Editorial

Citation

Burgess, T. and Heap, J. (2011), "Editorial", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2011.07960daa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Volume 60, Issue 4

Once again we have an eclectic group of papers to whet readers’ appetites. Of particular note in this issue is that, in addition to the usual focus on business, we have a paper that covers military activities. The industries studied in our papers range from fast-food to manufacturing and then to railroads. We have papers whose contexts collectively span the whole of the American continent, i.e. Canada, the USA and Brazil, while other locations include Sweden and Israel. Three of the academic papers apply a quantitative methodology while the other two are qualitative in nature.

The first paper by Yossi Hadad, Baruch Keren and Ofer Barkai proposes a scheme to incentivise branch managers for firms containing multiple branches organised on similar lines, e.g. banks, supermarkets and retail companies. The scheme rewards the individual branch manager for the performance of their branch and takes into account the local context. The reward scheme uses data envelopment analysis (DEA) to determine the performance of the branch relative to other branches and then uses this to determine reward levels. Managers of fast-food outlets in Israel are the subject of the example covered in this paper.

It is, it seems to your editors, a given that performance measurement systems (PMSs) can contribute to the organisational change process. However, the two Brazilian-based authors of our second paper (Danilo Hisano Barbosa and Marcel Andreotti Musetti) point out that this connection is not adequately explored and they set out to illuminate this space. They do so by examining two case studies of manufacturing companies with high-performing logistics functions and focus specifically on the firms’ logistics activities that are undergoing change. They conclude, among other things, that a PMS is vitally important to supporting the change process and may well be the catalysis for the change itself.

The third paper by Mahamat Hamit-Haggar looks at productivity issues in Canadian manufacturing industries over the period 1990-2005. Using a stochastic frontier approach the author concludes that technological progress has been the main contributor to total factor productivity growth. He also points to positive contributions from: R&D expenditure, ICT technologies and reductions in trade barriers. One of the points discernible in the analysis is how the industry landscape is changing, e.g. productivity growth is poor in traditional industries like apparel and leather and textiles; while high increases are recorded in furniture and related, transportation and computer and electronics.

Our fourth paper is also focused on productivity in North America, but in this case the focus is on the railroad in the USA, considered one of the most productive railroads in the world. Feli X. Shi, Siew Hoon Lim and Junwook Chi use a specialised form of sequential DEA suitable for the small group of firms in this highly concentrated, capital-intensive industry. They examine data for the period 2002-2007 and demonstrate substantial differences in company productivity-growth performance across this period. Echoing the findings of the previous paper, the substantial growth of the high performers was mainly ascribed to technological progress. Of course, one could observe that such technology is open potentially to all managers and therein lies an interesting question – why do some companies use the technology successfully while others struggle?

The fifth paper by Lars Ehrengren and Bengt Hörnsten, based in Sweden, contribute a particularly interesting paper by exploring the reasonably novel area of military affairs and connecting this to business thinking. They indicate how improved performance of international peace missions may be secured by using risk control methods drawn from business. In some senses the need for this kind of research is a reflection on our modern times, i.e. the increased number of conflicts across the globe and the need for international bodies to respond by mounting military-based peace missions. Often such missions comprise military partners drawn from different countries which generate particular problems of integration that can challenge smooth cooperation and performance. The authors point out at the end of their paper that a key difference between the two areas of business and military practice is that the former often relies on a “bottom-up” approach while the latter relies on “top-down”. It remains to be seen whether the military can be persuaded to opt for a bottom-up approach in their planning!

The final piece in our jigsaw for this issue is a reflective practice paper from Frank Pot of The Netherlands. This was a keynote presentation at the last World Productivity Congress and covers (social) workplace innovation, specifically aimed at improving jobs and improving performance – two aims which, according to Frank’s research, can be complementary. Frank Pot points out, however, that such innovation is not yet on the agenda of many businesses or, indeed, policy makers.

Tom Burgess, John Heap