The Usefulness of Traditional and New Performance Measures Used in Nigerian Companies

USEFULNESS OF TRADITIONAL AND NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES: SOME EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIAN COMPANIES BY DR. (MRS. ) S. L. ADEYEMI DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN ABSTRACT This paper reports the findings of a survey on the usefulness of selected traditional and new performance measures used in some Nigeria companies that have adopted a flexible manufacturing strategy. The results indicate that majority of these companies considered the new performance measures useful particularly among the larger companies and among those with 5 years or less of business experience.Traditional measures are still useful, though to a much lesser extent. These results suggest that a combination of both traditional and new measures would be needed especially when Nigeria companies are going through the transition of implementing changes to their strategies from cost leadership to flexible manufacturing. INTRODUCTION The combination of slower economic growth and increased competition ha s forced firms in every industry to concentrate on efficient and effective deployment of resources. One result of these efforts has been the emergence of a new corporate position devoted to controllership.The controller is concerned with continuous measurement of a firm’s performance. In order to carry out the measurement process, controllership focuses on the assessment of resources deployment and goal attainment Numerous research initiatives have identified the high correlation between superior performances and the development and use of sophisticated assessment or measurement capabilities. As early as 1985, A. T. Kuarney Consultants noticed that firm engaging in comprehensive performance realized improvements in overall productivity in the range of 14 to 22 percent.Effort has been expended by establishments to improve the quality of information that their managers have at their disposal to measure, compare and guide performance. In most firms in Nigeria the traditional for mats and travel reports are still in used. TRADITIONAL AND MODERN MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE: AN OVERVIEW OF A REVIEW The traditional performance measurement system has been designed to report labour productivity, machine and capacity utilization, and standard cost variances.These are cost-efficiency-based measures derived from a strategy to minimize production costs, described as a cost leadership strategy, which is characterized by mass production of a new standard products musing stable technology (hall, 1980; Kaplan. 1986). The modern manufacturing environment has undergone dramatic changes since the past decades mainly because of intensive global competition, shifts in customer’s buying behaviour, and rapid innovation in manufacturing and information technology product.A cost-minimization and mass production strategy is no longer compatible with this new manufacturing scenario. Instead, issues such as responsiveness to customer needs, improving quality, reducing lead times, technological innovation and enhancing production flexibility have emerged as strategically more important to maintain competitiveness. Direct attention to these issues is the essence of a flexible manufacturing strategy. (Nemetz and Fry, 1988). Despite this strategic re-orientation among the more progressive companies, performance measurement systems have not kept pace with the change.The theory of organizational lag has been involved to explain this lag in making changes. The theory of organizational lag has been involved to explain this lag in making changes to management accounting systems of which performance system forms a part. According to this theory, administrative innovations in management accounting (and performance) systems tend to lag behind the technical innovations of manufacturing. This is because the potential benefits of administrative innovations are less certain and are likely to take more time to have any recognizable impact (Dunk, 1989).Failure to make comple mentary changes in the performance measurement system to fit with the company’s new flexible manufacturing strategy may lead to dysfunctional consequences. As pointed out by Howell and Soucy, (1987). â€Å"The manufacturing transformation in many companies has been slowed, if not set back, as antiquated sets of operating performance yardsticks promote inaccurate analysis, poor operating decisions, and inappropriate resource allocations†.This paper reviews traditional financial measures of performance and discussed the potential benefits of incorporating new performance measures into the performance measurement system. The usefulness of these measures was empirically tested using a sample of Nigerian Companies that have adopted flexible manufacturing strategy. The bulk of responding companies came from the electronic and other high technology product industries (60%) Business experience was categorized into groups, as follows: 5 years and below (7. 5%( > 5-10 years (22. 5%) and > 10 years (50%).TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES Traditional performance measures have been developed to meet the needs of manufacturing characterized by the production of standard products with high direct labour contest. Set ups are minimized to assure uninterrupted production runs. In this way, labour and machine capacities can be fully utilized and the greatest possible output produced with a consequent reduction in the overhead cost per unit of output. The competitive strategy is cost minimization, so variance reporting, overhead absorption and capacity utilization measures appropriately reflect this strategy.Variance Reporting: The use of variance accounting for managerial performance evaluation has been criticized as counter-effective in the modern global environment (Howell & Soucy, 1987). This is because traditional variance analysis encourages dysfunctional behaviours such as allowing inventory to build up so as to show a favourable volume variance, and delaying machine maintenance, padding the budget or shifting expenses between accounts so as to show a favourable expenses variance.Purchasing managers, for example, may act dysfunctionally by purchasing materials based on lowest price considerations at the expense of quality so as to show a favourable materials price variance. The consequences of inferior quality materials purchased are manifested in increased reworks, scraps, inspections and storage of defective parts leading to higher production costs and loss of competitiveness. The volume variance as a manufacturing indicator has been criticized since traditional absorption costing encourages excessive production in order to absorb the fixed overheads into inventory costs.Maximizing capacity utilization is necessary to achieve cost minimization. However, such a policy is short-sighted because any production in excess of market demand must be consigned to inventory and this runs counter to the just-in-time philosophy of maintaining a zer o inventory with all its attendant benefits (Sadhwani, et al, 1985). Variance reports at the manager’s level are also too aggregated for meaningful interpretation. Moreover, the standard cost itself may be perceived the norm eliminating any incentive for product innovation.In this case an unintended signal has been put out which impede efforts to infuse a culture of continuous improvement. Capacity utilization measures productivity improvement, automation and robotics have shrank direct labour cost to only a small fraction of the total manufacturing cost, whereas overheads have increased significantly. Despite these developments and the consequent impact on cost structures, reports from surveys in various countries indicated that companies have not responded in tandem with the technological changes (Schoch, et al. , 1994; Teoh, 1991).This has serious implications for production costing and performance evaluation as the continued focus on direct labour means labour is still co nsidered a major driver of costs when it is no longer relevant. The result is the development of burden rates that are volume-driven, based on a diminished direct labour element. Such a computed burden rate is artificially inflated due to the small direct labour base. Hen applied to an increasing pool of overheads, the incurrence of which may not be totally volume-driven, the labour generated burden rate can lead to serious distortions of the overheads absorbed into production cost.This is because of the unrealistic burden rate used which does not reflect the actual consumption of overheads by different products or processes (Kaplan, 1986). The overhead absorption measure gives rise to a distorted product cost analysis, so â€Å"good’ performance is associated with products apparently showing profitable margins but are actually incurring loses (Beckett & Dang, 1992). Thus an incorrect signal about profitability is receivedEarned hours, as a measure of labour efficiency, is a lso deficient since it provides an erroneous signal to supervisors to maximize earned hours by keeping employees â€Å"gainfully† occupied regardless of market conditions. It would have been more beneficial in the long term to use the time for training or cross training of operators so as to upgrade their skills. The machine utilization rate, as a measure of supervisory performance, also suffers from a number of deficiencies. It encourages the excessive use of machines for large-scale production, resulting in an unwidely accumulation of inventory.Worse still, maximizing the utilization rate encourages continuous machine usage at the expense of regular maintenance. Moreover, the focus on utilization may lead to inadequate emphasis on quality. Short-term Financial Measures: Although achieving profit and an acceptable return on investment are the raison d’etre for a company to stay in business, the traditional focus on these performance measures however encourages manager s to take a myopic view that emphasizes short-term results to the detriment of long-term profitability (Banks & Wheelwright, 1979).This is the â€Å"gaming† effect where management manipulates accounting figures to show favourable results or alternatively, builds in slack to ensure that budget targets (Merchant, 1985) are met. Reliance on short-term financial measures can lead to dysfunctional decisions since these indications fail to signal the erosion of a firm’s value if discretionary expenditures have to be reduced for short-term gains. Such spending is fact essential for new products development production process improvement, worker skills training and upgrading distribution networks and promoting customer awareness (Kaplan, 1986).Furthermore, profit measures represent outcomes that may not fully reflect management’s effort (Drucker, 1964). Stated differently, total performance cannot be completely captured by Naira profits. NEW PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OBJ ECTIVES In the new technological environment, a flexible manufacturing strategy must be implemented that focuses on customer responsiveness, quality, time, innovation and human resources practices. A performance measurement system designed to achieve the traditional objective of cost efficiency will be incongruent with this new strategy.It is necessary to redesign the system so as to reflect this change in strategic objectives. Customer Responsiveness: increasingly, customers demand not only a better service but also a wider variety of products with improved quality and shorter delivery times (Northey, 1991). Customer responsiveness examines a firm’s relative ability to satisfy customers. Therefore, high customer responsiveness translates into greater customer retention, leading to longer-term.Profitability as the costs of acquiring and serving customers come down. Customers’ responsiveness measures therefore must be designed into the performance measure system. These include reporting on the number of customer complaints, warranty claims, and on-time deliveries, among others. As Eccles (1991) put it bluntly â€Å"what you measure is what you get and what you measure gets attention†, indicating that performance measures must be relevant to send the right signals for employees to achieve desired company objectives.For example, a system that evaluates how well customer demands have been satisfied can better support efforts in achieving sustainable competitive advantage than one that emphasizes labour or machinery efficiency in internal operations (Beckette & Dang, 19910, Goldhar & Lei 1991). Quality: Quality measures, which are the most process-oriented evaluations are designed to determine the effectiveness of a series of activities rather than the individual activity. Quality refers to the degree to which a product’s specific features in terms of workmanship; durability and so on satisfy the requirements of a particular customer.Poo r quality can contribute to a significant increase in the manufacturing costs in various ways. As Howell and Soucy (1997) stated: â€Å"The absence of good materials, highly-trained labour, and well-maintained equipment will dramatically increase the costs of non quality such as scrap, rework, excess inventories, process and equipment: breakdowns, field serves, and warranty claims. However, quality is usually difficult to measure because of the broad scope. A contemporary measurement concept that is increasing in interest is â€Å"the perfect order†.Delivery of the perfect order is the ultimate measure of quality operations. The perfect order represents ideal performance from an operational perspective, a multi-industry consortium defines the perfect order as one that meets the complete delivery of all items requested, delivery customer’s request date with one-day tolerance, complete and accurate documentation supporting the order and perfect condition, that is, fault lessly installed, correct configuration, customer-ready with no damage. Operational and financial measurers to monitor quality include the manufacturing quality index (i. . defect rates), inventory levels, warranty claims, vendor quality, cost of quality and scrap cost. All these provide valuable feedback for identifying existing problems and assessing whether the quality objective is adequately meet. Time: Reducing level times is also of the new manufacturing strategy through out, (manufacturing cycle) time measures the amount of time required to convert raw materials into completed products. Cycle time is the total value from the issue of materials into production to the delivery of the final products to customers.The theory is that the cost of a product is related to the time required to produce it. Cycle time variance therefore provides useful information about non-value-adding activities such as moving, inspecting, reworking, storing and waiting, that added to production costs as overhead charges but no value to customers (Alexander et al, 1991). Using throughput and cycle times as performance measures help managers to eliminate these non-value adding activities, considered as waste time, and achieve substantial cost savings.Thus, according to Lippa (1990); Shorter cycle times can result in less finished goods inventory, less forecast reliance, strategic capability when a firm reacts to customer demands faster than the competition and the ability to exploit opportunities). Innovation in today’s competitive environment companies must continuously engage in product improvement be designing new and improved products with unique characteristics valued by customers. Only in this way are companies able to enlarge their market share and maintain a competitive edge.Introducing technological innovation and advanced design features into new products is costly initially and requires operational flexibility; unlike cycle have unique characteristics (Ainikal & Teo, 1992) that will require performance measures tailored for this purpose such as turnover by products and product cost improvement. Human Resources: The benefit of adopting a long-term employment policy is a loyal and committed workforce, resulting in productivity increases, reduced training costs, and improved customer services since this is provided by long-serving, presumably more experienced and better-informed employees.A performance measure such as employee turnover is needed to help management assess an enterprise’s human resource availability and capabilities. It is against this background that the present study has been conducted. In Nigeria, the trend toward high technology manufacturing is a recent event, partly motivated by rising costs and partly encouraged by the Government as a strategy to maintain a sustainable competitive edge. As companies automate or adopt advanced manufacturing technology, complementary changes in performance measurement systems must be implemented to reflect the new manufacturing environment.The following sections presented the results of a recent empirical study CASE STUDY METHOD A questionnaire survey design was employed as an exploratory case study. The sample was drawn from a cross-section of companies in Nigeria that have implemented or are implementing changes in their production processes. Respondents were asked to consider the usefulness of selected performance measures. Usefulness has been operationalized as the frequency of use of each measure. Based on a total of 200 questionnaires distributed, 36 useable replies were received, given a response rate of 18 percent.Response rates of this level were consistent with previous other studies of Ghosen el al, 1992 Petzall el. Al, 1991. Responding companies were classified by size musing sales turnover as the proxy measure, as follows: N20million and below (7. 5%), > N20 million – N100 million (17. 5%) > N100 million (75%). It was not surprising to find a higher percentage of response from the larger companies, because previous studies have found size as important determinant for a company to adopt a flexible manufacturing strategy (Schoch, el. l, 1994). EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows that at least 63 percent of respondents indicated their dissatisfaction with the existing performance measure system. As more and more companies turn to automation or other advanced technology for their manufacturing processes, it is not unexpected that performance measures originally designed for a labour intensive environment will no longer be appropriate.What is noteworthy is that 37 percent of respondents reported that they were either satisfied with the existing system (26%) or not sure see any need for significant changes to the system (11%). Many of such companies are currently going through the different stages of implementing changes to their manufacturing processes. So it may not be surprising that 37 percent continue to rel y on the traditional measures. TABLE 1 OVERALL RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE |FREQUENCY (EXPRESSED AS %) | |Satisfied |26 | |Did not see any significant change needed |11 | |Dissatisfied |63 | |Total |100 | Table 2 presents findings on the usefulness of selected traditional performance measures. These results are consistent with the overall findings above. For example, for five of the eight measures, the percentage of respondents indicating â€Å"useful† is also lower, ranging from 61. 3 percent for standard cost overhead to 41. 4 percent for earned hours, and these correspond to the overall 63 percent who expressed dissatisfaction with traditional measures.As earlier indicated, not all companies have fully automated, so some traditional measures have been regarded as still useful, such as purchase price variance reported by 86. 7 percent. TABLE 2 USEFULNESS OF TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES | |Useful |Not or Less Useful | |Materials price variance |86. 7% |13. 3% | |Standard cost overhead |61. 3% |38. 7% | |Scrap factor built into standard overhead |51. 6% |48. % | |Labour Reporting |58. 6% |41. 4% | |Earned Hours |41. 4% |58. 6% | |Machine Utilization |78. 8% |21. 2% | |Net Income |85. 7% |14. 3% | |Return on Investment (total assets) |50. 0% |50. % | |Average |64. 1% |35. 9% | The new performance measures presented in Table 3 relate to customer responsiveness, quality, time, innovation and human resources factors, reflecting the strategic objectives of the new manufacturing environment. There is overwhelming evidence that these measurers were found to be â€Å"useful† by most respondents. The overall average of 83. 7 percent compares favourably against the 64. 1 percent for the traditional measures. TABLE 3 USEFULNESS OF NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURE |Useful |Not or Less Useful | |Customer Complaints |88. 6% |11. 4% | |Warranty Claims |75. 8% |24. 2% | |On-time Delivery |93. 9% |6. 1% | |Manufacturing Quality Index |82. 4 % |17. % | |Inventory Levels |88. 9% |11. 1% | |Vendor Quality |84. 8% |15. 2% | |Cost of Quality |84. 4% |15. 6% | | Scrap Naira |85. 7% |14. 3% | |Throughput Time |91. 2% |8. % | |Cycle Time |78. 1% |21. 9% | |Waste Time |72. 7% |27. 3% | |Product Cost Improvement |70. 0% |30. 0% | |Inventory Turnover |88. 2% |11. 8% | |Turnover of Products |78. 8% |21. % | |Employee Turnover |86. 1% |13. 9% | |Average |83. 7% |16. 3% | Cross-tabulation analyses were performed by company size and years of experience in business. Only significant results have been reported in Table 4 and 5. Larger companies found four specific new performance measures more useful than the smaller companies. On-time deliveries (X2 = 7. 92, df = 2, p < . 05); inventory levels (X2 = 5. 98, df = 2, p < . 05); throughput time (X2 = 9. 80, df = 2, p < . 1) and inventory turnover to be the forerunners in implementing technological innovations, and so find new performance measures more appropriate. Smaller companie s tend to lag behind in implementing changes, so adoption of these new measures is not as widespread. In table 5 significant results were found for vendor quality (X2 = 6. 32, df = 2, p < . 05) and throughput time (X2 = 5. 00, df = 2, p < . 10). Companies with 5 years or less in business reported the new measures as useful compared to companies in the other categories, especially in regard to vendor quality longer established companies have developed special relationship with selected vendors and, consequently, vendor quality is no longer of major concern.In contrast, more recently established companies need to identify vendors who can meet the more stringent demands in high-tech manufacturing, such as just-in-time deliveries and supply of quality materials. TABLE 4 CHI-SQUARE TESTS FOR NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY COMPANY SIZE |Company Size |On-time Deliveries |Inventory Levels |Throughput Time |Inventory Turnover | |N20m & below | | | | | |Useful |66. 7% |66. 7% |66. 7% |66. 7% | | Not Useful |33. 3% |33. 3% |33. 3% |33. % | |>N20m-N100m | | | | | |Useful |85. 7% |71. 4% |71. 4% |71. 4% | |Not Useful |14. 3% |28. 6% |28. 6% |28. 6% | |>N100m | | | | | |Useful |100. 0% |96. 7% |75. 0% |96. 7% | |Not Useful |0. % |3. 3% |25. 0% |3. 3% | TABLE 5 CHI-SQUARE TESTS FOR NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY YEARS IN BUSINESS |Years in Business |Vendor Quality |Throughput Time | |5 YEARS | | | |Useful |100. 0% |100. 0% | |Not Useful |0. 0% |0. % | |>5 YEARS – 10 YEARS | | | |Useful |88. 89% |77. 8% | |Not Useful |11. 11% |22. 2% | |>10 YEARS | | | |Useful |60. 0% |100. 0% | |Not Useful |40. 0% |0. 0% | CONCLUSION AND SUMMARYEffective performance measurement and controllership are necessary to locate and monitor resources. As competency becomes a more critical factor in creating and maintaining competitive advantage greater attention must be given to strategic issues concerning customer responsiveness, quality, time, innovation and human resources factors than a cost-mi nimization mass-production strategy, in order that companies can remain competitive. To this end, a performance measurement system capable of meeting these strategic objectives also must be in place. This study reported the findings of a survey on the usefulness of selected traditional and new performance measures used by Nigerian companies that have adopted flexible manufacturing strategy.The results indicated that the majority of these companies considered the new performance measures useful particularly among the larger companies and among those with 5 years or less of business experience. Traditional measures are found to be still useful, though to a smaller extent, as companies are going through a transition of implementing changes to their manufacturing strategies. REFERENCES Alexander, G. , G. Gienger, M. Harwood and P. Santomi (1991). â€Å"The New Revolution in Cost Management, â€Å"Financial Effective, November/December, pp 5-9. Ainikal, J. and H. Y. Teoh (1992),  "Overhead Allocations and Product Life Cycle Emphasis – The New Zealand Situation†, Accounting Journal (NZ), April, pp 69-71.Banks, R. L. and S. C. Wheelwright (1979), â€Å"Operations vs Strategy: Trading Tomorrow for Today†, â€Å"Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 112-120. Beckett, W. K. and K. Dang (1992), â€Å"Synchrous Manufacturing: New Method, New Mind-Set† The Journal of Business Strategy, January/February, pp 5-6 Drucker, P. (1964), â€Å" Control, Controls and Management† in C. P. Bonini, R. K. Jaedieke and H. M. Wagner, Management Controls: New Directions in Basic Research: McGraw. Dunk, A. (1989), â€Å" Management Accounting Lag†, Abacus, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 149-155. Eccles, R. (1991), â€Å"The Performance Manifesto†, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 11-17. Ghosh, B. C. S. K. Teo and A. M. Low (1992), â€Å"Factors Contributing to the Success of Local SMEs – An Insight from Singapore†, Pr oceedings of ENDEC World Conference on Entrepreneurship; Challenges for the 21st Century, pp. 574-585 Goldhar, J. D. & D. Lei (1991), â€Å"The Shape of Twenty-Frist Century Global Manufacturing†, The Journal of Business Strategy, March/April, pp. 1-41. Hall, W. K. (1980), â€Å"Survival Strategies in Hostile Environment†, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 75-85. Howell, R. A. and S. R. Soucy (1987), â€Å"Operating Controls in the New Manufacturing Environment†, Manufacturing Accounting (USA), October, pp. 25-31. Kaplan, R. S. (1986). Accounting Lag: The Obsolescence of Cost Accounting System†, California Management Review, Winter, pp. 174-199. Lippa, V. (1990), â€Å"Measuring Performance with Synchrous Management†, Management Accounting (USA), February, pp. 54-59. Merchant, K. (1985), â€Å"Budgeting and the Propensity to Create Budgetary Slack†, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10, pp. 201-210. Nemetz, P. L. and L. W . Fry (1988), â€Å"Flexible Manufacturing Organizations; Implications for Strategy Formulation and Organization Design†, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 627-638. Northey, P. (1991), â€Å"Cut Total Costs with Cycle Time Reduction†, CMA Magazine, February, pp. 19-22 Petzall, S. , S. K. Teoh and R. D.Johnson (1992), â€Å"Leadership in the Singapore Small Business†, Proceedings of ENDEC Conference on World Entrepreneurship: Challenges for the 21st Century, pp. 143-151. Sadhwani, A. T. M. H. Sarhan and D. Kiringode (1985), â€Å"Just-in-time: An Inventory System Whose Time Has Come†, Management Accounting (USA), December, pp. 36-44. Schoch, H. P. H. Y. Teoh, M. H. Lee and K. B. Ang (1994), â€Å"Activity-Based Costing in the Electronics Industry†, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, January- March, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 28-37. Teoh, H. Y. (1991), â€Å"Discretionary or Non-Discretionary Costs: Managing ‘Ballooningâ₠¬â„¢ Indirect Costs in a Profitable Manner†, 7th National Accounting Conference, Kuala Lumpur, September, pp. 18-19.