Introduction

Performance is not an easy subject. There is clearly a need to study and rethink what is meant by the performance of the firm and how to measure it. Performance has become the mantra of the 1990s. Many firms claim to be running for performance and seek to measure their performance, improve performance, and compensate their people for performance. Yet, at the same time, there is widespread dissatisfaction with most performance measurement systems. Many firms, perhaps the majority, feel that they have not got it right. A 1995 article in Chief Financial Officer (CFO) begins, “According to a recent survey, 80 percent of large American companies want to change their performance measurement systems.” The high level of dissatisfaction is sometimes attributed to the dearth of non-financial predictors of financial performance: “Yesterday's accounting results say nothing about the factors that actually help grow market share and profits – things like customer service innovation, R&D effectiveness, the percent of first-time quality, and employee development (Birchard, 1995).” At the same time, according to another article in CFO, controllers cite the burdens imposed by “newfangled performance measures,” i. e., non-financial measures, as a key source of burnout CFO (Goff, 1995). Reports like these, though anecdotal, suggest that executives are seeking measures that their controllers have so far been reluctant to deliver, leading to frustration on both sides.

Somewhat better evidence on the quality of measures comes from several surveys conducted by the cost management group of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) beginning in 1992 (IMA, 1993, 1995, 1996).