The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Fifteen years of international Fifteen years of

IJPPM
journal of productivity and
performance management
(2004–2018)
Riya Sureka and Satish Kumar Received 30 November 2019
Revised 28 March 2020
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, India Accepted 9 May 2020
Sachin Kumar Mangla
University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, and
Flavio Hourneaux Junior
University of S~ao Paulo Faculty of Economics Business and
Accountancy of Ribeir~ao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management (IJPPM) is one of the
prominent journals publishing on general management with a particular focus on performance management
and productive sciences. The objective of this study is to provide an academic structure overview of the journal
between 2004 and 2018 using bibliometric tools.
Design/methodology/approach – Data used for this study were extracted using the Scopus database.
Bibliometric analysis using several bibliometric indicators are adopted to know the major trends and themes of
the journal. Mapping of bibliographic data is carried using VOSviewer and Gephi software.
Findings – Authors: Most of the IJPPM contributors are affiliated to the UK and India. Journal Performance: It
is gaining pre-eminence in terms of total citations as well as CiteScores. Main themes: Major themes published
in the journal are “performance management”, “productivity”, “six sigma”, “lean” and “supply chain
management”.
Originality/value – IJPPM’s growing influence in the scientific community has generated the interest to
analyse the journal’s publication and growth pattern. Moreover, no such retrospective bibliometric study for
IJPPM is conducted so far.
Keywords Performance measurement, Performance management, Bibliometrics, Bibliographic coupling,
Bibliometric review, Bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management (IJPPM) is a prolific
academic journal in the field of productivity science, performance management and
performance measurement. It is an official journal of the World Confederation of Productivity
Science. IJPPM publishes peer-reviewed scholarly articles addressing issues related to
productivity and performance measurement and development, organisational design,
engineering and re-engineering and quality management. Dr Luisa Huaccho of the
University of York and Dr Nicky Shaw of Leeds University Business School currently are
the co-editors of the journal.
IJPPM is ranked “B” by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) 2019 ranking.
According to the Scopus database, IJPPM ranks 23rd in the general business, management
and accounting category and stands among top 100 journals in strategy and management International Journal of
category. Table 1 shows the top 25 journals in the category of “general business, Productivity and Performance
Management
management and accounting” based on CiteScore 2018. Scimago shows that the journal has © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
an h-index of 48, which means that at least 48 articles of the journal carry at least 48 DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-11-2019-0530
IJPPM Journal CiteScore 2018

Academy of Management Journal 10.36

Academy of Management Review 9.20
Journal of International Business Studies 8.12
International Journal of Production Economics 7.13
Journal of Intellectual Capital 5.79
Journal of Small Business Management 5.29
Journal of Business Ethics 4.46
British Journal of Management 4.44
Small Business Economics 4.19
Corporate Governance: An International Review 3.91
ACM Transactions on Information Systems 3.89
BRQ Business Research Quarterly 3.87
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3.72
Journal of Conflict Resolution 3.68
Organization 3.20
Journal of Business and Psychology 3.17
Journal of Common Market Studies 3.05
Industry and Innovation 3.03
International Journal of Health Geographics 2.99
R and D Management 2.99
Table 1. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 2.89
Journal rankings in the Review of Accounting Studies 2.87
“general business, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 2.75
management and Management Decision 2.74
accounting” category Review of Managerial Science 2.70

citations. IJPPM has a Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) of 0.64. SJR not only considers the
number of citations received by the journal but also the prestige of the sources from where
the citations come. Its CiteScore of 2.75 indicates that articles published in IJPPM between
2015 and 2017 received an average citation of 2.75 in the year of 2018. Source Normalized
Impact per Paper (SNIP) is another assessment of the journal impact. IJPPM has a SNIP of
1.435, which shows that the articles of IJPPM have been awarded 1.435 citations explicitly
from journals relating to the productivity science field. The journals CiteScore, SJR and
SNIP show a rising trend between 2004 and 2018 (Figure 1).
It is possible to notice that research on performance measurement and management has
experienced a hype in the last years (Neely, 2007; Taticchi, 2008; Bititci et al., 2012). Not only

2.5

1.5

0.5
Figure 1.
IJPPM’s CiteScore, SJR 0
and SNIP between 2004 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and 2018
Cite Score SJR SNIP
academicians but also practitioners have acknowledged that the survival of an enterprise in Fifteen years of
today’s competitive environment requires continuous monitoring and measurement of IJPPM
performance. IJPPM is a dedicated and prominent platform for performance management,
measurement and productivity research. The journal’s scope includes a variety of
“productivity, performance management and measurement” subtopics, such as lean
production, six sigma, total quality management, supply chain management, factors
affecting performance like board diversity, among others. The journal’s innovative and
diverse research contributions to productivity and performance management field have led to
the challenge to investigate the thematic development of the journal. By doing so, this study
contributes to the prior productivity, performance management and measurement research
by providing a more focused analysis of how IJPPM has boosted scholarly production in the
field. It also provides a summary of what has been addressed in studies on these themes
recently.
At first, the name of the journal was Time and Motion Study, then Work Study. In January
2004, it adopted the current name. IJPPM, under its new designation, moved towards a more
stringent process to ensure prominent and higher quality publications (Radnor and Heap,
2004). With this new title, the journal clearly expressed its focal intention to cover
“productivity and performance management” research. The quality of publications was
ensured by accepting a process of “double-blind refereeing” of papers by experts in their
respective fields. After these changes, the journal has been included in relevant scientific
research databases, such as Scopus and Clarivate Analytics’ Emerging Sources Citation
Index (ESCI). In 2018, IJPPM celebrated the 15th anniversary of its new title. Thus, this study
also aims to provide a retrospective overview of the journal’s leading trends and its thematic
developments during 2004 and 2018, using bibliometric tools. Considering publications from
2004 also ensured high-quality works for thematic development analysis.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical
background of the study. Section 3 describes the methodology used for the study. The next
section shows the results of descriptive analysis followed by network analysis in Section 5.
The final section concludes the study.

2. Theoretical background
The field of knowledge that comprises performance and its measurement and management is
neither new nor inexpressive. Historically, it is possible to get back to 500 years ago, when
Luca Pacioli created the first system to acknowledge the financial performance in companies
(Euske and Zander, 2005). Since then, performance measurement and management (PMM)
(Radnor and Barnes, 2007) has been turned into a multimillionaire industry, having its
importance increased both for academics and practitioners (Neely, 2007, p. 3).
Several studies compiled the evolution of the PMM (e.g. Euske and Zander, 2005; Folan
and Browne, 2005; Neely et al., 2007; Radnor and Barnes, 2007; Carneiro Da Cunha et al., 2016).
Regardless those articles’ purpose, the concept of organisational performance (OP) can be
seen not only as fundamental, complex and multidimensional but also as something that has
been changing over time (Richard et al., 2009).
Consequently, there are several and different definitions for OP in the literature. OP can be
more strictly defined as “a parameter used to quantify the efficiency and/or effectiveness of a
past action” (Neely et al., 2002, p. 9) or more broadly, as “the organisation’s ability to achieve
its objectives, by using its resources efficiently” (Daft and Marcic, 2004, p. 10). From
understanding these definitions, we can notice that efficiency and effectiveness are the two
most important dimensions of OP, where efficiency “is based around the notion of output
divided by input which focuses measures around the productivity of a process and the
utilisation of resources” and effectiveness “has been based around the notion of the
IJPPM appropriateness of the outputs of the process, which focuses on a broader set of measures”
(Radnor and Barnes, 2007).
Nevertheless, Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) expand the discussion when they establish the
difference between efficiency and effectiveness. For the authors, efficiency would be “an
internal standard of organisational performance”, featuring measures “easy to obtain, but
difficult to be interpreted” (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003, p. 33). On the other hand, effectiveness
“is an external standard applied to the results or activities of an organisation” (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 2003, p. 34). Richard et al. (2009) go even further, stressing the difference between (1)
OP, that encompasses three specific areas of firm’s outcomes: financial performance, product
market performance and shareholder return and (2) organisational effectiveness (OE), a
broader concept “comprising all internal performance outcomes normally associated with
more efficient or effective operations” and external measures that associated “with economic
valuation (either by shareholders, managers, or customers), such as corporate social
responsibility” (p. 722).
Regardless of the lack of consensus on what performance is and its general use as a
construct in the management literature (Richard et al., 2009), it is possible to identify two
leading roles for PMM in organisations: first, “to clarify the objectives of the organisation and
communicate them in a way that makes the strategy explicit”, and second, “to measure
performance against these objectives to provide feedback as to whether or not the goals are
being achieved”. (Martinez et al., 2010, p. 70). From both perspectives, the premise is that
PMM is a stepping stone for the organisation’s strategic management (Kaplan and Norton,
1992, 1996).
Performance is measured within a Performance Measurement System (PMS). According
to Simons (2000), PMSs are “information systems that managers use to track the
implementation of business strategy by comparing actual results against strategic goals
and objectives. A PMS typically comprises systematic methods of setting business goals
together with periodic feedback reports”. (p. 337). Thus, the PMSs have critical roles for a
firm’s management. According to Franco-Santos et al. (2007), these roles are five: measure
performance, strategy management, communication, influence behaviour and learning and
improvement. Each one of these roles can be identified throughout the firm’s activities by the
use of PMM frameworks and tools. For instance, for measuring performance, the PDCA from
Deming and Shewhart and its variations; for strategic management and communication,
Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard; for learning and improvement, Six Sigma and the
list goes on.
Although the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996) has dominated
the scene in the PPM field recently (Marr and Schiuma, 2003), there are significant emerging
trends in organisational strategies and activities such as the introduction of multicultural
collaboration, open innovation, servitization and sustainability that subsequently will affect
in the performance measurement and management processes in these years to come (Bititci
et al., 2012).

3. Methodology
Bibliometrics is the statistical analysis of a set of connected documents using several
bibliometric indicators that offer an overall summary of a research area (Nicholas and Ritchie,
1978). It is correlative to econometrics, social network study and other quantitative methods
(Diamond, 2000). Prichard (1969) described the bibliometric analysis as the quantitative
analysis of bibliographic data.
There are plenty of bibliometric studies in several areas of knowledge, including general
business, management and accounting. Besides, a comprehensive overview of a specific
journal is mostly created using a bibliometric methodology (Bar-Ilan, 2008). There is
substantial literature using bibliometrics in studying the trends and developments of a Fifteen years of
journal (Schwert, 1993; Wang et al., 2019; Rialp et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2020). Some examples IJPPM
are the studies of Valenzuela-Fernandez et al. (2019) who present a bibliometric analysis for
the first 25 years of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing; Schrock et al. (2016) who
studied the intellectual structure of the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management;
and finally, Cunill et al. (2019) who analysed the most significant trends of the International
Journal of Hospitality Management using bibliometrics on its thirty-fifth anniversary.
Thus, it is a common practice among journals of carrying out a significant analysis on the
celebration of its special events or carry a retrospective analysis on completion of a
significant tenure in publishing by publishing editorials, special issues or bibliometric
analysis-based reviews, such as Davis (2015); Meyer and Winer (2014) and Cunill et al. (2019).
To achieve this article’s aim, to provide an academic structure overview of the journal
between 2004 and 2018, the bibliographic data used in this study were collected from the
Scopus database. Scopus, along with having several advantages, also have certain
disadvantages (Strozzi et al., 2017). The most significant advantage is that Scopus is the
largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed academic research literature in the
world (Norris and Oppenheim, 2007; Zhao and Strotmann, 2015). However, the Scopus
bibliographic data are not as ready-to-use as of Web of Science (Strozzi et al., 2017). This
feature made us further recheck and refine the Scopus data manually. “IJPPM” was searched
under “source, title” head in Scopus during early October 2019. The database initially
provided 1,329 IJPPM documents. After excluding editorials and other non-peer reviewed
documents published, the database showed a filtered result of 1,168 documents. Further, 24
documents were removed, as they were editorials but were mentioned as “article” in Scopus.
After removing these 24 editorials, a final set of 1,142 articles and reviews was considered for
further analysis.
By acknowledging all the prior similar research, this study presents a comprehensive
analysis of IJPPM by analysing the journal’s publication trends and significant themes. This
research uses a wide range of bibliometric indicators, such as counting of citations and
publications, h-index, co-authorship, co-occurrence and other related indicators, to provide an
overview of IJPPM’s publications and developments trends. Analyses carried include
IJPPM’s publication and citation structure, its most cited articles, most contributing authors,
institutions and countries, articles and journals most cited by IJPPM, and authors,
institutions and countries mostly cited by IJPPM publications. Further, to understand the
thematic developments in the journal, bibliographic coupling analysis of IJPPM publications
was conducted. Kessler (1963) argued that when two documents cite a third common
document in their bibliographies, they tend to form a bibliographic couple. Documents
forming a bibliographic couple talk about a related subject matter (Martyn, 1964). Therefore,
IJPPM documents were grouped based on bibliographic coupling and thematic developments
in the journal are analysed. Additionally, the mapping of bibliographic data using
bibliometric indicator co-authorship is made to understand the collaboration patterns in the
journal using VOSviewer and Gephi software (van Eck and Waltman, 2017; Bastian et al.,
2009). Figure 2 displays the methodological design of this study.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Most cited IJPPM articles
Shepherd and G€ unter’s “Measuring supply chain performance: Current research and future
directions” (2006) is the most cited article of IJPPM, with 325 mentions. It has a citation per
year indicator of 27.08 within a 12-year span, which shows that it is the fastest-growing article
in terms of citations among the list of upper 20 cited articles of the journal. Other mostly cited
articles of the journal include “Do women in top management affect firm performance?
IJPPM
Selection and retrieval of documents published between 2004 and 2018

Scopus search under ‘Source name’ for “International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management” ***

1,329 Documents (2004 - 2019)

Editorials and documents published in 2019 were

excluded
1,168 Documents

Manual cleaning of data

1,142 Articles and Reviews

Bibliometric Analysis Descriptive Analysis

Thematic structure of IJPPM on the basis of Evolution of citation per year
bibliographic coupling analysis
Most contributing IJPPM author, institution
Most referred articles by IJPPM publications
and country
Most referred journals by IJPPM publications
Most cited articles of IJPPM
Temporal evolution of IJPPM keywords
Top authors, institutions and countries and
Network file of authors and countries co-
journals citing IJPPM
authorship analysis for further picturing (in
Gephi)

Network Analysis
Figure 2. Graphical visualization of co-authorship analysis network file
Design of the study (produced with VOSviewer)

A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms” (2006) by Smith et al., with 249 citations and “Critical
success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on performance of SMEs” (2009),
by Ismail Salaheldin S., with 202 citations. Table 2 lists the 20 most cited articles of IJPPM
between 2004 and 2018.
4.1.1 Most influential IJPPM articles – a short review. Shepherd and G€
unter (2006), the most
cited article in the sample, provide a review of performance measurement systems literature
specifically designed to evaluate the performance of supply chains and suggest five
actionable avenues for future research. Tangen (2004) reviews the contemporary approaches
to performance measurement and efforts to find if they overcome the limitations of the
TC Title Authors Year CPY
Fifteen years of
IJPPM
325 Measuring supply chain performance: Current research Shepherd C., G€
unter H. 2006 27.08
and future directions
249 Do women in top management affect firm Smith N., Smith V., Verner 2006 20.75
performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms M.
202 Critical success factors for TQM implementation and Ismail Salaheldin S. 2009 22.44
their impact on performance of SMEs
182 Measuring lean initiatives in health care services: Kollberg B., Dahlgaard J.J., 2007 15.17
Issues and findings Brehmer P.-O.
169 Demystifying productivity and performance Tangen S. 2005 13.00
163 Performance measurement: From philosophy to Tangen S. 2004 11.64
practice
144 Development of a balanced scorecard: An integrated Thakkar J., Deshmukh S.G., 2007 13.09
approach of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) Gupta A.D., Shankar R.
and Analytic Network Process (ANP)
135 IT enablement of supply chains: Modelling the enablers Jharkharia S., Shankar R. 2004 9.64
126 Productivity improvement of a computer hardware Ravi V., Shankar R., Tiwari 2005 9.69
supply chain M.K.
125 Collaborative performance management: Present gaps Busi M., Bititci U.S. 2006 10.42
and future research
115 Managing corporate performance: Investigating the Aras G., Aybars A., Kutlu O. 2010 14.38
relationship between corporate social responsibility
and financial performance in emerging markets
110 A framework to assess performance measurement Cocca P., Alberti M. 2010 13.75
systems in SMEs
103 A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality Sahney S., Banwet D.K., 2004 7.36
education: A student perspective Karunes S.
101 Performance measurement of sustainable supply Taticchi P., Tonelli F., 2013 20.20
chains: A literature review and a research agenda Pasqualino R.
98 Six Sigma vs Lean: Some perspectives from leading Antony J. 2011 14.00
academics and practitioners
96 Determinants of employee engagement and their Jasti, N. V. K., Kurra, S. 2014 24.00
impact on employee performance
95 Service productivity: Towards understanding the Johnston R., Jones P. 2004 6.79
relationship between operational and customer
productivity
86 Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions Antony J., Krishan N., Cullen 2012 14.33
(HEIs): Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/ D., Kumar M.
techniques
85 Prominent obstacles to lean Bhasin S. 2012 14.17
85 Historical analysis of performance measurement and Radnor Z.J., Barnes D. 2007 7.73 Table 2.
management in operations management Most cited articles
Note(s): CPY5 Citation per year of IJPPM

traditional methods of measuring performance. The article critically presents the limitations
of each performance measurement system and argues that the new frameworks provide little
information on the procedure of measurement.
Smith et al. (2006) studied the influence of board diversity on firm performance. The
findings indicate that the proportion of women in top management positively affects the firm
performance, depending upon the qualification of female managers. Aghazadeh (2004)
studied the management of workforce diversity. Results of the study indicate that managers
can deal better with diversity both within the organization and externally by creating a
diverse workplace.
Prerequisites and characteristics of performance measurement systems in large firms are
studied extensively, but there is a dearth of investigations on issues related to small and medium
IJPPM enterprises (SMEs) (Hudson et al., 2000). IJPPM contributes towards the recovery of this
significant gap in the literature by publishing 37 studies related to SMEs. Among these 37 SME
articles, Ismail Salaheldin (2009) is the most cited article (202 cites). Ismail Salaheldin (2009), with
a survey in Qatar, confirms that strategic factors majorly influence the successful
implementation of the total quality management programs within the SMEs. The study also
shows the positive effect of the total quality management implementation on both the operational
and organizational performance of SMEs. Second comes Cocca and Alberti’s article (2010), with
110 citations. The study developed a framework of performance management systems for the
SMEs to facilitate the identification of flaws and take corrective measures. Also, Manville (2007)
proposes that the balanced scorecard can be implemented in a not-for-profit SME.
As lean production positively influences the organisational performance, the significance
of the concept is rapidly increasing (Jasti and Kodali, 2015). This has escalated the
researcher’s interest and let to the growth in published articles. IJPPM has also contributed to
the concept with several original and essential research works. Kollberg et al. (2007) found
that the lean approach could be applied to the healthcare settings, and the “flow model” could
be used to measure the lean initiatives. Castle and Harvey (2009) found the cause of the
process-related problems, through the observational methods of collecting data. The authors
offer practical approaches to prevent mistakes in the health care processes for the workforce
at all levels of the organization. With the development of research, the lean production and Six
Sigma concept were integrated, leading to the Lean Six Sigma, considered as the most
successful in the process improvement (Spector, 2006).
The recent publications of IJPPM cover topics such as supply chain performance, Lean Six
Sigma, Lean and green concepts, quality of reporting, authentic leadership and employee
integrity. Thanki and Thakkar (2018) proposed a quantitative framework for measuring the
lean and green performance of the supply chain. The framework is built on a balanced
scorecard and a strategy map. Further, the study validates the application of the proposed
model on the case of an Indian Textile supply chain. Additionally, Antony et al. (2018) offered
ten commandments of Lean Six Sigma. In short, the journal accomplishes its aim of
publishing new advances in productivity science, performance measurement and
management. It also focuses on works dedicated towards the enhancement of individual,
group and organizational performance.

4.2 Evolution of citation per year

IJPPM published its highest number of articles (251) in the year 2004. Its publication graph
has sudden dips and rises, but the citations form a continuous upward graph. Table 3
presents the yearly evolution of citation of IJPPM. The journal received its highest annual
citation of 2,206 in the year 2018. 2017 shows the highest citation per publication of 30.29.
Between 2004 and 2018, 674 articles out of 1,142 total articles have received 13,376 citations.
Growing citations show the rising influence (Svensson, 2010) of IJPPM.

4.3 Most prolific IJPPM authors, institutions and countries

In order to identify the most prolific authors, institutions and countries presented in IJPPM
between 2004 and 2018, the total number of publications is considered along with their
h-index, the number of cited publications, citation per publication and citation per cited
publication. The results reveal that Frenie Jiju Antony, from Heriot-Watt University, is the
most contributing author in IJPPM with 27 publications and 739 citations. This author has an
h-index of 14 and 2 papers carrying more than 75 citations. Among the top-20 contributing
authors, the highest citation per publication of 112.25 is marked by Ravi Shankar, from
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. He contributes with four papers, and three of them
 Publications with citations ≥
Fifteen years of
Year TP TC NCP C/P C/CP 40 30 20 10 5 1 IJPPM
2004 251 5 4 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 4
2005 77 21 17 0.27 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 17
2006 39 57 23 1.46 0.59 0 0 0 0 1 23
2007 38 133 71 3.50 1.87 0 0 0 0 4 71
2008 52 232 97 4.46 1.87 0 0 0 1 12 97
2009 102 370 131 3.63 1.28 0 0 1 1 25 131
2010 61 570 182 9.34 2.98 0 0 1 8 35 182
2011 114 630 186 5.53 1.63 0 0 1 10 48 186
2012 61 760 239 12.46 3.92 0 1 1 7 46 239
2013 48 923 287 19.23 5.98 0 1 1 16 50 287
2014 55 1,114 305 20.25 5.55 0 1 3 19 82 305
2015 52 1,258 346 24.19 6.65 0 0 4 23 93 346
2016 57 1,495 389 26.23 6.82 1 3 3 30 98 389
2017 56 1,696 435 30.29 7.77 1 1 6 36 127 435
2018 105 2,206 498 21.01 4.74 1 2 10 48 153 498
Note(s): TP 5 total publication, TC 5 total citation, NCP 5 number of cited publication, C/P 5 citation per Table 3.
publication, C/CP 5 citation per cited publication, Publications with citations ≥40, 30, 20, 10, 5 and 1 represent Evolution of citation
the count of publications having more than or equal to 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 and 1 citation per year

carry more than 100 citations. Other most contributing authors of IJPPM are Sameer Kumar
and John P. Heap, with 11 publications each. Table 4 lists the 20 most prolific authors
of IJPPM.
Table 5 shows the 20 most contributing institutions affiliated to IJPPM authors. The
University of Strathclyde, from the UK, contributes most to IJPPM, with 17 articles and 782
citations. It has the highest h-index of 17. This generally happens when the institutions
affiliated to the most contributing authors become the most contributing institutions. Here,
Antony, with 27 publications, by the time of data collection was affiliated to Heriot-Watt
University but previously belonged to the University of Strathclyde. This increased the
contribution count of the institution. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, comes second with
13 publications, but in terms of citations, it contributes maximum to the journal with 809
citations. It has four publications credited with more than 100 citations. Further, the
University of Warwick, the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, Cardiff University and the
University of Queensland are also the prolific contributors of IJPPM with 11 publications
respectively.
Most prolific countries are reported in Table 6. Results show that the UK is the most
present country in IJPPM crediting, followed by India, both in terms of publications and
citations. The possible reason behind this fact is that 11 out of 20 most prolific authors in
IJPPM belong to the UK and India. UK has published 163 articles in the journal out of which
154 papers credit 3,652 citations to IJPPM. The UK has three articles carrying more than
100 citations and 11 articles carrying equal or more than 75 citations. India has 114
publications, out of which 103 articles carry 2,416 citations. USA (90), Australia (51) and
Brazil (37) have the next prolific authors in the journal in terms of total publications per
country.

4.4 Journals, authors and their affiliated institutions, countries and journals citing IJPPM
To understand the sources crediting most citations to IJPPM, we analysed the upper 20
authors, institutions, countries and journals citing IJPPM articles the most (Table 7). Results
show that Antony who is the most contributing author in the journal, also cited IJPPM the
 authors
Table 4.
IJPPM

Most prolific IJPPM

Publications with citations ≥
Author Institution Country TPC NCP TCC C/P C/CP h 100 75 50 25 10 5

Frenie Jiju Antony Heriot-Watt University UK 27 26 739 27.37 28.42 14 0 2 5 12 18 25

Sameer Kumar University of St. Thomas, Minnesota USA 11 11 174 15.82 15.82 7 0 0 1 3 4 10
John P Heap National Productivity Centre Nigeria 11 5 63 5.73 12.60 4 0 0 0 1 2 4
David W Parker University of Queensland Australia 10 10 123 12.30 12.30 5 0 0 1 1 3 6
Andre A. De Waal Finance Function Research and Netherlands 7 7 153 21.86 21.86 6 0 0 1 2 6 6
Development Center
Aki J€a€askel€ainen Tampereen Yliopisto Finland 7 6 64 9.14 10.67 5 0 0 0 0 3 5
Paolo Taticchi Imperial College Business School UK 5 5 187 37.40 37.40 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Sushil Indian Institute Technology, Delhi India 5 5 179 35.80 35.80 3 0 0 3 3 3 3
E. V Gijo Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore India 5 5 98 19.60 19.60 5 0 0 0 1 3 5
Gavin Lawrie 2GC Active Management UK 4 4 142 35.50 35.50 4 0 1 1 2 4 4
Ravi Shankar Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi India 4 4 449 112.25 112.25 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
S G Deshmukh Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi India 4 4 251 62.75 62.75 4 1 1 1 4 4 4
Devinder Kumar Banwet Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi India 4 4 199 49.75 49.75 4 1 1 1 3 4 4
Dorothea Greiling Johannes Kepler Universitat Linz Austria 4 4 116 29.00 29.00 3 0 0 0 3 3 5
Leonardo Ensslin Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina Brazil 4 4 72 18.00 18.00 4 0 0 0 1 3 3
Sandra Rolim Ensslin Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina Brazil 4 4 72 18.00 18.00 4 0 0 0 1 3 3
Vijaya Sunder M The World Bank India 4 3 72 18.00 24.00 3 0 0 0 2 2 3
Inderpreet Singh Ahuja Punjab University India 4 4 62 15.50 15.50 2 0 0 0 1 2 2
Graham Manville Norwich Business School UK 4 3 59 14.75 19.67 3 0 0 0 1 2 3
Ant^onio Marcio Tavares Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Brazil 4 4 56 14.00 14.00 3 0 0 0 1 2 3
Thome
Note(s): TPC 5 Total publication count, NCP5 Number of cited publications, TCC 5 Total citation count, C/P5 Citation per publication, C/CP5 Citation per cited
publication, h 5 h-index, Publications with citations ≥100, 75, 50, 25, 10 and 5 represent the count of publications having more than or equal to 100, 75, 50, 25, 10 and 5
citations
 Publications with citations ≥
Fifteen years of
Institution Country TPC NCP TCC C/P C/CP h 100 75 50 25 10 5 IJPPM
University of UK 17 17 782 46.00 46.00 13 1 3 6 13 11 17
Strathclyde
Indian India 13 13 809 62.23 62.23 11 4 4 7 10 11 11
Institute of
Technology
Delhi
The UK 11 11 438 39.82 39.82 9 0 3 4 6 9 10
University of
Warwick
University of USA 11 11 174 15.82 15.82 7 0 0 1 3 4 10
St. Thomas,
Minnesota
Cardiff UK 11 11 152 13.82 13.82 4 0 1 1 2 3 3
University
University of Australia 11 11 134 12.18 12.18 5 0 0 1 1 4 7
Queensland
Tampere Finland 10 10 113 11.30 11.30 7 0 0 0 0 5 8
University of
Technology
Heriot-Watt UK 9 8 77 8.56 9.63 6 0 0 0 0 3 7
University
Indian India 8 8 315 39.38 39.38 7 1 2 3 3 8 8
Institute of
Technology
Roorkee
Warwick UK 7 7 380 54.29 54.29 6 0 3 4 5 6 7
Business
School
Indian India 7 7 149 21.29 21.29 5 0 1 1 3 4 5
Institute of
Technology
Kharagpur
University of UK 7 7 145 20.71 20.71 6 0 0 1 2 6 6
Cambridge
Chalmers Sweden 7 7 140 20.00 20.00 5 0 0 0 2 5 5
University of
Technology
Abu Dhabi UAE 7 7 111 15.86 15.86 5 0 0 0 2 3 5
University
Maastricht Netherlands 6 6 151 25.17 25.17 6 0 0 1 2 6 6
School of
Management
Concordia Canada 6 6 144 24.00 24.00 5 0 0 1 2 5 5
University
Indian India 6 6 103 17.17 17.17 5 0 0 0 1 3 6
Statistical
Institute,
Bangalore
Indian India 6 4 81 13.50 20.25 4 0 0 0 2 2 4
Institute of
Technology
Madras Table 5.
Most prolific IJPPM
(continued ) institutions
IJPPM Publications with citations ≥
Institution Country TPC NCP TCC C/P C/CP h 100 75 50 25 10 5

University of UK 6 6 75 12.50 12.50 4 0 0 0 2 2 4

Leeds
Punjab India 6 6 66 11.00 11.00 3 0 0 0 1 2 2
University
Note(s): TPC 5 Total publication count, NCP5 Number of cited publications, TCC 5 Total citation count,
C/P5 Citation per publication, C/CP5 Citation per cited publication, h 5 h-index, Publications with
citations ≥100, 75, 50, 25, 10 and 5 represent the count of publications having more than or equal to 100, 75,
Table 5. 50, 25, 10 and 5 citations

Publications with citations ≥

Country Region TPC NCP TCC C/P C/CP h 100 75 50 25 10 5

United Europe 163 154 3,652 22.40 23.71 31 3 11 18 49 98 123

Kingdom
India Asia 114 103 2,416 21.19 23.46 28 4 7 13 37 59 75
United States North 90 78 1,236 13.73 15.85 20 0 1 3 19 38 58
America
Australia Oceania 51 46 584 11.45 12.70 14 0 0 1 7 20 32
Brazil South 37 31 385 10.41 12.42 13 0 0 0 6 15 18
America
Canada North 34 32 524 15.41 16.38 14 0 0 2 7 18 22
America
Finland Europe 31 30 419 13.52 13.97 13 0 0 1 5 14 25
Italy Europe 30 27 727 24.23 26.93 13 2 2 3 12 19 20
Malaysia Asia 24 20 321 13.38 16.05 10 0 0 0 1 6 9
Netherlands Europe 23 23 392 17.04 17.04 12 0 0 2 4 12 17
Sweden Europe 22 21 873 39.68 41.57 13 2 2 3 7 14 16
Portugal Europe 18 16 127 7.06 7.94 6 0 0 0 2 3 8
Greece Europe 17 15 360 21.18 24.00 10 0 0 1 7 10 11
Iran Asia 16 14 226 14.13 16.14 7 0 1 1 2 6 8
Thailand Asia 13 11 155 11.92 14.09 6 0 0 0 3 5 7
Spain Europe 12 11 215 17.92 19.55 6 0 0 1 4 5 6
United Arab Middle 12 12 172 14.33 14.33 7 0 0 0 3 5 9
Emirates East
Germany Europe 10 10 174 17.40 17.40 7 0 0 0 2 7 7
New Zealand Oceania 10 10 116 11.60 11.60 6 0 0 0 2 4 7
Taiwan Asia 9 9 181 20.11 20.11 5 0 0 1 4 4 5
Note(s): TPC 5 Total publication count, NCP5 Number of cited publications, TCC 5 Total citation count,
Table 6. C/P5 Citation per publication, C/CP5 Citation per cited publication, h 5 h-index, h 5 h-index, Publications
Most prolific IJPPM with citations ≥100, 75, 50, 25, 10 and 5 represent the count of publications having more than or equal to 100,
countries 75, 50, 25, 10 and 5 citations

most providing 64 cites. Authors from Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, cited IJPPM the
most, 119 times, followed by Universiti Utara Malaysia, with 103 cites. Regarding countries,
the maximum citations received by the journal are from India (1,416), UK (1,102) and USA
(1,018) citations. IJPPM is cited most by authors publishing in IJPPM itself than in other
journals (484 citations). Benchmarking: an International Journal (184), International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management (128), Journal of Cleaner Production (126) have cited
IJPPM the most between 2004 and 2018. Citations from these highly reputed journals show
the stature of IJPPM.
Author TCC Institution TCC Country TCC Journal TCC
Fifteen years of
IJPPM
Antony, J. 64 Indian Institute of 119 India 1,416 International Journal 414
Technology Delhi of Productivity and
Performance
Management
Shankar, R. 39 Universiti Utara 103 United 1,102 Benchmarking: an 184
Malaysia Kingdom International Journal
Devadasan, 36 Universidade 85 United 1,018 International Journal 128
S.R. Federal de Santa States of Quality And
Catarina Reliability
Management
Garza-Reyes, 35 Lappeenrannan 81 Malaysia 658 Journal of Cleaner 126
J.A. Teknillinen Production
Yliopisto
Ensslin, L. 32 Universiti Sains 76 Australia 556 International Journal 118
Malaysia of Productivity and
quality Management
Ensslin, S.R. 32 Universiti 72 Brazil 474 International Journal 114
Kebangsaan of Production
Malaysia Research
Kant, R. 30 Universidade de 71 Spain 400 Sustainability 106
S~ao Paulo - USP Switzerland
Ahuja, I.S. 27 Heriot-Watt 71 China 390 Total Quality 106
University, Management and
Edinburgh Business Excellence
Kasemsap, K. 27 Islamic Azad 70 Italy 374 International Journal 101
University of Lean Six Sigma
Gunasekaran, 25 Universiti 68 Germany 333 Production Planning 101
A. Teknologi and Control
Malaysia
Dubey, R. 24 Birla Institute of 65 Iran 332 TQM Journal 98
Technology and
Science, Pilani
Kumar, V. 24 Indian Institute of 63 Finland 290 International Journal 95
Technology of Production
Roorkee Economics
Govindan, K. 23 Tampere 62 Canada 265 International Journal 81
University of of Operations and
Technology Production
Management
Ukko, J. 23 Chalmers 58 Indonesia 258 Journal of 76
University of Manufacturing
Technology Technology
Management
Papadopoulos, 22 Universiti Putra 57 Sweden 247 International Journal 75
T. Malaysia of Services and
Operations
Management
Pekkola, S. 22 Symbiosis 54 Portugal 224 Measuring Business 65
International Excellence
Deemed University
J€a€askel€ainen, 21 RMIT University 53 Netherlands 208 International Journal 62 Table 7.
A. of Logistics Systems Top authors,
and Management institutions and
countries and journals
(continued ) citing IJPPM
IJPPM Author TCC Institution TCC Country TCC Journal TCC

Sushil 20 Universiti 50 South Africa 187 Business Process 59

Teknologi MARA Management
Journal
Laihonen, H. 19 National Institute 49 Taiwan 182 International Journal 57
of Industrial of Business
Engineering Excellence
Shahin, A. 19 University of 49 Greece 176 International Journal 53
Tehran of Supply Chain
Management
Table 7. Note(s): TCC 5 Total citation count

4.5 Most referred documents and journals by IJPPM

Tables 8 and 9 list the documents and journals most referred by IJPPM publications.
Reference bibliographies show the source of influence in IJPPM’s intellectual structure. Neely,
Gregory, and Platts’ “Performance measurement system design: a literature review and
research agenda” (1995) is referred most (40 times) by IJPPM followed by Kaplan and
Norton’s “The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action” (1996) and “The balanced
scorecard – measures that drive performance” (1992), with 39 and 30 citations respectively.
This evidence shows that the publications of IJPPM are highly influenced by the works on
performance management research design and strategic performance management, in the
case of the balanced scorecard.
Results of the most referred journals reveal that authors writing for IJPPM referred IJPPM
itself the most along with International Journal of Operations and Production Management
(781), Harvard Business Review (583), Journal of Operations Management (442) and
International Journal of Production Economics (411) times. Note that, most of the highly cited
journals by IJPPM are reputed academic journals.

4.6 Most studied subjects in IJPPM

To outdraw the major themes published by IJPPM, we have analysed the number of
occurrence of author keywords using VOSviewer (Van Eck and Waltman, 2017). All the
unrelated words were manually checked and removed (Yeung et al., 2019). Articles carrying
common author keywords address a common theme (Ding et al., 2001). Therefore, the co-
occurrence of author keywords is analysed to understand the significant thematic flow of
research in the journal. Table 10 presents the most occurred author keywords between 2004
and 2018. Results show that substantial works in the journal are related to “Performance
Management”, which occurred 119 times in the set of 1,142 documents. Other prominent
themes include “Performance Measures” (79), “Balanced Scorecard” (51), “Performance
Measurement” (50) and Supply Chain Management (49).
To understand the progression of themes in IJPPM, we have analysed author keywords
for every five years, between 2004 and 2018. This analysis enabled us to know the thematic
development of the journal. Top 20 most frequent keywords in these three periods are
presented in Table 11. Outcomes of the analysis show that between 2004 and 2008 the most
occurred keywords are “performance management” (47) and “performance management”
(42) times, followed by “balanced scorecard” (23) and “productivity rate” (22) times. Works
on “supply chain management”, “organisational performance” and “performance
management systems” also evolved during this period which substantially grew later.
2009 to 2013 was a period with the dominance of work on “supply chain management” (27).
The most recent five years emphasised “performance measurement” (30) and “performance
Author Reference PY TCC
Fifteen years of
IJPPM
Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K Performance measurement system design: a literature 1995 40
review and research agenda
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into 1996 39
action
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P The balanced scorecard – measures that drive 1992 30
performance
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Designing, implementing and updating performance 2000 28
Neely, A., Platts, K measurement systems
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., A framework for supply chain performance 2004 25
McGaughey, R.E measurement
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic 1996 25
management system
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P Measuring supply chain performance: current research 2006 20
and future directions
Barney, J Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage 1991 20
Otley, D Performance management: a framework for 1999 20
management control systems research
Eisenhardt, K.M Building theories from case study research 1989 20
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy 1996 20
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F Evaluating structural equation models with 1981 17
unobservable variables and measurement error
Chenhall, R.H Management control systems design within its 2003 15
organizational context: findings from contingency-
based research and directions for the future
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, Implementing performance measurement systems: a 2003 15
K literature review
Tangen, S Demystifying productivity and performance 2005 15
Gunasekaran, A., Kobu, B., Performance measures and metrics in logistics and 2007 14
supply chain management: a review of recent literature
(1995–2004) for research and applications
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., Contemporary performance measurement systems: a 2012 14
Bourne, M. review of their consequences and a framework for
research
Bititci, U.S., Turner, T., Begemann, Dynamics of performance measurement systems 2000 14
C.
Cocca, P., Alberti, M A framework to assess performance measurement 2010 13
systems in SMEs
Teeratansirikool, L., Siengthai, S., Competitive strategies and firm performance: the 2013 11 Table 8.
Badir, Y., Charoenngam, C. mediating role of performance measurement Most referred
Note(s): PY 5 publication year, TCC 5 total citation count documents by IJPPM

management” (25) and showed themes like “productivity” (22), “balanced scorecard” (15),
“lean” (15), “six sigma” (15) and “higher education” (12). “Lean six sigma” and “lean
production” appear during 2009 and 2013 but publications on it escalated during 2014
and 2018.
Finally, Figure 3 presents the evolution of the themes published in IJPPM throughout the
years, according to the keyword co-occurrence per year network. It is possible to notice that
the authors’ concern on the topics covered by the journal has changed. At first, there is a
concentration on the fundamentals of performance measurement, for instance, performance
measurement, performance measures, process efficiency (words in darker blue). Later, the
change to performance management arises, with words like performance management,
operations management, manufacturing systems, etc. (words in lighter blue). The next wave
IJPPM Journal TCC

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 853

International Journal of Operations and Production Management 781
Harvard Business Review 583
Journal of Operations Management 442
International Journal of Production Economics 411
Journal of Applied Psychology 331
Strategic Management Journal 327
Academy of Management Journal 324
European Journal of Operational Research 313
Management Accounting Research 306
Accounting, Organizations and Society 302
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 301
International Journal of Production Research 286
Academy of Management Review 236
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 224
Journal of Management 208
Management Decision 203
Management Science 191
Table 9. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 179
Journals most referred The TQM Magazine 178
by IJPPM Note(s): TCC 5 Total citation count

Keyword Occurrences Total link strength

Performance Management 119 219

Performance Measures 79 161
Balanced Scorecard 51 94
Performance Measurement 50 99
Supply Chain Management 49 84
Performance 32 68
Productivity Rate 32 59
Six Sigma 32 73
Organizational Performance 29 57
Productivity 28 51
Public Sector Organizations 27 63
Lean Production 25 55
Innovation 22 43
Business Performance 21 44
Performance Measurement (Quality) 21 40
Case Studies 20 43
Table 10. Manufacturing Industries 20 42
Most occurred Continuous Improvement 19 34
keywords in IJPPM Performance Management Systems 19 37

consists of how performance management can be done, with topics such as balanced
scorecard, innovation, decision making, lean production, six sigma. (words in green). Finally,
in recent years, new topics on performance management have arisen, such as supply chain,
higher education, lean six sigma. This analysis is merely illustrative, without any statistical
testing, but it represents the differences in the theme development throughout these 15 years
of IJPPM.
2004–2008 2009–2013 2014–2018
Fifteen years of
Keyword Oc Keyword Oc Keyword Oc IJPPM
Performance Measures 47 Performance Management 52 Performance 30
Measurement
Performance Management 42 Supply Chain Management 27 Performance 25
Management
Balanced Scorecard 23 Performance Measures 24 Productivity 22
Productivity Rate 22 Performance Measurement 18 Balanced Scorecard 15
India 13 Balanced Scorecard 13 Lean 15
Public Sector Organizations 12 Public Sector Organizations 13 Six Sigma 15
Supply Chain Management 11 Six Sigma 13 Higher Education 12
Manufacturing Industries 10 Organizational Performance 12 Innovation 12
Performance Measurement 9 Performance Measurement 12 Lean Six Sigma 12
(Quality) (Quality)
Process Efficiency 9 India 11 Supply Chain 12
Small to Medium-Sized 9 Lean Production 11 Organizational 11
Enterprises Performance
Business Performance 7 Performance Management 10 Supply Chain 11
Systems Management
Operations Management 7 Productivity Rate 10 Continuous 10
Improvement
Quality Management 7 Manufacturing Industries 9 India 10
Total Quality Management 7 Performance 9 Business Performance 8
United Kingdom 7 United Kingdom 9 Lean Production 8
Innovation 6 Small To Medium-Sized 8 Performance Measures 8
Enterprises
Lean Production 6 Case Studies 7 Leadership 7
Organizational Performance 6 Critical Success Factors 7 Manufacturing 7
Performance Management 6 Total Quality Management 7 Collaboration 6 Table 11.
Systems Temporal evolution
Note(s): Oc 5 frequency of occurrence IJPPM keywords

5. Bibliographic coupling network analysis

The thematic structure of IJPPM is recognised using bibliographic coupling analysis of
documents employing VOSviewer software. Documents forming bibliographic couple are
likely to have related intellectual structure (Weinberg, 1974). On analysing 1,142 documents,
VOSviewer classified the documents into four major clusters and several minor clusters.
These four major cluster includes 697 documents. Table 12 presents the summary of four
clusters along with the top-three cited papers within each cluster. In the following
paragraphs, we describe and discuss these clusters’ characteristics.
(1) Cluster-1
Bibliographic coupling analysis provided the largest cluster of 308 articles which alone
credits 6,406 citations to IJPPM, which is 48% of total citations of the journal between 2004
and 2018. This outcome shows the dominant influence of the themes covered by this cluster in
this journal. The cluster centrally talks about “performance measurement” and its related
ancillary topics like service performance (Pidd, 2005), collaborative performance (Busi and
Bititci, 2006), corporate performance (Aras et al., 2010) and balanced scorecard (Lawrie and
Cobbold, 2004). “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future
directions” (2010), by Shepherd and G€ unter, is the most cited article in the cluster with 325
citations. Shepherd and Gunter (2006) provide a detailed analysis of the contemporary
IJPPM

Figure 3.
IJPPM keyword co-
occurrence per year
network
 TA top cited articles
Fifteen years of
C Central subject Author Title Y TC IJPPM
1 Performance measurement, 308 Shepherd, C. and Measuring supply chain 2006 325
service performance, G€
unter, H performance: current
collaborative performance, research and future
corporate performance, directions
balanced scorecard Tangen, S Demystifying productivity 2005 169
and performance
Tangen, S Performance measurement: 2004 163
from philosophy to practice
2 TQM, Supply chain, SMEs, 185 Ismail Salaheldin, Critical success factors for 2009 202
employee engagement S TQM implementation and
their impact on performance
of SMEs
Jharkharia, S. and IT enablement of supply 2004 135
Shankar, R chains: modelling the
enablers
Ravi, V., Shankar, Productivity improvement 2005 126
R. and Tiwari, M. of a computer hardware
K. supply chain
3 Lean, Six sigma, lean six 120 Kollberg, B., Measuring lean initiatives in 2007 182
sigma, lean manufacturing, Dahlgaard, J. J. health care services: issues
lean service, constrained and Brehmer, P. and findings
management Antony, J Six Sigma vs Lean 2011 98
Antony, J., Lean Six Sigma for higher 2012 86
Krishan, N., education institutions (HEIs)
Cullen, D. and
Kumar, M
4 Banks, health sector, 84 Ho, C and Zhu, D. Performance measurement 2004 63
productivity analysis, DEA- of Taiwan’s commercial
AHP technique banks
Hilmola, O European railway freight 2007 53
transportation and
adaptation to demand
decline
Kumar, S. and Measuring efficiency, 2009 49
Gulati, R. effectiveness and
performance of Indian
public sector banks Table 12.
Note(s): C 5 cluster, TA 5 total articles, TC 5 total citations, Y 5 year of publication Cluster overview

literature on supply chain performance. Tangen (2004) suggested that modern performance
management frameworks lack in serving the practitioners as they hardly consider the
practicalities of performance measurement.
(2) Cluster-2
Cluster 2 is formed of 182 articles and 3,248 citations. The cluster majorly focuses on Total
Quality Management (TQM) (Salaheldin, 2009; Lewis et al., 2006; Singh and Sushil, 2013) and
Supply chain management (SCM) (Jharkharia and Shankar, 2004; Ravi et al., 2005; Talib et al.,
2011). “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on performance of
SMEs” (2009), by Ismail Salaheldin, is the most cited article in this cluster. The paper studied
the success factors responsible for TQM implementation on a 296 small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) sample located in Qatar. Talib et al. (2011) suggested that the integration
of TQM and SCM is highly influenced by factors like management support, supplier
IJPPM collaborations and customer focus. The studies under this cluster mostly are about SMEs.
This evidence shows the emergence of SMEs as an area of concern and interest among
researchers in recent times.
(3) Cluster-3
The primary attention of cluster 3 is around Lean, Six Sigma, lean six sigma, lean
manufacturing, lean service and constrained management (Kollberg et al., 2007; Antony,
2011; Antony et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2016). It consists of 120 articles and 2,326 citations. The
most cited article in this cluster is “Measuring lean initiatives in health care services: issues
and findings” (2007) by Kollberg et al., with 182 citations followed by Antony’s ‘Six Sigma vs
Lean’ (2011), with 98 citations. Antony (2011) presents a comparison of two powerful
methodologies, lean and six sigma. The author suggests that speed and wastage are the
concerns for lean, whereas six sigma focuses on flaws, deviations and process estimation.
(4) Cluster 4
Among the four major clusters, cluster 4 is the smallest one, consisting of 84 documents
with 805 citations. Banks, health sector, productivity analysis and DEA-AHP technique are
the major issues covered in this cluster. Most of the studies in here talk about the banking
sector (Ho and Zhu, 2004; Kumar and Gulati, 2010; Sufian, 2007; Mostafa, 2007). Ho and
Zhu’s “Performance measurement of Taiwan’s commercial banks” (2004) is the highest
cited article in this cluster with 63 citations. The article studied the performance of 41
Taiwanese banking companies by measuring efficiency and effectiveness separately.
“European railway freight transportation and adaptation to demand decline” by Hilmola
(2007) is the second most cited paper with 53 citations. This cluster shows industry-specific
performance measurement studies, especially the banking sector, the health care sector and
the electricity sector.

5.1 Bibliographic mapping of IJPPM documents

The trend of collaboration among IJPPM authors and their affiliated countries and
presented in the form of a collaboration network constructed using VOSviewer and Gephi
softwares. In a scientific field, co-authorship indicates formal collaborations (Acedo et al.,
2006). Figure 4 shows the co-authorship network of IJPPM authors. A. Rossi, M.L. Rhodes,
R. Gomes, W. Sutiyono, G. Perez-Lopez, F. Ohemeng, A.I. Melo, and L. Biondi have the
strongest collaboration network among themselves in IJPPM. Other prominent
collaborators in the journal are J. Antony, E.V. Gijo, R. Shankar, S.G. Deshmukh, H.A.
Lepilson, and A. Thomas.
Country collaboration network in IJPPM between 2004 and 2018 is presented in Figure 5.
UK holds the central position in the network collaborating with several countries like India,
Brazil, Australia, Ireland and the USA. These countries have also worked among themselves.
The thickness of the links in the network denotes the strength of collaboration among
countries. Spain, Malaysia, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Italy also show many
collaborative works in IJPPM.

6. Conclusion
This paper delivers a retrospective summary of IJPPM publication and development trends.
It also presents the thematic structure of the journal between 2004 and 2018. The study uses
bibliometric methodology along with network analysis on the bibliographic data extracted
from the Scopus database. Findings show that the journal’s influence in the academic world
has significantly increased in the tenure of the past 15 years.
 Fifteen years of
IJPPM

Figure 4.
IJPPM author
collaboration network

The presence of authors from worldwide in the journal shows the prominence of performance
management and productivity sciences in the globe. However, collaboration trends show that
the UK has the most extensive collaboration with other counties. Reputed sources of
academic research influence the published works in IJPPM. Articles from International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Harvard Business Review, Journal of
Operations Management and International Journal of Production Economics are the most
frequently journals cited in IJPPM’s articles.
IJPPM shows the dominance of performance measurement–related works. Our
Bibliographic coupling analysis divided the 1,142 IJPPM documents into five major sets
and several minor sets. Out of the five major clusters, “cluster 1” is the largest cluster with
308 articles discussing eminently performance measurement. IJPPM shows changes and
trends in the themes published. The keyword co-occurrence per year network presents that
the focus of the journal shifted from the fundamentals of performance measurement to
performance management, following the same trend found in the literature. Later
significant attention was given to balanced scorecard, innovation, decision making, lean
production, six sigma, etc. In the most current works until 2018, the journal majorly focuses
on lean, six sigma, supply chain and productivity. This outcome shows that the journal
publishes studies majorly accordingly its publication scope and also reports new
developments in productivity science, performance measurement and management.
In the broad field of general management and accounting, IJPPM has positioned itself as
a reputed repository of knowledge.
IJPPM

Figure 5.
IJPPM country
collaboration network

References
Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C. and Gala, J.L. (2006), “Co-authorship in management and
organizational Studies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 957-983.
Aghazadeh, S. (2004), “Managing workforce diversity as an essential resource for improving
organizational performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 521-531.
Antony, J. (2011), “Six Sigma vs Lean: some perspectives from leading academics and practitioners”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 185-190.
Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D. and Kumar, M., (2012), “Lean Six Sigma for higher education
institutions (HEIs) Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 940-948.
Antony, J., Gupta, S., Sunder, M., V. and Gijo, E.V. (2018), “Ten commandments of lean six sigma: a
practitioners’ perspective”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1033-1044.
Aras, G., Aybars, A. and Kutlu, O. (2010), “Managing corporate performance: investigating the relationship
between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in emerging markets”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 229-254.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008), “Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century –a review”, Journal of
Informetrics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-52.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. (2009), “Gephi: an open source software for exploring and Fifteen years of
manipulating networks”, Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,
Presented at the Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, IJPPM
California.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., D€orfler, V. and Nudurupati, S. (2012), “Performance measurement: challenges
for tomorrow”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 305-327.
Busi, M. and Bititci, U.S. (2006), “Collaborative performance management: present gaps and future
research”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Carneiro Da Cunha, J.A., Hourneaux Junior, F. and Correa, H.L. (2016), “Evolution and chronology of
the organisational performance measurement field”, International Journal of Business
Performance Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 223-240.
Castle, A. and Harvey, R. (2009), “Lean information management: the use of observational data in
health care”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 280-299.
Cocca, P. and Alberti, M. (2010), “A framework to assess performance measurement systems in SMEs”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 186-200.
Cunill, O.M., Salva, A.S., Gonzalez, L.O. and Mulet-Forteza, C. (2019), “Thirty-fifth anniversary of the
international journal of hospitality management: a bibliometric overview”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 78, pp. 89-101.
Daft, R.L. and Marcic, D. (2004), Understanding Management, Versailles, Thomson – South- Western,
Nelson Education.
Davis, G.F. (2015), “Editorial essay: what is organizational research for?”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 179-188.
Diamond, A.M. Jr., (2000), “The complementarity of scientometrics and economics”, The Web Of
Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Grafield, Medford.
Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G.G. and Foo, S. (2001), “Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research
by using co-work analysis”, Information Processing and Management Vol. 37, pp. 817-842.
Euske, K.J. and Zander, L.A. (2005), “History of business performance measurement”, Encyclopedia of
Social Measurement, Vol. 2, pp. 227-232.
Folan, P. and Browne, J.A. (2005), “Review of performance measurement: towards performance
management”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 663-680.
Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., Gray, D. and Neely, A.
(2007), “Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 784-801.
Gupta, S., Sharma, M. and Sunder, M.V. (2016), “Lean services: a systematic review”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 8, pp. 1025-1056.
Hilmola, O.P. (2007), “European railway freight transportation and adaptation to demand decline”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 3,
pp. 205-225.
Ho, C.T. and Zhu, D.S. (2004), “Performance measurement of Taiwan’s commercial banks”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 425-434.
Hudson, M., Smart, A. and Bourne, M. (2000), “Theory and practice in SME performance measurement
systems”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 1096-115.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2015), “Lean production: literature review and trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 867-885.
Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. (2004), “IT enablement of supply chains: modeling the enablers”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 700-712.
IJPPM Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard, Measures that drive performance”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kessler, M.M. (1963), “Bibliographic coupling between scientific articles”, American Documentation,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 123-131.
Kollberg, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. and Brehmer, P.O. (2007), “Measuring lean initiatives in health care
services: issues and findings”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Kumar, S. and Gulati, R. (2010), “Measuring efficiency, effectiveness and performance of Indian public
sector banks”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 51-74.
Kumar, S., Spais, G.S., Kumar, D. and Sureka, R. (2020), “A bibliometric history of the journal of promotion
management (1992–2019)”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 97-120.
Lawrie, G. and Cobbold, I. (2004), “Third-generation balanced scorecard: evolution of an effective
strategic control tool”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 611-623.
Lewis, W.G., Pun, K.F. and Lalla, T.R.M. (2006), “Exploring soft versus hard factors for TQM
implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 539-554.
Manville, G. (2007), “Implementing a balanced scorecard framework in a not for profit SME”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 162-169.
Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2003), “Business performance measurement – past, present and future”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 680-687.
Martinez, V., Pavlov, A. and Bourne, M. (2010), “Reviewing performance: an analysis of the structure
and functions of performance management reviews”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Martyn, J. (1964), “Bibliographic coupling”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 20 No. 4, p. 236.
Meyer, R. and Winer, R.S. (2014) “Introduction to the JMR 50th anniversary special section”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 83-83.
Mostafa, M. (2007), “Modeling the efficiency of GCC banks: a data envelopment analysis approach”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 623-643.
Neely, A. (Ed.) (2007), Business Performance Measurement: Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Neely, A.D., Adams, C. and Kennerley, M. (2002), The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for
Measuring and Managing Business Success, Prentice Hall Financial Times, London.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature
review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A., Kennerley, M. and Adams, C. (2007), “Performance measurement frameworks: a review”,
Business Performance Measurement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nicholas, D. and Ritchie, M. (1978), Literature and Bibliometrics, Clive Bingley, London.
Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2007) “Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of
the social sciences’ literature”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-169.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Stanford University Press, Standford.
Pidd, M. (2005), “Perversity in public service performance measurement”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 Nos 5-6, pp. 482-493.
Pritchard, A. (1969), “Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 25, Fifteen years of
pp. 348-349.
IJPPM
Radnor, Z.J. and Barnes, D. (2007), “Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in
operations management”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 384-396.
Radnor, Z. and Heap, J. (2004), “Editorial”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, doi: 10.1108/ijppm.2004.07953aaa.001.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply
chain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 239-255.
Rialp, A., Merigo, J.M., Cancino, C.A. and Urbano, D. (2019), “Twenty-five years (1992-2016) of the
international business review: a bibliometric overview”, International Business Review, Vol. 28
No. 6, p. 101587.
Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S. and Johnson, G. (2009), “Measuring organisational performance:
towards methodological best practice”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 718-804.
Salaheldin, S.I. (2009), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on
performance of SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-237.
Schrock, W.A., Zhao, Y., Hughes, D.E. and Richards, K.A. (2016), “JPSSM since the beginning:
intellectual cornerstones, knowledge structure, and thematic developments”, Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 321-343.
Schwert, G.W. (1993), “The journal of financial economics: a retrospective evaluation (1974–91)”,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33, pp. 369-424.
Shepherd, C. and G€unter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future
directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Nos 3-4,
pp. 242-258.
Simons, R. (2000), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, p. 348.
Singh, A.K. and Sushil (2013), “Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline performance”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 250-275.
Smith, N., Smith, V. and Verner, M. (2006), “Do women in top management affect firm performance? A
panel study of 2,500 Danish firms”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 569-593.
Spector, R.E. (2006), “How constraints management enhances lean and six sigma”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 42-47.
Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A. and Noe, C. (2017), “Literature review on the “Smart Factory”
concept using bibliometric tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 22,
pp. 6572-6591.
Sufian, F. (2007), “Trends in the efficiency of Singapore’s commercial banking groups: a non-
stochastic Frontier DEA window analysis approach”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 99-136.
Svensson, G. (2010), “SSCI and its impact factors: a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’?”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 23-33.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N. (2011), “A study of total quality management and supply
chain management practices”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 268-288.
Tangen, S. (2004), “Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 726-737.
Taticchi, P. (2008), “Business performance measurement and management: implementation of
principles in SMEs and enterprise networks”, PhD Thesis, University of Perugia, Perugia.
IJPPM Thanki, S. and Thakkar, J. (2018), “A quantitative framework for lean and green assessment of supply
chain performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 366-400.
Valenzuela-Fernandez, L., Merigo, J.M., Lichtenthal, J.D. and Nicolas, C. (2019), “A bibliometric
analysis of the first 25 years of the journal of business-to-business marketing”, Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, Routledge, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 75-94.
Van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2017), VOSviewer Manual Version 1.6.6, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden.
Wang, C., Lim, M.K. and Lyons, A. (2019), “Twenty years of the international journal of logistics
research and applications: a bibliometric overview”, International Journal of Logistics Research
and Applications, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 304-323.
Weinberg, B.H. (1974), “Bibliographic coupling: a review”, Information Storage and Retrieval, Vol. 10
Nos 5-6, pp. 189-196.
Yeung, A.W.K., Abdel-Daim, M.M., Abushouk, A.I. and Kadonosono, K. (2019), “A literature analysis
on anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (anti-VEGF) using a bibliometric approach”,
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, Vol. 392 No. 4, pp. 393-403.
Zhao, D. and Strotmann, A. (2015) “Analysis and visualization of citation networks”, Synthesis
Lectures on Visualization, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-127.

About the authors

Ms. Riya Sureka is research fellow at the Department of Management Studies, Malaviya National
Institute of Technology Jaipur, India. She has completed MBA and her research interest includes small
business finance, corporate finance, bibliometric and systematic literature review.
Dr Satish Kumar is Associate Professor at the Department of Management Studies, Malaviya
National Institute of Technology Jaipur, India. Dr Kumar has 40 research publications in his credit
including in Journal of Business Research, Global Finance Journal, International Journal of Bank
Management, Managerial Finance, International Journal of Managerial Finance, IIMB Management
Review, Journal of Promotion Management, Small Business Research, and Review of Behavioral Finance.
His research interest includes bibliometric analysis, survey research in finance, small business,
corporate finance.
Dr Sachin Kumar Mangla is working as a Faculty of Knowledge Management and Business
Decision Making, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom. Dr Sachin is working in the field of Green
and Sustainable Supply Chain and Operations; Industry 4.0; Circular Economy; Decision Making and
Modelling. He is committed to do and promote high quality research. He has published several papers
in repute international journals (RSER, TR-E, TR-D, JCP, TFSC, PPC, IJPR, IJPE, ANOR, ISF, RCR,
IJLRA, IJQRM, IDMS, IJOR). He has an h-index 30, i10-index 55. He is editing Special issues as a Guest
Editor in PPC, ANOR, JCLP, RCR, JORP etc. Currently, he is responsible for knowledge based model
in “Enhancing and implementing knowledge based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain
conditions for agriculture production systems (RUC-APS)”, European Commission RISE scheme and
BC - Newton Fund Research Environment Links Turkey/UK. Sachin Kumar Mangla is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: sachin.kumar@plymouth.ac.uk
Flavio Hourneaux Junior is a Graduate, Master’s and PhD in Management by the University of S~ao
Paulo, Brazil. Lecturer at the School of Economics, Business Administration and Accounting - University
of S~ao Paulo (FEA-USP). FEA-USP representative at the United Nations Principles for Responsible
Management Education (PRME), since 2015. Organizer of two editions of the British Council Researcher
Links Workshop, in 2015 and 2019. Scientific Coordinator of ENGEMA – International Meeting on
Business Management and the Environment. Editor of RAUSP Management Journal (Scopus), published
by Emerald Publishing. Main works on performance measurement and management, and sustainability
measurement and management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com