liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Conditions for reporting performance measurement
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Quality Technology and Management. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. Linköping University, HELIX Vinn Excellence Centre.
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Industrial Marketing and Industrial Economics. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology.
2012 (English)In: Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, ISSN 1478-3363, E-ISSN 1478-3371, Vol. 23, no 1, 63-77 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this paper is to identify factors affecting the quality of a performance measurement (PM) system with particular focus on its ability to produce valid, trustworthy information. The study is based on a cross-case study design. Interviews were conducted with reporters to the national performance measurement system of waiting times in Swedish healthcare. The study focuses on the premises that managing operations through measures is not possible without a functioning reporting system. Thus, in order to put any performance measurement system into practice, several types of resources are needed. The results from the study show large differences in the conditions for reporting within a healthcare performance measurement system. We propose how various resources, contextual factors and internal dynamics create conditions for reporting of waiting time data. This is described in a framework that clarifies six different patterns: (1) Encouraging reporting; (2) Active responsibility; (3) Limited opportunities for reporting; (4) Abandoned reporting; (5) Passive responsibility; and (6) Total inactivity. This study provides the scholarly field of quality management research with a theoretical model for understanding various components of a performance measurement system.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor and Francis (Routledge): SSH Titles , 2012. Vol. 23, no 1, 63-77 p.
Keyword [en]
performance measurement system, infrastructure, reporting, information technology, waiting time
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-77110DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2011.637782ISI: 000302474300005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-77110DiVA: diva2:524886
Available from: 2012-05-04 Created: 2012-05-04 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Elg, MattiasKollberg, Beata

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Elg, MattiasKollberg, Beata
By organisation
Quality Technology and ManagementThe Institute of TechnologyHELIX Vinn Excellence CentreIndustrial Marketing and Industrial Economics
In the same journal
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 105 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf