Description
There is considerable interest in the role of strategic performance measurement systems (SPMS), such as balanced
scorecards, in assisting managers develop competitive strategies. A distinctive feature of SPMS is that they are designed
to present managers with financial and non-financial measures covering different perspectives which, in combination,
provide a way of translating strategy into a coherent set of performance measures. There appears to be wide variation
in how these systems are configured
Integrative strategic performance measurement
systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning
and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study
Robert H. Chenhall
*
Department of Accounting & Finance, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia
Abstract
There is considerable interest in the role of strategic performance measurement systems (SPMS), such as balanced
scorecards, in assisting managers develop competitive strategies. A distinctive feature of SPMS is that they are designed
to present managers with ?nancial and non-?nancial measures covering di?erent perspectives which, in combination,
provide a way of translating strategy into a coherent set of performance measures. There appears to be wide variation
in how these systems are con?gured. However, as yet, there has been little consideration given to identifying underlying
information characteristics that might help explain how the systems have bene?cial e?ects. This study identi?es a key
dimension of SPMS, integrative information, as being instrumental in assisting managers deliver positive strategic out-
comes. Three interrelated dimensions of integrative SPMS were identi?ed in this study. The ?rst, strategic and opera-
tional linkages, was a generic factor that captures the overall extent to which the systems provide for integration
between strategy and operations, and integration across elements of the value chain. The second attribute, customer
orientation, focuses on customer linkages and includes ?nancial and customer measures. The third dimension, supplier
orientation, is based on linkages to suppliers and includes business process and innovation measures. A model is devel-
oped that predicts that integrative SPMS will enhance the strategic competitiveness of organizations. It is proposed that
the in?uence of integrative SPMS on strategic outcomes is indirect through the mediating roles of alignment of man-
ufacturing with strategy and organizational learning. Data from a survey of 80 strategic business units provide varying
support for the proposed relationships.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Increasingly, innovations in management
accounting systems have sought to provide infor-
mation for developing a strategic orientation to
the operations of the ?rm (Ittner & Larcker, 2002;
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.001
*
Tel.: +61 03 9905 2355; fax: +61 03 9905 5475.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
Kaplan, 1994; Shank & Govindarajan, 1993; Si-
mons, 2000). One area of innovation has been per-
formance measurement systems. There have been
e?orts to re?ne ?nancial measures such as eco-
nomic value added (Wallace, 1998). Non-?nancial
measures have been recommended for use in man-
ufacturing and marketing but in ways that lack
integration between functional areas (Banker, Pot-
ter, & Srinivasan, 1993; Foster & Horngren, 1987;
Fullerton & McWatters, 2002; Hall, 1989; MacAr-
thur, 1996; Maskell, 1992; McKinnon & Bruns,
1992; Perera, Harrison, & Poole, 1997; Vollmann,
1990). Several authors have presented measure-
ment schemes that are strategic in that they
provide a more integrated approach relating oper-
ations to customers and corporate vision. These
have included Performance Pyramids and Hierar-
chies (Dixon, Nanni, & Vollmann, 1990; Hronec,
1993; Lynch & Cross, 1995; McNair, Lynch, &
Cross, 1990), Balanced Scorecards (BSC) (Kaplan
& Norton, 1992; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Kaplan
& Norton, 2001) and the Intangible Asset Score-
card (Sveiby, 1997).
A distinctive feature of these strategic perform-
ance measurement systems (SPMS) is that they
are designed to present managers with ?nancial
and non-?nancial measures covering di?erent per-
spectives which, in combination, provide a way of
translating strategy into a coherent set of perform-
ance measures. The perspectives that are relevant to
pro?t orientated companies most often include
?nancial, customers, internal processes and long-
term innovation. This system of associated meas-
ures has the potential to identify the cause-e?ect
linkages that describe the way operations are re-
lated to the organizationÕs strategy. The aim is to
provide a rational framework to formulate and
implement strategies. Evidence on the adoption of
SPMS, particularly BSC, has been mainly anecdo-
tal with little survey work to con?rm the adoption
or e?ects on desired organizational outcomes.
While there is some support for growing BSC
implementation (Chenhall & Lang?eld-Smith,
1998; Hoque & James, 2000; Ittner & Larcker,
1998b; Silk, 1998), the characteristics or informa-
tion dimensions of the systems are not examined
in these studies. It seems clear that there is wide
variation in the nature of SPMS, ranging from
combinations of ?nancial and non-?nancial meas-
ures to more comprehensive systems linking opera-
tions to various perspectives and to strategy
(Hoque & James, 2000; Ittner & Larcker, 1998b;
Ittner & Larcker, 2003; Ittner, Larcker, & Randell,
2003).
This study aims to contribute to the body of
accounting literature that examines how the
underlying information dimensions of SPMS ef-
fects desired organizational outcomes by providing
information on the linkages between operations
and strategic outcomes and between di?erent fac-
ets of the entire value chain. The importance of
identifying measurement system attributes to the
study of SPMS is noted by Ittner et al. (2003, p.
739). Examples of this body of literature include
studies associating enhanced outcomes with great-
er measurement emphasis and diversity of
performance measures (Ittner et al., 2003), com-
petitor focused systems (Guilding, 1999), common
compared to unique performance measures (Lipe
& Salterio, 2000), systems linked to value chain
analysis (Dekker, 2003), measures of the bene?ts
of supplier partnerships (Seal, Cullen, Dunlop,
Berry, & Ahmed, 1999), activity knowledge struc-
tures (Dearman & Shields, 2001), and performance
measure precision and sensitivity (Banker & Da-
tar, 1989).
In this study, the nature of SPMS is described in
terms of a key information characteristic, that of
integrativeness. The characteristic of integrative-
ness within SPMS has two components. First, a
generic aspect involving information that provides
an understanding of cause-e?ect linkages between
operations and strategy and goals, and between
various aspects of the value chain including suppli-
ers and customers (Banker, Janakiraman, Kon-
stans, & Pizzini, 2001; Kaplan & Norton, 2001;
Malina & Selto, 2001; Stivers & Joyce, 2000). Sec-
ond, a measurement component concerning provi-
sion of measures in the areas of ?nancial,
customers, business processes and long-term inno-
vation (El-Shishini, 2001; Frigo & Krumwiede,
2000; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Malmi, 2001; Shar-
ma, 2000). It is this dimension of integrativeness
that is seen to provide managers with information
that potentially assists in developing competitive
strategies.
396 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
There are several ways in which researchers
have examined variables that are implicated in
the relationship between management control sys-
tems and desired organizational outcomes. Two
main approaches have been applied widely. First,
researchers have considered the in?uences of vari-
ables such as environmental uncertainty or tech-
nology in moderating the relationship between
accounting systems and outcomes. Second, studies
have attempted to build structural models that
help explain how accounting systems have their af-
fects on outcomes.
1
In this paper, a structural
modelling approach is adopted. Structural models
are appropriate when the theory sets out to explain
the role of variables that intervene in the relation-
ship between management control systems and de-
sired outcomes (Luft & Shileds, 2003). This
approach does not consider how the e?ects might
be moderated by di?erent contextual factors,
rather it is assumed that these factors are noise
within the models. As is common in evolving areas
of research, theory can be developed to incorpo-
rate the in?uence of di?erent aspects of context
as our understanding matures.
The study contributes by providing a concep-
tual advance in understanding the application of
SPMS. This involves, ?rst, explicating the nature
of SPMS by identifying integrative information
as a key dimension of the systems. Speci?cally, it
is argued that this information characteristic of
SPMS focuses on integrating business operations
with strategy. It is this integrative dimension that
provides SPMS with the potential to enhance an
organizationÕs strategic competitiveness. Next,
the study develops a structural model drawing on
established theories related to manufacturing
(Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984; Hayes, Wheelwright,
& Clark, 1988; Skinner, 1969, 1978, 1985; Wheel-
wright & Hayes, 1985) to show how integrative
SPMS can align manufacturing with strategy
which then enhances the organizationÕs competi-
tiveness on strategic outcomes. Theories from
organizational learning (Duncan & Weiss, 1979;
Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991) indicate that integra-
tive SPMS can provide a platform for learning
which, in turn, can lead to successful strategic
outcomes.
The remainder of the paper is structured in four
sections. The next section develops the structural
model including a series of hypotheses. This is fol-
lowed by sections that discuss the research method
and present results. Finally, conclusions are
discussed.
Theoretical framework
There has been extensive literature proposing
the importance of performance measurement inno-
vation (Atkinson et al., 1997; Hronec, 1993; Ka-
plan & Norton, 1996; Lynch & Cross, 1995). It is
claimed that SPMS improve an organizationÕs
ability to be competitive, in terms of its speci?c
strategic priorities. SPMS assist in developing stra-
tegic advantage by formulating and implementing
strategies in ways that ensure the value chain is
compatible with strategies. Importantly, SPMS
have a role in ensuring that the organization learns
so that it can maintain its competitiveness in the
future. In this paper, theory is developed to ex-
pound upon these relationships.
First, this research is predicated on the belief
that integrative SPMS enhance organizationsÕ stra-
tegic competitiveness. Arguments are presented to
support positive associations between integrative
SPMS and competitive strategic outcomes associ-
ated with both product di?erentiation and cost-
price strategies (H1). Next, a structural model is
developed that elaborates upon the relationship
between integrative SPMS and competitive strate-
gic outcomes. First, an alignment path is identi?ed
where the strategic alignment of manufacturing is
associated with competitive strategic outcomes
(H2), and integrative SPMS assist in the strategic
alignment of manufacturing (H3). Second, an
organizational learning path is presented where
organizational learning is associated with compet-
itive strategic outcomes (H4), and integrative
SPMS in?uence organizational learning (H5).
Fig. 1 outlines the nature of these relationships.
1
Luft & Shileds (2003) and Gerdin & Greve (2004) provide
analyses of the di?erent forms of modelling, including struc-
tural models, used in management accounting research, point-
ing out the legitimacy of di?erent approaches to answer
di?erent questions.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 397
Integrative SPMS and strategic outcomes
Models of market globalization maintain that
business organizations operate within increasingly
competitive, global environments (Bartlett & Gho-
shal, 2000; Harvey, Novicevic, & Kiessling, 2001;
Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1988; Porter, 1990). Porter
(1980, 1985, 1990) suggests that businesses are
compelled to compete by di?erentiating their prod-
ucts on the basis of product characteristics or low
price. Others claim that ?rms focusing strategies
on product features must to do so without a price
premium (Belohlav, 1993; Kotha & Vadlamani,
1995; Normann, 1971). Also, ?rms competing on
low cost must ensure that their products are com-
petitive on product features such as delivering on
time, providing service and warrantees as well as
developing technologies to continuously lower
costs. In contemporary environments product fea-
tures include functionality, high quality, dependa-
ble delivery, e?ective after-sales service, ?exible
response to customer product requirements, rapid
product volume and mix changes and low price
(Dertouzos, Lester, & Slow, 1989; Levitt, 1983;
Miller, Meyer, & Nakane, 1992). As the competi-
tive advantage of novel priorities or cost advan-
tage erodes over time it is necessary to generate a
continual ?ow of new ideas (Porter, 1990; Roberts,
1999). This erosion is exacerbated for those ?rms
that have products with short product life cycles
and that face continuous improvement in cost
structures. These ?rms have an intensi?ed need
for a stream of innovative product features and
technological improvements to sustain long-term
competitive advantage (Berliner & Brimson, 1988).
In this study, the basic notion of PorterÕs pro-
duct di?erentiation and cost leadership taxonomy
is elaborated by de?ning these generic strategies
in terms of a selection of strategic priorities describ-
ing speci?c product features as identi?ed by Miller
et al. (1992). These product characteristics include
unique features, high quality, low price, ?exibility,
delivery and product services such as customiza-
tion and after-sales service. Successful strategic
Integrative
SPMS
Competitive
strategic
outcomes
Organizational
learning
Strategic
alignment of
manufacturing
H1
H2
H3 H5
H4
Fig. 1. Structural model: integrative SPMS, strategic alignment of manufacturing, organizational learning and competitive strategic
outcomes.
398 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
outcomes are de?ned as being competitive on these
strategic priorities.
2
The necessity to sustain competitive strategic
advantage presents considerable administrative
challenges (Quinn, 1980a; Wheelwright & Clark,
1992; Hammond, 1994). To sustain competitive
strategic advantage ?rms require administrative
procedures that encourage invention and creati-
vity, targeted on combinations of product features
(Clark & Fujimoto, 1991; Damanpour & Evan,
1984; Kanter, 1985). Also, contemporary strate-
gies place demands on production processes to
provide a capacity to manufacture products with
enhanced features but at low cost (Cooper, 2000;
Shank & Govindarajan, 1993). Once formulated,
e?ective implementation is required to ensure that
innovative product characteristics and techno-
logies deliver product characteristics to customers
in cost e?ective ways (Shank & Govindarajan,
1993).
SPMS have been proposed as a management
system to assist in developing and sustaining com-
petitive strategic outcomes. Kaplan & Norton
(1996, 2001) have popularised SPMS as BSC by
articulating the strategic nature of performance
measurement systems. They claim that SPMS
aim to accomplish four management processes
that are critical to developing competitive strate-
gies: ‘‘clarify and translate vision and strategy;
communicate and link strategic objectives and
measures; plan, set targets, and align strategic ini-
tiatives; and, enhance strategic feedback and learn-
ing’’ (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, p. 10). Proponents
of SPMS provide anecdotal evidence on the bene-
?ts for a variety of individual companies (Ahn,
2001; Dixon et al., 1990; Kaplan & Norton,
1996; Kaplan & Norton, 2001; Lynch & Cross,
1995; Mooraj, Oyon, & Hostettle, 1999). While
there have been a number of studies into the suc-
cess of non-?nancial performance measures, there
is only limited survey evidence on the e?ectiveness
of SPMS. Concerning the extent to which BSC
helped clarify strategy, Ittner & Larcker (1998b)
found that scorecards assisted only a minority of
managers in understanding goals and strategies
or in relating their jobs to business objectives. Itt-
ner & Larcker (2003) found that managers made
little attempt to link non-?nancial performance
measures to advance their chosen strategies. More-
over, only 23% of these managers were able to
show that they built causal models and most did
not validate the causal links.
The e?ects of SPMS on organizational perform-
ance are ambiguous. Some studies have shown
positive links between SPMS and performance. Itt-
ner & Larcker (2003) found that ?rms that did
build cause–e?ect linkages had higher ROA and
ROE than those that did not. Hoque & James
(2000) found that overall usage of BSC was signi-
?cantly correlated with organizational perfor-
mance. In a study of banks, Davis & Albright
(2004) found that a group of branches that used
BSC outperformed a group that did not use BSC
on common composite ?nancial measures. Other
studies have shown that the association between
SPMS and performance depends on the type of
organizational performance being considered, with
some evidence suggesting that SPMS are associ-
ated with medium to long-term performance. Itt-
ner et al. (2003) found that in ?nancial service
?rms using a broad set of ?nancial and particularly
non-?nancial measures, relative to ?rms with sim-
ilar strategies or value drivers, earned higher stock
returns. Also, Ittner et al. (2003) found that tech-
niques such as balanced scorecard, economic value
and business modelling were associated with in-
creased measurement systems satisfaction but not
with economic performance.
Other studies suggest more equivocal outcomes
from SPMS. Chenhall & Lang?eld-Smith (1998)
reported that while BSC were part of the Ôbest
practicesÕ of high performance ?rms they were also
evident in poorly performing ?rms that had less
well developed management techniques. In an
experimental study, Lipe & Salterio (2000) found
that managers had cognitive di?culties working
2
While success in achieving product di?erentiation and cost
leadership provides a basis to develop theory, it was necessary
to identify how the various strategic outcomes were related to
product di?erentiation and low cost strategies. Table 2, Panel D
shows that two aspects of product di?erentiation were identi-
?ed, one involved delivery, service and quality outcomes (titled
delivery), the other ?exibility and customisation (titled ?exibil-
ity). A third factor captured low cost-price strategic outcomes
(low cost-price). The method section describes how these
factors were derived.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 399
with measures to evaluate performance that were
speci?c to a situation (unique measures) and pre-
ferred measures that were the same for di?erent
situations (common measures).
In evaluating the success of SPMS, it is impor-
tant to distinguish di?erent designs. Some SPMS
are based only on combinations of ?nancial and
non-?nancial measures, with little attempt to inte-
grate the various measures and relate them to the
organizationÕs strategy (Epstein & Birchard,
2000, p. 82). Others are more comprehensive, rep-
resenting a strategic management system focusing
on integrating ?nancial position, customers, rele-
vant aspects of processes, and growth and innova-
tion. Increasingly it is being argued that the
e?ectiveness of SPMS will depend on the extent
to which they form a coherent performance mea-
surement system that enables strategy and opera-
tions to be integrated and harmonized (Epstein
& Birchard, 2000; Ittner & Larcker, 2003; Norrek-
lit, 2000; Olve, Roy, & Wetter, 1999). Empirical
evidence on the e?ectiveness of more coherent
SPMS is limited. Banker et al. (2001) and Sandt,
Schae?er, & Weber (2001) found that the provi-
sion of systematic linkages between measures en-
hances satisfaction with the systems. Ittner et al.
(2003) also found that ?rms in the ?nancial ser-
vices sector that had more coherent performance
measurement systems were associated with en-
hanced satisfaction with SPMS. However, their re-
sults indicated that these systems were not
associated with improved economic performance.
Importantly, this study extends research by identi-
fying the role of coherent SPMS. However, the ex-
act nature and meaning of these systems is not
explored, the study relying on single items to meas-
ure the extent of use of Ôbalanced scorecardsÕ, Ôeco-
nomic value measuresÕ and Ôbusiness modelsÕ.
In the current study, the notion of coherence is
explored through the information dimension of
integrative SPMS, de?ned as providing a broad
array of measures and a design framework that
links strategy with operations and activities across
the value chain. It is theorized, in this study, that
integrative SPMS will assist managers to achieve
competitive outcomes, whether they will be con-
cerned with product di?erentiation or low cost-
price. This follows as the successful formulation
and implementation of both forms of strategy re-
quire managers to be provided with speci?c per-
formance goals and feedback that can assist in
assessing the e?ectiveness of existing strategies
and provide a basis for learning related to e?ecting
successful strategies (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, p.
15). Theories drawn from psychology provide a
theoretical basis to suggest that individuals will
be motivated to expend e?ort when they are pro-
vided goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,
1981) and comprehensive feedback integrating ac-
tions with goals (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979).
Goal directed behaviour and feedback enhance
performance by: (i) clarifying expectations at
organizational and operational levels (Taylor,
Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984); (ii) reducing ambiguity
associated with tasks to achieve strategies (Graen,
1976); and (iii) providing a coherent re?ection of
organizational priorities (Baumler, 1972; Porter,
Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). These e?ects are aug-
mented when performance measures are part of
formal systems used to evaluate work (Briers &
Hirst, 1990; Bruns & McKinnon, 1992).
Integrative SPMS provide feedback on how
business activities link to strategies and to various
aspects of the value chain. Developing competi-
tiveness in both product di?erentiation and low
cost-price strategies will be assisted by understand-
ing how the speci?c strategies relate to the broad
objectives of the ?rm and how various business
unit activities in?uence other units in the organiza-
tion. Developing successful product di?erentiation
can be assisted by integrative SPMS. Integrative
SPMS can provide feedback to understand and
successfully manage the increasing level of com-
plex interdependencies that occur between opera-
tions and strategy and between various aspects of
the value chain, caused by product di?erentiation.
Also, the systems can focus attention on how to
integrate the complexity derived from responding
to changing and diverse customer requirements.
Moreover, they can highlight the need to ensure
that business processes, including supplier
arrangements, can deliver on customer require-
ments in cost e?ective ways. Thus, it may be pre-
dicted that integrative SPMS will be associated
with enhanced competitiveness related to product
di?erentiation strategies.
400 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
Managing low cost-price strategies may involve
a more limited range of interdependencies. How-
ever, competitiveness on costs is likely to be
achieved if the e?ects of di?erent business unit
activities on each other are understood by way of
their explication within integrative SPMS. Moreo-
ver, e?ective cost-price strategies may be achieved
by using integrative information that assists devel-
oping customer relationships where the customers
work with the ?rm to develop products at particu-
lar costs. Finally, close connections with suppliers
are likely to be a critical aspect of constraining
costs. Such connections maybe enhanced by the
way interactions with suppliers are evaluated with-
in an integrative SPMS.
In summary, SPMS can vary in the degree to
which information integrates operations with stra-
tegy, with more integrative systems providing ri-
cher strategic feedback. It is the provision of
strategic feedback from integrative SPMS that pro-
vides the basis to enhance competitive outcomes for
both product di?erentiation and cost-price strate-
gies. These arguments and the claims of proponents
of SPMS provide the basis for Hypothesis 1.
H1: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and competitive outcomes
associated with both product di?erentiation
and low cost-price strategies.
Strategic alignment of manufacturing and
competitive strategic priorities
In this study, the strategic alignment of man-
ufacturing is de?ned in terms of the existence
of clear links between manufacturing and stra-
tegy, consistency of manufacturing with strategy
development and an understanding by senior
managers of the manufacturing policy and how
it relates to other functions (Wheelwright &
Hayes, 1985). E?ective strategic alignment of
manufacturing is important as it ensures that
strategy is delivered at the process level and it
provides the opportunity for parallel and interac-
tive development of both products and associated
processes (Hayes et al., 1988; Shank & Govind-
arajan, 1993).
The signi?cance of aligning manufacturing with
strategy to develop competitive outcomes has been
emphasized for some time in manufacturing mod-
els of the ?rm (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984; Hayes
et al., 1988; Skinner, 1969, 1978, 1985; Wheel-
wright & Hayes, 1985). In essence these models
claim that improved competitiveness derives from
the way manufacturing can provide a strategic
capability to contribute to the formulation of stra-
tegic priorities and their e?ective implementation
(Sun & Hong, 2002; Wheelwright & Hayes,
1985). Thus, a strategic priority of timely delivery
may require manufacturing processes to ensure
that suppliers are of high quality and deliver on
time, and that production cycle time is reduced
with no delays from defects. Aligning strategy with
manufacturing elevates manufacturing from a
reactive role to play a major part in strengthening
market position by providing capabilities for im-
proved strategic priorities (Hayes et al., 1988;
Wheelwright & Hayes, 1985).
One aspect of manufacturingÕs strategic capabil-
ity is aligning communication between individuals
formulating product strategy and those at the
operational level. This encourages operational
managers to ensure that manufacturing enables
strategic priorities to be e?ected. Also, strategic
alignment stresses the need to focus on strategic
priorities that provide process innovations that
will develop an innovative, learning approach to
enhancing manufacturing capabilities (Bhoovar-
aghavan, Vasudevan, & Chandran, 1996; Brown,
1998; Hayes et al., 1988).
The task of alignment has become particularly
acute as ?rms face increasing complexity within
manufacturing (Drucker, 1990). Alignment is
likely to be particularly important to manage the
complexity associated with product di?erentiation
strategies. Such complexity occurs as production
processes must be coordinated and focused on
delivering multiple product characteristics, such
as quality, ?exible design, fast delivery and in
many instances do so at acceptable cost (Billington
& Davis, 1992; Shank & Govindarajan, 1993).
Complexity may also be apparent in low cost-price
strategies with contemporary manufacturing pro-
viding strategic advantage by developing seamless
production processes and coordinated supplier
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 401
and customer relationships. These e?orts are
important to maintain continuous cost improve-
ment and sensitivity to both down-stream and
up-stream quality and delivery (Dekker, 2003).
Consequently, it has been recognized that develop-
ing competitive strategic outcomes for both prod-
uct di?erentiation and low cost-price strategies
requires aligning manufacturing with strategy
and that this involves managing multiple and var-
ied interdependencies that occur across all aspects
of the value chain (Shank & Govindarajan, 1993).
This involves choosing technologies, selecting and
managing suppliers, production planning and con-
trol systems, work force and quality practices and
customer relationships (Bates, Amundson, Schroe-
der, & Morris, 1995; Cooper, 2000). Hypothesis 2
presents the relationship between strategic align-
ment of manufacturing and competitive strategic
priorities.
H2: There is a positive relationship between the
strategic alignment of manufacturing and
competitive outcomes associated with both
product di?erentiation and low cost-price
strategies.
Integrative SPMS and strategic alignment
of manufacturing
Communication and information theories pro-
vide the basis to predict that integrative SPMS
can assist in developing a strategic alignment of
manufacturing (Guetzkow, 1965; Krone, Jablin,
& Putnam, 1987). Information theories consider
the importance of e?ective routing of potentially
synergistic information across the organization.
This routing involves horizontal and vertical com-
munications and assists in coordinating infor-
mation between managers who are not aware of
where information may be used, or of the existence
of potentially useful information. Speci?cally, the
achievement of a strategic alignment of manufac-
turing requires information to ensure there is
e?ective coordination between strategy and manu-
facturing and between manufacturing and other
functions (Wheelwright & Hayes, 1985). The role
of manufacturing as a means of formulating and
achieving strategic priorities requires a comple-
mentary, organizational-wide information system
which ensures that manufacturing systems are pro-
vided with appropriate information (Hayes et al.,
1988).
It is the integrative nature of SPMS that assists
strategic alignment of manufacturing. This in-
volves combining performance measures so that
manufacturing decisions can be assessed in terms
of their coherence with strategies concerning ?nan-
cial returns, customers, processes and innovation
(Dixon et al., 1990; Lynch & Cross, 1995). That
is, integrative SPMS can assist alignment by expli-
citly identifying, measuring and communicating to
managers the e?ects of linkages between manufac-
turing, consumers and ?nancial outcomes. This in-
volves identifying and mapping logical connections
between the stages across manufacturing processes
to ensure consistency of the stages with overall
strategy (De Hass &Kleingeld, 1999). Importantly,
integrative SPMS provide motivation for managers
to align their operations with strategies. This fol-
lows, as the success of managers in e?ecting such
alignment will be assessed by the performance
measurement systems. This relationship is pre-
sented in hypothesis 3.
H3: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and the strategic alignment of
manufacturing.
Organizational learning and competitive
strategic priorities
Theoretical research on learning contends that
organizational level learning involves systems type
thinking where organizations develop systems to
acquire, interpret, di?use and store information
and outcomes of organizational experiences
(Huber, 1991; Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995;
Roth & Senge, 1996). Individuals draw upon such
systems when they have to solve problems and
make decisions. Organizational learning concepts
can be related to the way organizations provide
an information and knowledge platform upon
which individual learning can evolve. This notion
is consistent with commentators who see organiza-
402 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
tional learning as creating structures and strategies
that facilitate the learning of all members of the
organization (Burgelman, 1990; Garvin, 1993;
Senge, 1990; Stewart, 1997).
3
Organizations are
seen to manage knowledge which implies that
any individual learning requires some substantia-
tion of the essence of learning that leads to the
accumulation of knowledge.
Increasingly, the operating environments of
business organizations are becoming highly com-
petitive. Such environments involve high demands
for information and knowledge. This pressure has
prompted commentators to identify the develop-
ment of knowledge organizations, learning organ-
izations and intellectual capital as major sources of
competitive advantage (Garvin, 1993; Edvinsson
& Malone, 1997; Senge, 1990). Learning at the
organization level is seen to increase the knowl-
edge intensity of the organization which is a pre-
requisite for developing strategic responses
(Starbuck, 1992; Tenkasi & Boland, 1996). Fol-
lowing Huber (1991), in this work, organizational
learning is identi?ed as involving information
acquisition, interpretation, distribution and mem-
ory. Information acquisition entails obtaining
information and knowledge; information interpre-
tation refers to the process whereby distributed
information is given some form of commonly
understood interpretation; information distribu-
tion is concerned with sharing information; and
organizational memory is the means whereby
information and knowledge are stored for the fu-
ture. Each of these aspects of learning provides a
capacity to develop competitive product di?erenti-
ation and low cost-price strategies.
Literature derived from searching behaviour is
relevant to organizational information acquisition
as it identi?es the links between e?ective learning
and information scanning, focused search and per-
formance monitoring (for a summary see Huber,
1991). The survival of organizations facing com-
petitive operating environments will depend on
the e?ectiveness with which search procedures
identify changes and develop e?ective responses
(Daft, Sormunen, & Parks, 1988; Tushman &
Katz, 1980). More speci?cally, strategy researchers
have stressed that information acquisition pro-
vides potentially useful ideas related to external
and internal opportunities and threats that are rel-
evant to formulating innovative strategy to gain
competitive advantage in di?erentiating products
or lowering costs (Dutton & Freedman, 1985;
Hambrick, 1982; Jelinek, 1979; Shrivastava, 1983).
Research in organizational communications ex-
plains that information interpretation is the proc-
ess whereby information is given meaning (Daft
& Wieck, 1984). The bene?ts from e?ective infor-
mation sharing derive from translating events,
developing shared meanings and conceptual
schemes (Daft & Wieck, 1984). These outcomes
provide a clear and common focus for organiza-
tional activity which can, according to conven-
tional strategy literature, enhance performance
(Andrews, 1971; Anso?, 1965). While shared
meaning may produce a single vision or purpose,
it may also involve a variety of interpretations
(Huber, 1991). The very process of clarifying pur-
pose can result in accidentally discovering e?ective
strategies which then provide focus (Kogut, 1991;
Quinn, 1980b). There is little systematic study link-
ing strategy to the interpretation of information.
However, from a cognitive perspective, the role
of interpreting information ensures that all acti-
vities are related to strategic priorities, whether
they concern product di?erentiation or cost leader-
ship, thereby clarifying purpose and avoiding
ambiguity (Daft & Wieck, 1984; Dutton, Fahey,
& Narayanan, 1983).
Theories from business communications have
identi?ed information distribution as central to
enabling organizations to conduct their business
(Goodman, 1998; Tucker, Meyer, & Westerman,
1996; Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Essentially, with-
out communication the linkages between organiza-
tional sub-units are an abstract chain. Decisions
and communications interact such that communi-
cation gives rise to action and action gives rise to
information to be communicated. Huber (1991,
p. 101) points out that information distribution
3
The study does not consider the process of knowledge
generation at the individual level, nor does it consider the
explicit outcome of learning such as developing organizational
routines or standard operating procedures (Levitt & March,
1988; March & Olsen, 1988), cognitive systems (Hedberg, 1981),
or a collective mind (Weick & Roberts, 1993).
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 403
involves linking individuals who need information
with those who possess it and that this can assist in
identifying knowledge throughout the organiza-
tion. From a strategy viewpoint, distributing infor-
mation ensures that more individuals throughout
the organization are aware of the precise nature
of strategies and can contribute to the achievement
of those strategies or provide feedback on their
adequacy and potential alternatives (Guetzkow,
1965; Huber, 1982). Such clarity of purpose is
important to all forms of strategy, including prod-
uct di?erentiation and low cost-price.
Organization behaviour theorists have noted
that extensive knowledge about how to do things
is stored in organizational memory both as formal
documents and informal mental models (Feldman,
1989; Levitt & March, 1988). Organizational mem-
ory provides a repository of information that is
often extensive and precise. This memory involves
sophisticated storing and retrieval that can en-
hance the organizationÕs capacity to source and
process valuable information for strategic analysis
related to di?erentiating products and to continu-
ously improve cost structures (Feldman, 1989).
These arguments lead to H4.
H4: There is a positive relationship between
organizational learning and competitive out-
comes associated with both product di?eren-
tiation and low cost-price strategies.
Integrative SPMS and organizational learning
A distinctive characteristic of SPMS is their
objective of ensuring that the organization can de-
velop a capacity to innovate by encouraging learn-
ing. There are arguments to support the view that
integrative SPMS can contribute to each of the
four elements of learning: information acquisition,
interpretation, distribution and organizational
memory.
While there is extensive research indicating that
organizational information acquisition is a com-
plex process, Huber (1991) concludes that more
proactive, formal procedures at the senior man-
agement level can assist in learning. Integrative
SPMS are potentially a primary tool for mapping,
evaluating and learning about strategic direction.
This follows as integrative SPMS focus on how
operations, suppliers and customer linkages deli-
ver on strategy. Diverse measures across ?nancials,
customers, processes and long-term innovation
provide an important formal mechanism to collect
information that can be used to develop organiza-
tional learning.
Theories drawn from cognitive mapping and
framing provide a basis to explain the importance
of integrative SPMS in information interpretation
(Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Tversky & Kahneman,
1985). If information is not uniformly framed,
common interpretations are unlikely to be
achieved and e?ort may be dissipated. These theo-
ries suggest that the strategic focus of integrative
SPMS provides a common basis for framing
information.
Organizational theorists have noted the impor-
tance of formal systems in distributing informa-
tion related to strategies (Burns & Stalker, 1961;
Galbraith, 1973, 1993; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Khandwalla (1977, p. 453) observed that without
formal deliberate channelling of information and
action, organizations would operate chaotically.
To be e?ective these formal systems need to main-
tain a balance between managing the interface be-
tween tight control to ensure activities deliver
strategy and more ?uid processes to ensure e?ective
interaction and systems-wide e?ects that may
encourage innovation in strategy formulation
(Leonard-Barton, 1992). The use of integrative
SPMS to implement strategies and to communicate
strategic uncertainties and emerging strategy can
be important in facilitating the distribution of
strategic priorities throughout the organization (Si-
mons, 1995). Malina & Selto (2001) provide empir-
ical evidence that emphasises the role of BSC in
communicating and distributing information.
Information and organizational theorists have
demonstrated the importance of formal systems
to develop organizational memory (Feldman,
1989; Gioia & Poole, 1984). While memory is not
a ?xed quality and is subject to di?erences in expe-
rience and con?icting interpretations, the record-
ing of events in formal documents supported by
an authoritative source and e?ective experiences
can develop the formal systems as endorsed mem-
404 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
ory (Sims, 1999). Accounting and formal informa-
tion systems have been identi?ed as important to
developing organizational memory (Huber, 1991;
Levitt & March, 1988). The use of integrative
SPMS, as part of an on-going formal control sys-
tem, provides the basis to store information on
integrated plans and the recording of subsequent
events. H5 summarizes these arguments.
H5: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and organizational learning.
Research method
Sample
Data were collected by a survey questionnaire
administered to senior managers drawn from Aus-
traliaÕs largest 200 industrial organizations. The
companies were selected from IRESS that covers
publicly listed companies and the Kompass busi-
ness directory of non-listed companies. These
organizations were either Ôstrategic business unitsÕ
(SBU) (i.e. divisions of larger companies) or inde-
pendent companies. A single SBU was drawn, at
random, from each multi-divisional organization.
The initial targeted individuals were the chief exe-
cutive of independent ?rms and managers of SBU.
Telephone calls con?rmed if the divisions of com-
panies had SBU responsibilities and who was the
most suitable person to be contacted to participate
in the survey. It was requested that the most senior
manager who had comprehensive knowledge of
the performance measurement systems be involved
in the survey. In some instances these were the sen-
ior ?nancial o?cers, in others they were general
managers, manufacturing or human resource man-
agers. To test if function provided a bias in results,
tests of di?erences in construct scores across func-
tional areas were undertaken. No signi?cant di?e-
rences were found. It is possible that the
respondents with more innovative SPMS held pos-
itive attitudes to the performance measurement
systems thus biasing responses to more positive
outcomes. Apart from guaranteeing con?denti-
ality, the study has no direct controls for such bias.
However, evidence concerning performance evalu-
ations suggests a high correlation between mana-
gersÕ self-ratings and objective measures
(Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1987).
Managers were provided with the option of
receiving a hard copy questionnaire or to respond
by way of an internet version of the questionnaire.
Reminder calls were made after two-weeks, one
and two months after the ?rst point of contact.
Usable responses were received from 80 managers
providing a ?nal response rate of 40%. There were
no signi?cant di?erences in average scores for var-
iables between the internet (70 respondents) and
hard copy respondents (10 respondents). Ten of
the non-respondents were prepared to discuss in
general terms, over the telephone, their perfor-
mance measurement systems and indicated a range
of applications that were similar to the respond-
ents, suggesting that non-respondents were not sig-
ni?cantly di?erent from respondents. Reasons for
non-response were time pressures and a reluctance
to participate in non-o?cial surveys. Variable
scores were compared for a sub-sample of 10 early
respondents (one week) with 10 of the late re-
sponses (one-two months). There were no signi?-
cant di?erences providing some evidence for lack
of response bias. The average age of respondents
was 38 years with an average length of employ-
ment in the companies of six years and in their cur-
rent positions of three years. Table 1 provides
information on the size, industry and functional
area of respondents.
Measures
The questionnaire elicited information on inte-
grative SPMS, competitive strategic priorities,
strategic alignment of manufacturing and organi-
zational learning. Given the novelty of the re-
search the only established instrument was for
competitive strategic priorities. New measures
were developed for the remaining variables in the
model. Extensive pilot testing was undertaken to
enhance the content validity of the measures. This
involved the construction of items based on the
theoretical nature of the constructs and then a re-
view process involving ?ve managers of ?rms not
included in the original survey, three senior
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 405
academics in management accounting, and four
members of the consulting division of an account-
ing company. The wording of items in the ques-
tionnaire is provided in Appendix.
The measure for integrative SPMS sought to
identify items that would measure the key infor-
mation characteristic of integrativeness. The sur-
vey identi?ed if the organizations employed a
BSC. Those with a BSC answered items that re-
ferred to BSC, while those without BSC were di-
rected to a separate section that had identical
items but referred to performance measurement
systems.
4
First, the instrument measured the ex-
tent to which the performance measurement sys-
tems provided integration between goals,
strategies and operations; and across the value
chain including supplier and customers. Second,
the provision of performance measures in the area
of ?nancials, customers, business processes and
long-term innovation was assessed. Third, given
the important distinction given to leading and lag-
ging measures in SPMS, with a combination of
both being recommended for more comprehensive,
integrative systems, items requested respondents to
evaluate the extent to which the SPMS provided
leading and lagging indicators.
Factor analysis, with oblique rotation, was con-
ducted to identify the extent to which there may
have been separate attributes within the SPMS
variable. Table 2 (panel A) provides the results
of this analysis and identi?es three factors for the
variable. Interpreting these exploratory factors re-
quires careful consideration to identify common
themes within each factor. While such interpreta-
tion is somewhat subjective, the following descrip-
tions attempt to encapsulate the meaning of the
factors. The ?rst factor captures the overall level
of integration including items that indicated the
extent to which the SPMS comprised a formally
documented system, the extent to which the sys-
tems provided linkages between operations and
goals and strategy, and between subunits in the
organization. There were two factors that elabo-
rated on linkages, one focused on customers and
the other with suppliers. Factor 2 included a ques-
tion that captured the extent to which the mea-
sures linked the business unit to customers. It
also included items on ?nancial and customer
measures as well as the provision of leading and
lagging indicators. Factor 3 included an item that
captured the extent of linkages of the measures
with suppliers, with measurement in the areas of
business processes and long-term innovation. A
weighted aggregate of items within each dimension
is used in the descriptive part of the analysis.
Three items were used to measure the strategic
alignment of manufacturing. They were drawn
from the attributes of this construct as detailed
in Wheelwright & Hayes (1985). These were the ex-
tent to which the connection between manufactur-
ing policy and strategy was clearly formulated and
pursued, manufacturing investments were screened
for consistency with business strategy, and senior
4
Companies that had not adopted their current perform-
ance measurement system (BSC or other systems) for at least six
months were excluded from the analysis. In the main, compa-
nies had adopted their current systems for at least 12 months
(72 companies) while eight had adopted their systems in the
prior 6-12 months. There were no signi?cant di?erences in
construct means between these two groups.
Table 1
Respondents by size of SBU, industry and functional area
n
Panel A: SBU size
Number of employees
0–100 20
101–500 16
501–1500 16
1501–2000 16
2001+ 12
Panel B: Industry
Category
Chemical 10
Foodstu?s & beverages 11
Engineering and automotive 16
Construction and mining 10
Light engineering & electrical 10
Computers and electronics 8
Agricultural 6
Other 9
Panel C: Functional area
Category
Finance 22
Manufacturing 14
General management 20
Human resources 18
Other 6
406 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
Table 2
Factor loadings for integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, organizational
learning, strategy (items are cross referenced to Appendix)
Panel A: Integrative strategic performance measurement systems
Factors and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
I. Strategic and operational linkages (a = 0.884) (Eigenvalue = 5.133, % of variance = 42.77)
Fully documented balanced scorecard (1-1) 0.979 À0.094 0.144
Links operating performance and long term strategies (1-2) 0.845 0.028 À0.190
Shows how business unit activities a?ect other units in organization (1-4) 0.777 0.050 À0.230
Links activities to goals and objectives (1-3) 0.624 0.274 À0.121
II. Customer orientation (a = 0.724) (Eigenvalue = 1.376, % of variance = 11.47)
Measures provide links to customers (1-6-2) À0.111 0.772 À0.298
Customer measures (1-7-2) 0.058 0.722 À0.166
Lagging indicators (1-5-2) 0.081 0.719 0.402
Leading indicators (1-5-1) 0.021 0.628 À0.192
Financial measures (1-7-1) 0.271 0.410 0.165
III. Supplier orientation (a = 0.749) (Eigenvalue = 1.256, % of variance = 10.45)
Long-term innovation measures (1-7-4) 0.175 0.033 À0.810
Measures providing links to suppliers (1-6-1) 0.091 0.220 À0.667
Business process measures (1-7-3) 0.241 0.277 À0.517
Panel B: Strategic alignment of manufacturing (all items loaded on one factor)
Factor and Cronbach alpha Factor loadings (component matrix)
Strategic alignment of manufacturing (a = 0.739) (Eigenvalue = 1.992, % of variance = 66.39)
Investments in manufacturing are screened for consistency with
business strategy (2-2)
0.898
Links between manufacturing policy and strategy are clearly formulated and pursued (2-1) 0.876
Senior managers understand of how products, markets and manufacturing processes
interact and manage these interactions across functions (2-3)
0.635
Panel C: Organizational learning (all items loaded on one factor)
Factor and Cronbach alpha Factor loadings (component matrix)
Organizational learning (a = 0.800) (Eigenvalue = 2.596, % of variance = 64.89)
There are well established ways to share information and knowledge
between people within the organization (3-1)
0.884
The business unitÕs beliefs, attitudes and ways of doing business
provide a strong basis for interpreting information (3-2)
0.829
The organization stores information and knowledge from prior
experiences in formal systems (3-4)
0.748
There are extensive formal and informal procedures and processes
for the acquisition of information (3-3)
0.741
Panel D: Competitive strategic priorities
Factor and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
I. Delivery/service (a = 0.845) (Eigenvalue = 4.033, % of variance = 36.67)
Make dependable delivery promises (4-8) 0.895 À0.136 0.133
Provide e?ective after-sales service and support (4-9) 0.825 0.035 À0.134
Provide fast deliveries (4-7) 0.817 0.075 0.082
Product availability (4-10) 0.757 0.043 0.112
Provide high quality products (4-1) 0.531 0.213 À0.228
(continued on next page)
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 407
managers had understanding of how manufactur-
ing processes interacted with products and mar-
kets and the management of these interactions
across the functions. Table 2 (panel B) shows a sin-
gle factor con?rming the construct validity of this
measure.
Organizational learning was based on HuberÕs
(1991) four dimensions of this construct. These
were processes for acquisition of information and
knowledge, established ways of sharing informa-
tion and knowledge, extent of business unitÕs belief
and attitudes as a basis for interpreting informa-
tion, and the storage of information and know-
ledge from prior experience. Table 2 (panel C)
shows that items loaded onto a single factor.
The variable competitive strategic outcomes
was measured using 11 strategy items identi?ed
by Miller et al. (1992). Respondents were asked
to indicate how they performed relative to their
competitors on each of the items, and then the de-
gree of importance of the strategic priorities to
their business unit. Scores for each item were
determined by multiplying the performance by
the importance scores. Factor analysis, with obli-
que rotation, revealed three dimensions of strate-
gic outcomes. Table 2 (panel D) presents these
factors. These were concerned with quality/deli-
very/service, ?exibility and low cost/price. Final
scores for each dimension were averages, aggre-
gated across all items within the respective factor.
This analysis can be interpreted as revealing two
dimensions of product di?erentiation outcomes
(quality/delivery/service and ?exibility) and one
of low cost-price.
Statistics for the BartlettÕs test of sphericity
were signi?cant for all factors and Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin measures of sampling adequacy were
above 0.60 for all factors. These statistics con?rm
the factorability of the items. Cronbach alphas
were calculated on all factors and exceeded 0.70,
except for the low cost/price dimension of strategic
priorities which was 0.65. These statistics are pro-
vided in Table 2 and indicate satisfactory internal
reliability.
5
An examination of the residual scatterplots
indicated that there were no serious deviations
from normality and linearity. Consideration of
the Mahalanobis distance values indicated that
there was one multivariate outlier among the inde-
pendent variables (critical value of 0.001). This
outlier was due to a very low score on strategic
alignment of manufacturing in a case with high
scores on other variables. All observations were
retained.
6
While the study is concerned with the interac-
tive nature of SPMS it was considered important
to identify if ?rms employed a BSC. Given the
popularization of BSC, it might be expected that
these systems would be more ÔadvancedÕ in terms
of providing integrative information and multiple
measures. Of the 80 respondents 25 had adopted
BSC. The di?erence in the means between groups
with and without BSC for all variables was not sig-
ni?cant, except all three dimensions of integrative
SPMS which were marginally higher for the BSC
group, although not statistically signi?cant at con-
Table 2 (continued )
Panel D: Competitive strategic priorities
Factor and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
II. Flexibility (a = 0.761) (Eigenvalue = 1.849, % of variance = 16.81)
Make rapid volume and/or product mix changes (4-6) À0.177 0.866 0.177
Make changes in design and introduce new products quickly (4-5) 0.027 0.828 0.115
Provide unique product features (4-3) 0.102 0.671 À0.085
Customise products and services to customer needs (4-11) 0.261 0.617 À0.134
III. Low Cost/price (a = 0.656) (Eigenvalue = 1.318, % of variance = 11.98)
Low price (4-4) À0.057 0.067 0.868
Low production costs (4-2) 0.182 0.059 0.801
5
As indicators of constructs in this study are considered to
be re?ective, rather than formative, it is appropriate to consider
issues of validity and reliability (Fornell, 1982).
6
There were no signi?cant di?erences in any results with this
observation excluded.
408 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
ventional levels (p < 10). While this is, perhaps,
surprising it suggests that business organizations
are achieving integrative performance measures
with a variety of performance measurement sys-
tems, including BSC.
Descriptive statistics, based on the weighted
average scores of multi-item variables, are pro-
vided in Table 3.
Results
This section describes the technique of partial
least squares (PLS) used to test the model and pre-
sents the results of hypotheses testing.
Structural equation modelling: partial least squares
To test the hypotheses, the technique of PLS
was used. PLS is particularly suited to small sam-
ple size studies and when the analysis is explora-
tory (Wold, 1985). Also, it overcomes some
theoretical and estimation problems in the use of
more well known structural equation modelling
approaches that use covariance structure analysis,
such as AMOS or LISREL (Hulland, 1999). The
technique of PLS comprises a structural model
that identi?es the relationships among constructs
and a measurement model that speci?es the rela-
tions between the manifest items and the con-
structs that they represent. PLS enables an
overall assessment of the validity of constructs
within the total model.
Given the exploratory nature of the current
study, a two-step approach was taken which in-
volved a preliminary analysis to examine the con-
struct validity of multi-item variables and then
the estimation of the structural model. This ap-
proach is recommended when theory is more ten-
tative and measures are less well developed as it
maximizes the interpretability of both measure-
ment and structural models (Hair, Anderson, Tat-
ham, & Black, 1998, p. 600). The preliminary
analysis of multi-item constructs was reported
above, and detailed in Table 2.
The measurement model is re-examined within
PLS with the generation of additional statistics to
access the validity of the measurement model.
The PLS analysis con?rmed the earlier factor
analyses for organizational learning, competitive
strategic priorities with all items loading over
0.70 on their respective latent variables. For stra-
tegic alignment of manufacturing, item 2-3 loaded
0.429. For integrative SPMS, factor II, item 1-5-2
loaded 0.520 and item 1-7-1 loaded 0.528.
The discriminant validity of the measurement
model was assessed by calculating the average var-
iance extracted (AVE) and comparing with the
squared correlations between constructs. This pro-
vides a test of the extent to which a construct
shares more variance with its measures than it
shares with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Table 4 provides the AVEs that can be com-
pared with the correlations between other con-
structs derived from Table 5. All AVE measures
Table 3
Descriptive statistics
Variable Mean Standard deviation Actual range Theoretical range
Min Max Min Max
Competitive strategic priorities
Flexibility 4.489 1.103 1.69 6.80 1.00 7.00
Delivery 3.664 1.071 1.00 6.04 1.00 7.00
Low cost-price 3.339 1.149 1.07 7.00 1.00 7.00
Strategic alignment of manufacturing 5.431 0.905 2.00 7.00 1.00 7.00
Organizational learning 4.910 0.975 2.75 7.00 1.00 7.00
Integrative SPMS
Strategic and operational linkages 4.653 1.276 1.25 7.00 1.00 7.00
Customer orientation 5.163 0.972 2.20 7.00 1.00 7.00
Supplier orientation 3.908 1.337 1.00 6.67 1.00 7.00
Number of observations 80
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 409
Table 4
Results of PLS: path coe?cients and t statistics, R
2
, average variance extracted (AVE)
Paths from Paths to Statistic
Integrative SPMS Organizational
learning
Strategic alignment
of manufacturing
Mult R
2
AVE
Strategic and operational
linkages
Customer
orientations
Supplier
orientation
Competitive strategic priorities
Delivery/service À0.072 0.174 À0.084 0.347 0.225 0.254 0.616
(0.493) (1.265) (0.611) (2.321)
***
(1.726)
**
Flexibility 0.261 0.060 À0.011 0.043 0.183 0.179 0.583
(1.581)
*
(0.124) (0.015) (0.348) (1.295)
*
Low cost/price À 0.101 0.070 0.354 0.131 0.128 0.227 0.725
(0.533) (0.314) (2.934)
***
(0.963) (1.290)
*
Strategic alignment of
manufacturing
0.237 0.008 0.239
(1.533)
*
(0.153) (1.744)
**
NR 0.173 0.644
Organizational learning 0.268 0.276 0.147 NR 0.320 0.656
(2.038)
**
(1.708)
**
(0.938)
Integrative SPMS
Strategic and operational linkages 0.741
Customer orientation 0.482
Supplier orientation 0.665
NR = not hypothesized within the model.
*
p < 0.10.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01.
4
1
0
R
.
H
.
C
h
e
n
h
a
l
l
/
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
3
0
(
2
0
0
5
)
3
9
5
–
4
2
2
are greater than the respective squared correla-
tions attesting to satisfactory discriminant validity.
The AVEs are used, also, to assess the conver-
gent validity of constructs within the PLS model.
Table 4 indicates that all variables are above the
conventional guideline of 0.50 for adequate con-
vergent validity, except for factor 2 of integrative
SPMS which is marginally low with an AVE of
0.48.
To examine the structural model, PLS generates
standardized bs that are used as path coe?cients
within the structural model and are interpreted
as in OLS regression. Bootstrapping provides a
basis to evaluate parameter estimates and their
con?dence intervals based on multiple estimations.
Bootstrapping using 500 samples with replacement
was used to assess the signi?cance of the path
coe?cients.
Table 4 and Fig. 2 present the results from PLS
related to the structural model. These include the
path coe?cients and their t tests. It is inappropri-
ate in PLS to use any overall goodness-of-?t meas-
ures, as used in covariance structure analysis
modelling, because PLS makes no distributional
assumptions (Chin, 1998). Rather, ?t is evaluated
by the overall incidence of signi?cant relationships
between constructs and the explained variance of
the endogenous variables. R
2
values are reported
in Table 4.
Test of hypotheses
The study sought ?rst to establish that integra-
tive SPMS would be associated signi?cantly with
competitive strategic outcomes (H1). A structural
model was then developed to examine the way in
which integrative SPMS in?uence competitive out-
comes, related to both product di?erentiation and
low cost-price strategies. This was done by exam-
ining the extent to which integrative SPMS are
associated with a strategic alignment of manufac-
turing (H2) and organizational learning (H4),
and how these variables, in turn, relate to compe-
titive strategic outcomes (H3 and H5). The
hypotheses are tested using the three dimensions
of integrative SPMS that were identi?ed, empiri-
cally, in the study. The results are mixed but show
partial support for the hypothesized relationships. T
a
b
l
e
5
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
P
L
S
m
o
d
e
l
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
N
=
8
0
)
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
P
M
S
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
0
.
3
6
4
*
*
*
0
.
4
5
6
*
*
*
0
.
2
1
4
*
*
0
.
3
7
7
*
*
*
0
.
2
5
9
*
*
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
0
.
3
1
4
*
*
*
0
.
2
8
4
0
.
2
9
4
*
*
*
0
.
2
3
2
*
*
0
.
2
8
0
*
*
*
L
o
w
c
o
s
t
-
p
r
i
c
e
0
.
2
9
5
*
*
*
0
.
3
3
0
*
*
*
0
.
1
8
3
*
*
0
.
2
5
1
*
*
0
.
4
3
5
*
*
*
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
0
.
4
8
0
*
*
*
0
.
3
7
5
*
*
*
0
.
2
3
2
*
*
0
.
3
5
9
*
*
*
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
0
.
4
9
5
*
*
*
0
.
4
7
8
*
*
*
0
.
4
3
0
*
*
*
*
*
p
<
0
.
0
5
.
*
*
*
p
<
0
.
0
1
.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 411
Consistent with expectations, Table 5 indicates
that each of the three dimensions of integrative
SPMS were signi?cantly correlated with competi-
tiveness on each of the strategic outcomes, sup-
porting H1. The structural model indicates how
strategic alignment of manufacturing and organi-
zational learning act as intervening variables in
each of these associations. For the strategic align-
ment of manufacturing path, Fig. 2 shows some
support for the hypothesized associations. For
the associations between strategic alignment of
manufacturing and strategic outcomes (H2), there
are signi?cant coe?cients for delivery, ?exibility
and for low cost-price. For the associations be-
tween integrative SPMS and strategic alignment
of manufacturing (H3), there are signi?cant paths
between alignment and strategic and operation
linkages and with supplier orientation but not with
customer orientation. For the proposed associa-
tion between organizational learning and strategic
outcomes (H4), the only signi?cant path was be-
tween organization learning and delivery. The pro-
posed association between organizational learning
and integrative SPMS (H5) was partially sup-
ported with signi?cant paths between organiza-
tional learning and strategic and operational
linkages and customer orientation, but not with
supplier orientation.
Fig. 2 indicates the way in which the intervening
variables either fully or partially mediate the corre-
lations between the dimensions of integrative
SPMS and strategic outcomes (Baron & Kenny,
1986). The intervening variables of strategic align-
ment of manufacturing and organizational learn-
ing provide full mediating e?ects for the
associations between the SPMS dimension of stra-
tegic and operational linkages and the strategic
outcomes of delivery and low cost-price; the SPMS
dimension of customer orientation and the strate-
gic outcomes of delivery; and the SPMS dimension
SPMS
Customer
orientation
Strategic
Outcome:
Flexibility
SPMS
Strategic &
operational
SPMS
Supplier
orientation
Strategic
Outcome:
Delivery
Strategic
Outcome:
Low cost-price
Organizational
learning
Strategic
alignment of
manufacturing
0.237*
0.261*
0.268**
0.276**
0.354***
0.128*
0.183*
0.347***
0.239**
0.225**
??
?
?
?
? = p
There is considerable interest in the role of strategic performance measurement systems (SPMS), such as balanced
scorecards, in assisting managers develop competitive strategies. A distinctive feature of SPMS is that they are designed
to present managers with financial and non-financial measures covering different perspectives which, in combination,
provide a way of translating strategy into a coherent set of performance measures. There appears to be wide variation
in how these systems are configured
Integrative strategic performance measurement
systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning
and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study
Robert H. Chenhall
*
Department of Accounting & Finance, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia
Abstract
There is considerable interest in the role of strategic performance measurement systems (SPMS), such as balanced
scorecards, in assisting managers develop competitive strategies. A distinctive feature of SPMS is that they are designed
to present managers with ?nancial and non-?nancial measures covering di?erent perspectives which, in combination,
provide a way of translating strategy into a coherent set of performance measures. There appears to be wide variation
in how these systems are con?gured. However, as yet, there has been little consideration given to identifying underlying
information characteristics that might help explain how the systems have bene?cial e?ects. This study identi?es a key
dimension of SPMS, integrative information, as being instrumental in assisting managers deliver positive strategic out-
comes. Three interrelated dimensions of integrative SPMS were identi?ed in this study. The ?rst, strategic and opera-
tional linkages, was a generic factor that captures the overall extent to which the systems provide for integration
between strategy and operations, and integration across elements of the value chain. The second attribute, customer
orientation, focuses on customer linkages and includes ?nancial and customer measures. The third dimension, supplier
orientation, is based on linkages to suppliers and includes business process and innovation measures. A model is devel-
oped that predicts that integrative SPMS will enhance the strategic competitiveness of organizations. It is proposed that
the in?uence of integrative SPMS on strategic outcomes is indirect through the mediating roles of alignment of man-
ufacturing with strategy and organizational learning. Data from a survey of 80 strategic business units provide varying
support for the proposed relationships.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Increasingly, innovations in management
accounting systems have sought to provide infor-
mation for developing a strategic orientation to
the operations of the ?rm (Ittner & Larcker, 2002;
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.08.001
*
Tel.: +61 03 9905 2355; fax: +61 03 9905 5475.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
Kaplan, 1994; Shank & Govindarajan, 1993; Si-
mons, 2000). One area of innovation has been per-
formance measurement systems. There have been
e?orts to re?ne ?nancial measures such as eco-
nomic value added (Wallace, 1998). Non-?nancial
measures have been recommended for use in man-
ufacturing and marketing but in ways that lack
integration between functional areas (Banker, Pot-
ter, & Srinivasan, 1993; Foster & Horngren, 1987;
Fullerton & McWatters, 2002; Hall, 1989; MacAr-
thur, 1996; Maskell, 1992; McKinnon & Bruns,
1992; Perera, Harrison, & Poole, 1997; Vollmann,
1990). Several authors have presented measure-
ment schemes that are strategic in that they
provide a more integrated approach relating oper-
ations to customers and corporate vision. These
have included Performance Pyramids and Hierar-
chies (Dixon, Nanni, & Vollmann, 1990; Hronec,
1993; Lynch & Cross, 1995; McNair, Lynch, &
Cross, 1990), Balanced Scorecards (BSC) (Kaplan
& Norton, 1992; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Kaplan
& Norton, 2001) and the Intangible Asset Score-
card (Sveiby, 1997).
A distinctive feature of these strategic perform-
ance measurement systems (SPMS) is that they
are designed to present managers with ?nancial
and non-?nancial measures covering di?erent per-
spectives which, in combination, provide a way of
translating strategy into a coherent set of perform-
ance measures. The perspectives that are relevant to
pro?t orientated companies most often include
?nancial, customers, internal processes and long-
term innovation. This system of associated meas-
ures has the potential to identify the cause-e?ect
linkages that describe the way operations are re-
lated to the organizationÕs strategy. The aim is to
provide a rational framework to formulate and
implement strategies. Evidence on the adoption of
SPMS, particularly BSC, has been mainly anecdo-
tal with little survey work to con?rm the adoption
or e?ects on desired organizational outcomes.
While there is some support for growing BSC
implementation (Chenhall & Lang?eld-Smith,
1998; Hoque & James, 2000; Ittner & Larcker,
1998b; Silk, 1998), the characteristics or informa-
tion dimensions of the systems are not examined
in these studies. It seems clear that there is wide
variation in the nature of SPMS, ranging from
combinations of ?nancial and non-?nancial meas-
ures to more comprehensive systems linking opera-
tions to various perspectives and to strategy
(Hoque & James, 2000; Ittner & Larcker, 1998b;
Ittner & Larcker, 2003; Ittner, Larcker, & Randell,
2003).
This study aims to contribute to the body of
accounting literature that examines how the
underlying information dimensions of SPMS ef-
fects desired organizational outcomes by providing
information on the linkages between operations
and strategic outcomes and between di?erent fac-
ets of the entire value chain. The importance of
identifying measurement system attributes to the
study of SPMS is noted by Ittner et al. (2003, p.
739). Examples of this body of literature include
studies associating enhanced outcomes with great-
er measurement emphasis and diversity of
performance measures (Ittner et al., 2003), com-
petitor focused systems (Guilding, 1999), common
compared to unique performance measures (Lipe
& Salterio, 2000), systems linked to value chain
analysis (Dekker, 2003), measures of the bene?ts
of supplier partnerships (Seal, Cullen, Dunlop,
Berry, & Ahmed, 1999), activity knowledge struc-
tures (Dearman & Shields, 2001), and performance
measure precision and sensitivity (Banker & Da-
tar, 1989).
In this study, the nature of SPMS is described in
terms of a key information characteristic, that of
integrativeness. The characteristic of integrative-
ness within SPMS has two components. First, a
generic aspect involving information that provides
an understanding of cause-e?ect linkages between
operations and strategy and goals, and between
various aspects of the value chain including suppli-
ers and customers (Banker, Janakiraman, Kon-
stans, & Pizzini, 2001; Kaplan & Norton, 2001;
Malina & Selto, 2001; Stivers & Joyce, 2000). Sec-
ond, a measurement component concerning provi-
sion of measures in the areas of ?nancial,
customers, business processes and long-term inno-
vation (El-Shishini, 2001; Frigo & Krumwiede,
2000; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Malmi, 2001; Shar-
ma, 2000). It is this dimension of integrativeness
that is seen to provide managers with information
that potentially assists in developing competitive
strategies.
396 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
There are several ways in which researchers
have examined variables that are implicated in
the relationship between management control sys-
tems and desired organizational outcomes. Two
main approaches have been applied widely. First,
researchers have considered the in?uences of vari-
ables such as environmental uncertainty or tech-
nology in moderating the relationship between
accounting systems and outcomes. Second, studies
have attempted to build structural models that
help explain how accounting systems have their af-
fects on outcomes.
1
In this paper, a structural
modelling approach is adopted. Structural models
are appropriate when the theory sets out to explain
the role of variables that intervene in the relation-
ship between management control systems and de-
sired outcomes (Luft & Shileds, 2003). This
approach does not consider how the e?ects might
be moderated by di?erent contextual factors,
rather it is assumed that these factors are noise
within the models. As is common in evolving areas
of research, theory can be developed to incorpo-
rate the in?uence of di?erent aspects of context
as our understanding matures.
The study contributes by providing a concep-
tual advance in understanding the application of
SPMS. This involves, ?rst, explicating the nature
of SPMS by identifying integrative information
as a key dimension of the systems. Speci?cally, it
is argued that this information characteristic of
SPMS focuses on integrating business operations
with strategy. It is this integrative dimension that
provides SPMS with the potential to enhance an
organizationÕs strategic competitiveness. Next,
the study develops a structural model drawing on
established theories related to manufacturing
(Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984; Hayes, Wheelwright,
& Clark, 1988; Skinner, 1969, 1978, 1985; Wheel-
wright & Hayes, 1985) to show how integrative
SPMS can align manufacturing with strategy
which then enhances the organizationÕs competi-
tiveness on strategic outcomes. Theories from
organizational learning (Duncan & Weiss, 1979;
Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991) indicate that integra-
tive SPMS can provide a platform for learning
which, in turn, can lead to successful strategic
outcomes.
The remainder of the paper is structured in four
sections. The next section develops the structural
model including a series of hypotheses. This is fol-
lowed by sections that discuss the research method
and present results. Finally, conclusions are
discussed.
Theoretical framework
There has been extensive literature proposing
the importance of performance measurement inno-
vation (Atkinson et al., 1997; Hronec, 1993; Ka-
plan & Norton, 1996; Lynch & Cross, 1995). It is
claimed that SPMS improve an organizationÕs
ability to be competitive, in terms of its speci?c
strategic priorities. SPMS assist in developing stra-
tegic advantage by formulating and implementing
strategies in ways that ensure the value chain is
compatible with strategies. Importantly, SPMS
have a role in ensuring that the organization learns
so that it can maintain its competitiveness in the
future. In this paper, theory is developed to ex-
pound upon these relationships.
First, this research is predicated on the belief
that integrative SPMS enhance organizationsÕ stra-
tegic competitiveness. Arguments are presented to
support positive associations between integrative
SPMS and competitive strategic outcomes associ-
ated with both product di?erentiation and cost-
price strategies (H1). Next, a structural model is
developed that elaborates upon the relationship
between integrative SPMS and competitive strate-
gic outcomes. First, an alignment path is identi?ed
where the strategic alignment of manufacturing is
associated with competitive strategic outcomes
(H2), and integrative SPMS assist in the strategic
alignment of manufacturing (H3). Second, an
organizational learning path is presented where
organizational learning is associated with compet-
itive strategic outcomes (H4), and integrative
SPMS in?uence organizational learning (H5).
Fig. 1 outlines the nature of these relationships.
1
Luft & Shileds (2003) and Gerdin & Greve (2004) provide
analyses of the di?erent forms of modelling, including struc-
tural models, used in management accounting research, point-
ing out the legitimacy of di?erent approaches to answer
di?erent questions.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 397
Integrative SPMS and strategic outcomes
Models of market globalization maintain that
business organizations operate within increasingly
competitive, global environments (Bartlett & Gho-
shal, 2000; Harvey, Novicevic, & Kiessling, 2001;
Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1988; Porter, 1990). Porter
(1980, 1985, 1990) suggests that businesses are
compelled to compete by di?erentiating their prod-
ucts on the basis of product characteristics or low
price. Others claim that ?rms focusing strategies
on product features must to do so without a price
premium (Belohlav, 1993; Kotha & Vadlamani,
1995; Normann, 1971). Also, ?rms competing on
low cost must ensure that their products are com-
petitive on product features such as delivering on
time, providing service and warrantees as well as
developing technologies to continuously lower
costs. In contemporary environments product fea-
tures include functionality, high quality, dependa-
ble delivery, e?ective after-sales service, ?exible
response to customer product requirements, rapid
product volume and mix changes and low price
(Dertouzos, Lester, & Slow, 1989; Levitt, 1983;
Miller, Meyer, & Nakane, 1992). As the competi-
tive advantage of novel priorities or cost advan-
tage erodes over time it is necessary to generate a
continual ?ow of new ideas (Porter, 1990; Roberts,
1999). This erosion is exacerbated for those ?rms
that have products with short product life cycles
and that face continuous improvement in cost
structures. These ?rms have an intensi?ed need
for a stream of innovative product features and
technological improvements to sustain long-term
competitive advantage (Berliner & Brimson, 1988).
In this study, the basic notion of PorterÕs pro-
duct di?erentiation and cost leadership taxonomy
is elaborated by de?ning these generic strategies
in terms of a selection of strategic priorities describ-
ing speci?c product features as identi?ed by Miller
et al. (1992). These product characteristics include
unique features, high quality, low price, ?exibility,
delivery and product services such as customiza-
tion and after-sales service. Successful strategic
Integrative
SPMS
Competitive
strategic
outcomes
Organizational
learning
Strategic
alignment of
manufacturing
H1
H2
H3 H5
H4
Fig. 1. Structural model: integrative SPMS, strategic alignment of manufacturing, organizational learning and competitive strategic
outcomes.
398 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
outcomes are de?ned as being competitive on these
strategic priorities.
2
The necessity to sustain competitive strategic
advantage presents considerable administrative
challenges (Quinn, 1980a; Wheelwright & Clark,
1992; Hammond, 1994). To sustain competitive
strategic advantage ?rms require administrative
procedures that encourage invention and creati-
vity, targeted on combinations of product features
(Clark & Fujimoto, 1991; Damanpour & Evan,
1984; Kanter, 1985). Also, contemporary strate-
gies place demands on production processes to
provide a capacity to manufacture products with
enhanced features but at low cost (Cooper, 2000;
Shank & Govindarajan, 1993). Once formulated,
e?ective implementation is required to ensure that
innovative product characteristics and techno-
logies deliver product characteristics to customers
in cost e?ective ways (Shank & Govindarajan,
1993).
SPMS have been proposed as a management
system to assist in developing and sustaining com-
petitive strategic outcomes. Kaplan & Norton
(1996, 2001) have popularised SPMS as BSC by
articulating the strategic nature of performance
measurement systems. They claim that SPMS
aim to accomplish four management processes
that are critical to developing competitive strate-
gies: ‘‘clarify and translate vision and strategy;
communicate and link strategic objectives and
measures; plan, set targets, and align strategic ini-
tiatives; and, enhance strategic feedback and learn-
ing’’ (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, p. 10). Proponents
of SPMS provide anecdotal evidence on the bene-
?ts for a variety of individual companies (Ahn,
2001; Dixon et al., 1990; Kaplan & Norton,
1996; Kaplan & Norton, 2001; Lynch & Cross,
1995; Mooraj, Oyon, & Hostettle, 1999). While
there have been a number of studies into the suc-
cess of non-?nancial performance measures, there
is only limited survey evidence on the e?ectiveness
of SPMS. Concerning the extent to which BSC
helped clarify strategy, Ittner & Larcker (1998b)
found that scorecards assisted only a minority of
managers in understanding goals and strategies
or in relating their jobs to business objectives. Itt-
ner & Larcker (2003) found that managers made
little attempt to link non-?nancial performance
measures to advance their chosen strategies. More-
over, only 23% of these managers were able to
show that they built causal models and most did
not validate the causal links.
The e?ects of SPMS on organizational perform-
ance are ambiguous. Some studies have shown
positive links between SPMS and performance. Itt-
ner & Larcker (2003) found that ?rms that did
build cause–e?ect linkages had higher ROA and
ROE than those that did not. Hoque & James
(2000) found that overall usage of BSC was signi-
?cantly correlated with organizational perfor-
mance. In a study of banks, Davis & Albright
(2004) found that a group of branches that used
BSC outperformed a group that did not use BSC
on common composite ?nancial measures. Other
studies have shown that the association between
SPMS and performance depends on the type of
organizational performance being considered, with
some evidence suggesting that SPMS are associ-
ated with medium to long-term performance. Itt-
ner et al. (2003) found that in ?nancial service
?rms using a broad set of ?nancial and particularly
non-?nancial measures, relative to ?rms with sim-
ilar strategies or value drivers, earned higher stock
returns. Also, Ittner et al. (2003) found that tech-
niques such as balanced scorecard, economic value
and business modelling were associated with in-
creased measurement systems satisfaction but not
with economic performance.
Other studies suggest more equivocal outcomes
from SPMS. Chenhall & Lang?eld-Smith (1998)
reported that while BSC were part of the Ôbest
practicesÕ of high performance ?rms they were also
evident in poorly performing ?rms that had less
well developed management techniques. In an
experimental study, Lipe & Salterio (2000) found
that managers had cognitive di?culties working
2
While success in achieving product di?erentiation and cost
leadership provides a basis to develop theory, it was necessary
to identify how the various strategic outcomes were related to
product di?erentiation and low cost strategies. Table 2, Panel D
shows that two aspects of product di?erentiation were identi-
?ed, one involved delivery, service and quality outcomes (titled
delivery), the other ?exibility and customisation (titled ?exibil-
ity). A third factor captured low cost-price strategic outcomes
(low cost-price). The method section describes how these
factors were derived.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 399
with measures to evaluate performance that were
speci?c to a situation (unique measures) and pre-
ferred measures that were the same for di?erent
situations (common measures).
In evaluating the success of SPMS, it is impor-
tant to distinguish di?erent designs. Some SPMS
are based only on combinations of ?nancial and
non-?nancial measures, with little attempt to inte-
grate the various measures and relate them to the
organizationÕs strategy (Epstein & Birchard,
2000, p. 82). Others are more comprehensive, rep-
resenting a strategic management system focusing
on integrating ?nancial position, customers, rele-
vant aspects of processes, and growth and innova-
tion. Increasingly it is being argued that the
e?ectiveness of SPMS will depend on the extent
to which they form a coherent performance mea-
surement system that enables strategy and opera-
tions to be integrated and harmonized (Epstein
& Birchard, 2000; Ittner & Larcker, 2003; Norrek-
lit, 2000; Olve, Roy, & Wetter, 1999). Empirical
evidence on the e?ectiveness of more coherent
SPMS is limited. Banker et al. (2001) and Sandt,
Schae?er, & Weber (2001) found that the provi-
sion of systematic linkages between measures en-
hances satisfaction with the systems. Ittner et al.
(2003) also found that ?rms in the ?nancial ser-
vices sector that had more coherent performance
measurement systems were associated with en-
hanced satisfaction with SPMS. However, their re-
sults indicated that these systems were not
associated with improved economic performance.
Importantly, this study extends research by identi-
fying the role of coherent SPMS. However, the ex-
act nature and meaning of these systems is not
explored, the study relying on single items to meas-
ure the extent of use of Ôbalanced scorecardsÕ, Ôeco-
nomic value measuresÕ and Ôbusiness modelsÕ.
In the current study, the notion of coherence is
explored through the information dimension of
integrative SPMS, de?ned as providing a broad
array of measures and a design framework that
links strategy with operations and activities across
the value chain. It is theorized, in this study, that
integrative SPMS will assist managers to achieve
competitive outcomes, whether they will be con-
cerned with product di?erentiation or low cost-
price. This follows as the successful formulation
and implementation of both forms of strategy re-
quire managers to be provided with speci?c per-
formance goals and feedback that can assist in
assessing the e?ectiveness of existing strategies
and provide a basis for learning related to e?ecting
successful strategies (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, p.
15). Theories drawn from psychology provide a
theoretical basis to suggest that individuals will
be motivated to expend e?ort when they are pro-
vided goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,
1981) and comprehensive feedback integrating ac-
tions with goals (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979).
Goal directed behaviour and feedback enhance
performance by: (i) clarifying expectations at
organizational and operational levels (Taylor,
Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984); (ii) reducing ambiguity
associated with tasks to achieve strategies (Graen,
1976); and (iii) providing a coherent re?ection of
organizational priorities (Baumler, 1972; Porter,
Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). These e?ects are aug-
mented when performance measures are part of
formal systems used to evaluate work (Briers &
Hirst, 1990; Bruns & McKinnon, 1992).
Integrative SPMS provide feedback on how
business activities link to strategies and to various
aspects of the value chain. Developing competi-
tiveness in both product di?erentiation and low
cost-price strategies will be assisted by understand-
ing how the speci?c strategies relate to the broad
objectives of the ?rm and how various business
unit activities in?uence other units in the organiza-
tion. Developing successful product di?erentiation
can be assisted by integrative SPMS. Integrative
SPMS can provide feedback to understand and
successfully manage the increasing level of com-
plex interdependencies that occur between opera-
tions and strategy and between various aspects of
the value chain, caused by product di?erentiation.
Also, the systems can focus attention on how to
integrate the complexity derived from responding
to changing and diverse customer requirements.
Moreover, they can highlight the need to ensure
that business processes, including supplier
arrangements, can deliver on customer require-
ments in cost e?ective ways. Thus, it may be pre-
dicted that integrative SPMS will be associated
with enhanced competitiveness related to product
di?erentiation strategies.
400 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
Managing low cost-price strategies may involve
a more limited range of interdependencies. How-
ever, competitiveness on costs is likely to be
achieved if the e?ects of di?erent business unit
activities on each other are understood by way of
their explication within integrative SPMS. Moreo-
ver, e?ective cost-price strategies may be achieved
by using integrative information that assists devel-
oping customer relationships where the customers
work with the ?rm to develop products at particu-
lar costs. Finally, close connections with suppliers
are likely to be a critical aspect of constraining
costs. Such connections maybe enhanced by the
way interactions with suppliers are evaluated with-
in an integrative SPMS.
In summary, SPMS can vary in the degree to
which information integrates operations with stra-
tegy, with more integrative systems providing ri-
cher strategic feedback. It is the provision of
strategic feedback from integrative SPMS that pro-
vides the basis to enhance competitive outcomes for
both product di?erentiation and cost-price strate-
gies. These arguments and the claims of proponents
of SPMS provide the basis for Hypothesis 1.
H1: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and competitive outcomes
associated with both product di?erentiation
and low cost-price strategies.
Strategic alignment of manufacturing and
competitive strategic priorities
In this study, the strategic alignment of man-
ufacturing is de?ned in terms of the existence
of clear links between manufacturing and stra-
tegy, consistency of manufacturing with strategy
development and an understanding by senior
managers of the manufacturing policy and how
it relates to other functions (Wheelwright &
Hayes, 1985). E?ective strategic alignment of
manufacturing is important as it ensures that
strategy is delivered at the process level and it
provides the opportunity for parallel and interac-
tive development of both products and associated
processes (Hayes et al., 1988; Shank & Govind-
arajan, 1993).
The signi?cance of aligning manufacturing with
strategy to develop competitive outcomes has been
emphasized for some time in manufacturing mod-
els of the ?rm (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984; Hayes
et al., 1988; Skinner, 1969, 1978, 1985; Wheel-
wright & Hayes, 1985). In essence these models
claim that improved competitiveness derives from
the way manufacturing can provide a strategic
capability to contribute to the formulation of stra-
tegic priorities and their e?ective implementation
(Sun & Hong, 2002; Wheelwright & Hayes,
1985). Thus, a strategic priority of timely delivery
may require manufacturing processes to ensure
that suppliers are of high quality and deliver on
time, and that production cycle time is reduced
with no delays from defects. Aligning strategy with
manufacturing elevates manufacturing from a
reactive role to play a major part in strengthening
market position by providing capabilities for im-
proved strategic priorities (Hayes et al., 1988;
Wheelwright & Hayes, 1985).
One aspect of manufacturingÕs strategic capabil-
ity is aligning communication between individuals
formulating product strategy and those at the
operational level. This encourages operational
managers to ensure that manufacturing enables
strategic priorities to be e?ected. Also, strategic
alignment stresses the need to focus on strategic
priorities that provide process innovations that
will develop an innovative, learning approach to
enhancing manufacturing capabilities (Bhoovar-
aghavan, Vasudevan, & Chandran, 1996; Brown,
1998; Hayes et al., 1988).
The task of alignment has become particularly
acute as ?rms face increasing complexity within
manufacturing (Drucker, 1990). Alignment is
likely to be particularly important to manage the
complexity associated with product di?erentiation
strategies. Such complexity occurs as production
processes must be coordinated and focused on
delivering multiple product characteristics, such
as quality, ?exible design, fast delivery and in
many instances do so at acceptable cost (Billington
& Davis, 1992; Shank & Govindarajan, 1993).
Complexity may also be apparent in low cost-price
strategies with contemporary manufacturing pro-
viding strategic advantage by developing seamless
production processes and coordinated supplier
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 401
and customer relationships. These e?orts are
important to maintain continuous cost improve-
ment and sensitivity to both down-stream and
up-stream quality and delivery (Dekker, 2003).
Consequently, it has been recognized that develop-
ing competitive strategic outcomes for both prod-
uct di?erentiation and low cost-price strategies
requires aligning manufacturing with strategy
and that this involves managing multiple and var-
ied interdependencies that occur across all aspects
of the value chain (Shank & Govindarajan, 1993).
This involves choosing technologies, selecting and
managing suppliers, production planning and con-
trol systems, work force and quality practices and
customer relationships (Bates, Amundson, Schroe-
der, & Morris, 1995; Cooper, 2000). Hypothesis 2
presents the relationship between strategic align-
ment of manufacturing and competitive strategic
priorities.
H2: There is a positive relationship between the
strategic alignment of manufacturing and
competitive outcomes associated with both
product di?erentiation and low cost-price
strategies.
Integrative SPMS and strategic alignment
of manufacturing
Communication and information theories pro-
vide the basis to predict that integrative SPMS
can assist in developing a strategic alignment of
manufacturing (Guetzkow, 1965; Krone, Jablin,
& Putnam, 1987). Information theories consider
the importance of e?ective routing of potentially
synergistic information across the organization.
This routing involves horizontal and vertical com-
munications and assists in coordinating infor-
mation between managers who are not aware of
where information may be used, or of the existence
of potentially useful information. Speci?cally, the
achievement of a strategic alignment of manufac-
turing requires information to ensure there is
e?ective coordination between strategy and manu-
facturing and between manufacturing and other
functions (Wheelwright & Hayes, 1985). The role
of manufacturing as a means of formulating and
achieving strategic priorities requires a comple-
mentary, organizational-wide information system
which ensures that manufacturing systems are pro-
vided with appropriate information (Hayes et al.,
1988).
It is the integrative nature of SPMS that assists
strategic alignment of manufacturing. This in-
volves combining performance measures so that
manufacturing decisions can be assessed in terms
of their coherence with strategies concerning ?nan-
cial returns, customers, processes and innovation
(Dixon et al., 1990; Lynch & Cross, 1995). That
is, integrative SPMS can assist alignment by expli-
citly identifying, measuring and communicating to
managers the e?ects of linkages between manufac-
turing, consumers and ?nancial outcomes. This in-
volves identifying and mapping logical connections
between the stages across manufacturing processes
to ensure consistency of the stages with overall
strategy (De Hass &Kleingeld, 1999). Importantly,
integrative SPMS provide motivation for managers
to align their operations with strategies. This fol-
lows, as the success of managers in e?ecting such
alignment will be assessed by the performance
measurement systems. This relationship is pre-
sented in hypothesis 3.
H3: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and the strategic alignment of
manufacturing.
Organizational learning and competitive
strategic priorities
Theoretical research on learning contends that
organizational level learning involves systems type
thinking where organizations develop systems to
acquire, interpret, di?use and store information
and outcomes of organizational experiences
(Huber, 1991; Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995;
Roth & Senge, 1996). Individuals draw upon such
systems when they have to solve problems and
make decisions. Organizational learning concepts
can be related to the way organizations provide
an information and knowledge platform upon
which individual learning can evolve. This notion
is consistent with commentators who see organiza-
402 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
tional learning as creating structures and strategies
that facilitate the learning of all members of the
organization (Burgelman, 1990; Garvin, 1993;
Senge, 1990; Stewart, 1997).
3
Organizations are
seen to manage knowledge which implies that
any individual learning requires some substantia-
tion of the essence of learning that leads to the
accumulation of knowledge.
Increasingly, the operating environments of
business organizations are becoming highly com-
petitive. Such environments involve high demands
for information and knowledge. This pressure has
prompted commentators to identify the develop-
ment of knowledge organizations, learning organ-
izations and intellectual capital as major sources of
competitive advantage (Garvin, 1993; Edvinsson
& Malone, 1997; Senge, 1990). Learning at the
organization level is seen to increase the knowl-
edge intensity of the organization which is a pre-
requisite for developing strategic responses
(Starbuck, 1992; Tenkasi & Boland, 1996). Fol-
lowing Huber (1991), in this work, organizational
learning is identi?ed as involving information
acquisition, interpretation, distribution and mem-
ory. Information acquisition entails obtaining
information and knowledge; information interpre-
tation refers to the process whereby distributed
information is given some form of commonly
understood interpretation; information distribu-
tion is concerned with sharing information; and
organizational memory is the means whereby
information and knowledge are stored for the fu-
ture. Each of these aspects of learning provides a
capacity to develop competitive product di?erenti-
ation and low cost-price strategies.
Literature derived from searching behaviour is
relevant to organizational information acquisition
as it identi?es the links between e?ective learning
and information scanning, focused search and per-
formance monitoring (for a summary see Huber,
1991). The survival of organizations facing com-
petitive operating environments will depend on
the e?ectiveness with which search procedures
identify changes and develop e?ective responses
(Daft, Sormunen, & Parks, 1988; Tushman &
Katz, 1980). More speci?cally, strategy researchers
have stressed that information acquisition pro-
vides potentially useful ideas related to external
and internal opportunities and threats that are rel-
evant to formulating innovative strategy to gain
competitive advantage in di?erentiating products
or lowering costs (Dutton & Freedman, 1985;
Hambrick, 1982; Jelinek, 1979; Shrivastava, 1983).
Research in organizational communications ex-
plains that information interpretation is the proc-
ess whereby information is given meaning (Daft
& Wieck, 1984). The bene?ts from e?ective infor-
mation sharing derive from translating events,
developing shared meanings and conceptual
schemes (Daft & Wieck, 1984). These outcomes
provide a clear and common focus for organiza-
tional activity which can, according to conven-
tional strategy literature, enhance performance
(Andrews, 1971; Anso?, 1965). While shared
meaning may produce a single vision or purpose,
it may also involve a variety of interpretations
(Huber, 1991). The very process of clarifying pur-
pose can result in accidentally discovering e?ective
strategies which then provide focus (Kogut, 1991;
Quinn, 1980b). There is little systematic study link-
ing strategy to the interpretation of information.
However, from a cognitive perspective, the role
of interpreting information ensures that all acti-
vities are related to strategic priorities, whether
they concern product di?erentiation or cost leader-
ship, thereby clarifying purpose and avoiding
ambiguity (Daft & Wieck, 1984; Dutton, Fahey,
& Narayanan, 1983).
Theories from business communications have
identi?ed information distribution as central to
enabling organizations to conduct their business
(Goodman, 1998; Tucker, Meyer, & Westerman,
1996; Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Essentially, with-
out communication the linkages between organiza-
tional sub-units are an abstract chain. Decisions
and communications interact such that communi-
cation gives rise to action and action gives rise to
information to be communicated. Huber (1991,
p. 101) points out that information distribution
3
The study does not consider the process of knowledge
generation at the individual level, nor does it consider the
explicit outcome of learning such as developing organizational
routines or standard operating procedures (Levitt & March,
1988; March & Olsen, 1988), cognitive systems (Hedberg, 1981),
or a collective mind (Weick & Roberts, 1993).
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 403
involves linking individuals who need information
with those who possess it and that this can assist in
identifying knowledge throughout the organiza-
tion. From a strategy viewpoint, distributing infor-
mation ensures that more individuals throughout
the organization are aware of the precise nature
of strategies and can contribute to the achievement
of those strategies or provide feedback on their
adequacy and potential alternatives (Guetzkow,
1965; Huber, 1982). Such clarity of purpose is
important to all forms of strategy, including prod-
uct di?erentiation and low cost-price.
Organization behaviour theorists have noted
that extensive knowledge about how to do things
is stored in organizational memory both as formal
documents and informal mental models (Feldman,
1989; Levitt & March, 1988). Organizational mem-
ory provides a repository of information that is
often extensive and precise. This memory involves
sophisticated storing and retrieval that can en-
hance the organizationÕs capacity to source and
process valuable information for strategic analysis
related to di?erentiating products and to continu-
ously improve cost structures (Feldman, 1989).
These arguments lead to H4.
H4: There is a positive relationship between
organizational learning and competitive out-
comes associated with both product di?eren-
tiation and low cost-price strategies.
Integrative SPMS and organizational learning
A distinctive characteristic of SPMS is their
objective of ensuring that the organization can de-
velop a capacity to innovate by encouraging learn-
ing. There are arguments to support the view that
integrative SPMS can contribute to each of the
four elements of learning: information acquisition,
interpretation, distribution and organizational
memory.
While there is extensive research indicating that
organizational information acquisition is a com-
plex process, Huber (1991) concludes that more
proactive, formal procedures at the senior man-
agement level can assist in learning. Integrative
SPMS are potentially a primary tool for mapping,
evaluating and learning about strategic direction.
This follows as integrative SPMS focus on how
operations, suppliers and customer linkages deli-
ver on strategy. Diverse measures across ?nancials,
customers, processes and long-term innovation
provide an important formal mechanism to collect
information that can be used to develop organiza-
tional learning.
Theories drawn from cognitive mapping and
framing provide a basis to explain the importance
of integrative SPMS in information interpretation
(Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Tversky & Kahneman,
1985). If information is not uniformly framed,
common interpretations are unlikely to be
achieved and e?ort may be dissipated. These theo-
ries suggest that the strategic focus of integrative
SPMS provides a common basis for framing
information.
Organizational theorists have noted the impor-
tance of formal systems in distributing informa-
tion related to strategies (Burns & Stalker, 1961;
Galbraith, 1973, 1993; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Khandwalla (1977, p. 453) observed that without
formal deliberate channelling of information and
action, organizations would operate chaotically.
To be e?ective these formal systems need to main-
tain a balance between managing the interface be-
tween tight control to ensure activities deliver
strategy and more ?uid processes to ensure e?ective
interaction and systems-wide e?ects that may
encourage innovation in strategy formulation
(Leonard-Barton, 1992). The use of integrative
SPMS to implement strategies and to communicate
strategic uncertainties and emerging strategy can
be important in facilitating the distribution of
strategic priorities throughout the organization (Si-
mons, 1995). Malina & Selto (2001) provide empir-
ical evidence that emphasises the role of BSC in
communicating and distributing information.
Information and organizational theorists have
demonstrated the importance of formal systems
to develop organizational memory (Feldman,
1989; Gioia & Poole, 1984). While memory is not
a ?xed quality and is subject to di?erences in expe-
rience and con?icting interpretations, the record-
ing of events in formal documents supported by
an authoritative source and e?ective experiences
can develop the formal systems as endorsed mem-
404 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
ory (Sims, 1999). Accounting and formal informa-
tion systems have been identi?ed as important to
developing organizational memory (Huber, 1991;
Levitt & March, 1988). The use of integrative
SPMS, as part of an on-going formal control sys-
tem, provides the basis to store information on
integrated plans and the recording of subsequent
events. H5 summarizes these arguments.
H5: There is a positive relationship between inte-
grative SPMS and organizational learning.
Research method
Sample
Data were collected by a survey questionnaire
administered to senior managers drawn from Aus-
traliaÕs largest 200 industrial organizations. The
companies were selected from IRESS that covers
publicly listed companies and the Kompass busi-
ness directory of non-listed companies. These
organizations were either Ôstrategic business unitsÕ
(SBU) (i.e. divisions of larger companies) or inde-
pendent companies. A single SBU was drawn, at
random, from each multi-divisional organization.
The initial targeted individuals were the chief exe-
cutive of independent ?rms and managers of SBU.
Telephone calls con?rmed if the divisions of com-
panies had SBU responsibilities and who was the
most suitable person to be contacted to participate
in the survey. It was requested that the most senior
manager who had comprehensive knowledge of
the performance measurement systems be involved
in the survey. In some instances these were the sen-
ior ?nancial o?cers, in others they were general
managers, manufacturing or human resource man-
agers. To test if function provided a bias in results,
tests of di?erences in construct scores across func-
tional areas were undertaken. No signi?cant di?e-
rences were found. It is possible that the
respondents with more innovative SPMS held pos-
itive attitudes to the performance measurement
systems thus biasing responses to more positive
outcomes. Apart from guaranteeing con?denti-
ality, the study has no direct controls for such bias.
However, evidence concerning performance evalu-
ations suggests a high correlation between mana-
gersÕ self-ratings and objective measures
(Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1987).
Managers were provided with the option of
receiving a hard copy questionnaire or to respond
by way of an internet version of the questionnaire.
Reminder calls were made after two-weeks, one
and two months after the ?rst point of contact.
Usable responses were received from 80 managers
providing a ?nal response rate of 40%. There were
no signi?cant di?erences in average scores for var-
iables between the internet (70 respondents) and
hard copy respondents (10 respondents). Ten of
the non-respondents were prepared to discuss in
general terms, over the telephone, their perfor-
mance measurement systems and indicated a range
of applications that were similar to the respond-
ents, suggesting that non-respondents were not sig-
ni?cantly di?erent from respondents. Reasons for
non-response were time pressures and a reluctance
to participate in non-o?cial surveys. Variable
scores were compared for a sub-sample of 10 early
respondents (one week) with 10 of the late re-
sponses (one-two months). There were no signi?-
cant di?erences providing some evidence for lack
of response bias. The average age of respondents
was 38 years with an average length of employ-
ment in the companies of six years and in their cur-
rent positions of three years. Table 1 provides
information on the size, industry and functional
area of respondents.
Measures
The questionnaire elicited information on inte-
grative SPMS, competitive strategic priorities,
strategic alignment of manufacturing and organi-
zational learning. Given the novelty of the re-
search the only established instrument was for
competitive strategic priorities. New measures
were developed for the remaining variables in the
model. Extensive pilot testing was undertaken to
enhance the content validity of the measures. This
involved the construction of items based on the
theoretical nature of the constructs and then a re-
view process involving ?ve managers of ?rms not
included in the original survey, three senior
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 405
academics in management accounting, and four
members of the consulting division of an account-
ing company. The wording of items in the ques-
tionnaire is provided in Appendix.
The measure for integrative SPMS sought to
identify items that would measure the key infor-
mation characteristic of integrativeness. The sur-
vey identi?ed if the organizations employed a
BSC. Those with a BSC answered items that re-
ferred to BSC, while those without BSC were di-
rected to a separate section that had identical
items but referred to performance measurement
systems.
4
First, the instrument measured the ex-
tent to which the performance measurement sys-
tems provided integration between goals,
strategies and operations; and across the value
chain including supplier and customers. Second,
the provision of performance measures in the area
of ?nancials, customers, business processes and
long-term innovation was assessed. Third, given
the important distinction given to leading and lag-
ging measures in SPMS, with a combination of
both being recommended for more comprehensive,
integrative systems, items requested respondents to
evaluate the extent to which the SPMS provided
leading and lagging indicators.
Factor analysis, with oblique rotation, was con-
ducted to identify the extent to which there may
have been separate attributes within the SPMS
variable. Table 2 (panel A) provides the results
of this analysis and identi?es three factors for the
variable. Interpreting these exploratory factors re-
quires careful consideration to identify common
themes within each factor. While such interpreta-
tion is somewhat subjective, the following descrip-
tions attempt to encapsulate the meaning of the
factors. The ?rst factor captures the overall level
of integration including items that indicated the
extent to which the SPMS comprised a formally
documented system, the extent to which the sys-
tems provided linkages between operations and
goals and strategy, and between subunits in the
organization. There were two factors that elabo-
rated on linkages, one focused on customers and
the other with suppliers. Factor 2 included a ques-
tion that captured the extent to which the mea-
sures linked the business unit to customers. It
also included items on ?nancial and customer
measures as well as the provision of leading and
lagging indicators. Factor 3 included an item that
captured the extent of linkages of the measures
with suppliers, with measurement in the areas of
business processes and long-term innovation. A
weighted aggregate of items within each dimension
is used in the descriptive part of the analysis.
Three items were used to measure the strategic
alignment of manufacturing. They were drawn
from the attributes of this construct as detailed
in Wheelwright & Hayes (1985). These were the ex-
tent to which the connection between manufactur-
ing policy and strategy was clearly formulated and
pursued, manufacturing investments were screened
for consistency with business strategy, and senior
4
Companies that had not adopted their current perform-
ance measurement system (BSC or other systems) for at least six
months were excluded from the analysis. In the main, compa-
nies had adopted their current systems for at least 12 months
(72 companies) while eight had adopted their systems in the
prior 6-12 months. There were no signi?cant di?erences in
construct means between these two groups.
Table 1
Respondents by size of SBU, industry and functional area
n
Panel A: SBU size
Number of employees
0–100 20
101–500 16
501–1500 16
1501–2000 16
2001+ 12
Panel B: Industry
Category
Chemical 10
Foodstu?s & beverages 11
Engineering and automotive 16
Construction and mining 10
Light engineering & electrical 10
Computers and electronics 8
Agricultural 6
Other 9
Panel C: Functional area
Category
Finance 22
Manufacturing 14
General management 20
Human resources 18
Other 6
406 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
Table 2
Factor loadings for integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, organizational
learning, strategy (items are cross referenced to Appendix)
Panel A: Integrative strategic performance measurement systems
Factors and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
I. Strategic and operational linkages (a = 0.884) (Eigenvalue = 5.133, % of variance = 42.77)
Fully documented balanced scorecard (1-1) 0.979 À0.094 0.144
Links operating performance and long term strategies (1-2) 0.845 0.028 À0.190
Shows how business unit activities a?ect other units in organization (1-4) 0.777 0.050 À0.230
Links activities to goals and objectives (1-3) 0.624 0.274 À0.121
II. Customer orientation (a = 0.724) (Eigenvalue = 1.376, % of variance = 11.47)
Measures provide links to customers (1-6-2) À0.111 0.772 À0.298
Customer measures (1-7-2) 0.058 0.722 À0.166
Lagging indicators (1-5-2) 0.081 0.719 0.402
Leading indicators (1-5-1) 0.021 0.628 À0.192
Financial measures (1-7-1) 0.271 0.410 0.165
III. Supplier orientation (a = 0.749) (Eigenvalue = 1.256, % of variance = 10.45)
Long-term innovation measures (1-7-4) 0.175 0.033 À0.810
Measures providing links to suppliers (1-6-1) 0.091 0.220 À0.667
Business process measures (1-7-3) 0.241 0.277 À0.517
Panel B: Strategic alignment of manufacturing (all items loaded on one factor)
Factor and Cronbach alpha Factor loadings (component matrix)
Strategic alignment of manufacturing (a = 0.739) (Eigenvalue = 1.992, % of variance = 66.39)
Investments in manufacturing are screened for consistency with
business strategy (2-2)
0.898
Links between manufacturing policy and strategy are clearly formulated and pursued (2-1) 0.876
Senior managers understand of how products, markets and manufacturing processes
interact and manage these interactions across functions (2-3)
0.635
Panel C: Organizational learning (all items loaded on one factor)
Factor and Cronbach alpha Factor loadings (component matrix)
Organizational learning (a = 0.800) (Eigenvalue = 2.596, % of variance = 64.89)
There are well established ways to share information and knowledge
between people within the organization (3-1)
0.884
The business unitÕs beliefs, attitudes and ways of doing business
provide a strong basis for interpreting information (3-2)
0.829
The organization stores information and knowledge from prior
experiences in formal systems (3-4)
0.748
There are extensive formal and informal procedures and processes
for the acquisition of information (3-3)
0.741
Panel D: Competitive strategic priorities
Factor and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
I. Delivery/service (a = 0.845) (Eigenvalue = 4.033, % of variance = 36.67)
Make dependable delivery promises (4-8) 0.895 À0.136 0.133
Provide e?ective after-sales service and support (4-9) 0.825 0.035 À0.134
Provide fast deliveries (4-7) 0.817 0.075 0.082
Product availability (4-10) 0.757 0.043 0.112
Provide high quality products (4-1) 0.531 0.213 À0.228
(continued on next page)
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 407
managers had understanding of how manufactur-
ing processes interacted with products and mar-
kets and the management of these interactions
across the functions. Table 2 (panel B) shows a sin-
gle factor con?rming the construct validity of this
measure.
Organizational learning was based on HuberÕs
(1991) four dimensions of this construct. These
were processes for acquisition of information and
knowledge, established ways of sharing informa-
tion and knowledge, extent of business unitÕs belief
and attitudes as a basis for interpreting informa-
tion, and the storage of information and know-
ledge from prior experience. Table 2 (panel C)
shows that items loaded onto a single factor.
The variable competitive strategic outcomes
was measured using 11 strategy items identi?ed
by Miller et al. (1992). Respondents were asked
to indicate how they performed relative to their
competitors on each of the items, and then the de-
gree of importance of the strategic priorities to
their business unit. Scores for each item were
determined by multiplying the performance by
the importance scores. Factor analysis, with obli-
que rotation, revealed three dimensions of strate-
gic outcomes. Table 2 (panel D) presents these
factors. These were concerned with quality/deli-
very/service, ?exibility and low cost/price. Final
scores for each dimension were averages, aggre-
gated across all items within the respective factor.
This analysis can be interpreted as revealing two
dimensions of product di?erentiation outcomes
(quality/delivery/service and ?exibility) and one
of low cost-price.
Statistics for the BartlettÕs test of sphericity
were signi?cant for all factors and Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin measures of sampling adequacy were
above 0.60 for all factors. These statistics con?rm
the factorability of the items. Cronbach alphas
were calculated on all factors and exceeded 0.70,
except for the low cost/price dimension of strategic
priorities which was 0.65. These statistics are pro-
vided in Table 2 and indicate satisfactory internal
reliability.
5
An examination of the residual scatterplots
indicated that there were no serious deviations
from normality and linearity. Consideration of
the Mahalanobis distance values indicated that
there was one multivariate outlier among the inde-
pendent variables (critical value of 0.001). This
outlier was due to a very low score on strategic
alignment of manufacturing in a case with high
scores on other variables. All observations were
retained.
6
While the study is concerned with the interac-
tive nature of SPMS it was considered important
to identify if ?rms employed a BSC. Given the
popularization of BSC, it might be expected that
these systems would be more ÔadvancedÕ in terms
of providing integrative information and multiple
measures. Of the 80 respondents 25 had adopted
BSC. The di?erence in the means between groups
with and without BSC for all variables was not sig-
ni?cant, except all three dimensions of integrative
SPMS which were marginally higher for the BSC
group, although not statistically signi?cant at con-
Table 2 (continued )
Panel D: Competitive strategic priorities
Factor and Cronbach alphas Factor loadings
I II III
II. Flexibility (a = 0.761) (Eigenvalue = 1.849, % of variance = 16.81)
Make rapid volume and/or product mix changes (4-6) À0.177 0.866 0.177
Make changes in design and introduce new products quickly (4-5) 0.027 0.828 0.115
Provide unique product features (4-3) 0.102 0.671 À0.085
Customise products and services to customer needs (4-11) 0.261 0.617 À0.134
III. Low Cost/price (a = 0.656) (Eigenvalue = 1.318, % of variance = 11.98)
Low price (4-4) À0.057 0.067 0.868
Low production costs (4-2) 0.182 0.059 0.801
5
As indicators of constructs in this study are considered to
be re?ective, rather than formative, it is appropriate to consider
issues of validity and reliability (Fornell, 1982).
6
There were no signi?cant di?erences in any results with this
observation excluded.
408 R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422
ventional levels (p < 10). While this is, perhaps,
surprising it suggests that business organizations
are achieving integrative performance measures
with a variety of performance measurement sys-
tems, including BSC.
Descriptive statistics, based on the weighted
average scores of multi-item variables, are pro-
vided in Table 3.
Results
This section describes the technique of partial
least squares (PLS) used to test the model and pre-
sents the results of hypotheses testing.
Structural equation modelling: partial least squares
To test the hypotheses, the technique of PLS
was used. PLS is particularly suited to small sam-
ple size studies and when the analysis is explora-
tory (Wold, 1985). Also, it overcomes some
theoretical and estimation problems in the use of
more well known structural equation modelling
approaches that use covariance structure analysis,
such as AMOS or LISREL (Hulland, 1999). The
technique of PLS comprises a structural model
that identi?es the relationships among constructs
and a measurement model that speci?es the rela-
tions between the manifest items and the con-
structs that they represent. PLS enables an
overall assessment of the validity of constructs
within the total model.
Given the exploratory nature of the current
study, a two-step approach was taken which in-
volved a preliminary analysis to examine the con-
struct validity of multi-item variables and then
the estimation of the structural model. This ap-
proach is recommended when theory is more ten-
tative and measures are less well developed as it
maximizes the interpretability of both measure-
ment and structural models (Hair, Anderson, Tat-
ham, & Black, 1998, p. 600). The preliminary
analysis of multi-item constructs was reported
above, and detailed in Table 2.
The measurement model is re-examined within
PLS with the generation of additional statistics to
access the validity of the measurement model.
The PLS analysis con?rmed the earlier factor
analyses for organizational learning, competitive
strategic priorities with all items loading over
0.70 on their respective latent variables. For stra-
tegic alignment of manufacturing, item 2-3 loaded
0.429. For integrative SPMS, factor II, item 1-5-2
loaded 0.520 and item 1-7-1 loaded 0.528.
The discriminant validity of the measurement
model was assessed by calculating the average var-
iance extracted (AVE) and comparing with the
squared correlations between constructs. This pro-
vides a test of the extent to which a construct
shares more variance with its measures than it
shares with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Table 4 provides the AVEs that can be com-
pared with the correlations between other con-
structs derived from Table 5. All AVE measures
Table 3
Descriptive statistics
Variable Mean Standard deviation Actual range Theoretical range
Min Max Min Max
Competitive strategic priorities
Flexibility 4.489 1.103 1.69 6.80 1.00 7.00
Delivery 3.664 1.071 1.00 6.04 1.00 7.00
Low cost-price 3.339 1.149 1.07 7.00 1.00 7.00
Strategic alignment of manufacturing 5.431 0.905 2.00 7.00 1.00 7.00
Organizational learning 4.910 0.975 2.75 7.00 1.00 7.00
Integrative SPMS
Strategic and operational linkages 4.653 1.276 1.25 7.00 1.00 7.00
Customer orientation 5.163 0.972 2.20 7.00 1.00 7.00
Supplier orientation 3.908 1.337 1.00 6.67 1.00 7.00
Number of observations 80
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 409
Table 4
Results of PLS: path coe?cients and t statistics, R
2
, average variance extracted (AVE)
Paths from Paths to Statistic
Integrative SPMS Organizational
learning
Strategic alignment
of manufacturing
Mult R
2
AVE
Strategic and operational
linkages
Customer
orientations
Supplier
orientation
Competitive strategic priorities
Delivery/service À0.072 0.174 À0.084 0.347 0.225 0.254 0.616
(0.493) (1.265) (0.611) (2.321)
***
(1.726)
**
Flexibility 0.261 0.060 À0.011 0.043 0.183 0.179 0.583
(1.581)
*
(0.124) (0.015) (0.348) (1.295)
*
Low cost/price À 0.101 0.070 0.354 0.131 0.128 0.227 0.725
(0.533) (0.314) (2.934)
***
(0.963) (1.290)
*
Strategic alignment of
manufacturing
0.237 0.008 0.239
(1.533)
*
(0.153) (1.744)
**
NR 0.173 0.644
Organizational learning 0.268 0.276 0.147 NR 0.320 0.656
(2.038)
**
(1.708)
**
(0.938)
Integrative SPMS
Strategic and operational linkages 0.741
Customer orientation 0.482
Supplier orientation 0.665
NR = not hypothesized within the model.
*
p < 0.10.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01.
4
1
0
R
.
H
.
C
h
e
n
h
a
l
l
/
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
3
0
(
2
0
0
5
)
3
9
5
–
4
2
2
are greater than the respective squared correla-
tions attesting to satisfactory discriminant validity.
The AVEs are used, also, to assess the conver-
gent validity of constructs within the PLS model.
Table 4 indicates that all variables are above the
conventional guideline of 0.50 for adequate con-
vergent validity, except for factor 2 of integrative
SPMS which is marginally low with an AVE of
0.48.
To examine the structural model, PLS generates
standardized bs that are used as path coe?cients
within the structural model and are interpreted
as in OLS regression. Bootstrapping provides a
basis to evaluate parameter estimates and their
con?dence intervals based on multiple estimations.
Bootstrapping using 500 samples with replacement
was used to assess the signi?cance of the path
coe?cients.
Table 4 and Fig. 2 present the results from PLS
related to the structural model. These include the
path coe?cients and their t tests. It is inappropri-
ate in PLS to use any overall goodness-of-?t meas-
ures, as used in covariance structure analysis
modelling, because PLS makes no distributional
assumptions (Chin, 1998). Rather, ?t is evaluated
by the overall incidence of signi?cant relationships
between constructs and the explained variance of
the endogenous variables. R
2
values are reported
in Table 4.
Test of hypotheses
The study sought ?rst to establish that integra-
tive SPMS would be associated signi?cantly with
competitive strategic outcomes (H1). A structural
model was then developed to examine the way in
which integrative SPMS in?uence competitive out-
comes, related to both product di?erentiation and
low cost-price strategies. This was done by exam-
ining the extent to which integrative SPMS are
associated with a strategic alignment of manufac-
turing (H2) and organizational learning (H4),
and how these variables, in turn, relate to compe-
titive strategic outcomes (H3 and H5). The
hypotheses are tested using the three dimensions
of integrative SPMS that were identi?ed, empiri-
cally, in the study. The results are mixed but show
partial support for the hypothesized relationships. T
a
b
l
e
5
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
P
L
S
m
o
d
e
l
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
N
=
8
0
)
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
P
M
S
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
0
.
3
6
4
*
*
*
0
.
4
5
6
*
*
*
0
.
2
1
4
*
*
0
.
3
7
7
*
*
*
0
.
2
5
9
*
*
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
0
.
3
1
4
*
*
*
0
.
2
8
4
0
.
2
9
4
*
*
*
0
.
2
3
2
*
*
0
.
2
8
0
*
*
*
L
o
w
c
o
s
t
-
p
r
i
c
e
0
.
2
9
5
*
*
*
0
.
3
3
0
*
*
*
0
.
1
8
3
*
*
0
.
2
5
1
*
*
0
.
4
3
5
*
*
*
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
0
.
4
8
0
*
*
*
0
.
3
7
5
*
*
*
0
.
2
3
2
*
*
0
.
3
5
9
*
*
*
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
0
.
4
9
5
*
*
*
0
.
4
7
8
*
*
*
0
.
4
3
0
*
*
*
*
*
p
<
0
.
0
5
.
*
*
*
p
<
0
.
0
1
.
R.H. Chenhall / Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (2005) 395–422 411
Consistent with expectations, Table 5 indicates
that each of the three dimensions of integrative
SPMS were signi?cantly correlated with competi-
tiveness on each of the strategic outcomes, sup-
porting H1. The structural model indicates how
strategic alignment of manufacturing and organi-
zational learning act as intervening variables in
each of these associations. For the strategic align-
ment of manufacturing path, Fig. 2 shows some
support for the hypothesized associations. For
the associations between strategic alignment of
manufacturing and strategic outcomes (H2), there
are signi?cant coe?cients for delivery, ?exibility
and for low cost-price. For the associations be-
tween integrative SPMS and strategic alignment
of manufacturing (H3), there are signi?cant paths
between alignment and strategic and operation
linkages and with supplier orientation but not with
customer orientation. For the proposed associa-
tion between organizational learning and strategic
outcomes (H4), the only signi?cant path was be-
tween organization learning and delivery. The pro-
posed association between organizational learning
and integrative SPMS (H5) was partially sup-
ported with signi?cant paths between organiza-
tional learning and strategic and operational
linkages and customer orientation, but not with
supplier orientation.
Fig. 2 indicates the way in which the intervening
variables either fully or partially mediate the corre-
lations between the dimensions of integrative
SPMS and strategic outcomes (Baron & Kenny,
1986). The intervening variables of strategic align-
ment of manufacturing and organizational learn-
ing provide full mediating e?ects for the
associations between the SPMS dimension of stra-
tegic and operational linkages and the strategic
outcomes of delivery and low cost-price; the SPMS
dimension of customer orientation and the strate-
gic outcomes of delivery; and the SPMS dimension
SPMS
Customer
orientation
Strategic
Outcome:
Flexibility
SPMS
Strategic &
operational
SPMS
Supplier
orientation
Strategic
Outcome:
Delivery
Strategic
Outcome:
Low cost-price
Organizational
learning
Strategic
alignment of
manufacturing
0.237*
0.261*
0.268**
0.276**
0.354***
0.128*
0.183*
0.347***
0.239**
0.225**
??
?
?
?
? = p