Proceedings,16th IFAC Symposium on

Proceedings,16th
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC
IFAC Symposium
Symposium
Problems on
on
in Manufacturing
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC Symposium
Problems in Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
on
Manufacturing
Information Control
Proceedings,16th Problems
IFAC
Bergamo, Italy, June in
Symposium
11-13, 2018 Manufacturing
on
Information
Bergamo, Control
Italy,
Bergamo, Italy,
Information June
Control Problems
11-13,
JuneProblems in
2018
11-13, 2018 Manufacturing
in Manufacturing
Bergamo,
Bergamo, Italy,
Italy, June
June 11-13,
11-13, 2018
2018 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551
State
State of
of the
the art
art and
and generic
generic framework
framework for for performance
performance indicator
indicator system
system
State
State of
of the
the art
art and
and generic
generic framework
methods
framework
methods for
for performance
performance indicator
indicator system
system
methods
methods
M. Ravelomanantsoa*. Y. Ducq*, B. Vallespir*
M.
M. Ravelomanantsoa*.
Ravelomanantsoa*.  Y.Y. Ducq*,
Ducq*, B. B. Vallespir*
Vallespir*
M.
M. Ravelomanantsoa*.
Ravelomanantsoa*.  Y.
Y. Ducq*,
Ducq*, B. B. Vallespir*
Vallespir*
*univ.bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5218, Talence, France
*univ.bordeaux,
*univ.bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5218, Talence, France
CNRS, UMR 5218, Talence, France
(e-mail: prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr}
*univ.bordeaux,
*univ.bordeaux, CNRS, UMR
CNRS, UMR 5218, 5218, Talence,
Talence, France France
(e-mail: prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr}
(e-mail: prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr}
Abstract: The topic of Performance (e-mail:
(e-mail: prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr}
prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr}
Measurement and Management has been investigated for more than
Abstract:
Abstract: The
The topic
topic of
of Performance
Performance Measurement
Measurement and Management
andaround
Management has
has been
been investigated
investigated for more
more than
forresearchersthan
twenty
Abstract: five Theyearstopicleading
of to more
Performance than thirty
Measurement methods and Managementthe world, has developed
been either by
investigated for more than
twenty
Abstract:
twenty five
five Theyearstopicleading
years leading of to more
Performance than
topractitioners, thirty
Measurement
more than thirty methods
methods and around
Management
around the world,
theimplementhas developed
been
world, developed either
investigated
either by
for
byof researchers
more than
researchers
or more
twenty pragmatically
five years leading by to more than in
thirty order
methods to define
around andthe world, indicators.
developed Most
either by them
researchers are
or more
or morefive
twenty pragmatically
years
pragmatically leading by topractitioners,
by practitioners,
more than in order
thirty
in order
methods to define
to define
around andtheimplement
and implement
world, indicators.
developed
indicators. Most
either
Most by of them are
researchers
of them are
more
or more oriented for
pragmatically the definition
by and
practitioners,few for the implementation. Other are simply a list of recommended
more
or
more more oriented for the
pragmatically
oriented for the definition
definition
by practitioners,
and few in
and few fororder
in
for order
the to
to define
the implementation.
implementation.
define and
and implement
Other are
implement
Other indicators.
are simply
simply
indicators.a listMost
a list Most
of of
of them
of recommended
recommended
them are
are
PI’s.
more Several
oriented studies
for the have been done
definition and to compare
few for the some of these methods
implementation. Other andsimply
are to explain a listtheof reasons
recommended of PI’s
PI’s. Several
more
PI’s. Several
oriented studies
for
studies the have been done
definition
have been done
and to compare
few
to compare
for the some of of these
implementation.
some these methods
methods
Other andsimply
are
and to explain
to explain
a listthe
theof reasons
recommended
reasons of PI’s
of PI’s
implementation
PI’s. Several failures.
studies have The
been objectives
done to of this paper isoftothese
go deeper in and
detail in the comparison and in a
implementation
PI’s. Several
implementation
second time to
failures.
studies have
failures.
define a
The
The objectives
beenobjectives
generic done to compare
framework
of this
compare
of some
this paper
paper
some
that
isofto
is
could
tothese
go
help
methods
go deeper
deeper
methods
to
in and
in
detect
detail
detail
what
to
to inexplain
in
explain
the
should
the
the comparison
the reasons
comparison
reasons
contain a
of
of PI’s
and
and in aa
PI’s
in
generic
implementation
second time
implementation
second time to
to failures.
define
failures.
define aa The
The objectives
generic framework
objectives
generic framework of
of this
this paper
that
paper
that is
could
is
could to
to go
help
go
help deeper
to
deeper
to in
detect
in
detect detail
what
detail
what in
in the
should
the
should comparison
contain
comparison
contain aa and in
in aa
generic
and
generic
method
second for Performance
time to define a Indicator
generic System definition
framework that and implementation
could help to detect and what
what should is the knowledge
contain a that
generic
method
second for Performance Indicator System definition and implementation and what is the knowledge that
method
must
method be time
for
included
for
to define
in this akind
Performance
Performance
generic
Indicator framework
System
of method
Indicator System to be that efficient.
definition
more
definition
could help to detect what
and implementation
and implementation
implementation and
and what
and what
should
what is
is the
is the
contain
knowledge
the knowledge
a generic
knowledge that
that
that
must
must be
method included
be for in
in this
Performance
included this kind of
of method
Indicator
kind System
method to
to be more
more efficient.
definition
be and
efficient.
must
© 2018,
must
Keywords:be included
be IFAC
included in
in this
Performance this kind
(International kind of
of method
Federation
indicators method ofto
method, be more
more efficient.
toAutomatic
beGERAM, Control)
efficient.
Framework Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Keywords: Performance
Performance indicators indicators method,
method, GERAM, GERAM, Framework Framework
Keywords: Performance
Keywords: Performance indicators indicators method,
method, GERAM, GERAM,  Framework
Framework
 and effect relationships (links between indicators).
1. INTRODUCTION  and effect
and effect relationships
relationships (links (links between
between indicators).
indicators).
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION and effect relationships (links between indicators).
The topic of Performance 1. INTRODUCTION and effect
Measurement and Management has In conclusion of these studies, it is noticeable relationships (links between indicators).that several
1. INTRODUCTION In conclusion of these studies, it is noticeable that
The
The
been
topic
topic of
of
investigated
Performance
Performance Measurement
Measurement
for moreMeasurement
than twenty and
and
and Management
Management
fiveManagement
years leadinghas
has
has In
to recurrent conclusion points of these studies,
existstudies,
in each it is noticeable
method such that several
several
as a
The
been
The topic
topic of
investigated
of Performance
for
Performance more than
Measurement twenty five
and years
Management leading to
has In
In conclusion
recurrent
conclusion
recurrent points
points of
of these
exist
these
exist in
studies,
in it
each
it
each is
is noticeable
method
noticeable
method that several
such
that
such several
as
as a
been
more
been
investigated
than thirty
investigated
for
five
for
more
methods
more
than
than
twenty
around
twenty
five
the
five
years
world,
years
leading
developed
leading
to
to methodological
recurrent points approach
exist to
in build
each the
method PIS, some
such basicaa
as
more
been
more than thirty
investigated
than five
for
thirty five or methods
more
methods than around
twenty the
five
around the world, world,
years developed
leading to
developed methodologicalmethodological
recurrent points approach
exist
approach to
in build
each the
to buildindicatorsmethod PIS,
the PIS,as some some
such basic
as
basica
either
more by researchers
than thirty five more pragmatically
methods around the by practitioners,
world, developed concepts
methodological to define performance
approach to build the PIS, objectives,
some basic
either
more
either by
than
by to researchers
thirty
researchers five or more
methods pragmatically
around the by
world, practitioners,
developed concepts
methodological
concepts to
to define
define performance
approach
performanceto build indicators
the
indicators PIS, as
as objectives,
some basic
objectives,
in order
either by define andor
researchers or
more pragmatically
implement
more indicators.by
pragmatically by
practitioners,
Most of these action
practitioners, concepts means,
to etc. However,
define performance eachindicators
of them has as also some
objectives,
in order
order
either
in by to define and
researchers
to define andor implement
implement
more indicators.byMost
pragmatically
indicators. Most these action
of these
practitioners,
of concepts
action means,
to
means, etc.
define
etc. However,
performance
However, each
each of them
indicators
of them has
as
has also some
objectives,
also some
methods aredefine
dedicated to the Performance Indicator (PI) lacks action inmeans,
order to etc.obtain
However, an efficient
each PIS, easy to also
buildsome and
in order
order to
methods
in
methods
definition
aredefine
to
are
and
dedicated
dedicated
few
and
and
of
implement
to the
implement
to
them are for
indicators.
the Performance
Performance
indicators.
the
Most
Indicator
Most
Indicator
implementation.
of
of these
(PI) lacks
these
(PI)
All action
lacks
easy
in
to
order
inmeans,
order
use for
to
etc.
to obtain
However,
obtain
decision
an
an eachSo,of
efficient
efficient
makers. PIS,them
ofPIS,
them
the
easy
easyhas
hasto
conclusion
build
to also
build is
and
some
and
that
methods
definition are
methods
definition anddedicated
are
and few of
dedicated
few of them to
them
to the
are Performance
the
are for the
Performance
for Indicator
the implementation.
implementation.
Indicator (PI)
All easy
(PI)
All lacks
lacks
easy in
to
in
to order
use
order
use for
forto
to obtain
decision
obtain
decision an
an efficient
makers.
efficient
makers. So,
So, PIS,
the
PIS,
the easy
easy to
conclusion
to
conclusion build
build is
is and
that
and
that
these methods
definition and haveofbeen
few them developed
are for independently
the implementation. based All on each easy method,
to use even
for the most
decision famous
makers. So, ones,
the can be improved
conclusion is that
these methods
definition
these methods and have
few
have ofbeen
beenthem developed
are
developed for independently
the implementation.
independently based
based on
All
on each
easy
each method,
to use
method, even
for
even the
decision
the most
most famous
makers.
famous So, ones,
the
ones, can
can be
conclusion
be improved
is
improved that
system theory, haveproduction management theory or accounting based
each on qualities ofthe
other ones.
these
system
these
system
methods,
methods
theory,
methods
theory,
accordinghave been
production
been
production
to the
developed
management
developed
management
background
independently
theory
independently
oftheory or
developers.
based
or accounting
based
accounting
Among
on
on based basedmethod,
each on
on qualities
method,
qualitieseven
evenof other
ofthe
other most
most famous
famous ones,
ones.
ones. ones, can can be be improved
improved
system
methods,
system
methods, theory,
according
theory,
accordingproduction
to
production
to the
the management
background
management
background of
oftheory
theory or
developers.
or
developers. accounting
Among
accounting
Among based
based on
on qualities
qualities of
of other
other ones.
ones.
all these methods,
methods, accordingmore to the or background
the less used andofwell known, one
developers. Among can So, The objective of this paper is to go further not only in the
all
all these
methods,
citethese
the
methods,
according
methods,
famous ones
more
to
moreor
or
the
less
less
most
used
or background
used
used
and
and ofwell
or well known,
known, one
developers.
disseminated Among
one can So,
can
around So, The
The objective
comparison objective
of
of
of this
methods thisbut paper
paper
also
is
isinto go
tothe further
further not
go definition notofonly
only
a
in
in the
genericthe
all
cite
all
citethese
the
these methods,
famous
methods,
the famous onesmore
moreor
ones orScore or
the
or less
most
less
the most used
used
used
used and
andor
or well known,
disseminated
well known,
disseminated one can
around
one can
around So,
So, The
comparison
The
comparison objective
of
objective
of of
methods
of
methods this
this paper
but also
paper
but also is
is in
into
to go
the
go
the further
definition
further
definition not
not of
ofonly
a
only
a in
in the
generic
genericthea
the
cite world
the as
famous Balanced
ones or the Card
most [1], the Performance Prism framework
comparison that
of could
methods help
but to
also define
in the what should
definition of contain
aa generic
the world
cite
the world
the as Balanced
famous
as Balanced
ones or Score
the
Score Cardused
most
Card [1], or
used
[1], thedisseminated
or
the Performancearound
disseminated
Performance Prism framework
around
Prism comparison
framework that
of
that could
methods
could help
but
help to
also
to define
in
define the what
what should
definition
should of contain
generic
contain
Indicatoraa
a
[2],
the ECOGRAI [3], IPMS [4],CardMedori [5] or DPMS [6]. Prism method framework to thatdefine
could andhelp implement
to define Performance
what should contain
[2], world
the
[2], ECOGRAI
world
ECOGRAI as
as Balanced
[3], IPMS
Balanced
[3], IPMS Score
Score [4],Card
[4], Medori
Medori [1], the
[5]
[1], [5]
the orPerformance
or DPMS [6].
Performance
DPMS [6]. Prism method framework
method
System.
to
to
The
define
that could
define
objective
and
andhelp
is not
implement
to define
implement Performance
what should
Performance
to define Performance
Indicator
contain
a new methodIndicator by itselfa
Indicator
[2],
[2], ECOGRAI
ECOGRAI [3],
[3], IPMS
IPMS [4],
[4], Medori
Medori [5]
[5] or
or DPMS
DPMS [6].
[6]. method
System.
method
System. to
The
to
The define
objective
define
objective and
andis
is implement
not to
implement
not to define
define aa new
Performance
new method
method by
by itself
Indicator
itself
Several studies were performed to compare methods for but System. to build
The the base foristhe
objective not future
to combination
define a new of methods
method by to
itself
Several
Several studies
studies were
were performed
performed to
to compare
compare methods
methods for
for but
System.
but to
to build
The
build the
the base
objective
base for
foris the
not
the future
to
future combination
define a new
combination of
method
of methods
by
methods to
itself
to
Performance
Several studies Measurement
were performedSystems to (PMS)
compare from
methods several
for collect,
but to and
build theto manage
base for the in order
future to use
combination at the
of best
methods the
to
Performance
Several
Performance studies Measurement
were
Measurement performedSystems
Systems to (PMS)
compare
(PMS) from
methods
from several
for
several collect,
but
collect,to and
build
and theto
to manage
base for
manage the in
in order
future
order to
to use
combination
use at
at the
of
the best
methods
best the
to
the
points
Performanceof views. For instance,
Measurement [7] classifies
Systems (PMS) these
from methods
several enterprise
collect, and knowledge
to manage requiredin to build
order to anuseefficient
at the PIS. best the
points
Performance
points of
of views.
views. For
Measurement
For instance,
instance, [7]
Systems
[7] classifies
(PMS)
classifies these
from
these methods
several
methods enterprise
collect,
enterprise and knowledge
to
knowledge manage required
requiredin to
order
to build
buildto an
anuseefficient
at
efficientthe PIS.
PIS. best the
according
points to three
of views.
views. Forcategories:
instance, [7] financial,
[7] classifies goalthesecentredmethodsand enterprise knowledge required to build an efficient PIS.
according
points
according of to three For
toconcluding
three categories:
instance,
categories: financial,
classifies goal centred
these methodsand
and enterprise knowledge required to build an efficient PIS.
behavioural,
according to three that eachfinancial,
categories: one
financial,has its goal
own
goal
centred
advantages
centred and So, in a first part, the paper will explain the difference
behavioural,
according
behavioural, to concluding
three
concludingPIS. that
categories: each
that each one
financial,has its own
goal advantages
centred and So, in
in aa first
a part,
part,andthe paper
paper will explain the difference
to obtain a consistent
behavioural, concluding that In [8]one
each
has its own
seventeen advantages
definitions of So, between first
method thea framework will and explain
why itthe difference
is obvious to
to obtain
to obtain aa consistent
behavioural, consistent
concluding PIS.
that
PIS. In [8]
each
In [8]one
one has
seventeen
has
seventeenits
its own
own advantages
definitions
advantages
definitions of between
of So,
So,
between in
in a
a a
a first
method
first
method part,
and
part,
and the
thea
a paper
framework
paper
framework will
will explain
and why
explain
and why the
it
the
it is
is difference
obvious
difference
obvious to
toa
what
to a
obtain Business
a consistent Process
PIS. Measurement
In [8] seventeen System
definitions is, are
of start from GERAM framework to perform this work. In
what
to
what aa Business
obtain Business
a consistent Process
Process Measurement
PIS. available
In [8] seventeen
Measurement System
definitions
System is, are
is, are
of start between
between
start from
from aa method
method
GERAM
GERAM and
and aa framework
framework
framework
framework to and why
to perform
and
perform whythisit is
it
this is work.
obvious
obvious
work. In toaa
In to
analysed
what through
aa Business methods
Process Measurement or theoretical
System articles.
is, are second part, a complementary analysis will be presented,
analysed
what
analysed through methods
Business
through methods
Process available
Measurement
available or theoretical
or theoretical
System articles.
is, are
articles. start
second
start from
frompart,GERAM
GERAMa framework
complementary
framework to perform
analysis
to perform willthis
be
this work.
presented,aa
presented,
work. In
In
This analysis
analysed throughwas made
methods on the main features
available or of a PIS,
theoretical on its second
articles. highlighting part, whata complementary
are the concepts analysis andwill thebe components
This analysis
analysed was made on the main features of a PIS, on its second part, a complementary analysis will be presented,
This
role
This in an through
analysis
analysis organisation
was
methods
was made
made
on on
and
on
available
the
the
main
the
main processor theoretical
features
of use
features
of ait.PIS,
of a The
PIS,
articles.
on
main
on
its highlighting
its
second
highlighting
required part,
for awhat
what
amethod are
areforthe
complementarythe concepts
PISconceptsanalysis
design and
and the
thebecomponents
will
andimplementation.presented,
components In
role
This
role in
in an
analysis
an organisation
was
organisation made and
on
and on
the
on the
main
the process
process of
features
of use
of
use ait.
it. The
PIS,
The main
on
mainits highlighting
required
highlighting
required for
for a
a what
method
what
method are
are for
for the
thePIS
PIS concepts
design
concepts
design and
andand
and the components
implementation.
the components
implementation. In
In
conclusions
role in an are that
organisation a Performance Indicator System (PIS) a third time the paper will present GERAM framework
conclusions
role in
conclusionsan are
are that
organisation
that aa and on
Performance
and on
Performance the
the process of
Indicator
process of
Indicator use
use it.
System
it.
System The
The main
(PIS)
main
(PIS) required
a third
required
a third for
time
for
time aa method
the
method
the paper
paper for
for PIS
will
PIS
will design
present
design
present and
and implementation.
GERAM framework
implementation.
GERAM framework In
In
must be multi-dimensional
conclusions are that a Performance(financial and non-financial),
Indicator System (PIS) developed by IFAP/IFIP taskforce. In a fourth time,framework
GERAM
must
must be
conclusions multi-dimensional
are that
be multi-dimensional a Performance(financial
(financial and
Indicator non-financial),
System
and non-financial), (PIS) a third
developed
adeveloped
third time
time by
by the
the paper
IFAP/IFIP
paper
IFAP/IFIP will
taskforce.
will
taskforce.present
In
present
In a
a GERAM
fourth
GERAM
fourth time,
time, GERAM
framework
GERAM
must
must include
be strategic objectives, performance targets and is adaptedbytoIFAP/IFIPthe domain of PISIn aand the time,
baseGERAM for the
must be multi-dimensional
include
include
supporting
strategic
strategic objectives,
multi-dimensional
infrastructure.
(financial
[9](financial
objectives, usesperformance
and
and non-financial),
performance
systematic
targets
non-financial),
targets
review and
and is
to developed
developed
is adapted
adaptedby to the
toIFAP/IFIP domain
the methods
domain taskforce.
of
taskforce. PIS
PISIn aand
ofpresented. andfourth
the
fourth base
the time,
base for
for the
GERAM the
must include
supporting strategic
infrastructure. objectives,
[9] uses performance
usesperformance targets
systematic targets review and andto frameworkframework
is adapted for
to PIS
the domain is
of PIS and Then,
the perspectives
base for the
must
analyse include
supporting few strategic
infrastructure.
methods in objectives,
order [9] to detect systematic
why some ofreview
them to
are is adapted
framework for
to
for PIS
the
PIS methods
domain
methods is
of
is presented.
PIS
presented. and Then,
the
Then, perspectives
base for
perspectives the
supporting
analyse few few infrastructure.
methods in in order
order [9] uses
to detect
detect systematic
why some
some of ofreview
them are to
are for future works
framework for are methods
PIS proposed.is presented. Then, perspectives
supporting
analyse
more useful infrastructure.
methods
to manage [9] to
organisations uses systematic
why
through measure,review
them i.e. to
to for future
framework works
for are
PIS
for future works are proposed. proposed.
methods is presented. Then, perspectives
analyse
more useful
analyse
more few
useful
few methods
to manage
manage
methods
to in order to
to detect
organisations
in organisations
order detect why
why some
through
through some of
of them
measure,
measure, them i.e.are
i.e. to for
are
to future works are proposed.
obtain
more an
useful efficient
to manage PIS. The most
organisations important
through aspect
measure, is that
i.e. a for future works are proposed.
to
obtain
more
obtain an
useful
an efficient
to manage PIS. The most
organisations important
through aspect
measure, is that a
i.e. toa
method
obtain anforefficient
PIS
efficient must PIS.
PIS.helpThe
The to most
most
important
the definition
important ofaspect
detailed
aspect
is action
is
that
that aa
method
obtain
method anfor
for PIS
efficient
PIS must
must PIS.help
helpThe to
to the
most
the definition
important
definition of
of detailed
aspect
detailed is action
that
action
plans
method extracted
for PIS from
must measures,
help to theto definition
measure progress,
of detailed to have
action a
plans
method
plans
vision extracted
extracted
(a from
forperspective
PISfrom measures,
mustmeasures,
help
as a to theto measure
to definition
strategic measure
map) progress,
of detailed
progress,
and to haveto have
action
to have
cause aa
plans
vision (a perspective as a strategic map) and to have causeaa
vision
plans extracted
(a
extracted from
perspective
from measures,
as a
measures, to
strategic
to measure
map)
measure progress,
and to
progress, haveto
to have
cause
have
vision
vision (a (a© perspective as a strategicFederation map) and to have cause
©perspective
2018 IFAC as a strategic map) and to have cause 551
2405-8963 2018, IFAC (International of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
Copyright
Copyright 2018 responsibility
© 2018 IFAC
IFAC
of International Federation of Automatic
551Control.
551
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.375
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 551
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 551
IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551 545

2. STATE OF THE ART AND CLASSIFICATION OF Table 1. Classification of methods

METHODS Type A Type B Type C Type D
Dupont PYramid PCS PMQ Tableau de Bord
The study will relate to some recommendations expressed by [Dupont, 1900] [Globerson, 1985] [Dixon et al.,1990] [1930]
ECOGRAI PROMES ABC /ABM
various authors, 33 models and/or methods which will be PMMatrix
[Keegan et al, 1989] [Ducq, 2005] [Pritchard., 1990] [J. et Kaplan, 1987]

listed in various tables without their description and among Sink & Tuttle Wisner & Faw. [Wisner,1991] TOPP TdC
PBSCW [Sintef,1992] [Goldratt, 1990]
which 31 are reserved for the large companies and 2
[Sink,1989]
PMSSI [Kaplan et N., 1993] IDPMS PRISM
especially for SME. Before proceeding to the framework [Fitzgerald et al, 1991] CPMS [Ghalayni et al.,1997]
QMPMS
[Neely et al.,2001]
MBNQA
PPS [Flapper, et al. 1996]
dedicated to the PIS development, a comparison and [Cross et Lynch, 1992] PPMS [Bititci, S., C.,1997] [19878]

categorization of these tools on various points of view are BSC

[Kaplan et Norton, 1992]
[Kueng, 1999]
GIMSI [Bititci, S., C.,1997]
QMPMS AMBITE
[Bradley, 1998]
required: their design methods (Table 1), the non-exhaustive Scandia Navig. [Fernandez, 1999] MACBETH+CHOQ EFQM

dimensions and criteria measured in the methods description |E. et Malonne [1994]
Strategy Map [Medori et S., 2000]
IPMF UET+AHP+SCOR
[Berrah, L. Cliville V.
[EFQM, 2000]
SCOR
as they are cited by the authors in the literature which enable [Kaplan et N.1992} MSDP
2007]
[Scc, 1996]

to identify their strengths and weaknesses, their nature, [Rentez, 2002]

SMM [Bititci et Carrie, 2002]
IPMS

characteristics and contents etc. (Table 2). [Bititci, 1995] ENAPS

[Esprit, 1999]

For this classification, in spite of fundamental differences

between large organizations and Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) lying in several specificities, they will be Then these various methods are classified according to many
referenced in 4 (not exclusive) categories A, B, C, D based criteria and in particular some elementary performance
on their dominant characteristics (Table 1). dimensions (table 2):
- Those which present a basic architecture of
Table 2. Methods, dimensions and criteria
performance measurements (A)
They’re presented as architectures comprising predetermined

Stakeholders Contribution
dimensions of performance on which will be implemented

Resource Management
Processes & Activities

People Management
Information System

Intellectual Capital
Vision & Strategy

Work Life Quality

Competitiveness

Responsiveness
Learn & Growth
Business Units

Effectiveness

Shareholders

Environment
Productivity
Profitability
Leadership

Employees

Customers
Innovation

Cycle time

Efficiency

Flexibility
Business

the indicators. The architectures present the various criteria

Delivery
Finance

Quality
Costs
and the key performance areas relating to internal and
external dimensions to which financial and/or not - financial TB (French) X X They aren’t specified in the model description

PIs will be defined. They help the managers and employees Dupont
PYRAMID
X X X X X

to focus on these essential independent performance factors. The TQM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

- Those which present a methodology for the PIS

PCSystem It’s recommendations on PIS

Six Sigma X X X X X X X

design and implementation (B) MBNQA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

They provide well structured methodologies with explicit ABC / ABM X X X X X None of them is precised in the model
method

guide lines to help the managerial staff in the development of

Maskel It’s recommendations for PIS design process

PMMD X X X X X X X X X X X

effective PIS. In other words, the principal characteristic of SPA X X Financial and non- Financial indicators

these methods is the well structured procedure step by step PMMATRIX X X Costs and non Costs / Internal and External dimensions

ECOGRAI All internal and external dimensions of business performance

comprising processes, stage by stage for choosing the PMQ X X X

indicators and the PIS implementation (Example: ECOGRAI, TOC

PQA
X

X
X

X
X

X X X X X X X X
X

X
X

X X X X

GIMSI, IPMF, PPMS, etc.). PROMES X X X X

- Those which present diagnosis methods for PMSSI

PMS Design
X X X X X X

It’s a recommendations on PIS

X X X X X X

improvement (C) PPS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

They comprise audits to find the domains of performance M.For TBM X X X X X X

which require improvements. They help the decision makers BSC X X X X X X X X X X X

TOPP X X X X X X

to determine dimensions and elements that require System

PBSC to W X X X X X X X X X X X

improvements and the criteria on which the company must IC- NSkandia X X X X X X X X X

concentrate its improvement efforts to maintain durably its

Getting The X X X X
Measure

success (Example: PMQ, IDPMS, etc.). The methods in class

SMM It’s a PMS modelling

CPMDP internal, external, financial and non-financial dimensions of performance

C can also describe the way to aggregate the performance CPMS Method based on the PIs relations

between decision levels.

MPMO X X X

AMBITE X X X X X X X X

- Those which based on organisation models to

support the performance dimensions selection (D)
According to the structures of the enterprise or the
organization, they help to choose the domains of performance
to be focused on which the indicators must be assigned
(Example: IPMS, SCOR, EFQM, ENAPS, PRISM, etc.).

552
IFAC INCOM 2018
546
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551

Lean
Thinking
X X X X X X X
tools and methods from which any enterprise would benefit
to more successfully tackle initial PIS design, implement and
IPMSF X X X X X X

Neely & al., Recommendations on PIS and PIs

SASPM X X X X X X X make evolve during enterprise operational lifetime.

EFQM
This framework does not impose any particular set of tools or
X X X X X X X X X X X X

SCOR X X X X X X X

IDPMS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X methods, but defines the criteria to be satisfied by any set of

IPMS

QMPMS
X

X
X

X
X X X X X X X X X
selected tools and methods.
MACBETH +
CHOQUET + Allow the aggregation of performances and the use of fuzzy performance indicators
The main advantage of the framework is not only to present
AHP + SCOR
ENAPS X X X X X X X X X X X X
the elements but also the links between these elements.
PPMS X X X X X X X X It is clear that the final objective of this framework is also to
GIMSI

IPMF
X

X
X

X
X

X
X X X X

X X X X X X
X X X X
allow to improve each existing method in the future and to
Strategy
MAP
X X X X X X X inform the practitioners on what to add to these methods.
OPM X X X X X X X X X In order to define this kind of framework, the authors propose
Gunasekaran
& al.
Based on 7 principles to obtain effective PIS
to follow the same approach that was used in the domain of
Performance
enterprise modelling methods and which led to develop
X X X X X X X X X X
PRISM

GERAM (Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and

MSDP X X X X X X X X X

DMPF X X X X X X X

APQC’S X X X X X X X
Methodology).
PPVC X X X
GERAM was first selected for two main reasons. The first
one is the genericity of the framework that can be applied for
HPMF X X X X X X X X

KBEM & KBS

X X X X X X X X
FFUC X X X each enterprise modelling method. The second reason is the
PDG system All dimensions of performance needed by a benchmarking process
domain of enterprise modelling (EM) which is very closed to
the domain of PIS in the sense that EM is the art of
MP of SMEs X X X X X X X X

Ref.PMM for X X X X X X X X X X X X
SME
PMS-IRIS X X X X X X X X X X X X X
externalising enterprise knowledge that adds value to the
enterprise (single, extended or virtual organisation). It is the
Meth
MFSMEP X X All areas in alignment between the ICT and the business

CM approach X X X X X X X X X X X X
representation of the structure, the behaviour and the
organisation of the enterprise according to different points of
views: functional, decisional, business, IT…So, all this
knowledge is linked to the one required to design and
3. FRAMEWORK FOR PIS METHODS implement a PIS.
The interest of this approach linked to GERAM is to avoid to
This classification and this comparison of methods on their
start from scratch when analysing the methods, to define
nature, characteristics and contents, enable to define the
relevant criteria for comparison but to be enough specific to
framework components. As mentioned previously, the few
keep only those interesting for PIS methods.
analyses conducted to compare PIS methods show that even
The interest to work at a meta level is to have a global view
if all these methods were based on theoretical or practical
on the requirements for a PIS without being polluted by a
points of views, none are complete and none can ensure to
specific context or by a specific function of the enterprise
collect all the required knowledge to obtain an efficient PIS
which led to consider only one kind of PI or one kind
for a single enterprise or in the frame of a supply chain. The
decision level.
objective of this work is to “set in order” the various existing
methods. Moreover, the modules are not defined independently in the
Indeed, the goal of the framework is to answer to the large sense that they are linked together, each one being required to
diversity of objectives pursued by all the PIS methodologies, go from user specifications to the implemented Performance
and then to federate them into a frame. Indicator System. For instance, concepts need an architecture
A lot of experiences in the domain of modelling for to put them in coherence, the architecture need an
Information Systems with Unified Modelling Language engineering method to be implemented to define the PIS,
(OMG, 2003) or in the domain of enterprise modelling with which requires a software tool to be used and updated.
Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (Berio, 2003) have
shown the necessity to work at a meta level of modelling
instead of the level of methods in order to obtain coherent
models that lead to efficient system implemented.
This is why it was decided to develop a framework, kind of Module “recommendations”
meta-model or meta-structure which will help to define the
It serves to build the methods and models architectures
required content of a method for PIS definition and
(frameworks) by specifying not only the various domains in
implementation.
which indicators will be implanted but also the required
In our point of view, a method is composed of a set of
stages to carry out them. These domains are the ones that
concepts called also structural framework in (Folan 2005) to
contribute to the strategic objectives realization. These
identify in the enterprise to build the PIS, formalisms to
recommendations relate to the whole PIs and generally the
represent the PIS at work and a structured approach, called
PIS.
also procedural framework in (Folan 2005).
A framework is a meta and generalised architecture Module “structural architecture”
composed of elements recommended in PIS engineering and
integration and thereby sets the standard for the collection of

553
IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551
The module contains all the methods and models being part
of (A), (D) specified previously. These architectures are built
from the recommendations and appear as structured models
in which domains or dimensions covered by the PIS are
beforehand fixed. These dimensions cover generally the
enterprise internal and external environment. Example: the
internal flexibility and the external dimension of customers.
This module can contain: (1) - Architectures based on
perspectives. Example: BSC, PRISM, (2) - Architectures
with dimensions provided causal and effects relationship.
Example: PMSSI, a dynamic PMS, (3) - Reference
architectures. Example: IPMS, SCOR etc. All the various
architectures contained in this module provide neither precise
processes nor actions to identify or to select the indicators to
be used for measuring the dimensions retained. In other
words, the architectures are different from/to each other but
the approaches are very resembling. Once the key success
factors (KSF) which affect the strategy are identified, no
process, principle or still no guide are proposed for the PI
definition, implementation, use and renewal. This defect is
very criticized by several authors [Neely et al., 1996, 2000;
Bourne et al., 2000], etc.
Module “procedural architectures”
These architectures are complementary to structural
architectures. This module contains all the methods being
part of (B), (C) endowed with well-structured processes with
steps in the PIS design from the strategy. These steps enable
to describe all the stages step by step to define and implement
operational PIS according to the structure suggested in the
module « structural architectures «. Example: ECOGRAI,
TOPP, Reference Model for PMM framework and measures.
Can be also found in this module, methods which advise
retained PIs validity audits for a continuous review if a FKS
change is required in case of a strategy reformulation further
to an environmental change. Example: GIMSI, IPMF. This
module recommends that the methods have to contain a
process for each SIP life cycle phase.
Module “methodological support tools”
This module contains all the tools used in the structural and
procedural architectures. These tools can be modelling tools
or control graphic tools. As part of the structural architecture,
they serve to build the structure of PIS model. Example: BSC
(Diagram card of cause and effects relationship), SMM (Data
Flow Diagramming, Function Deployment), etc.
As part of the procedural architecture, these supports are
constituted by the tools whose actors will be used through the
various stages of processes contained in the architecture with
aim to help them to identify the PIs judged critical, to put
them in coherence, until the record sheet establishment
corresponding to specificities of each PI retained. They can
also be used to the PIS revision. These tools aren’t
necessarily computerized. Example: IPMF (Performance
Measurement Grid), (Spectrum / Checklist), GIMSI (trees
diagram), TOPP (questionnaires), PMQ (questionnaires),
IDPMS (Half-Life Concept, Modified Value Focused Cycle
Time, etc.) , ECOGRAI (coherence table, GRAI GRID etc.),
Framework to review PMS (Cause and effect diagram, Run
chart, Flow cart, pareto chart, histogram, etc.).
554
547
Some methods advocate existing tools, others developed their
own tools. The use of tool is recommended to avoid too
empirical approaches.
Module “generic concepts”
This module contains all the elements and concepts required
for the PIS design and implementation. All these elements are
worked out for the running process needs. That’s why, it’s
important to identify them, and insist on their importance not
only in the performance contribution but also in the progress
easiness of the various phases of PIS life cycle. These
concepts are presented in order to the need of their
identification in the PIS life cycle.
These concepts are: The mission, the vision, the strategy, the
environment, the objectives, the decisions.
Module “Reference generic PIs architectures”
This module contains methods and models containing
reference indicators. These indicators are adaptable for any
organization without caring about specific details. These
indicators models are useful to help the designers in the
indicators selection to implement. May be included in this
module: AMBITE, ENAPS, SCOR, etc. The main problem
for the designer lies in their adaptation for each organization,
their connection or their link to each other.
Module “PIs identification cards”
This module contains the tools required for the whole
information representation collected on each PI. Example: the
specification card in ECOGRAI [Bitton, 1990], Record sheet
[Neely et al., 1997] modified or added by Lohman and al.,
(2004). Several authors adapted the contents of the sheet
according to the organisations. However, it must contain at
least the minimum of information about each PI. Combining
elements collected in the literatures, proposed by Neely and
al., (1997), Lohman and al., (2004) and those defined in
ECOGRAI, a relatively complete card can be established.
These specifications must be implemented in the decision-
making tool to obtain an operational PIS.
Module “Computing support tools” (Software tools)
The module specifies the infrastructure of information
technology (IT) which the method must state clearly making
it possible to support the PIs operational use with aim of the
monitoring and control which could lead to the PIS
modification and updating. That is the use and
implementation of computer decision tools which would
enable to collect the information, their access deployment to
the users and their exploitation [Ducq, 1999]. The decision
system is structured around three main functions:(1) – data
collection with tools such as ETL (2) - data storage with data
warehouse tools, (3) – information exploitation and piloting
assistance with analysis and presentation tools as OLAP and
its derivatives. Many systems exist but the packages choice
(selection) must be based according to the needs, users’
expectations, available means, implementation constraints
such as costs, delay, reliability etc. Thus, this module
advocates (that) the methods contain a specification and
implementation phase, a software configuration.
IFAC INCOM 2018
548
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551

Module “operational PIS”

Used to Used to
Recommendations
The module presents the operational PIS used to the build build

establishment of specific Dashboard for each decision-maker

to run (pilot) the production systems. It’s the operational Structurales architectures Procedural architectures
(Identify the concepts of integrated (Describe the process of PIS
result of the full implementation of the method. PIS définition and implementation)

Module “periodical (recurring) maintenance” Use Use

Methodological tools
This module contains elements required for the PIS (Support the PIS design)

permanent revision to maintain its validity and its Architectures with Generic concepts for PIS
Generic PIs (Define the elements for PIS
implementation success [Neely, 1996; Bititci and Turner, ( reference PIs list) elaboration Used to establish

2000; Fernandez, 2003; etc.].

Support
The revision process aims for helping organizations to Overall review PIs selected specifications
conduct all the necessary adjustments after PIS design and Implemented into (Various retained PIs recording

implementation. As the market is dynamic, processes and Periodical review

indicators must be adapted to the changes. The maintenance EIS software tools
Used to implement
(OLAP, ROLAP etc.)
has to be made in a periodical way to make sure the PIS Ongoing review

longevity and flexibility [Bourne et al., 2000]. Revision can
sometimes lead to the strategy change, new technologies
implementation setting up etc. [Medori et Steeple, 2000].
Making an audit would enable to control and notice if the
system always corresponds to the decision-making system
expectations and the decision-makers needs [Fernandez,
2003].
Manoocherh and al., (2005) propose a PIS revision process
model comprising the characteristics dictated by Neely and
al., (1997,2000) on PIS design process and the needs of its
revision with regard to the changes of circumstances.
The revision model proposes 2 inter-connected categories of
revision: (a) - the performance of the enterprise which
impacts on the PIS design and implementation, (b) - the PIS
effectiveness and efficiency for measuring the company
performance. Three revision types of the company’s
performance through the PIS are carried out at various
frequencies and each time, the 2 categories of revision
interaction must be verified to make sure of the PIS
functionality to the maintenance of strategic alignment.
All these modules are related in the generic framework as
presented in the figure 1 below:
Periodic maintenance
(Revision) Requires Operational PIS
4. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
The comparison of methods led to the conclusions that each
of them has advantages and points to improve, either in the
definition or in the implementation of PIS. It was then
necessary to determine the required elements of such
methods to be efficient.
The interest of a framework is to work at a meta level of
comparison and then to avoid to start from scratch when
analysing the methods, to define relevant criteria for
comparison but to be enough specific to keep only those
interesting for PIS methods. The modules are linked together,
each one being required to start from user specifications
towards the implemented Performance Indicator System. In
conclusion, the authors will insist on the necessity to continue
the survey of existing methods to define and implement
performance indicator systems and the detection of required
generic modules.

Figure 1: The generic Framework for PIS Methods
REFERENCES
AFNOR, (2000). Management des processus – une approche
innovante
AMICE, (1993). Open System Architecture for CIM, Vol. II,
Springer,Verlag
Anderson, H., Cobbold, I., Lawrie,G.,(2001). Balanced
scorecard implementation in SMEs: reflection in literature
and practice, paper presented at the SME Conference
Atkins, A., Waterhouse, J. H, Wells, R. B, (1997).
Stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement,
Sloan management review, ISSN 0019-848X, Vol. 38, Nº. 3,
pp. 25-37
Azzone, G., Masella, C., Bertele, U. (1991). Design of
performance measures for time based companies ,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, pp.77-85
Balanchandran, K., Lunghi, P., Taticchi, P., (2007).
Performance Measurement and Management: A review of
Systems and Frameworks and Considerations for Small

555
IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551
Firms, 12th International Conference on Quality and
Productivity Research, Haifa, Israel, July 10-12
Balanchandran, K., Taticchi, P., Botarelli, M., Cagnazo, L.,
(2008). Performance Measurement Management for Small
and Medium Enterprise : An integrated approach , JAMAR
Vol.6, N°2
Berrah, L., Cliville V. (2007) Towards an aggregation
performance measurement system in a supply chain context
Computers in industry Vol 58, issue 7, pages 709-719
Bititci, U. S., (1995). Modelling of performance
measurement systems in manufacturing enterprises,
International Journal Of Production Economics, Vol. 42,
pp.137-147
Bititci, U. S., Turner, T., Begmann, C., (1997) Integrated
performance measurement system: a development guide ,
International Journal of Operations Production Management
, Vol.17,pp.522-534
Bititci, U.S, Carrie, A.S, Suwignjo, P., (1997). Quantitative
models for performance measurement system, International
journal of production economics, March
Bititci, U. S, Carrie, A. S., Turner, T., (1997). Integrated
performance measurement system: a reference model,
Organizing the Extended Enterprise, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, pp.191-202
Bititci, U. S., Turner, T., Begmann, C., (2000). Dynamics of
Performance Measurement Systems, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management ,Vol. 20, pp. 692-
704
Bitici, U.S, Carrie, A.S., (1998). Integrated Performance
Measurement Systems: Structures and Relationships, EPSRC
Final Research Report, Grant No. GR/K 48174, Swindon UK,
Bitici, U.S., P. Suwignjo, P., Carrie, A. S., (2001). Strategy
management through quantitative modelling of performance
measurement systems, International Journal Production
Economics, vol.69, pp.15-24
Bitton, M., (1990). ECOGRAI : Méthode de conception et
d’implantation de systèmes de mesure de performance pour
organisations industrielles, Thèse de doctorat en Automatique
(PhD) , Bordeaux1 university, Septembre
Bond, T. C., (1999). The role of performance measurement in
continuous improvement, International Journal of Operations
Production ,Vol. 19,pp.1318-1334
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Neely, A., Platts, K., Wilcox, M.,
(2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance
measurement systems, International Journal of Operations
Production Management,Vol.20,pp.754-77,
Bourne, M., (2001). Implementation Issues, Hand Book of
Performance Measurement, London: GEE
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Neely, A., Platts, K., (2002). The
success and failure of performance measurement initiatives:
Perceptions of participating managers, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22,N°. 11,
pp.1288-1310
Bourne, M.C.S., Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F., Platts, K.W, (2003).
Why Some Performance Measurement Initiatives Fail:
Lessons From the Change Management Literature,
International Journal of Business Performance
Management,5- 2/3,pp. 245-269
556
549
Bradley, P., Jordan, P., (1996). ENAPS Business Model,
ENAPS WP3.2 Final Deliverable, CIMRU, University
College Galway
Brown, M., (1996). Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics
to Drive World Class Performance, Quality Resources, New
York, NY
Chandler, A., (1997). The Visible Hand: the Managerial
Revolution in American Business , Boston, MA, Harvard
University Press, pp. 417-1977
Cocca, P., AlbertinI M., (2010). SMEs’ Three-Step Pyramid:
a new performance measurement framework for
SME,International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 59, N° 2, pp. 186-200
CPC – Club, (1997). Production et Compétitivité,
Coordination P.M Gallois, De la pierre à la cathédrale : Les
indicateurs de performance, Ministère de l’Industrie de la
Poste et des Télécommunications, Edition Londez Conseil
Cross, K. F., Lynch, R. L., (1992). For good measure, CMA
Magazine, pp.20-23, April
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A., Volmann, T.E., (1990). The new
performance challenge: Measuring operations for world class
competition, Dow Jones, Irwin, Homewood IL
Doumeingts, G., (1998). GIM: GRAI Integrated Method,
Document interne au LAP/GRAI
Ducq, Y., (1999). Contribution à une méthodologie d’analyse
de la cohérence des Systèmes de Production dans le cadre du
Modèle GRAI, Thèse de doctorat en Productique (PhD),
Bordeaux1 University, february
Ducq, Y., Vallespir, B., Ravelomanantsoa, M., (2006). A
generic framework for performance indicator system
methods, 5th international conference on theory and practice
in performance measurement and management , London , UK
july , the 25-28
Edvinson, L., Malone, M., (1997). Intellectual capital:
realizing your companies true value by finding its hidden
brain power, New York, NY, Harper Business
EFQM, (1998). Self-assessment Guidelines for Companies,
European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels ,
Belgium
El Mahmedi, A., Addouche, S-A., Dafaoui, E-M., (2005).
Identification des relations entre inducteurs et indicateurs de
performance des processus d’entreprise, CPI’2005,
Casablanca, Morocco
ENAPS -* European Network for Advanced Performance
Studies *- Delivrable n°3 of WP3-1997
Fernandez, A., (2003). Les nouveaux tableaux de bord des
managers, Le projet décisionnel dans sa totalité, Editions
d’Organisation, 3ème édition
Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R., Voss,
C., (1991). Performance measurement in service business,
CIMA, London
Flapper, S., Fortuin, L., Stoop, P., (1996). Towards consistent
performance management systems, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol.16, pp.27-37
Folan, P., Browne, J., (2005). A review of performance
measurement: towards performance management, Computers
in Industry archive, Vol. 56 ,Issue 7, pp. 663 – 680 , ISSN:
0166-3615, September
IFAC INCOM 2018
550
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551
Franco, M., Bourne, M., (2003). Factors that play a role in
managing through measures, Management Decision, Vol. 41,
N°. 8, pp. 698-710
Fuller – Love, N., (2006). Management development in small
firms, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8,
N° 3, pp. 175–190
Garibaldi, G., (2000). L’analyse stratégique, Editions
d’Organisation
Ghalayni, A., Noble, J.S., (1996). The changing basis of
performance measurement, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16, N° 8, pp.
63-80
Ghalayni, A.M., Noble, J.S., Crowe, T.J., (1997). An
integrated dynamic performance measurement system for
improving manufacturing competitiveness, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol.15,
pp.80-116
Ghobadian, A., Gallear, D., (1997). TQM and organizational
size, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 17, No. 2,pp.121–163,
Globerson, S.; (1985). Issues in developing a performance
criteria system for an organisation, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.23,-pp.639-646
Goldratt, E.M., (1990). What is this thing called Theory of
Constraints and how should it be implemented? , New York,
North Press, Inc.
Gunasekaran, A., Marri,H. B., Grieve, R. J., (1999).
Justification and implementation of activity-based costing in
small and medium-sized enterprises, Logistics Information
Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, p. 386-394
Hudson, M., Smart, A., Bourne, M., (2001). Theory and
Practice in SME Performance Measurement Systems,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21, Issue: 8, pp. 1096 – 1115
IFIP–IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise
Integration, (1999). GERAM: Generalised Enterprise
Reference Architecture and Methodology , Version 1.6.3,
March
Iribarne, P., (2003, 2006). Les tableaux de bord de la
performance: comment les concevoir, les aligner et les
déployer sur les Facteurs Clés de Performance, Dunod , 2ème
édition
Jonsson, P., Lesshammar, M., (1999). Evaluation and
improvement of manufacturing performance measurement
systems - The role of OEE, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol.19, PP 55-78
Kaplan, R.S., Johnson, (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and
fall of management accounting, Harvard business school
press, Boston
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., (1992). The Balanced scorecard:
Measures that drives performance , Harvard business review,
January / February
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., (1993). Putting the balanced
scorecard to work, Harvard Business Review, September /
October , pp.134-137
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., (1996). The Balanced Scorecard:
Translating Strategy into Action , Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA
557
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., (1996). Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system, Harvard
Business Review-January/February, pp.75-85
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., (2000). Having trouble with your
strategy? Then Map it, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78,
n°5, pp. 167-176
Keegan, D., Eiler, R., Jones, C., (1989). Are your
performance measures obsolete?, Management Accounting ,
June, pp. 45-50
Krohmm, H., (1997). Contribution à l’étude de la cohérence
dans la décomposition des objectifs dans le modèle GRAI,
DEA d’Automatique et Productique - LAP/GRAI Bordeaux1
University, Septembre
Kueng, P., Krahn, A.J., (1999). Building a process
performance measurement system: some early experiences,
Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, Vol.58, pp.140-
159
Laitinen. E.K., (1996). Framework for Small Business
Performance Measurement, Vaasa nyliopisto - University of
Vaasa
Laitinen, E.K., (2002). A dynamic performance measurement
system: evidence from small Finnish technology firms,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 65-99
Lohman, C., Fortuin, L., Wouters, M., (2004). Designing a
performance measurement system: A case study, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol.156, N°2, pp. 267- 286
Lynch, R., Cross, K.F., (1991). Measure Up ± The Essential
Guide to Measuring Business Performance , Mandarin,
London
Mc Adam, R., (2000). Quality models in an SME context,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 17, pp.305–323
Manoocherch, N., Rigas, J., Fan, I-S., (2005). A framework
to review performance measurement systems, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 11, Issue: 2, pp.109 –
122
Maskell, L. B., (1989). Performance measurement for world
class manufacturing, Management Accounting, May, pp. 32-
3, June- pp. 32-3, July-August, pp. 48 and 50,September,pp.
64-6
Medori, D., Steeple, D., (2000). A framework for auditing
and enhancing performance measurement systems,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol.20, n°5, pp.520-533
Moseng, B., Bredrup, H., (1993). A methodology for
industrial studies of productivity performance, Production
Planning and Control , Vol. 4, No 3, pp. 198-206
Neely, A., Mills, J., Gregory, M., Platts, K., Richard, H.,
(1994). Mapping measures and activities: a practical tool for
assessing measurement systems, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference of the European Operations
Management Association, University of Cambridge,
Manufacturing Engineering Group- pp. 313-318, Cambridge
Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K., (1995). Performance
Measurement System Design: A literature review and
research agenda, International Journal of Production
Enonomics, Vol.48, pp.23-37
Neely, A., Mills, J., Greogory, Y. M., Platts, K., Bourne, M.,
(1996). Getting the measure in your business, Department of
Trade Industry-Engineering and Physical Science Research
IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 M. Ravelomanantsoa et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551 551

Council-Published by Work Management, University of Tangen, S., (2003). Evaluation and Revision of Performance
Cambridge Measurement Systems , Research project description in:
Neely, A. D., Richards, A.H., Mills, J. F., Platts, K.W. , Work Packages, Proceedings of the Proper Scientific
Bourne, M.C.S., (1997). Designing performance measures: a Advisory Group meeting in December 10-12, Gothenburg,
structured approach ,International Journal of Operations & Sweden
Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 1131-53 Taticchi, P., Cagnazzo, L., Botarelli, M., (2008).
Neely, A., Adams, C., (2000). Perspectives on Performance: Performance Measurement and Management (PMM) for
The Performance Prism , In Handbook of Performance SMEs: a literature review and a reference framework for
Measurement (ed. Bourne, M.) , Gee Publishing, London PMM design , POMS , 19th Annual Conference, La Jolla,
Neely, A., Adams, C., Crowe, P., (2001). The performance California, U.S.A. May 9 to May 12
prism in practice , Business excellence Taticchi, P., Cagnazzo, L., Botarelli, M.., Sameh, M.,
Neely, A., Bourne, M., (2000). Why measurement initiatives Performance measurement discussion of the literature
fail , Measuring Business Excellence , Vol. 4, n° 4,-pp. 3-6 available for larges companies and SME ,
Neely, A., Bourne, M., Mills, J., .Wilcox, M., Platts, K., http://www.pma.otago.ac.nz/pma-cd/papers/1088.pdf
(2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance Tenhunen, J., Rantanen, H. Ukko, J., (2001). SME-oriented
measurement system, International Journal of Operations Implementation of a Performance Measurement System,
and Production Management, Vol.20, pp.754-771 Lahti, Finland: Department of Industrial Engineering and
Neely, A., (2002). Business performance measurement , Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology
Cambridge university press Williams, T. J., (1994). The Purdue Enterprise Reference
Neely, A., Mills, J., Gregory, M., Platts, K., Richard, H., Architecture , Computer in Industry, Vol.24, pp.141-158
(1994). Getting the measure of your business: a practical Walley, P., Tayles, M., Duberley, J., (1994). Strategy and
approach, Management Accounting Research Group performance measurement compatibility: selected case
Conference, Aston, UK, 8-9, September- 1994-Livre publié examples , Proceedings of the 1st EurOMA Conference
en 2002 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University) , pp. 403–408
Neely, A., (2007). Towards a definition of a business Wisner, J.D., Fawcett, S.E., (1991). Linking firm strategy to
performance measurement system, International. Journal of operating decisions through performance measurement,
Operation and Production Management , vol. 27, N°8- Production an Inventory Management Journal, Third
pp.784-801 quarter,Vol.32, n°3, pp.5-1
Porter, M., (1992). L’avantage concurrentiel, Inter éditions
Pritchard, R.D., (1990). Measuring and improving
organisational productivity: a practical guide, Praeger, New
York
Ravelomanatsoa, M., Ducq, Y., Vallespir, B., (2009).
Integration of requirements for Performance Indicator System
definition and implementation methods , Conférence ,
Advances in Production Management Systems , APMS
2009,Bordeaux , 21-23 septembre ,
Rentes, A.F., Carpinetti, L.C.R., Van Aken, E., (2002).
Measurement system development process: A pilot
application and recommendations ,Third international
conference on theory and practice in performance
measurement and management, Boston
Roboam, M., (1993). La méthode GRAI : principes, outils,
démarche et pratique , Teknéa
Russo, J., (2006). Balanced Scorecard para PME , Lisboa:
Lidel available on www.iapmei.pt
Saaty, T.L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
Editions McGrawHill
Sink, D.S, Tuttle, T.C., (1989). Planning and measurement in
your organisation of the future, Industrial Engineering and
Management Press-Norcross, G.A.
SINTEF, TOPP, (1992). A productivity Program for
Manufacturing Industry , NTNF/NTH, Trondheim, Norvège
Stalk, G., Hout, T., (1990) Competing against Time , Free
Press, New York - NY
Supply Chain Council, (2000). Supply Chain Operations
Reference * Version 2000
Supply Chain Council, (2008). Supply Chain Operations
Reference, edition 2008, Version 4.0. avalaible on
http://www.supply-chain.org/cs/root/home

558