BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2009, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 65 - 86, 01.09.2009

Prof.Dr. İbrahim Lazol Dr.Melek Eker

Abstract

Rekabet, üretim teknolojileri ve yönetim sistemlerinin gelişimi gibi faktörlerin çoklu performans ölçüm sistemi kullanımına etkileri, pek çok çalışmaya konu olmuştur. Ancak çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğu gelişmiş ülkelerde faaliyet gösteren işletmeler üzerinedir. Bu çalışma özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkeler kategorisine dahil edilebilecek olan Türkiye’deki üretim işletmelerinde çoklu performans ölçümü kullanımına yönelik ampirik bir çalışmadır. Çalışmada, 2005 yılında Türkiye’de ilk beşyüz büyük işletme içerisinde yer alan 122 imalat işletmesinden toplanan veriler kullanılarak, çoklu performans ölçüm sisteminin pazar rekabet yoğunluğu ve bilgisayar destekli üretim sistemiyle nasıl bir ilişki içerisinde olduğu ampirik olarak incelenmektedir. Sonuçlar, performans değerlendirmeye yönelik çoklu ölçüm sisteminin kullanımı ile yüksek Pazar konumuna sahip ve bilgisayar destekli üretim sisteminin kullanımına önem veren işletmeler arasında doğrusal bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Çoklu Performans Ölçüleri Bilgisayar Destekli Üretim Rekabet Faktör Analizi Diskriminant Analizi

References

  • Abernethy, S.M. & Lillis, A.M. (1995). The Impact of Manufacturing Flexibility on Management Control System Design, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(4), 241-258.
  • Albright, T. (2006). Managerial Accounting and Continuous Improvement Initiati- ves: A Retrospective and Framework, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XVIII, Number:2, 157-174.
  • Allott, A. (2000). Some Academics Say Ma- nagement Accounting Has Not Chan- ged in The Last 60 Years; Others Say It Has—Hugely Who’s Right, Asks Anita Allott?, Management Accounting: Ma- gazine For Chartered Management Ac- countants, Vol.78, Issue.7, 54-56.
  • Atkinson, A.A. & Kaplan, R.S. & Young, S. M. (2004), Management Accounting. Fourth Edition, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Banker, R.D. & Potter, G. & Schroeder, R.G.(1993). Reporting Manufacturing Performance Measures To Workers: An Empirical Study”, JMAR, Volume Five, 33-55.
  • Bruggeman, W. & Slagmulder, R. (1995). The Impact of Technological Change on Ma- nagement Accounting, Management Accounting Research, 6, 241-252.
  • Bukh, N.D. & Gormsen, P. & Mols, N.P. Ac- counting For The Financial Service Cus- tomer in Denmark: Activity- Based Costing Practices, www.bettermanage- ment.com
  • Cavalluzzoa, K.S. & Ittner, C.D. (2004). Im- plementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence From Govern- ment, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 243-267.
  • Cheatham, C.B. & Cheatham, L.R. (1996). Re- designing Cost Systems: Is Standard Costıng Obsolete?, Accounting Hori- zons, Vol. 10, Issue 4.
  • Chenhall, R.H. (1997). Reliance on Manufac- turing Performance Measures , Total Quality Management and Organizatio- nal Performance, Management Accoun- ting Research ,Vol.8, 187-206.
  • Chenhall, R.H. & Morris, D. (1986). The Im- pact of Structure, Environment, and In- terdependence on The Perceived Usefulness of Management Accounting Systems, The Accounting Review, Vol.LXI, No.1, 16-35.
  • Davis, S. & Albright, T. (2004). An Investi- gation of The Effect of Balanced Score- card Implementation on Financial Performance, Management Accounting Research, 15, 135-153.
  • Dilber, M. & Bayyurt, N. & Zaim, S. & Tarim, M. (2005). Critical Factors of Total Qua- lity Management and Its Effect on Per- formance in Health Care Industry: A Turkish Experience”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4, 220.
  • Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of Orga- nizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, September, 313-327.
  • Eker, M. (2004). Faaliyet Tabanlı Bütçeleme Tekniği ve Bir Uygulama. Yayınlanma- mış Doktora Tezi, Bursa, Uludağ Üni- versitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Ezzamel, M. (1992). Business Unit&Divisio- nal Performance Measurement. CIMA, London, Academic Press.
  • Fullerton, R.R. (2003). Performance Measu- rement and Reward Systems in JIT and Non-JIT Firms, Cost Management, No- vember&December, 40.
  • Govindarajan V. & Gupta, A.K. (1985). Lin- king Control Systems to Business Unit Strategy: Impact on Performance”, Ac- counting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 51-66.
  • Hendrikcs, J.A. (1994). Performance Measu- res For a JIT Manufacturer: The Role of The IE, Industrial Engineering, January, 27.
  • Hoque, Z. (2004). A Contingency Model of The Association Between Strategy, En- viromental Uncertainty and Perfor- mance Measurement: Impact on Organizational Performance, Interna- tional Business Review, 13, 485-502.
  • Hoque, Z. & Mia, L. & Alam, M. (2001). Mar- ket Competition, Computer-Aided Ma- nufacturing and Use of Multıple Performance Measures: An Empirical Study, British Accounting Review (2001) 33, 23-45.
  • Hoque, Z. & James, W. (2000). Linking Ba- lanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizatio- nal Performance, JMAR, Volume Twelve, 1-17.
  • Howell, R.A. & Soucy, S.R. (1987). The New Manufacturing Enviroment; Major Trends For Management Accounting, Management Accounting, July, 27.
  • Ittnera, C.D. & Larcher D.F. (1995). Total Quality Management and The Choice of Information and Reward Systems, Jour- nal of Accounting Research, 33, 1-34.
  • Ittnera, C.D. & Larcker, D.F. & Randall, T. (2003). Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 715-741.
  • Johnson, H.T. & Kaplan, R.S. (1987). The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Management Accounting (USA), Janu- ary, 22-31.
  • Kaplan, R.S. (1990). Measures For Manufac- turing Excellence, Boston, Harvard Bu- siness School Press.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Atkinson, A.A. (1998). Ad- vanced Management Accounting. Third Edition, New Jersey, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Ba- lanced Scorecard-Measues That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Re- view, January-February, 71-79.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). The Ba- lanced Scorecard—Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2001). The Stra- tegy-Focused Organization, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Keegan, D.P. & Eiler, R.G. & Jones, C.R. (1989). Are Your Performance Measures Obsolete?, Management Accounting, June, 45-49.
  • Khandwalla, P. (1972). The Effects of Diffe- rent Types of Competition on The Use of Management Control, Journal of Ac- counting Research, 10, 275-285.
  • Lingle, J.H. & Schiemann, W.A. (1996). From Balanced Scorecard to Strategic Gauges: Is Measurement Worth It, Management Review, Vol 85, Issue 3, 56-61.
  • Lipe, M.G. & Salterio, S.E. (2000). The Balan- ced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures, The Accounting Review, Vol.75, No.3, 283-298.
  • Malina, M.A. & Selto, F.H. (2001). Commu- nicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of The Effectiveness of The Balanced Scorecard, Journal of Ma- nagement Accounting Research, Vo- lume Thirteen, 48.
  • Mcılhattan, Robert D. (1987). The JIT Philo- sophy, Management Accounting, Sep- tember.
  • Mia, L. & Chenhall, R.H. (1994). The Useful- ness of Management Accounting Systems, Functional Differentiation and Managerial Effectiveness, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(1), 1-13.
  • Moers, F. (2005). Discretion and Bias in Per- formance Evaluation: The Impact of Di- versity and Subjectivity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 67-80.
  • Morrow, M.(1992). Activity Based Manage- ment New Approaches To Measuring Performance and Managing Costs. New York, Woodhead-Faulkner.
  • Otley, D. (1999). Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research, Management Acco- unting Research, 363-382.
  • Perera S. & Harrison G. & Poole, M. (1997). Customer-Focused Manufacturing Stra- tegy and Use of Operations–Based Non-financial Performance Measures: A Research Note, Accounting, Organi- zations and Society, 22,(6), 557-572.
  • Rao, M.P. (2000). A Simple Ethod to Link Productivity to Profitability, Manage- ment Accounting Quarterly, Summer.
  • Said, A.A. & Hassabenaby, H.R & Wier, B.(2003). An Empirical Investigation of The Performance Consequences of Non Financial Measures, Journal of Manage- ment Accounting Research, Volume Fif- teen, 193-223.
  • Simons, R. (2000). Performance Measure- ment & Control Systems For Imple- menting Strategy. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
  • Sinclair, D. & Zairi, M. (2000). A Critical Analysis of The Literature With Respect to Total Quality Management, IJMR, June.
  • Trussel, J.M. & Bitnet, L.N. (1998). Strategic Cost Management: An Activity Based Management Approach, Management Decision, 36/7, 441.
  • Upton, D. (1998). Just-in-Time and Perfor- mance Measurement Systems, Interna- tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 11, 110.
  • Wongrassamee, S. & Gardiner, P.D. & Sim- mons, J.E.L. (2003). Performance Mea- surement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard and The The EFQM Excel- lence Model, Measuring Business Ex- cellence, Vol.7, No.1, 18.
  • Wruck, K.H. & Jensen, M.C. (1998). Profes- sional Forum The Two Key Principles Behind Effective TQM Programs, Euro- pean Financial Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, 401-423.
  • Yasin, M.M. & Bayes, P.E. & Czuchry, A.J. (2005). The Changing Role Of Accoun- ting in Supporting The Quality and Customer Goals of Organizations: An Open System Perspective, International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3 September, 323.
  • Young, S.M. & Selto, F.H. (1991). New Ma- nufacturing Practices and Cost Mana- gement: Review of The Literature and Directions for Research, Journal of Ac- counting Literature, 10, 265-298.

The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study

Year 2009, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 65 - 86, 01.09.2009

Prof.Dr. İbrahim Lazol Dr.Melek Eker

Abstract

Many studies have investigated the effects of increasing competition, improving production technologies, and developing management systems on the use of multiple performance measures. However, the majority of these studies examine businesses in developed countries. This paper is an empirical study on the use of multiple performance measures in Turkey, which is classified as a developing country. With this purpose in mind, data from 122 manufacturing businesses, which were among the top 500 businesses in Turkey according to the 2005 statistics, were gathered, classified, and tested to determine whether there was any significant relationship (and to what degree) between the density of competition in the market, the employment of computer-aided production tools and techniques in production, and the application of performance systems relying on multiple performance criteria. The results show that there is a linear relationship between the use of a multidimensional performance measurement system directed at performance evaluation and businesses facing high competition and making greater use of a computer aided manufacturing system.

Keywords

Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) Competition Factor Analysis and Discriminative Analysis

References

  • Abernethy, S.M. & Lillis, A.M. (1995). The Impact of Manufacturing Flexibility on Management Control System Design, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(4), 241-258.
  • Albright, T. (2006). Managerial Accounting and Continuous Improvement Initiati- ves: A Retrospective and Framework, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XVIII, Number:2, 157-174.
  • Allott, A. (2000). Some Academics Say Ma- nagement Accounting Has Not Chan- ged in The Last 60 Years; Others Say It Has—Hugely Who’s Right, Asks Anita Allott?, Management Accounting: Ma- gazine For Chartered Management Ac- countants, Vol.78, Issue.7, 54-56.
  • Atkinson, A.A. & Kaplan, R.S. & Young, S. M. (2004), Management Accounting. Fourth Edition, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Banker, R.D. & Potter, G. & Schroeder, R.G.(1993). Reporting Manufacturing Performance Measures To Workers: An Empirical Study”, JMAR, Volume Five, 33-55.
  • Bruggeman, W. & Slagmulder, R. (1995). The Impact of Technological Change on Ma- nagement Accounting, Management Accounting Research, 6, 241-252.
  • Bukh, N.D. & Gormsen, P. & Mols, N.P. Ac- counting For The Financial Service Cus- tomer in Denmark: Activity- Based Costing Practices, www.bettermanage- ment.com
  • Cavalluzzoa, K.S. & Ittner, C.D. (2004). Im- plementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence From Govern- ment, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 243-267.
  • Cheatham, C.B. & Cheatham, L.R. (1996). Re- designing Cost Systems: Is Standard Costıng Obsolete?, Accounting Hori- zons, Vol. 10, Issue 4.
  • Chenhall, R.H. (1997). Reliance on Manufac- turing Performance Measures , Total Quality Management and Organizatio- nal Performance, Management Accoun- ting Research ,Vol.8, 187-206.
  • Chenhall, R.H. & Morris, D. (1986). The Im- pact of Structure, Environment, and In- terdependence on The Perceived Usefulness of Management Accounting Systems, The Accounting Review, Vol.LXI, No.1, 16-35.
  • Davis, S. & Albright, T. (2004). An Investi- gation of The Effect of Balanced Score- card Implementation on Financial Performance, Management Accounting Research, 15, 135-153.
  • Dilber, M. & Bayyurt, N. & Zaim, S. & Tarim, M. (2005). Critical Factors of Total Qua- lity Management and Its Effect on Per- formance in Health Care Industry: A Turkish Experience”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4, 220.
  • Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of Orga- nizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, September, 313-327.
  • Eker, M. (2004). Faaliyet Tabanlı Bütçeleme Tekniği ve Bir Uygulama. Yayınlanma- mış Doktora Tezi, Bursa, Uludağ Üni- versitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Ezzamel, M. (1992). Business Unit&Divisio- nal Performance Measurement. CIMA, London, Academic Press.
  • Fullerton, R.R. (2003). Performance Measu- rement and Reward Systems in JIT and Non-JIT Firms, Cost Management, No- vember&December, 40.
  • Govindarajan V. & Gupta, A.K. (1985). Lin- king Control Systems to Business Unit Strategy: Impact on Performance”, Ac- counting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 51-66.
  • Hendrikcs, J.A. (1994). Performance Measu- res For a JIT Manufacturer: The Role of The IE, Industrial Engineering, January, 27.
  • Hoque, Z. (2004). A Contingency Model of The Association Between Strategy, En- viromental Uncertainty and Perfor- mance Measurement: Impact on Organizational Performance, Interna- tional Business Review, 13, 485-502.
  • Hoque, Z. & Mia, L. & Alam, M. (2001). Mar- ket Competition, Computer-Aided Ma- nufacturing and Use of Multıple Performance Measures: An Empirical Study, British Accounting Review (2001) 33, 23-45.
  • Hoque, Z. & James, W. (2000). Linking Ba- lanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizatio- nal Performance, JMAR, Volume Twelve, 1-17.
  • Howell, R.A. & Soucy, S.R. (1987). The New Manufacturing Enviroment; Major Trends For Management Accounting, Management Accounting, July, 27.
  • Ittnera, C.D. & Larcher D.F. (1995). Total Quality Management and The Choice of Information and Reward Systems, Jour- nal of Accounting Research, 33, 1-34.
  • Ittnera, C.D. & Larcker, D.F. & Randall, T. (2003). Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 715-741.
  • Johnson, H.T. & Kaplan, R.S. (1987). The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Management Accounting (USA), Janu- ary, 22-31.
  • Kaplan, R.S. (1990). Measures For Manufac- turing Excellence, Boston, Harvard Bu- siness School Press.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Atkinson, A.A. (1998). Ad- vanced Management Accounting. Third Edition, New Jersey, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Ba- lanced Scorecard-Measues That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Re- view, January-February, 71-79.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). The Ba- lanced Scorecard—Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2001). The Stra- tegy-Focused Organization, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Keegan, D.P. & Eiler, R.G. & Jones, C.R. (1989). Are Your Performance Measures Obsolete?, Management Accounting, June, 45-49.
  • Khandwalla, P. (1972). The Effects of Diffe- rent Types of Competition on The Use of Management Control, Journal of Ac- counting Research, 10, 275-285.
  • Lingle, J.H. & Schiemann, W.A. (1996). From Balanced Scorecard to Strategic Gauges: Is Measurement Worth It, Management Review, Vol 85, Issue 3, 56-61.
  • Lipe, M.G. & Salterio, S.E. (2000). The Balan- ced Scorecard: Judgmental Effects of Common and Unique Performance Measures, The Accounting Review, Vol.75, No.3, 283-298.
  • Malina, M.A. & Selto, F.H. (2001). Commu- nicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of The Effectiveness of The Balanced Scorecard, Journal of Ma- nagement Accounting Research, Vo- lume Thirteen, 48.
  • Mcılhattan, Robert D. (1987). The JIT Philo- sophy, Management Accounting, Sep- tember.
  • Mia, L. & Chenhall, R.H. (1994). The Useful- ness of Management Accounting Systems, Functional Differentiation and Managerial Effectiveness, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(1), 1-13.
  • Moers, F. (2005). Discretion and Bias in Per- formance Evaluation: The Impact of Di- versity and Subjectivity, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 67-80.
  • Morrow, M.(1992). Activity Based Manage- ment New Approaches To Measuring Performance and Managing Costs. New York, Woodhead-Faulkner.
  • Otley, D. (1999). Performance Management: A Framework for Management Control Systems Research, Management Acco- unting Research, 363-382.
  • Perera S. & Harrison G. & Poole, M. (1997). Customer-Focused Manufacturing Stra- tegy and Use of Operations–Based Non-financial Performance Measures: A Research Note, Accounting, Organi- zations and Society, 22,(6), 557-572.
  • Rao, M.P. (2000). A Simple Ethod to Link Productivity to Profitability, Manage- ment Accounting Quarterly, Summer.
  • Said, A.A. & Hassabenaby, H.R & Wier, B.(2003). An Empirical Investigation of The Performance Consequences of Non Financial Measures, Journal of Manage- ment Accounting Research, Volume Fif- teen, 193-223.
  • Simons, R. (2000). Performance Measure- ment & Control Systems For Imple- menting Strategy. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
  • Sinclair, D. & Zairi, M. (2000). A Critical Analysis of The Literature With Respect to Total Quality Management, IJMR, June.
  • Trussel, J.M. & Bitnet, L.N. (1998). Strategic Cost Management: An Activity Based Management Approach, Management Decision, 36/7, 441.
  • Upton, D. (1998). Just-in-Time and Perfor- mance Measurement Systems, Interna- tional Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 11, 110.
  • Wongrassamee, S. & Gardiner, P.D. & Sim- mons, J.E.L. (2003). Performance Mea- surement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard and The The EFQM Excel- lence Model, Measuring Business Ex- cellence, Vol.7, No.1, 18.
  • Wruck, K.H. & Jensen, M.C. (1998). Profes- sional Forum The Two Key Principles Behind Effective TQM Programs, Euro- pean Financial Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, 401-423.
  • Yasin, M.M. & Bayes, P.E. & Czuchry, A.J. (2005). The Changing Role Of Accoun- ting in Supporting The Quality and Customer Goals of Organizations: An Open System Perspective, International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3 September, 323.
  • Young, S.M. & Selto, F.H. (1991). New Ma- nufacturing Practices and Cost Mana- gement: Review of The Literature and Directions for Research, Journal of Ac- counting Literature, 10, 265-298.
There are 52 citations in total.

Details

Other ID JA24AS93JU
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Prof.Dr. İbrahim Lazol This is me

Dr.Melek Eker This is me

Publication Date September 1, 2009
Published in Issue Year 2009 Volume: 11 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Lazol, P. İ., & Eker, D. (2009). The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 11(3), 65-86.
AMA Lazol Pİ, Eker D. The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study. isguc. September 2009;11(3):65-86.
Chicago Lazol, Prof.Dr. İbrahim, and Dr.Melek Eker. “The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 11, no. 3 (September 2009): 65-86.
EndNote Lazol Pİ, Eker D (September 1, 2009) The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 11 3 65–86.
IEEE P. İ. Lazol and D. Eker, “The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study”, isguc, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 65–86, 2009.
ISNAD Lazol, Prof.Dr. İbrahim - Eker, Dr.Melek. “The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 11/3 (September 2009), 65-86.
JAMA Lazol Pİ, Eker D. The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study. isguc. 2009;11:65–86.
MLA Lazol, Prof.Dr. İbrahim and Dr.Melek Eker. “The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, vol. 11, no. 3, 2009, pp. 65-86.
Vancouver Lazol Pİ, Eker D. The Effect of Competition and Computer Aided Manufacturing on the Use of Multiple Performance Measures:An Emprical Study. isguc. 2009;11(3):65-86.