Organization Development - Analyzing Performance Measurement and Management - Essay Example

? Organization Development- Analyzing Performance Measurement and Management Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4Theme and Analysis 4 Limitations of the Article 6 Conclusion 7 Reference List 9 Executive Summary The role of facilities management has recently garnered significant attention for its ability to impact a wide range of disciplines and the potential to use this relationship for improved performance of the organization. A tool that can be employed by FM for the achievement of organizational goals and objectives is performance measurement. This paper analyzes the article, “Moving from performance measurement to performance management”, by Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry. The theme of the article is explored, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the content. According to the authors, performance measurement and management is the first stepping stone towards the effective implementation of change. Having widespread benefits on the organization, performance management has been described as an essential for the efficient functioning of the organization. The paper also sheds light on how the article misses out some pertinent details about performance management. Overall, the article is easy to comprehend and interesting, but often lacks concrete evidence to support the translation of theory into practice. Introduction Facility management (FM) inculcates the concept of bringing together various disciplines for the management of a built environment by assimilating and making use of human resources, place, management and technological advances (Atkins and Brooks 2009, 4). The role of facilities management has recently garnered significant attention for its ability to impact a wide range of disciplines and the potential to use this relationship for improved performance of the organization. Over the time, as focus has moved from the physical determinants of organizational success, best business practices have shown that behavioral patterns of the workforce and the dynamics of the organization have a common denominator which can be tapped upon by facility management. An imperative tool in this regard is performance measurement- another aspect of management that has largely been overshadowed and under-researched previously. Since the past decade, performance measurement has started to be used extensively for a “comprehensive managerial process” purported to improve the organizational performance (Menzel and White 2011, 133). Theme and Analysis The article by Dilanthi Amaratunga and David Baldry, “Moving from performance measurement to performance management”, is the topic of analysis in this report. The theme of the article focuses on the transition from performance measurement to performance management in FM organization. Introducing the article with the concept of performance measurement, Amaratunga and Baldry have highlighted the increasing role of performance measurement systems in contemporary management. Nutt and McLennan (2000, 163) further support this concept, asserting that the foremost step towards management is measurement, without which the organization cannot be certain of improvement over time. Performance measurement is essential for facilitating change in an organization and formulates the directive needed to efficiently pursue and achieve the goals of the organization. Quoting the traits of performance measurement, the authors emphasize upon the connection between performance measurement and management and explain how utilizing the results of performance measurement translates into effective performance management by providing a means of anticipating necessary changes and devising a strategy for change. The authors point out the role of facilities management in the overall performance and success of the organization. Performance management systems, as tools of strategic development and learning, have been discussed with the role FM organizations can play in promoting performance measurement and management. Moreover, it has been stressed that measurement model be periodically revised in lieu of the fast-changing business milieu; such an organizational trait is a requisite for the continued utility of performance management systems. Jagdev, Brennan and Browne (2004, 42) advance upon this point of view: if the old measures are not fully replaced by new strategies, new strategies are not likely to have a full-blown effect on performance. Amaratunga and Baldry have also highlighted that the mere development of performance measurement does not guarantee success; the results of the measurement also need to be analyzed and channeled through effective management. Concluding the article, they have asserted that the performance system should be taken as means of learning for the organization. It is essential for the organization to learn from performance management and measurement. As Halligan, Bouckaert and Dooren (2010, 98) describe, learning is about finding out why a certain thing is not functioning properly whereas evaluation covers what is functioning right. By knowing about the things that are not working properly, learning from performance management allows the stakeholders to improve upon their weaknesses and update the measures (Vance and Paik 2011, 294). Limitations of the Article The article is easy to follow, and offers a comprehensive view on the relationship between performance measurement and performance management; a point appreciated by Verband and Deutschland (2005, 200). Amaratunga and Baldry have asserted that performance measurement systems have developed as a consequence of regularizing organizational control; tools for preventing the organization from a digression and keeping it on track. In order to achieve performance management, it is necessary to devise strategies that are tailored to meet the goals of the organization (Matos, Paraskakis and Afsarmanesh 2009, 477). The authors have also opined that organizations who fail to bring together performance measurement and management are not able to achieve high levels of performance. However, this opinion is contested by Epstein, who asserts that this approach does not suffice in the world today. Contemporary business milieu implies that more focus should be put on the notion of performance management itself rather than its utility as a mode of accomplishment of goals and objectives (Page and Prescott 2005, 371). One of the aspects of performance management that were not discussed in the article was the utility of performance management in the process of benchmarking, whereby the performance of one department is put into comparison with another. This enables the manager to gain a better insight into the strong and weak aspects of the facilities as a whole as well as individually. The authors also mentioned about the cost parameters at work in the outcomes of performance management and measurement. However, they did not elaborate upon the how such parameters can impact the outcomes. Explicating this point, Tzortzopoulos (2010, 230) contends that various key performance indicators need to be identified, depending on the nature of the organization. These key performance indicators can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the performance of the facility. Amaratunga and Baldry have highlighted the importance of performance measurement, but equally important are the obstacles to measuring performance. Parameters such as workplace performance are not easy to define quantitatively (Nutt and McLennan 2000, 163). Moreover, little emphasis is given on the subtlety of bringing about performance management effectively; the measurement of performance entails a subtle balance of office facilities and staff performance in order to achieve effective performance management (Nutt and McLennan 2000, 163). Along with the potential for driving change, performance management systems have also garnered disapproval and raised concerns regarding its use. Yang, Heng and Chau (2007, 330) document at least eight limitations of performance management systems put forth by a number of researchers from different fields. Moreover, Amaratunga and Baldry have not defined the meaning of the terms they have used. For instance, success or effectiveness of performance is a relative term with managers having a differing opinion about it. Nevertheless, performance needs to be judged on one single level; this gives rise to another problem in ensuring that performance is defined and evaluated on the same level by stakeholders (Yang, Heng and Chau 2007, 329). Conclusion It is pertinent to note that with the changes being brought about with time in the business world, the production space available for the application of theoretical management knowledge has become much civilized (Gagliardi, Czarniawska-Joerges and Cini 2006, 154). Advancing this notion, the article fails to effectively apply theoretical knowledge into practice. Amaratunga and Baldry have not considered any concrete evidence or provided any framework for the measurement of performance. There are various instances where the article ebbs into generalized statements and assertions, and theory fragments itself from practice. Thus, in conclusion, the article is provides an informative insight into the notion of performance management. It gives a, easy to understand and interesting explanation of the concepts of performance measurement. However, it is generalized due to which it fails to cover some important details about the topic. Reference List Atkin, Brian, and Adrian Brooks. 2009. Total Facilities Management. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Camarinha-Matos, Luis M., Iraklis Paraskakis, and Hamideh Afsarmanesh, ed. 2009. Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks: 10th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2009, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 7-9, 2009, Proceedings. Monte Caparica: Springer. Gagliardi, Pasquale, Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, and Fondazione "Giorgio Cini". 2006. Management education and humanities. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Halligan, John, Geert Bouckaert, and Wouter Van Dooren. 2010. Performance Management in the Public Sector. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Jagdev, Harinder S., Attracta Brennan, and Jimmie Browne. 2004. Strategic decision making in modern manufacturing. Massachusetts: Springer. Menzel, Donald C., and Harvey L. White. 2011. The state of public administration: issues, challenges, and opportunities. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Nutt, Bev, and Peter McLennan. 2000. Facility management: risks and opportunities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Page, Steve and Toni-Lorraine Prescott. 2005. “Performance Management and Customer Satisfaction: Constructing a Conceptual Model for Inquiry”. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (ECRM 2005), edited by Ann Brown and Dan Remenyi, 371-380. Reading: Academic Conferences Limited. Tzortzopoulos, Patricia. 2010. Improving Healthcare Through Built Environment Infrastructure. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Vance, Charles M. and Yongsun Paik. 2011. Managing a global workforce: challenges and opportunities in international human resource management. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Verband,Gefma Deutscher, and Ifma Deutschland. 2005. Facility Management 2005: European Facility Management Conference, Exhibition Europe, Frankfurt am Main 19-21 April 2005, Tagungsband /Proceedings. Berlin: Margret Schneider. Wang, William Y. C., Michael S. H. Heng, and Patrick Y. K. Chau. 2007. Supply chain management: issues in the new era of collaboration and competition. London: Idea Group Inc (IGI). Read More