Advertisement

Abstract

The second chapter is dedicated to explaining the theoretical and conceptual fundamentals of innovation and performance management. Firstly, the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovation process’ will be defined, the overall innovation process illustrated, and an overall innovation model covering all relevant process steps proposed. Secondly, we turn to performance management, both of input, output, and processes generating those outcomes. Finally, decision management as part of performance management will be defined in particular, and organisational justice theories explained, both for their content and for their relevance to innovation management. This chapter ends with a conclusion of the main findings.

Keywords

Theoretical Foundation Innovation Process Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Organisational Justice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 41.
    For additional overviews see e.g. Hauschildt (2004), pp. 3 ff., Macharzina (2003), pp. 666 ff., Brockhoff (1999a), pp. 35 ff. and Gerpott (1999), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar
  2. 42.
    See Barnett (1953), p. 7Google Scholar
  3. 43.
    See Burgelman et. al. (2004), p. 246Google Scholar
  4. 44.
    See Vahs/ Burmester (2005), p. 44 and Gerpott (1999), p. 49Google Scholar
  5. 45.
    See Gerpott (1999), p. 39Google Scholar
  6. 46.
    See Burgelman et. al. (2004), p. 246. For further discussion see e.g. Macharzina (2003), pp. 664 f., Pleschak/Sabisch (1996), p. 6 and Bürgel et. al. (1996), pp. 13 f.Google Scholar
  7. 47.
    See Vahs/ Burmester (2005), p. 44. A novelty can be subjectively new for individuals or institutions, although it is already used by others (‘novelty to the enterprise’). A novelty is objectively new if no application at all took place in the past (‘novelty on the world market’). For details and further discussion see Vahs/Burmester (2005), p. 45, Hauschildt (2004), pp. 22 ff. and Macharzina (2003), p. 666. Today, based on the fact that all kinds of novelties can have an impact on companies although they are already used by others, the subjective point of view is asserted by business managementGoogle Scholar
  8. 48.
    See Brockhoff (1999a), p. 35Google Scholar
  9. 49.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (2005b) p. 13Google Scholar
  10. 50.
    Own presentation, slightly according to Brockhoff (1999a), p. 36Google Scholar
  11. 51.
    See Jewkes et al. (1958), p. 28; already mentioned by Brockhoff (1999a), p. 35Google Scholar
  12. 52.
    See Thom (1980), p. 32 and Kotler (1992), pp. 482 f.Google Scholar
  13. 53.
    For a detailed overview and further discussion, see Till/ Hull (2003) and Miles (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 54.
    See e.g. Hauschildt (2004), pp. 14 f.Google Scholar
  15. 55.
    See Wheelwright/ Clark (1994), p. 134 and Foster/Kaplan (2001), pp. 107 ff.; for a detailed discussion and a concept for the measurement of the innovation degree see Salomo (2003), pp. 399 ff.Google Scholar
  16. 56.
    See Burgelman et al. (2004), p. 3 and pp. 975 f.Google Scholar
  17. 57.
    See Burgelman et al. (2004), p. 3Google Scholar
  18. 58.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (2005b) pp. 12 f.; for an overview of the different definitions during the last decades (‘waves of innovation’), see e.g. Foster (1996), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar
  19. 59.
    See Bullinger et al. (2004), p. 3339Google Scholar
  20. 60.
    A process can be described as a sequence of steps that transforms a set of inputs into a set of outputs, see Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 14Google Scholar
  21. 61.
    See Burgelman et al. (2004), pp. 2 f.Google Scholar
  22. 62.
    See e.g. von Hippel (1986), pp. 791 ff. and Hansen/Birkinshaw (2007), pp. 123 ff.Google Scholar
  23. 63.
    See Thomke/ von Hippel (2002), pp. 76 ff. and von Hippel (2005), pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar
  24. 64.
    For discussion on the relationships among different innovation activities see Burgelman et al. (2004), p. 3; for further discussion on different definitions of the innovation process see Brockhoff (1999a), pp. 38 ff., Gerpott (1999), pp. 49 ff. and Hauschildt (2004), pp. 24 f.Google Scholar
  25. 65.
    See Hansen/ Birkinshaw (2007), p. 124Google Scholar
  26. 66.
    See Gerpott (1999), p. 49Google Scholar
  27. 67.
    See Hauschildt (2004), p. 25Google Scholar
  28. 68.
    See Thom (1980) for an overviewGoogle Scholar
  29. 69.
    See Gerpott (1999), p. 54Google Scholar
  30. 70.
    See Burgelman (1983), pp. 223 ff., Kline/Rosenberg (1986), Pinchot (1988) and Mintzberg (1991), pp. 288 ff.Google Scholar
  31. 71.
    Person-oriented models do not structure the phases by activities, but by persons. For details see Pinchot (1988) and Mintzberg (1991), pp. 288 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 72.
    See Gerybadze (2004), pp. 23 ff. for critical notes to sequential phase or stage-gate modelsGoogle Scholar
  33. 73.
    See Vahs/ Burmester (2005), p. 86Google Scholar
  34. 74.
    See Thom (1980), pp. 391 ff.; in fact, the same enterprise may follow different processes for each of several different types of development projects, see Ulrich/Eppinger (2000), p. 14Google Scholar
  35. 75.
    See Hansen/ Birkinshaw (2007), pp. 123 ff.Google Scholar
  36. 76.
    See Hansen/ Birkinshaw (2007), pp. 124 f.Google Scholar
  37. 77.
    The maket introduction process can also be allocated to the NPD process itself, see Kleinschmidt et al. (1996), p. 52 and Ernst (2002), p. 336Google Scholar
  38. 78.
    Own presentation, for the selection of projects see Hauber (2002), pp. 29 f.; Ulrich/Eppinger (2000), pp. 14 ff. defined the sub-processes planning, concept development, system-level design, detail design, testing & refinement and production ramp-up for a generic industrial product development process; in addition see Deschamps/Nayak (1996), pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar
  39. 79.
    See Brockhoff (1999b), p. 36Google Scholar
  40. 80.
    See Andreasen (2005), p. 298Google Scholar
  41. 81.
    See Brockhoff (1999a), p. 44Google Scholar
  42. 82.
    See Brockhoff (1999a), p. 299 and Swink et al. (1996), pp. 42 ff. for success factors of CE; see also Section 2.1.3 for the definition of the roles of different departments along the innovation processGoogle Scholar
  43. 83.
    See Goldenberg et al. (1999), p. 200 and Hansen/Birkinshaw (2007), p. 123Google Scholar
  44. 84.
    See Deschamps/ Nayak (1996), p. 25 and Florida/Goodnight (2005), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar
  45. 85.
    See Hansen/ Birkinshaw (2007), p. 124Google Scholar
  46. 86.
    See Arthur D. Little (1993)Google Scholar
  47. 87.
    See Meffert (1998), pp. 376 ff. and Urban/Hauser (1993), p. 117; for an empirical study of sources for technological innovations in industries with different R&D-intensities, see Palmberg (2004), pp. 187 ff.Google Scholar
  48. 88.
    von Hippel (1988), p. 3Google Scholar
  49. 89.
    See Gierl/ Helm (2002), p. 311. Ishikawa diagrams are also called cause & effect or fishbone diagrams; initially developed by Kaoru Ishikawa who pioneered quality management processes at Kawasaki Shipyards in the 1960sGoogle Scholar
  50. 90.
    See von Hippel (1986), pp. 791 ff., Gierl/Helm (2002), pp. 310 ff., Schäppi (2005b), p. 269, Florida/Goodnight (2005), pp. 126 ff. and Hansen/Birkinshaw (2007), p. 123Google Scholar
  51. 91.
    See Kirchgeorg (2005a), p. 145 for the specific tasks of market research: sales market analysis; market analysis concerning market segmentation, market potential, product lifecycle and competitive market structure; market participant analysis concerning competition, existing and potential customers and distributors and sales agentsGoogle Scholar
  52. 92.
    See Gierl/ Helm (2002), pp. 317 ff., Schäppi (2005b), pp. 268 f. and Hansen/Birkinshaw (2007), pp. 126 f.Google Scholar
  53. 93.
    See Thor (1996), p. 88 and Pfeffer/Sutton (2006), p. 69 for problems in benchmarking producing evidence for decision-makingGoogle Scholar
  54. 94.
    See Okoli/ Pawlowski (2004), pp. 15 ff. and Cuhls (2001), pp. 555 ff.; for the initial elaboration and use of Delphi reports in Germany see Cuhls/Möhrle (2002), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar
  55. 95.
    See Gierl/ Helm (2002), p. 318Google Scholar
  56. 96.
    This method is mainly applied by Japanese companies, see Gierl/ Helm (2002), p. 321Google Scholar
  57. 97.
    Synectics is a methodology that is based on creative thinking and involves free use of metaphor and analogy in informal interchange within a carefully selected group of individuals of diverse personality and areas of specialisation, see Nolan (2003), pp. 24 ff. and Gordon (1961)Google Scholar
  58. 98.
    See Eppler (2000), p. 23Google Scholar
  59. 99.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 40. This database can be a simple spreadsheet list, but innovative solutions are so-called open-source databases accessible by every employee via the intranet that allow all employees to participate on the creation and further refinement of ideas, see Boeddrich (2004), pp. 277 ff. and von Hippel (2001), pp. 82 ff.Google Scholar
  60. 100.
    For a description of how to fix companies with a shortage of good new ideas, see Hansen/ Birkinshaw (2007), pp. 126 f.Google Scholar
  61. 101.
    See Erichson (2002), pp. 419 ff.Google Scholar
  62. 102.
    See Erichson (2002), p. 420 and Schäppi (2005b), p. 277 for a scoring model; for value benefit analysis see Brockhoff (1999a), pp. 343 ff.Google Scholar
  63. 103.
    In detail, the quality of planning has an influence on the profitability of new innovations and on their development time, see Ernst (2002), p. 338 and Cooper/Kleinschmidt (1994), pp. 381 ff.Google Scholar
  64. 104.
    See OECD (2002), p. 30Google Scholar
  65. 105.
    See Deschamps/ Nayak (1996), p. 77Google Scholar
  66. 106.
    See OECD (2005), p. 91Google Scholar
  67. 107.
    See OECD (2002), p. 30Google Scholar
  68. 108.
    See Hauser/ Zettelmeyer (1997), p. 3 who found out that many individual scientists and engineers have a mix of basic research projects and NPD projects within their own portfolioGoogle Scholar
  69. 109.
    See Kerssens-van Drongelen/ Bilderbeek (1999), p. 37Google Scholar
  70. 110.
    See Brockhoff (1999a), p. 55Google Scholar
  71. 111.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 38 and Wheelwright/Clark (1992), p. 73Google Scholar
  72. 113.
    See Kirchgeorg (2005a), pp. 149 ff. and Porter (1992), pp. 137 ff.; it can be differentiated by several dimensions of market segmentation: objective segmentation by product or customer groups, regional segmentation and temporal segmentation, see Wagner/Baldauf (2002), pp. 250 ff.Google Scholar
  73. 114.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 41. At the simplest and broadest level, one can distinguish between cost leadership, differentiation and focus; while cost leadership strategy focuses on process innovations, differentiation strategy focuses on product innovations, see Porter (1985), pp. 11 ff., Porter (1996), pp. 65 ff., Hamel/Prahalad (2005), pp. 148 ff.; see further Kirchgeorg (2005a), pp. 156 ff. and Remmerbach (2005), pp. 201 ff. for the evaluation of market attractivenessGoogle Scholar
  74. 115.
    See Burgelman et al. (2004), pp. 142 ff., Antoniou/Ansoff (2004), pp. 276 ff. for technology impacts on corporate strategy and product planning; see further Smith/Rogers (2004), pp. 509 ff.Google Scholar
  75. 116.
    See Duncan et al. (1998), pp. 6 ff. and Van Aken et al. (2001), pp. 17 ff.Google Scholar
  76. 117.
    See Schäppi (2005b), p. 268Google Scholar
  77. 118.
    Own presentation; see further Wheelwright/ Clark (1994), pp. 156 ff. and Deschamps/Nayak (1996), p. 140Google Scholar
  78. 119.
    See Schäppi (2005b), p. 275Google Scholar
  79. 120.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 48Google Scholar
  80. 121.
    See Wheelwright/ Clark (1992), p. 74Google Scholar
  81. 122.
    See Specht/ Behrens (2002), p. 99, Groenveld (1997), p. 48, Bürgel et. al. (1996), p. 101 and Probert et al. (2003), pp. 1183 ff.Google Scholar
  82. 123.
    For empirical studies see e.g. Cooper/ Kleinschmidt (1995b), Kleinschmidt et. al. (1996), Mishra et. al. (1996) and Calantone et. al. (1997)Google Scholar
  83. 124.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 14Google Scholar
  84. 125.
    See Cooper (1998), p. 122 and Cooper et. al. (2004), pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar
  85. 126.
    See Specht et. al. (2002), p. 115 and Hauschildt (2004), p. 89Google Scholar
  86. 127.
    See Baldwin/ Clark (1997), p. 84Google Scholar
  87. 128.
    Mission statements specify which direction to go in, but do not specify a precise destination or a particular way to proceed, see Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 61Google Scholar
  88. 129.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 109Google Scholar
  89. 130.
    See von Hippel (1986), pp. 791 ff. and Lüthje/ Herstatt (2004), pp. 554 ff.Google Scholar
  90. 131.
    See von Hippel (1986), pp. 791 ff. and Urban/von Hippel (1988), pp. 569 for constraints of lead user methodology; see Lüthje/Herstatt (2004), pp. 561 ff. for a process model of the lead user method. Lead users can also be essential partners for the generation of new ideas, see Section 2.1.2.2Google Scholar
  91. 132.
    See Lüthje/ Herstatt (2004), p. 554 and von Hippel (1986), p. 792; for the selection of customers as lead users see Griffin/Hauser (1993a), pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar
  92. 133.
    Quality function deployment is an accurate method for translating these customer needs into precise, measurable specifications, see Hauser/ Clausing (1988), pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar
  93. 134.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 88: as an example from the development of suspension forks, the customer need ‘the suspension is easy to install’ might be translated into the technical specification ‘the average time to assemble the fork to the frame is less than seventy-five seconds’Google Scholar
  94. 135.
    See King/ Sivaloganathan (1999), p. 329Google Scholar
  95. 136.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 48Google Scholar
  96. 137.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 108Google Scholar
  97. 138.
    See Eppinger et. al. (1994), pp. 1 ff. and Ulrich/Eppinger (2000), pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar
  98. 139.
    See Baldwin/ Clark (1997), p. 86. One can differentiate between functional decomposition, decomposition by sequence of user actions and decomposition by key customer needs, see Goldenberg et. al. (1999), p. 202Google Scholar
  99. 140.
    See King/ Sivaloganathan (1999), pp. 331 ff. for an overview of concept generation methodsGoogle Scholar
  100. 141.
    See Ayag (2005), pp. 687 ff. for a review of concept selection methods and for a multiple criteria decision making techniqueGoogle Scholar
  101. 142.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 162Google Scholar
  102. 143.
    See Page/ Rosenbaum (1992), p. 269 and Lees/Wright (2004), p. 389Google Scholar
  103. 144.
    See Paustian (2001), p. 14Google Scholar
  104. 145.
    See Dahan/ Hauser (2002), pp. 332 ff. and Dahan/Srinivasan (2000), pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar
  105. 146.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 169Google Scholar
  106. 147.
    See Deschamps/ Nayak (1996), p. 191Google Scholar
  107. 148.
    See Abernathy/ Utterback (1978), pp. 42 f. and Tushman/Rosenkopf (1992), p. 324Google Scholar
  108. 149.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar
  109. 150.
    A possible modular design has to be specified as early as possible in the concept development process, see Section 2.1.2.5.1; see further Gershenson et. al. (2003), p. 296, Robertson/Ulrich (1998), pp. 19 ff. and Johannesson/Claesson (2005), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar
  110. 151.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 17Google Scholar
  111. 152.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 237Google Scholar
  112. 153.
    See Terwiesch et. al. (2001), p. 435 and Wheelwright/Clark (1994), p. 8; for a learning curve model in the ramp-up production, see Terwiesch/Bohn (2001), pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar
  113. 154.
    See Terwiesch et. al. (2001), p. 437Google Scholar
  114. 155.
    See Wheelwright/ Clark (1994), p. 9Google Scholar
  115. 156.
    See Matys (2005), pp. 134 f. for a detailed description of market introduction activitiesGoogle Scholar
  116. 157.
    See Schäppi (2005a), p. 20Google Scholar
  117. 158.
    See Matys (2005), p. 141Google Scholar
  118. 159.
    See Deschamps/ Nayak (1996), p. 193Google Scholar
  119. 160.
    See Cooper/ Kleinschmidt (1993a), p. 23Google Scholar
  120. 161.
    Ulrich/Eppinger only defined 3 central functions: marketing, design and manufacturing. See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), pp. 3 f. and Vahs/Burmester (2005), p. 308Google Scholar
  121. 162.
    See e.g. Kirchgeorg (2005a), pp. 144 ff. and Kirchgeorg (2005b), pp. 699 ff. for the specific role of marketing in the innovation processGoogle Scholar
  122. 163.
    See e.g. Glatz/ Steindl (2005), p. 67 for a further description of the role of product management in the innovation processGoogle Scholar
  123. 164.
    See Ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 3Google Scholar
  124. 165.
    See ulrich/ Eppinger (2000), p. 4Google Scholar
  125. 166.
    See Cooper/ Kleinschmidt (1993a), p. 23Google Scholar
  126. 167.
    See Schäppi (2005b), p. 276Google Scholar
  127. 168.
    See Cooper (1993), p. 23Google Scholar
  128. 170.
    See e.g. Burgelman et. al. (2004), pp. 1 ff., Hauschildt (2004), pp. 29 ff., Vahs/Burmester (2005), pp. 48 ff. and Gerpott (1999), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar
  129. 171.
    See Vahs/ Burmester (2005), p. 49Google Scholar
  130. 172.
    See e.g. Tsifidaris (1994), p. 15 and Vahs/Burmester (2005), p. 49Google Scholar
  131. 173.
    See OECD (2005), p. 91Google Scholar
  132. 174.
    The term ‘management’ includes institution (who has the organisational responsibility) and function (the definition of dispositive activities), see Hauschildt (2004), pp. 29 f.Google Scholar
  133. 175.
    See Hauschildt (2004), p. 31Google Scholar
  134. 176.
    See Gerpott (1999), pp. 58 f.Google Scholar
  135. 177.
    See Burgelman et. al. (2004), pp. 7 f. and Gerpott (1999), p. 56Google Scholar
  136. 178.
    see Van der Panne et. al. (2003), p. 319, Cooper/Kleinschmidt (1993a), p. 23 and Burns/Stalker (1961), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  137. 179.
    See Cooper/ Kleinschmidt (1993a), p. 23Google Scholar
  138. 180.
    See Cooper (1990a), p. 45Google Scholar
  139. 181.
    See Cooper (1990a), p. 46, Cooper/Kleinschmidt (1993a), pp. 26 f. and Cooper et. al. (2002a), p. 22Google Scholar
  140. 182.
    See Griffin (1997a), p. 3Google Scholar
  141. 183.
    See Cooper et. al. (2002a), pp. 21 ff. and Cooper et. al. (2002b), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar
  142. 184.
    See Cooper (1990a), p. 46 and Cooper/Kleinschmidt (1993a), p. 26Google Scholar
  143. 185.
    See Dankbaar (2003), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar
  144. 186.
    See Krieger (2005) for the role of autonomy in radical innovationsGoogle Scholar
  145. 187.
    For a detailed overview see Gleich (2001), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  146. 188.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1993), pp. E3–4 ff., Brown/Laverick (1994), p. 96, Lynch/Cross (1995), p. 38, Dhavale (1996), p. 51, Müller-Stevens (1998), pp. 37 f., Horváth/Lamla (1995), pp. 74 ff., Gleich (2001), p. 8 and Klingebiel (2001), p. 19Google Scholar
  147. 189.
    See Ittner/ Larcker (1998), pp. 205 ff. and Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), p. 461Google Scholar
  148. 190.
    See Kernally (1997), p. 1, Cokins (2004), p. 7 and Schneider (1997) p. 12Google Scholar
  149. 191.
    See Anthony (1965), p. 17, Flamholtz (1996), p. 597 and Anthony/Govindarajan (2001), p. 6Google Scholar
  150. 193.
    See Lusch/ Harvey (1994), p. 102Google Scholar
  151. 194.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1995), p. 38, Kernally (1997), pp. 1 ff. and Cokins (2004), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  152. 195.
    Koontz and Weihrich defined for the sub-process ‘realisation’ the activities organising, staffing and direction. For details see Koontz/ Weihrich (1985), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar
  153. 197.
    See Grüning (2002), p. 7. The theory of dynamic systems considers open, productive, social, dynamic, and complex systems as a number of elements that are characterised by correlations and that can change from one to another status. Additionally, these correlations can be complex, can change over a specific period of time and are related to the environment of the system. See Baetge (1977), pp. 510 ff. and Müller-Stewens (1998), p. 42Google Scholar
  154. 198.
    See Grüning (2002), p. 8Google Scholar
  155. 199.
    See Kerssens-van Drongelen/Bilderbeek (1999), p. 36Google Scholar
  156. 200.
    See Chiesa et al. (1996), pp. 107 ff.Google Scholar
  157. 202.
    See Schierenbeck/ Lister (2001), p. 14Google Scholar
  158. 203.
    See Mendoza/ Saulpic (2002), p. 152Google Scholar
  159. 205.
    See Anthony/ Govindarajan (2001), p. 6Google Scholar
  160. 207.
    See Cooper/ Kleinschmidt (1995b), p. 384Google Scholar
  161. 208.
    See Collins/ Porras (1996), pp. 65 ff. for the detailed description of the derivation of a corporate vision, mission, and strategic goals. See further Simon/von der Gathen (2002), pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar
  162. 209.
    Relevant stakeholders are all groups that are relevant for the survival of a company. These are internal stakeholders such as managers and employees as well as external stakeholders like customers, suppliers, creditors, investors and other organisations. See Brown/ Laverick (1994), p. 93, Atkinson et. al. (1997), p. 27 and Speckbacher (1997), pp. 633 ff.. For the conduct of internal audits, see Chiesa et. al. (1996), pp. 107 ff.Google Scholar
  163. 211.
    See Howard et. al. (2001), p. 31Google Scholar
  164. 212.
    See Gleich (2001), pp. 21 f.Google Scholar
  165. 213.
    See Rolstadas (1995), pp. 12 ff., Rogers/Wright (1998), pp. 314 ff., Rolstadas (1998), pp. 990 f., Kerssens-van Drongelen/Bilderbeek (1999), p. 36 and Krause (2006), p. 17. Meyer/Gupta stated: “There is a massive disagreement as to what performance is and that the proliferation of performance measures has led to the paradox of performance, i.e. that organizational control is maintained by not knowing exactly what performance is”, see Meyer/Gupta (1994), pp. 309 ff.Google Scholar
  166. 214.
    See Becker (1998), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar
  167. 215.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 34 for the definition of performance from these disciplinesGoogle Scholar
  168. 216.
    See Horváth (2001), p. 429 and Gleich (2001), pp. 36 f.Google Scholar
  169. 217.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 39Google Scholar
  170. 218.
    See Gleich (2001), pp. 39 f. Other authors distinguish productivity and efficiency by the fact that productivity is the term that is on a volume-basis whereas efficiency is the term that evaluates the input-output-relation on a value basis, see Bürgel et al. (1996), p. 32Google Scholar
  171. 219.
    See Werner/ Souder (1997a), pp. 39 ff. and Söderquist/Godener (2004), p. 112Google Scholar
  172. 220.
    See Hauber (2002), p. 69Google Scholar
  173. 221.
    See Hauber (2002), p. 54Google Scholar
  174. 222.
    See Maskell (1991), p. 114: ‘...measures change as circumstances do’; the performance focus at the beginning of the start of production (SOP) of a new car is on product quality whereas in the later phases of series production, the performance focus is on cost per unit and quantity, see Krause (2006), p. 19Google Scholar
  175. 223.
    The illustration shows a BSC for an R&D department, see Kerssens-van Drongelen/ Cook (1997), pp. 345 ff. and Kerssens-Van Drongelen/Bilderbeek (1999), p. 38. The BSC concept will be further explained in Section 2.2.3.1Google Scholar
  176. 224.
    See Griffn/ Page (1993a), p. 291 and Balkcom et al. (1997), p. 28Google Scholar
  177. 225.
    See Söderquist/ Godener (2004), p. 112Google Scholar
  178. 226.
    See Lockamy (1994), p. 17. For example, the performance criteria ‘customer satisfaction’ can be quantified by the performance measures ‘product performance as assessed by end-users’, ‘timing of market introduction’ or othersGoogle Scholar
  179. 227.
    See Brown/ Svenson (1988), p. 14Google Scholar
  180. 228.
    For a detailed overview see Grüning (2002), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar
  181. 229.
    According to Grüning (2002), p. 109Google Scholar
  182. 230.
    See Porter (1999a), p. 66. Töpfer/Mehdorn distinguish between direct, accompanying and high-level functions, see Töpfer/Mehdorn (1994), p. 28; Baum et al. integrated the view of economic action as a constant cycle, see Baum et al. (1999), p. 70Google Scholar
  183. 231.
    See Porter (1999b), p. 34Google Scholar
  184. 232.
    See Baum et al. (1999), p. 57 and Grüning (2002), pp. 108 f.Google Scholar
  185. 233.
    For further details, see Baum et al. (1999), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar
  186. 234.
    In this dissertation, the term ‘performance measure’ will be used. In the same way, the terms ‘performance metric’ and ‘performance indicator’ are interchangeably used in literature, see e.g. Werner/ Souder (1997a), pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar
  187. 235.
    See Kerssens-van Drongelen/Bilderbeek (1999), p. 38Google Scholar
  188. 236.
    See Hauber (2002), p. 54Google Scholar
  189. 237.
    For a detailed discussion about financial and non-financial performance measures see Grüning (2002), pp. 148 ff.Google Scholar
  190. 238.
    In literature, non-financial and financial performance measures are often correlated with the performance criteria to be measured. Non-financial performance measures are often directly correlated with performance criteria like customer satisfaction whereas financial performance measures are applied with the measurement of financial and material resources. But the fact that e.g. non-financial as well as financial performance measures can be used for the measurement of customer satisfaction is not acknowledged. See Perera et al. (1997), p. 563 and Grüning (2002), p. 149Google Scholar
  191. 239.
    See Bailey (1996), p. 46 and Werner/Souder (1997a), pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar
  192. 240.
    See Werner/ Souder (1997a), p. 35Google Scholar
  193. 241.
    See Werner/ Souder (1997a), p. 36Google Scholar
  194. 242.
    See Pappas/ Remer (1985), pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar
  195. 243.
    See Gleich (2001), pp. 243 ff., Grüning (2002), pp. 135 ff., Hauber (2002), pp. 90 ff. and Krause (2006), p. 27Google Scholar
  196. 244.
    Objectivity is usually jeopardized if the performance measures are based on behaviour. This causes people to be overly concerned with the way work is done, rather than focusing on the outputs produced. See Brown/ Svenson (1988), p. 12Google Scholar
  197. 245.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 243Google Scholar
  198. 246.
    See e.g. Hronec (1993), p. 164Google Scholar
  199. 247.
    See Eccles (1991), pp. 133 ff., Vitale/Mavrinac (1995), p. 46, Hronec (1993), pp. 163 f. and McMann/Orlando (1998), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar
  200. 248.
    See Neely et al. (1995), pp. 80 ff. and Krause (2006), p. 54Google Scholar
  201. 249.
    See Krause (2006), p. 54Google Scholar
  202. 250.
    See Anthony/ Govindarajan (2001), pp. 445 ff.Google Scholar
  203. 251.
    See Simons (1999), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  204. 252.
    Neely et al. limited performance measurement to ‘the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of an action’, see Neely et. al. (1995), p. 80Google Scholar
  205. 253.
    See Kerssens-Van Drongelen/ Bilderbeek (1999), p. 36Google Scholar
  206. 254.
    See Gleich (1997), p. 114Google Scholar
  207. 255.
    Performance management approaches that only focus on the measurement of financial criteria, e.g. the ROI or EVA framework, are not considered. In addition, approaches that have been specifically developed for the innovation process or specific sub-processes but are not used in practice e.g. the 3E performance measurement system of Gentner, the efficiency index of McGrath/Romeri, the R&D performance techniques of Pappas/Remer, and the performance measurement system of Szakonyi are not further considered. The author refers to illustrations of e.g. Hauber (2002), pp. 78 ff., Grüning (2002), pp. 52 ff. and Krause (2006), pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar
  208. 256.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1992), pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar
  209. 257.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1996c), p. 4Google Scholar
  210. 259.
    See e.g. Kaplan/ Norton (2001), pp. 30 f.Google Scholar
  211. 260.
    See e.g. Kaplan/ Norton (2001), pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar
  212. 261.
    See e.g. Kaplan/ Norton (2001), pp. 37 f.Google Scholar
  213. 262.
    See e.g. Kaplan/ Norton (2001), pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar
  214. 263.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1996b), p. 83, Kaplan/Norton (1997), p. 29 and Grüning (2002), p. 27Google Scholar
  215. 264.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1992), p. 71Google Scholar
  216. 265.
    See Mooraj et al. (1999), p. 483 and Kaplan/Norton (2001), pp. 167 ff.Google Scholar
  217. 266.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1996a), p. 21Google Scholar
  218. 267.
    See Kaplan/ Norton (1996b), pp. 75 ff. and Kaplan/Norton (1997), pp. 265 ff.; for a detailed description of the process and sub-process activities see e.g. Krause (2006), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar
  219. 268.
    See Cross/ Lynch (1988), pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar
  220. 269.
    The development of the PP was — as the BSC — also influenced by the development of a framework for continuous improvement at Analog Devices, see Grüning (2002), p. 35Google Scholar
  221. 270.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1995), pp. 64 ff. and Grüning (2002), p. 35. For the description of further stakeholders that should be considered in performance management framework, see Section 2.2.2.3Google Scholar
  222. 271.
    See Grüning (2002), p. 36Google Scholar
  223. 273.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1995), pp. 88 f. and Grüning (2002), p. 38Google Scholar
  224. 274.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1995), pp. 175 f.Google Scholar
  225. 275.
    See Lynch/ Cross (1995), p. 65Google Scholar
  226. 276.
    See Lebas (1994), p. 481. The main reason for this is the fact that theoretical concepts of the TdB have been developed and published a long time after the TdB has been used in practiceGoogle Scholar
  227. 277.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 59Google Scholar
  228. 278.
    See Epstein/ Manzoni (1997), p. 30 and Epstein/Manzoni (1998), pp. 190 ff.Google Scholar
  229. 279.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 59 and Fernandez (2005), p. 44: in French companies, corporate and departmental managers often had an engineering background in the past and still have in some industriesGoogle Scholar
  230. 280.
    See Mendoza et al. (2005), p. 74 and Epstein/Manzoni (1997), p. 29Google Scholar
  231. 281.
    See Lebas (1994), p. 475 and Gleich (2001), p. 60Google Scholar
  232. 282.
    See Epstein/ Manzoni (1997), p. 30 and Gleich (2001), p. 60Google Scholar
  233. 283.
    See Epstein/ Manzoni (1997), p. 29Google Scholar
  234. 284.
    See Mendoza et al. (2005), pp. 53 f.. In French, this process is called OVAR (Objectifs, Variables d’Action, Responsable)Google Scholar
  235. 285.
    See Fernandez (2005), pp. 39 ff. and pp. 91 ff. and Mendoza et. al. (2005), pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar
  236. 286.
    See Grüning (2002), p. 42Google Scholar
  237. 287.
    See Hronec (1993), pp. 18 f.Google Scholar
  238. 288.
    See Rummler/ Brache (1995), pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar
  239. 289.
    See Hronec (1993), p. 31Google Scholar
  240. 290.
    See Hronec (1993), p. 5Google Scholar
  241. 291.
    See Hronec (1993), p. 21Google Scholar
  242. 292.
    See Hronec (1993), pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar
  243. 293.
    Leadership is used as synonym for corporate management, and best practice standards include the integration of competitors (benchmarking), see Grüning (2002), p. 46Google Scholar
  244. 294.
    See Gleich (2001), p. 72Google Scholar
  245. 295.
    See Horváth (1999), Gleich (2001), Grüning (2002), Horváth& Partners (2002), Speckbacher et. al. (2003) and Piser (2004)Google Scholar
  246. 296.
    See Grüning (2002), p. 31 and pp. 60 ff., Horváth & Partners (2002) and Speckbacher et al. (2003), pp. 361 ff.Google Scholar
  247. 297.
    This is also the case in other European and Anglophone countries, e.g. see Frigo/ Krumwiede (1999) and Malmi (2001). The only framework which disposes of a high diffusion rate in other countries is the TdB which is highly popular in Francophone countries, see Grüning (2002), p. 52 and Mendoza et al. (2005)Google Scholar
  248. 298.
    See Gleich (2001), pp. 88 ff. and Grüning (2002), pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar
  249. 299.
    For detailed comparisons of the individual frameworks, see e.g. Gleich (2001), pp. 88 ff. Grüning (2002), pp. 62 ff., Ahn (2005), pp. 123 f. and Krause (2006), pp. 99 f.Google Scholar
  250. 300.
    See e.g. Krause (2006), pp. 99 f.Google Scholar
  251. 301.
    See Wallenburg/ Weber (2006), p. 246Google Scholar
  252. 302.
    See Neely et. al. (1995), p. 97Google Scholar
  253. 303.
    See Nørreklit (2000), p. 68 and Wallenburg/Weber (2006), p. 246: they found that the closed loop model of the BSC is successful, and they could reveal by empirical evidence that the proposed principle of cause and effect works in practiceGoogle Scholar
  254. 304.
    See e.g. Krause (2006), p. 100Google Scholar
  255. 305.
    See e.g. Gleich (2001), p. 89 and Krause (2006), p. 100Google Scholar
  256. 306.
    See e.g. Willis (1994), pp. 19 f., Weber/Schäffer (1998), p. 355, Atkinson et al. (1997), p. 26 and Friedag/Schmidt (1999), pp. 197 f.Google Scholar
  257. 307.
    See e.g. Dunham/ Pierce (1989), pp. 9 f., Schneider (1997), pp. 9 f. and Steinmann/Schreyögg (1997), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar
  258. 308.
    See Drucker (1963), p. 53Google Scholar
  259. 309.
    See Krause (2006), p. 162Google Scholar
  260. 310.
    See Krause (2006), p. 162Google Scholar
  261. 311.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 4Google Scholar
  262. 312.
    See Brousseau et al. (2006), p. 110 and Tichy/Bennis (2007), p. 94Google Scholar
  263. 313.
    See Brousseau et al. (2006), p. 110Google Scholar
  264. 314.
    See Gosselin (2005), pp. 434 f.Google Scholar
  265. 315.
    See Yates (2003), p. 3Google Scholar
  266. 316.
    On the basis of Rohde (2004), p. 2Google Scholar
  267. 317.
    See Barnard (1938) and buchanan/O’Connell (2006), p. 32Google Scholar
  268. 318.
    See Buchanan/ O’Connell (2006), p. 32Google Scholar
  269. 319.
    See Brousseau et. al. (2006), p. 110 and Tichy/Bennis (2007), p. 97Google Scholar
  270. 320.
    See Yates (2003), pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar
  271. 321.
    See Russo/ Schoemaker (2002), pp. 5 ff.. A similar model was developed by Tichy/Bennis who distinguish between a preparation phase, a call phase and an execution phase, see Tichy/Bennis (2007), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar
  272. 322.
    See Russo/ Schoemaker (2002), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar
  273. 323.
    See Russo/ Schoemaker (2002), pp. xii f.Google Scholar
  274. 324.
    See Buchanan/ O’Connell (2006), p. 33Google Scholar
  275. 325.
    See Rawls (1971), p. 3 and Cohen (1986), p. 1Google Scholar
  276. 326.
    See Cohen (1986), p. 2Google Scholar
  277. 327.
    See Streicher (2005), p. 4Google Scholar
  278. 328.
    See Cropanzano/ Greenberg (1997), pp. 317 ff.Google Scholar
  279. 329.
    See Stouffer et. al. (1949), Homans (1961), Adams (1965) and Rawls (1971)Google Scholar
  280. 330.
    See Stouffer et. al. (1949)Google Scholar
  281. 331.
    See Homans (1961)Google Scholar
  282. 332.
    See Adams (1965)Google Scholar
  283. 333.
    The extent of demotivation and discontentment is generally proportional to the perceived disparity between the inputs and expected outputs, see Adams (1965)Google Scholar
  284. 334.
    See Lind/ Tyler (1988), p. 10Google Scholar
  285. 335.
    See Rawls (1971), p. 3Google Scholar
  286. 336.
    The basic idea of the Rawls’ book ‘Theory of Justice’ was to develop an alternative theory to the predominant theory of utilitarism and constitutes a reactivation of liberalism in political philosophy, see Rawls (1971)Google Scholar
  287. 337.
    See Greenberg (1990), p. 400Google Scholar
  288. 338.
    See Greenberg (1987), pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar
  289. 339.
    See e.g. Colquitt et. al. (2001), pp. 425 ff.Google Scholar
  290. 340.
    See Beugré (2002), p. 1092Google Scholar
  291. 341.
    See Folger/ Cropanzano (1998), pp. 1 ff. and Greenberg/Colquitt (2005), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  292. 342.
    See Beugré (2002), p. 1092, Streicher (2005), p. 4Google Scholar
  293. 343.
    See Moore (1978), pp. 5 ff., Greenberg (1990), p. 399 and Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), p. 1Google Scholar
  294. 344.
    See Liebig (2004), p. 1Google Scholar
  295. 345.
    See Coetzee (2005), p. 4.2Google Scholar
  296. 346.
    See Holcombe (1983), pp. 1153 ff., Piron (1985), pp. 878 ff., Kim/Mauborgne (1997), pp. 65 ff., Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), pp. 3 ff. and Brockner (2006), pp. 123 ff.Google Scholar
  297. 347.
    See Bies/ Moag (1986), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar
  298. 348.
    See Greenberg (1993a), pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar
  299. 349.
    On the basis of Greenberg (1990), p. 405 and Coetzee (2005), p. 4.5Google Scholar
  300. 350.
    See Greenberg (1987), pp. 9 ff. and Coetzee (2005), p. 4.3Google Scholar
  301. 351.
    See Sheppard et. al. (1992), pp. 10 ff.. The balance principle can be referred to as distributive justice whereas the correctness principle can be referred to as fair processGoogle Scholar
  302. 352.
    See Coetzee (2005), p. 4.2Google Scholar
  303. 354.
    See Greenberg (1990), p. 400Google Scholar
  304. 355.
    See Streicher (2005), p. 6Google Scholar
  305. 356.
    See Dulebohn/ Martocchio (1998), pp. 469 ff. and Dulebohn/Ferris (1999), pp. 288 ff.Google Scholar
  306. 357.
    See e.g. Leventhal (1976), pp. 91 ff., Schwinger (1980), pp. 107 ff., Coetzee (2005), p. 4.6 and Streicher (2005), p. 7Google Scholar
  307. 358.
    See Cohen-Charash/ Spector (2001), pp. 278 ff.Google Scholar
  308. 359.
    See Streicher (2005), p. 7Google Scholar
  309. 360.
    See Schmitt et. al. (2004), pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar
  310. 361.
    See Furby (1986), pp. 153 ff. and Greenberg (1990), p. 402Google Scholar
  311. 362.
    See Greenberg (1990), p. 402, Tyler/Blader (2000), pp. 11 ff. and Ehrhart (2004), pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar
  312. 363.
    See Thibaut/ Walker (1975). They also coined the term ‘procedural justice’ in order to differentiate the concept from the distributive justice theories, see Blader/Tyler (2003), pp. 109 f.Google Scholar
  313. 364.
    See Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), p. 3Google Scholar
  314. 365.
    See Leventhal (1980), pp. 27 ff., Leventhal et. al. (1980), pp. 167 ff. and Streicher (2005), pp. 8 f.Google Scholar
  315. 366.
    See Greenberg (1986), pp. 342 ff.Google Scholar
  316. 367.
    See Lind/ Tyler (1988)Google Scholar
  317. 368.
    See Conlon (1993), pp. 1109 ff.Google Scholar
  318. 369.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1991), pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar
  319. 370.
    See Tyler/ Lind (1992), pp. 115 ff.Google Scholar
  320. 371.
    See Streicher (2005), p. 48Google Scholar
  321. 372.
    See Greenberg (1990), p. 411Google Scholar
  322. 373.
    See Bies/ Moag (1986), pp. 43 ff., Tyler/Bies (1990), pp. 77 ff. and Greenberg (1990), p. 411Google Scholar
  323. 374.
    See Masterson et. al. (2000), pp. 738 ff. and Brockner et. al. (1994), pp. 397 ff.Google Scholar
  324. 375.
    See Folger/ Cropanzano (1998), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar
  325. 376.
    Bies/Moag argued for a distinction of interactional justice from fair process, see Bies/ Moag (1986), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar
  326. 377.
    See Bies/ Moag (1986), pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar
  327. 378.
    See Greenberg (1993a), pp. 79 ff., Greenberg (1993b), pp. 83 ff. and Colquitt (2001), pp. 386 ff.Google Scholar
  328. 379.
    See Streicher (2005), p. 105Google Scholar
  329. 380.
    Recently, so-called integrative models have also been developed that have tried to resolve existing contradictions between the various dimensions of distributive justice and fair process with its different sub-dimensions. The ambition of these models is to explain why and when different human needs for control, self-identity or moral are activated. But these models have not been extensively tested until now and are consequently not further illustrated here. For further illustrations see Degoey (2000), pp. 51 ff., Cropanzano et. al. (2001b), pp. 1 ff., Colquitt/Greenberg (2001), pp. 217 ff. and Streicher (2005), pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar
  330. 381.
    See Thibaut/ Kelley (1959) and Thibaut/Walker (1975)Google Scholar
  331. 382.
    See Hogg/ Abrams (1988)Google Scholar
  332. 383.
    See Tyler/ Lind (1992), pp. 115 ff.Google Scholar
  333. 384.
    see Lind/ Tyler (1988), Tyler/Lind (1992), pp. 115 ff. and also Section 2.3.2.2.3 for a description of the group value model and the relational model of authorityGoogle Scholar
  334. 385.
    see Streicher (2005), p. 50Google Scholar
  335. 386.
    See Amabile (1988), pp. 123 ff.Google Scholar
  336. 387.
    See Amabile et. al. (1996), pp. 3 ff. and Judge et al. (1997), pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar
  337. 388.
    See Folger (1994), pp. 225 ff. and Folger (1998), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar
  338. 389.
    See Cropanzano et al. (2001a), pp. 164 ff.Google Scholar
  339. 390.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  340. 391.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  341. 392.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  342. 393.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  343. 394.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  344. 395.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1991), Kim/Mauborgne (1993a), Kim/Mauborgne (1993b), Kim/Mauborgne (1995), Kim/Mauborgne (1996) and Kim/Mauborgne (1997). Scholars from other academic disciplines such as psychology and social science have previously applied fair process theories to business settings, see Greenberg (1986) and Greenberg (1990)Google Scholar
  345. 396.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1991), pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar
  346. 397.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), pp. 68 f.Google Scholar
  347. 398.
    See Van der Heyden et al. (2005), pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar
  348. 399.
    See Van der Heyden et al. (2005)Google Scholar
  349. 400.
    See Van der Heyden et al. (2005), p. 8. the process model is a further development of the defined process steps of Russo/Schoemaker (2002), pp. 5 ff.; see also section 2.3.1.2 for an illustration of their process modelGoogle Scholar
  350. 401.
    Based on Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), p. 8Google Scholar
  351. 402.
    This process step integrates the principle ‘engagement’ of the 3 E’s principles, see Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 69 and the previous illustrationGoogle Scholar
  352. 403.
    The 3 E’s principles ‘explanation’ and ‘expectation clarity’ are integrated into this process step, see Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 69 and the previous illustrationGoogle Scholar
  353. 404.
    See Van der Heyden et al. (2005), pp. 10 ff.. ‘communication and voice’ integrates the principle ‘voice’ of leventhal (1980), ‘clarification’ the ‘accuracy’ principle of leventhal (1980) and the ‘explanation’ and ‘expectation’ principles of kim/mauborgne (1997); ‘consistency’ integrates the ‘consistency’, ‘ethicality’ and’ suppression of bias’ principles of leventhal (1980), and ‘changeability’ the ‘correctability’ principle of Leventhal (1980)Google Scholar
  354. 406.
    See Cialdini (2000), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar
  355. 407.
    See Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), p. 10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations