Tadas Sudnickas


The aim of this article is to analyse the problems of performance measurement systems in relation to the adequacy of indicators. The requirements for modern performance evaluation systems, their classification criteria, and the peculiarities of performance measurement in the public and private sectors are reviewed. One of the most popular performance measurement systems developed into a strategic management tool, the balanced scorecard, is considered, along with other systems. One of the main issues of performance measurement systems is that the set of indicators remains practically unchanged. Some indicators are changed only after changing the strategic goals, and this circumstance prevents the timely identification of emerging problems within adequacy of indicators. The article proposes to enrich performance measurement in process improvement systems, and suggests breaking down the measurement process into cycles by reviewing the set of indicators after each step of the cycle and, if necessary, adjusting them. This could make a significant contribution to ensuring the adequacy of indicators, one of the most important prerequisites for proper measurement, and would bring the performance measurement systems closer to the requirements of third generation systems.


Performance measurement, performance indicators, balanced scorecard, indicators adequacy, process improvement.

Full Text:



Akkermans H.A., van Oorschot K.E. Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society (2005) 56, 931–94

Anjomshoae, A., Hassan, A., Kunz, N., Wong, K. Y., & Leeuw, S. d. Towards a dynamic balanced scorecard model for humanitarian relief organizations’ performance management. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 1-24. June 2017

Artie Ng, Helen Wong, Raymond Wong. Dynamic performance measurement system for a self-financing tertiary institution: Integrating governance for quality and sustainability. FSTE Conference on Self-financing Tertiary Education: The Way Forward 13 November 2014

Bianchia Carmine and Montemaggioreb Giovan Battista. Enhancing strategy design and planning in public utilities through “dynamic” balanced scorecards: insights from a project in a city water company. System Dynamics Review Vol. 24, No. 2, (Summer 2008): 175–213

Bouckaert G., Van de Walle S. Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “good governance “: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences Vol. 69 (2003), 329-343

Cameron, K. S. Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management science. Vol. 32, No. 5, May 1986.

Davis Kevin E. Data and Decentralization: Measuring the Performance of Legal Institutions in Multilevel Systems of Governance. Minnesota Law Review 1619 (2018)

Griffiths J. Balanced Scorecard Use in New Zealand Government Departments and Crown Entities. Australian Journal of Public Administration 62(4):70-79, December 2003

Henri J.-F. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, Organization and Society 31 (2006) 77-103

Humphreys Kerry A. Shayne Michael Trotman Gary Ken T. Dynamic Decision Making Using the Balanced Scorecard Framework. THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW Vol. 91, No. 5 1441–1465, September 2016 pp.

Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review January-February 1992

Kaplan Robert S. and Norton David P. Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy. California Management Review Vol 39, No 1 Fall 1996

Kaplan R.S. and P. Norton D.P. Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It. Harvard Business Review Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 78 Issue 5, p167-176

Kaplan, R. S. 2009. Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. In Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Volume 3, edited by Chapman, C. S., A. G. Hopwood, and M. D. Shields, 1253–1269. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.

Kanji G.K. Performance measurement system, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, 2002, 715-728

Kennerley M. Neely A. Performance Measurement Frameworks – a Review. In Neely A. Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice, edited by Neely A., Cambridge University Press, 2002

Neely A., Marr B., Roos G., Pike S., Gupta O. Towards the Third Generation of Performance Management. Controling, Heft 3/4 Marz/April 2003, 129-135

Olve, N.-G., Roy J. and Wetter M., Performance Drivers: A practical guide to using the balanced scorecard, Willey, 1999

Pyzdek T. The Six Sigma Handbook. New York, McGraw-Hill Companies, ISBN 0-07-141015-5, 2003, 830 p.

Rohm H., A Balancing Act: Developing and Using Balanced Scorecard Performance System, Perform Magazine Vol. 2 Issue 2, June 2002

Roos G. Intellectual capital and strategy: a primer for today ‘s manager. Handbook of business strategy, 2005, 123-132

Sudnickas, Tadas. Šiuolaikinės veiklos matavimo sistemos. Integravimo su kokybės valdymo ir procesų tobulinimo sistemomis galimybės // Viešoji politika ir administravimas. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras. ISSN 1648-2603. 2008, Nr. 26, p. 17-24.

Sudnickas, Tadas. Different levels of performance evaluation - individual versus organizational // Viešoji politika ir administravimas = Public policy and administration / Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Kauno technologijos universitetas. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas. ISSN 1648-2603. 2016, t. 15, Nr. 2, p. 195-205.

Williams Mary A., Bertels Thomas, Dershin Harvey. Six Sigma pocket guide. ISBN 0-9705079-0-9. Rath & Strong Management Consultants, Lexington, Massachusetts 2000, 190 p.

Yahanpath Noel, Syrus Islam. An Attempt to Re-balance the Balanced Scorecard Towards a Sustainable Performance Measurement System. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, Volume 11 Issue 2, 2016



  • There are currently no refbacks.

"Public Policy and Administration" ISSN online 2029-2872 / ISSN print 1648-2603