures remain current, accurate and relevant. Not only is the sustainability of the
Balanced Scorecard then increased, but the running of the scorecard is also kept up to
date. Each scorecard on the organisational and departmental level includes an indication
as to whether or not the objectives are achieved. A green, amber or red light, positioned
with high visibility, portrays the progress (Kaplan & Norton, 1996:50).
A major strength of the Balanced Scorecard is the emphasis it places on linking

performance measures with business strategies (Wongrassamee et al., 2003:10).
Capitalising on this strength, Kaplan and Norton (2001:70) introduced the Strategy Map,
as a framework, to link the Balanced Scorecard with the management of the various
corporate strategies. Motivation for the introduction of the Strategy Map is the fact that
measurement itself creates the focus for the future, and this focus should be integrated
into the management system. Kaplan and Norton (2001:9-60) further explain that the
Strategy Map consists of five specific processes, referred to as the principles of a
Strategy-Focused Organisation, and include:
• Principle 1: Clarifying and translating the strategy in operational terms: initiated by
building a Balanced Scorecard that communicates the corporate strategy in all four
perspectives.
• Principle 2: Aligning the organisation to the strategy: especially important for large
organisations that have multiple divisions and business units; accomplished by
transmitting strategic objectives in the scorecards of the divisions and business units.
• Principle 3: Making strategy everyone’s day-to-day job: the scorecard is the bridge that
translates the strategy at the top, into operational actions at the bottom: emphasis is
placed on the fact that everyone in the organisation must understand the strategy and
ensure their actions are in alignment with the strategy.
• Principle 4: Making strategy a continual process: entails reviewing the strategy at least
once a year, for updates, to reflect new opportunities and competitive conditions.

• Principle 5: Mobilising change through executive leadership: in many cases, the

Balanced Scorecard initiative is implemented with a lot of energy, but not sustained.
Kaplan and Norton (2001:59) explain that non-involvement from the executive causes
this subsidence.
The power of the Balanced Scorecard is the ability to link the performance measures to
the strategic intent of the organisation. The process of strategy mapping clarifies the
relationships of the four perspectives in a strategic manner (Seang, 2003:6). Figure 4.9
depicts an example of a ‘Value for Money’ Strategy Map, and reflects the integration of
vertical linkages from operational measures through to financial measures. The corporate
objective is to increase the shareholders’ value in the company. Revenue growth and
productivity is of importance to shareholders. The customer wishes to obtain products /
services of the highest quality at the lowest cost. The ability to satisfy the customers must
result in the shareholders’ value. The organisation needs an internal capability, to achieve
the outcome perceived by customers as their value-for-money requirement. The
development of this internal capability must be able to support the customer-related
strategy. As the market is dynamic, the company must be able to maintain its ability to
meet both future challenges as well as growth. Strategies to develop new internal
competencies are necessary, for the continuing survival of the enterprise.
In the Strategy Map, of Figure 4.9, the circles represent the CSFs for each of the four
perspectives. The arrows represent the strategic linkages between the CSFs (Kaplan &
Norton, 2001:72). Each CSF needs at least a key performance measure to monitor and
control the business. The process of strategy mapping, when adequately executed, will
deliver KPIs, which are relevant, purposeful and useful for strategic monitoring as well as
the management control of the business (Seang, 2003:6). The KPIs will in turn facilitate
useful and crucial inputs for the strategic and management reviews of the business.
Sim and Koh (2001:19) determined that the Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map were
well accepted, because many big corporations implemented the Balanced Scorecard with
varying levels of satisfaction. These authors’ research into 83 North American companies
proved that these companies’ investment into the Balanced Scorecard, correlated directly
with the phenomenal results they obtained after implementing the performance
measurement model. Sim and Koh (2001:24) cite cases where results ranged from

financial and market share growth, to employee and stakeholder satisfaction, to name but
a few.
Figure 4.9: The Balanced Scorecard’s Strategy Map
Source: Seang (2003:6)
Nonetheless, the popularity of the Balanced Scorecard has also led to critique from
various authors (Rensburg & Ferreira, 2004:17). Table 4.6 presents a synopsis for both
positive and negative critique, received from the following authors: Active Management
(2004); Du Plessis et al. (2001:429-430); Kaplan and Norton (2004:10); Ritter (2003:46-
47); Hasan and Tibbits (2000:442); Seang (2003:8); Tangen (2004:731); Van Aken et al.
(2003:402); as well as Wongrassamee et al. (2003:21).
Despite the varying opinions, this study incorporates the Balanced Scorecard because it
forms a basis for the development of KPIs and is able to measure intangible assets
(Seang, 2003:5-6). In addition, from a practical point of view, if corporate communication
wishes to become part of an organisational performance measurement system, then
models, that have successfully been implemented and maintained, are vitally important.

Table 4.6: Benefits and shortcomings of the Balanced Scorecard
Benefits of the Balanced Scorecard Shortcomings of the Balanced Scorecard
Translates strategic objectives into tangible goals and actions. Time-consuming.
Places strategy and vision at the centre, not control. Expensive to implement.
Measures designed to pull employees towards the overall vision. Requires additional administrative workload.
Long-term objectives are made measurable. Potentially complex.

Requires the participation and commitment of employees to
Communicates and commits to organisational strategy.
succeed.
Facilitates effective management and focuses on improvement. The four perspectives are not comprehensive enough.
Can integrate with existing management processes. Considered too subjective.

Is applicable to not-for-profit as well as small, medium or large
Reward structures are not mentioned in detail.
organisations.
Simple to understand and has a visual impact. It has not always been implemented successfully in companies.
Implementation into divisions has not always been done
Increases transparency, being visible to all.
successfully.
Change of top management greatly limits the effectiveness of
Provides timely and accurate feedback.
the model.
Uses data, which is automatically collected as part of a process
Does not consider a competitor perspective.
whenever possible.
It minimises information overload, by limiting the number of Provides little guidance on how the appropriate measures can
measurements considered. be identified.
Recognise the cause-and-effect relationships, identifying all
The scorecard is a non-prescriptive template leaving companies
activities that act as a trigger to reach established goals to
to design their own models.
correctly allocate resources.
They facilitate top-down communication of objectives and the
alignment of key processes to the strategy.
Measurement parameters verify the success or failure of certain
strategies.
Has IT software to facilitate the automation of the measurement
process.
The above section has examined influential organisational performance measurement

models that incorporate intangible assets and form the basis for developing KPIs. This
permits the discussion to investigate KPIs.
4.5 DEFINING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Naturally, the act of simply measuring performance would not provide a proactive
perception of goal and strategy achievement. Likewise, KPIs do not have meaning, unless
they are linked to an evaluation system (Seang, 2003:1). An organisation's performance
should be systematically tracked and interpreted through performance indicators (Bauer,
2004). These indicators need to assess the progress of performance, and provide reliable

information to decision makers. Furthermore, Hyman (2004:4) firmly links KPIs to effective
performance management systems, arguing that by measuring correctly, managers will
obtain the right information.
Most authors agree that KPIs are quantifiable measurements that gauge the outcome of a
CSF, goal, objective or performance (Bauer, 2004; Eastern Kentucky University, 2003;
Reh, 2005; University of Cape Town, 2001). Authors highlight that KPIs must also track
and benchmark outcomes at all levels of the organisation over time, and that they become
the focal point for organisation-wide standardisation, collaboration and co-ordination on a
daily / weekly / monthly basis (Bauer, 2004; Howe, 2004:46). KPIs have long-term
considerations and implications and should therefore not be subject to frequent change of
definition and measurement (Reh, 2005).
Bauer (2004) and Reh (2005) expand that KPIs have to be developed and agreed upon,
before activities are undertaken, because they reflect strategic value, rather than business
activities and processes. Following the development and negotiations, KPIs are cascaded
through all levels of the organisation, to create accountability (Bauer, 2004). It is important
to take note that, as in the case of implementing an incorrect performance measurement
system, the selection of wrong KPIs, could result in counterproductive behaviour and sub-
optimised metrics (Bauer, 2004).
4.5.1 The purpose of Key Performance Indicators

As explained by the definition of KPIs, its main role is to measure outcomes. Harrison
(2006a) simplifies this concept by explaining that KPIs describe the events if and when an
employee, department or organisation fulfilled a particular role. Harrison (2006a) elicits
that KPIs are therefore not an activity, but an outcome that needs to be measured, and
that the outcome, irrespective of the level, should be business related. In other words,
there must be a holistic set of integrated measures that are linked to the mission,
objectives, vision and strategies (Seang, 2003:5-6).
Reh (2005) also refers to KPIs as Key Success Indicators (KSIs) which help an
organisation define and measure progress towards organisational goals. Once the mission
has been analysed, stakeholders identified, and goals defined, KPIs are set in place to

measure progress towards goals. KPIs will therefore differ, depending on the nature and
requirements of the organisation.
4.5.2 Incorporating Key Performance Indicators into performance measurement

models
Kaplan and Norton (2001:103) explain that KPI scorecards were founded when IT
departments in organisations developed databases that supported the strategy; or when
consulting organisations installed large IT systems. Therefore, Bauer (2004) explains that
most software applications, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Supply Chain
Management (SCM), Business Intelligence (BI), Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) and Business Process Management (BPM), offer standard KPIs built into their
packages. Conversely, these KPIs might not truly represent the critical business drivers
(Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10). According to Seang (2003:2) there are three distinct models
for the creation of best practice KPIs. The first is the Hierarchical Model, which this study
did not discuss, due to its lack of intangible asset focus. The second is the Balanced
Scorecard and the third model is the value chain. Despite this, Seang (2003:2) does
explain that KPIs may be incorporated in any structure as long as it was created on an
effective performance measurement system or model, such as the Excellence Models or
the aforementioned three models.
At this point in this discussion, the question arises, as to the necessity of KPIs for the
measurement of corporate communication. Seang (2003:7-8) explains that it is not
sufficient to know where you are headed (vision), but that the direction should be
supported by the how (strategy), the what (objectives), the focus areas (CSFs), the action
(key action initiatives), as well as the metrics (KPIs) to realise full actuation.
Comprehensive and consistent alignment up and down the pyramid is essential. As
previously stated, KPIs are known to feed directly from the vision and the strategy,
measure various organisational levels and departments, and can be easily constructed to
fit into the organisation's current performance measurement systems. By determining KPIs
for corporate communication, the function’s alignment to the corporate vision, objectives,
strategies, and CSFs are guaranteed.

4.5.3 Requirements for constructing Key Performance Indicators

According to Seang (2003:2) management must take into consideration three important
aspects in the construction of KPIs:
• Productivity: Monitors the enterprise’s performance in its resource utilisation to create
values;
• Total quality: To monitor the organisation’s continual self-improvement and ability to
adjust to the changing environment; and,
• Competitiveness: To monitor the organisation's long-term attractiveness to its customers
and its shareholders.
In addition, Bauer (2004) explains that KPIs should reflect the strategic drivers and
question what should be measured to achieve this. The number of metrics and the
frequency of measurement should be considered. Accountability has to be assigned and
figures that can be benchmarked need to be allocated. It is important to establish the
means of measurement (or collecting data), to determine if the outcome was actually
achieved.
The most important criterion for developing KPIs, as mentioned before, is the need to be
created from an effective performance measurement system or model. From their
research, Kaplan and Norton (2001:103), highlight that those organisations, which failed to
link KPIs to strategies, were unsuccessful, because the KPIs became a ‘dangerous
illusion’ as CSF, linking to overall business objectives, which were not being appropriately
measured. Cullen et al. (2003:7) agree, emphasising the importance of recognising that
KPIs on their own can be dysfunctional, unless they are grounded within the culture of a
strategy-focused organisation, which is maintained by an effective performance
measurement system. Seang (2003:1) explains that best practice in KPIs, refers to the
process of developing useful performance measures for an organisation. The process is
good if it integrates the entire organisation. A given, is the fact that a performance
measurement model provides the framework for strategy measurement and is refined by
the KPIs. Useful and effective KPIs therefore have to come from a well-formalised
performance measurement system or model. Kaplan and Norton (2001:103) as well as
Seang (2003:1) emphasise that KPIs cannot be created, unless they are developed from
an effective performance measurement system or model.

The second vital criterion for developing KPIs is that it should represent all levels of the
organisation including individuals, teams, processes, departments and the organisation as
a whole (Seang, 2003:2). In so doing, it should maintain a view of continuous improvement
against organisational objectives. The KPIs are therefore outcomes that provide evidence
about how successfully the organisation’s objectives are being met. In this way, individuals
understand what they need to do, to contribute to the higher-level goals of the
organisation.
Apart from the above criterion, authors Harrison (2006a); Howe (2004:46); Neely,
Richards, Mills, Platts and Bourne (1997:1140); Ritter (2003:45); Seang (2003:9); as well
as Sinclair and Zairi (1995:55) provide requirements that KPIs should address:
• KPIs should have a title that explains what the measure is and why it is important.
• KPIs are developed from the strategy and are related to specific goals or targets.
• KPIs should have a purpose; therefore, the rationale underlying the measure has to be
specified.
• KPIs are outcomes or will produce outcomes.
• KPIs should be limited to a maximum of five per level (or individual), otherwise it
becomes impossible to fulfil. Should there be a requirement for additional KPIs, these
are likely to be subsets of the ‘larger KPI’.
• There should be at least one KPI for each CSF.
• Each department and individual; should set KPIs that are aligned with the organisation’s
KPIs.
• KPIs should stretch the organisation or department, but remain realistic and achievable.
• KPIs should be clear, concise and simple to understand.
• KPIs should be easily measured by an explicitly defined formula. The formula is

important because the way performance is measured, affects how people behave. The
right formula ensures the right behaviour.
• KPIs should provide timely and accurate feedback.
• KPIs can be weighted to prioritise importance and relevance for an organisational,

departmental and individual level.

• KPIs should be a repeated activity for benchmarking purposes.
• KPIs should be measured from one period to the next.
• KPIs should have a predefined frequency of measurement and review.
• KPIs should define whom and by what means performance is going to be measured (the
person who is to collect and report the data should be identified).
• KPIs should define who should take responsibility to act on the data received.
• KPIs should define what these individuals should do when taking responsibility for
actions.
• KPIs should not be copied; they are dependant on the organisational context. However,
the process of developing the KPIs may remain the same.
This development process of creating KPIs can be approached by focusing on three

characteristics namely, formalisation, integration and utilisation. Figure 4.10 provides a
graphical illustration.
Figure 4.10: Constructing Key Performance Indicators
KPI
Formalisation Integration Utilisation
1. Measure 1. Financial 1. Planning, control

• Definition • Costing & coordination
• Responsibility • Balance sheet 2. Involving
• Detail • Budgeting employees
2. Measurements 2. Planning & 3. Benchmarking
• Reporting control 4. Innovation &
• Procedure 3. Strategic improvement
planning
Adapted from: Seang (2003:10)
According to Seang (2003:9), formalisation addresses the planning phase of KPIs,

answering the questions, "What will be measured?" and "How will it be measured?” The

second characteristic refers to the ability that KPIs have to integrate various areas of the
business (substantially elaborated on earlier in this chapter). In this context, the integration
is expanded to include the planning, budgeting and controlling of KPIs. This not only
ensures that each KPI integrates seamlessly with the rest of the organisation, but
guarantees that KPIs obtain the relevant resources to be practically implemented. The
third characteristic deals with the purpose of KPIs. KPIs should always be formulated for a
specific reason. The most widespread intention is the ability to benchmark the
organisation’s own performance and to compare competitors’ performance.
4.5.4 Practical examples of Key Performance Indicators

In providing examples of KPIs featuring in a performance measurement model, the
following hypothetical simplistic scenario is described. Company XYZ employs the
Balanced Scorecard, and has a corporate strategy, to increase and sustain high levels of
awareness amongst prospective and current stakeholders. The strategic objective is, ‘To
generate positive awareness about the company and its brands’, and the target is set for
the following year (2008). The CSF for each perspective (that would contribute to the
attainment of the strategic objective) is defined in its relevant perspective. At this stage the
organisational KPIs (which is the ultimate outcome) is determined, which could be, ‘To be
the country’s most talked about company of the year 2008’. This goal requires both the
internal and external stakeholders to be measured, as both sides are affected. An external
company, that does annual research in naming the countries' most talked about company
for that year, can do the external measurement of this KPI. The internal measurement is
made part of the performance appraisal process, or measured via an internal audit.
The achievement of this strategic objective has been identified as crucial to realising the
vision of growth; therefore, senior managers have decided to assign a higher weighting
than the other strategic objectives. Consequently, the CSF and KPIs, representing this
strategic objective, will be weighted accordingly.
The next step is that the divisions / departments affected by the strategic objective and the
organisational KPI, will have their own scorecards representing this. In the HR
departmental scorecard, the CSF would generate internal excitement surrounding this
strategic objective. A KPI could increase employee satisfaction that will generate positive
‘Word of Mouth’. Various action plans are then established to ensure that this is achieved

(Harrison, 2006a). The communication department’s CSF could be to assist the HR

department in generating internal satisfaction, by improving internal communication. A KPI
would be the generated positive communication amongst employees. Action plans could
be the creation of blogs or cafeteria campaigns, aimed at stimulating positive
communication or ‘Word of Mouth’. In this way, the strategic objective will cascade through
other departments and the KPIs weighted accordingly.
On an individual level, satisfaction is determined by growth, remuneration and other

variables. Therefore, the individual’s KPIs could be, ‘To ensure that skills are developed to
remain competent’. An activity could be, to attend regular training that is relevant to the
skills needed to perform the relevant job. A practitioner, who is responsible for sending
newsletters to all stakeholders, might have to manage the database. An individual KPI
would then be ‘to learn how to operate Microsoft Access up to a competent level by 30th
September 2008’. In the performance appraisal, the employee, his / her peers and
manager rate the employee’s skills on Microsoft Access. The total score is averaged and
multiplied by the weighting. The weighted figures are extremely important, especially if the
performance appraisal model is pay related. This score could contribute heavily toward the
individual’s bonus and thus provide a large incentive to achieve the KPIs.
This process continues for every employee in every department and the total score is then
brought back to organisational level. As this KPI had a target of a year, the monitoring /
tracking figures would occur every quarter when ‘mini performance appraisals’ are
conducted. These tracking figures provide the data for the green, amber or red lights. By
the end of the year, the internal and external KPI score, for the employer of choice, is
reviewed. Depending on the results, new strategies might be developed to maintain or
improve the KPIs and the weightings of those KPIs might be adjusted.
A schematic representation of Balanced Scorecard matrix has been created and is

depicted in Figure 4.11. This matrix relays what the scorecard (known as a dashboard)
may look like and ultimately presents the ‘bird’s eye view’ of either the organisation or its
divisions. This is a simplistic, framework of a department’s scorecard and illustrates where
KPIs feature and how the Balanced Scorecard is operated. This is where everything is
represented from the four perspectives, to their CSF to the KPIs as well as the means of
measurement.

Figure 4.11: A framework for the Balanced Scorecard
Considering Figure 4.11, the first column contains perspectives. The second column
specifies the strategic objectives or CSF as defined in the corporate Balanced Scorecard
or Strategy Map. The next column (Objective Weightage) defines the relative weightage of
each CSF. This column is further divided to represent three years of weighting (useful for
benchmarking and planning purposes). Depending on the organisation, the weighted score
would be normalised to 100 to derive the performance metric. The following column
indicates the role / person who will be responsible for monitoring and ensuring that the
CSF is achieved. In most cases, this will be a senior manager. The next section represents
how the strategic objectives will be measured. The first column represents the KPIs where
the outcome is defined. The rational column presents reasons for the importance of the
measure. This classifies the measure as a lead or lag indicator (where lag indicators
inform of a past result, and lead indicators signify an emerging trend and serve as early
indicators / warnings). There should be a mix of both. The frequency at which the review
will be measured is then decided, followed by the calculation method. This column
determines whether the measure will be a formula or a quantitative / qualitative measure.
Once again, it is advised to make use of quantitative measures. To be able to determine
the measure, the data source and quantity will also be specified. Next, the actual metrics
occur, initiated with normalised, average and quantified weightings for year one, two and
three. The targets are specified, followed by the green, amber and red indicators. The last
section enumerates the initiatives or action plan that will contribute to the corresponding

strategic objectives. In addition, the owner of each task will subsequently follow up with the
activity.
The above is merely one practical example of how KPIs might be constructed from the
vision and strategy stage to the individual level of the organisation. Ritter (2003:44-59)
provides another example in the development of the corporate communication scorecard.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Ritter (2003:44-56) explained how to create a corporate
communication scorecard and in so doing, determine the KPIs relevant to the scorecard.
This chapter therefore awards attention to Ritter’s (2003:48-59) actual KPIs created for the
case study of Siemens in Argentina. These were developed from the company's EFQM
model (completing steps of 1-5), the corporate communication Balanced Scorecard and
strategy map.
From this point, Ritter (2003:44-59) explains how each perspective of the communication
strategy map then incorporated a CSF and KPIs with defined measurement standards,
methods and frequencies. These are listed in Table 4.7 where the financial perspective is
listed first, then the customer perspective, followed by the innovation and learning
perspective and lastly the internal processes perspective. What Ritter (2003:56-58)
identified, is that there were KPIs for communication in every perspective which
contributed to the overall vision and strategy of Siemens Argentina. Ritter (2003:56-58)
provided the following guidelines:
• Construct the graphical scorecard or matrix to resemble the organisation’s scorecard;
• Encourage simplicity and allow the scorecards to effortlessly indicate the current
position, the trend predicted, and the target;
• Automate the creation of the scorecards; and,
• Ensure that it is easily maintained with user-friendly software applications throughout the
entire organisation (e.g., Microsoft Office Excel).

Table 4.7: Key Performance Indicators for corporate communication
KPI Measurement standard Measurement method Updating frequency Target

SSA image and reputation for Brand awareness Image research Every four years
stakeholders Attributes
Ranking and prestige position Ranking and scoring Publishing in the Clarin Annual
position newspaper and
Negocios (‘Business’)
Magazine
Resource management R&CC express SAP Monthly
Advertising Investment SAP Annual
Billing / total advertising Company-owned Annual

Investment rate
Negotiations of media fees Company-owned Monthly
Internal publication costs SAP In every issue
Internal Communication Relevance, credibility and Working climate survey Every 18 months
timeliness of
communication Staff
Communication attitude “Mystery shopper” Every two years
and behaviour towards telephone survey
third parties
R&CC reputation as centralised Internal customers’ Internal survey on Annual
sector that adds value to the satisfaction rate satisfaction
business
Efficiency and relevance of the Relative attributes Image research Every four years
management of institutional and
community relations
SSA and community Management press Monthly
media impact report
Advertising management Satisfaction rate Internal survey on Annual
efficiency satisfaction
Press management efficiency Internal customers’ Internal survey on Annual
satisfaction rate satisfaction
Journalists’ satisfaction Survey on external Every two years
rate customers’ satisfaction
(Journalists)
Efficiency of the internal Reader’s satisfaction rate Readers’ survey Every three years
publications Nosotros (“We”) and
Liderando (“Leading”)
Benchmark with LA branches Staff / advertising budget Statistics Every three years
rate
Staff / structure expenses Statistics Every three years
rate
Motivation Satisfaction rate Working climate survey Every 18 months
Skills / competencies Requested / existing PAMD (planning, Every two years

competencies rate analysis and
improvement
programme for staff
performance)
Compensation / job HAY level Annual
responsibility rate, within
the framework of the
compensation overall
policy

KPI Measurement standard Measurement method Updating frequency Target

Innovation/best practices R&CC as benchmark/best Awards and prizes, Annual
in class articles published
EFQM programme
Productivity Productivity rate per Annual
employee, according to
advertising, press, PR
and R&CC
management
Efficiency in the execution of Project’s satisfaction rate After-project survey After each case
large advertising projects
Overall satisfaction rate Internal survey on Annual
customers’ satisfaction
Efficiency when undertaking Number of lost Statistics Annual
press activities opportunities to have
articles written
Reaction against urgent Response time Annual
request and crisis events statistics
Overall satisfaction rate Internal survey on Annual
Information management Number of press releases Statistics Annual
sent and co-ordinated
press interviews
Number of advertising, Statistics Annual
promotion and PR projects
undertaken
Number of orders and Statistics Annual
invoices processed
Assessment of external need for Qualitative Image research Annual
information about Siemens (opinion leader
segment)
Qualitative Survey on external Every four years
(Journalists)
Media positioning of SSA and its IMA and VAP index media Management press Every two years
competitors portfolio report
Strategic positioning of Advertising portfolio Olivera Bureau Report Monthly
competitors’ advertising
investment
Visits to the company’s internet
Statistics on number of Comsat Report Monthly
portal “unique users”, most
visited sites and length of
visit
Adapted from: Ritter (2003:51-56)
The previous section has provided insight into what KPIs are and how they should be
constructed, and examples of corporate communication KPIs were provided. Although the
examples differ in operation, it is clear from the above discussion that literature
recommends KPIs to be constructed from the vision and strategy phase, and be created
within a performance measurement model that measures and monitors this strategy. It is
also clear from the above discussion that every organisation should have a unique set of

KPIs that is relevant to their context and vision. It is important to understand that a set of
KPIs cannot be prescribed to an organisation, as the process of creating KPIs should align
all levels of the organisation. This unity is the reason for why performance measurements
are successful. Additionally, it should involve individuals from senior management through
to employees on all levels.
4.6 CONCLUSION
Although this chapter is by no means a comprehensive exploration into the field of
organisational performance measurement and employee performance appraisal, the
content does provide valuable insight into the requirements of a measurement system that
measures the effectiveness of the entire organisation’s abilities.
Understanding the difference between evaluation and performance measurement, and the
way this has always been applied to the communication discipline, is important to this
study. The discussion up-and-until now, sheds light on the problems faced by corporate
communication and rationalises why frustration exists between CEOs and practitioners.
The discussion identifies that when integrating corporate communication’s contribution into
the performance measurement model of the organisation, synergy is achieved amongst all
the divisions of the organisation and corporate communication practitioners are able to
‘speak the language of the CEO’.
A conclusion can be made that the evaluation techniques and models identified in Chapter
3, are essential in determining the success of various communication campaigns.
However, where the evaluation techniques are narrowly focused on the activities of the
campaign, the performance measurement model integrates the efforts of all the
departments and provides a holistic picture. If corporate communication departments really
wish to illustrate the intangible value they contribute, it must be built into the organisational
performance measurement model. This is the reason why communication should be
represented at a top management level, to ensure that the communication strategies,
target, objectives, activities, KPIs and performance measurements are aligned to those of
the organisation.
Furthermore, the discussion surrounding the changing role of performance measurement

models, has illustrated the move to include non-financial measures. It is clear from the

various sources consulted that best practice performance measurement models need to
be quantitative in nature for comparison and benchmarking purposes. The investigation
into various performance measurement models, that capture intangible assets, has
provided insight into identifying ways of capturing non-financial measures, and reporting
them in quantitative means. It can therefore be concluded that the intangible value created
by corporate communication can be captured and reported in quantitative ways.

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement

51

04 Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Pretoria etd – Shackleton , C (2007)

CHAPTER 4: ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

According to Kaplan and Norton (2004:10), an organisation's strategy describes how it

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 1

The previous chapters have expanded extensively on the scientific approach to

The meta-theoretical routes, in particular the nomothetic and practical theoretical

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 2

4.2 CLARIFYING THE CONCEPTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

4.2.1 Defining evaluation

The corporate communication discipline uses this term extensively to evaluate

Arguably, performance measurement should logically entail the measurement of a

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 3

4.2.2 Defining performance measurement

Firstly, Interoperability Clearinghouse (2005) identifies performance measurement as the

Secondly, Daimler Chrysler (2005) provides another industry perspective defining

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 4

This definition highlights the importance of conducting performance measurement over a

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 5

4.2.3 Differentiating between evaluation and performance measurement

4.2.4 The changing role of performance measurement

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 6

Table 4.1: The changing focus of performance measurement systems

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 7

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 8

Innovative performance measurement models, required to achieve competitive advantage

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 9

4.2.6 Performance measurement and organisational culture

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 10

• The time and effort required;

• The difficulty of implementing the performance measurement systems;

• Constraints by the information available from the IT systems;

• Resistance to performance measurement systems; and,

• Whether or not it is a new parent organisational initiative.

Seang (2003:3-4) provides guidelines for best practice performance measurement

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 11

• Communication: The measurement system should increase constructive problem

interests of all stakeholders performance problems organisational level by senior

Organisations across the world face increasing competition; this is because of

4.3 INCORPORATING INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS A MEANS FOR COMPETITIVE

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 13

networks, employee relations, environmental and community issues, databases and

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 14

According to Brønn et al. (2004:6) corporate communication predominantly features in an

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 15

Figure 4.1: The composition of communications contribution to intellectual capital

HUMAN CAPITAL RELATIONAL CAPITAL STRUCTURAL CAPITAL

Adapted from: Brønn et al. (2004:12)

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 16

The above-mentioned examples give an indication of the measurable intangible assets

4.4 IDENTIFYING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MODELS

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 17

Does not provide a mechanism to identify KPIs and is considered to

It is not a flexibility model that incorporates feedback as an intangible

Does not explain how performance measures are to be realised and

Understanding the above parameters allows the discussion to elaborate on pertinent

Chapter 4: Organisational performance measurement 18

the Competing-Values Approach (Robbins, 1987:31-49). The Competing-Values Approach

4.4.1 Examining the Competing-Values Approach

Table 4.4: Eight cells of performance measurement in the Competing-Values Approach