The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors. Design/methodology/approach – From the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap. Findings – This study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi-dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance. Research limitations/implications – These and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research. Originality/value – This paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.

The impact of performance measurement in strategic planning

Purpose – To investigate the impact of performance measurement in strategic planning process. Design/methodology/approach – A large scale survey was conducted online with Warwick Business School alumni. The questionnaire was based on the Strategic Development Process model by Dyson. The questionnaire was designed to map the current practice of strategic planning and to determine its most influential factors on the effectiveness of the process. All questions were close ended and a seven-point Likert scale used. The independent variables were grouped into four meaningful factors by factor analysis (Varimax, coefficient of rotation 0.4). The factors produced were used to build regression models (stepwise) for the five assessments of strategic planning process. Regression models were developed for the totality of the responses, comparing SMEs and large organizations and comparing organizations operating in slowly and rapidly changing environments. Findings – The results indicate that performance measurement stands as one of the four main factors characterising the current practice of strategic planning. This research has determined that complexity coming from organizational size and rate of change in the sector creates variation in the impact of performance measurement in strategic planning. Large organizations and organizations operating in rapidly changing environments make greater use of performance measurement. Research limitations/implications – This research is based on subjective data, therefore the conclusions do not concern the impact of strategic planning process' elements on the organizational performance achievements, but on the success/effectiveness of the strategic planning process itself. Practical implications – This research raises a series of questions about the use and potential impact of performance measurement, especially in the categories of organizations that are not significantly influenced by its utilisation. It contributes to the field of performance measurement impact. Originality/value – This research fills in the gap literature concerning the lack of large scale surveys on strategic development processes and performance measurement. It also contributes in the literature of this field by providing empirical evidences on the impact of performance measurement upon the strategic planning process.

Productivity analysis and measurement

The state of the art in productivity measurement and analysis shows a gap between simple methods having little relevance in practice and sophisticated mathematical theory which is unwieldy for strategic and tactical planning purposes, -particularly at company level. An extension is made in this thesis to the method of productivity measurement and analysis based on the concept of added value, appropriate to those companies in which the materials, bought-in parts and services change substantially and a number of plants and inter-related units are involved in providing components for final assembly. Reviews and comparisons of productivity measurement dealing with alternative indices and their problems have been made and appropriate solutions put forward to productivity analysis in general and the added value method in particular. Based on this concept and method, three kinds of computerised models two of them deterministic, called sensitivity analysis and deterministic appraisal, and the third one, stochastic, called risk simulation, have been developed to cope with the planning of productivity and productivity growth with reference to the changes in their component variables, ranging from a single value 'to• a class interval of values of a productivity distribution. The models are designed to be flexible and can be adjusted according to the available computer capacity expected accuracy and 'presentation of the output. The stochastic model is based on the assumption of statistical independence between individual variables and the existence of normality in their probability distributions. The component variables have been forecasted using polynomials of degree four. This model is tested by comparisons of its behaviour with that of mathematical model using real historical data from British Leyland, and the results were satisfactory within acceptable levels of accuracy. Modifications to the model and its statistical treatment have been made as required. The results of applying these measurements and planning models to the British motor vehicle manufacturing companies are presented and discussed.

Consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and measurement:a literature review

Although there is a large body of research on brand equity, little in terms of a literature review has been published on this since Feldwick’s (1996) paper. To address this gap, this paper brings together the scattered literature on consumer based brand equity’s conceptualisation and measurement. Measures of consumer based brand equity are classified as either direct or indirect. Indirect measures assess consumer-based brand equity through its demonstrable dimensions and are superior from a diagnostic level. The paper concludes with directions for future research and managerial pointers for setting up a brand equity measurement system.

Uses of frontier efficiency methodologies and multi-criteria decision making for performance measurement in the energy sector

Guest editorial Ali Emrouznejad is a Senior Lecturer at the Aston Business School in Birmingham, UK. His areas of research interest include performance measurement and management, efficiency and productivity analysis as well as data mining. He has published widely in various international journals. He is an Associate Editor of IMA Journal of Management Mathematics and Guest Editor to several special issues of journals including Journal of Operational Research Society, Annals of Operations Research, Journal of Medical Systems, and International Journal of Energy Management Sector. He is in the editorial board of several international journals and co-founder of Performance Improvement Management Software. William Ho is a Senior Lecturer at the Aston University Business School. Before joining Aston in 2005, he had worked as a Research Associate in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests include supply chain management, production and operations management, and operations research. He has published extensively in various international journals like Computers & Operations Research, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, European Journal of Operational Research, Expert Systems with Applications, International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, and so on. His first authored book was published in 2006. He is an Editorial Board member of the International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology and an Associate Editor of the OR Insight Journal. Currently, he is a Scholar of the Advanced Institute of Management Research. Uses of frontier efficiency methodologies and multi-criteria decision making for performance measurement in the energy sector This special issue aims to focus on holistic, applied research on performance measurement in energy sector management and for publication of relevant applied research to bridge the gap between industry and academia. After a rigorous refereeing process, seven papers were included in this special issue. The volume opens with five data envelopment analysis (DEA)-based papers. Wu et al. apply the DEA-based Malmquist index to evaluate the changes in relative efficiency and the total factor productivity of coal-fired electricity generation of 30 Chinese administrative regions from 1999 to 2007. Factors considered in the model include fuel consumption, labor, capital, sulphur dioxide emissions, and electricity generated. The authors reveal that the east provinces were relatively and technically more efficient, whereas the west provinces had the highest growth rate in the period studied. Ioannis E. Tsolas applies the DEA approach to assess the performance of Greek fossil fuel-fired power stations taking undesirable outputs into consideration, such as carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions. In addition, the bootstrapping approach is deployed to address the uncertainty surrounding DEA point estimates, and provide bias-corrected estimations and confidence intervals for the point estimates. The author revealed from the sample that the non-lignite-fired stations are on an average more efficient than the lignite-fired stations. Maethee Mekaroonreung and Andrew L. Johnson compare the relative performance of three DEA-based measures, which estimate production frontiers and evaluate the relative efficiency of 113 US petroleum refineries while considering undesirable outputs. Three inputs (capital, energy consumption, and crude oil consumption), two desirable outputs (gasoline and distillate generation), and an undesirable output (toxic release) are considered in the DEA models. The authors discover that refineries in the Rocky Mountain region performed the best, and about 60 percent of oil refineries in the sample could improve their efficiencies further. H. Omrani, A. Azadeh, S. F. Ghaderi, and S. Abdollahzadeh presented an integrated approach, combining DEA, corrected ordinary least squares (COLS), and principal component analysis (PCA) methods, to calculate the relative efficiency scores of 26 Iranian electricity distribution units from 2003 to 2006. Specifically, both DEA and COLS are used to check three internal consistency conditions, whereas PCA is used to verify and validate the final ranking results of either DEA (consistency) or DEA-COLS (non-consistency). Three inputs (network length, transformer capacity, and number of employees) and two outputs (number of customers and total electricity sales) are considered in the model. Virendra Ajodhia applied three DEA-based models to evaluate the relative performance of 20 electricity distribution firms from the UK and the Netherlands. The first model is a traditional DEA model for analyzing cost-only efficiency. The second model includes (inverse) quality by modelling total customer minutes lost as an input data. The third model is based on the idea of using total social costs, including the firm’s private costs and the interruption costs incurred by consumers, as an input. Both energy-delivered and number of consumers are treated as the outputs in the models. After five DEA papers, Stelios Grafakos, Alexandros Flamos, Vlasis Oikonomou, and D. Zevgolis presented a multiple criteria analysis weighting approach to evaluate the energy and climate policy. The proposed approach is akin to the analytic hierarchy process, which consists of pairwise comparisons, consistency verification, and criteria prioritization. In the approach, stakeholders and experts in the energy policy field are incorporated in the evaluation process by providing an interactive mean with verbal, numerical, and visual representation of their preferences. A total of 14 evaluation criteria were considered and classified into four objectives, such as climate change mitigation, energy effectiveness, socioeconomic, and competitiveness and technology. Finally, Borge Hess applied the stochastic frontier analysis approach to analyze the impact of various business strategies, including acquisition, holding structures, and joint ventures, on a firm’s efficiency within a sample of 47 natural gas transmission pipelines in the USA from 1996 to 2005. The author finds that there were no significant changes in the firm’s efficiency by an acquisition, and there is a weak evidence for efficiency improvements caused by the new shareholder. Besides, the author discovers that parent companies appear not to influence a subsidiary’s efficiency positively. In addition, the analysis shows a negative impact of a joint venture on technical efficiency of the pipeline company. To conclude, we are grateful to all the authors for their contribution, and all the reviewers for their constructive comments, which made this special issue possible. We hope that this issue would contribute significantly to performance improvement of the energy sector.

What counts versus what can be counted:the complex interplay of market orientation and marketing performance measurement

Market orientation (MO) and marketing performance measurement (MPM) are two of the most widespread strategic marketing concepts among practitioners. However, some have questioned the benefits of extensive investments in MO and MPM. More importantly, little is known about which combinations of MO and MPM are optimal in ensuring high business performance. To address this research gap, the authors analyze a unique data set of 628 firms with a novel method of configurational analysis: fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. In line with prior research, the authors find that MO is an important determinant of business performance. However, to reap its benefits, managers need to complement it with appropriate MPM, the level and focus of which vary across firms. For example, whereas large firms and market leaders generally benefit from comprehensive MPM, small firms may benefit from measuring marketing performance only selectively or by focusing on particular dimensions of marketing performance. The study also finds that many of the highest-performing firms do not follow any of the particular best practices identified.