Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Van stakeholdersanalyse naar performance management|
|Publisher:||Open Universiteit Nederland|
|Abstract:||One of the main responsibilities of an organisation's top management is the development of its strategy. Once the strategy has been determined, it is key to stick to the planned route or, if the circumstances so require, to adjust the course (Simons, 1990). It is, therefore, essential for management to receive feedback as to whether the adopted strategy is successful. If an organisation has entered into strategic collaborative partnerships with suppliers in order to realise its objectives, the performance of these suppliers also provides important information. After all, the result of the own organisation will then coincide with the suppliers' performance. Their performance can be evaluated by periodically measuring the critical aspects of their service provision. This requires a set of indicators that provide a picture of each supplier's performance. The approach taken by Neely, Adams & Crowe (2001) considered the interest of all the main stakeholders. However, which of the stakeholders are important or how they should be involved in the development of the set of performance indicators itself remained unanswered. In this study, a methodology was developed that provides insight into the interests of various stakeholders in a transparent manner and contributes to the development of an accepted set of performance indicators in a strategic collaborative partnership. The stakeholders' acceptance of the performance indicators selected is essential if the implementation of performance measurement is to be supported. The transparency of the decision-making process also allows the client to account for its actions towards the stakeholders - which fits in with corporate social responsibility. In order to develop the aspired methodology, a first prototype was created. This prototype was subsequently tested in a typical work situation in order to gain practical experience and eventually arrive at a methodology that can also be applied in other situations. The test revealed some issues that needed improvement. These can be used as input for a following, better prototype. A brief evaluation took place after the test. The results indicated that the prototype did provide insight into the interest of the various stakeholders in a transparent manner. Most participants in the evaluation also believed that the use of the prototype contributed to the development of an accepted set of performance indicators. The evaluation did not show, however, that the use of the prototype created more understanding and trust between the stakeholders. According to Vosselman & Van der Meer-Kooistra (2009), control and trust mutually affect one another. This study included only a few moments of contact between the stakeholders, for the creation of the set of performance indicators concerned was merely a first step towards performance measurement. In a fully implemented performance measurement system, however, there will be regular contact between the stakeholders so that there will be far more opportunity to enter into, and expand, relationships of trust. It was, therefore, no surprise that in this stage the methodology did not as yet contribute to mutual trust and understanding. It is recommended that a second prototype be built, taking into account the issues that the first prototype revealed. The application of the method in alternating situations may also render new information. Moreover, if a satisfactory prototype can be developed, it would be advisable to use it again and implement a full performance measurement system, since it is this system par excellence that will allow the methodology's ultimate added value to be assessed.|
|Appears in Collections:||MSc Management Science|
Files in This Item:
|Kampman scriptie - DEFINITIEF - 26 juni 2015.pdf||1.26 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.