D ESCRIPCIÓN GENERAL DE LA ABUNDANCIA , RIQUEZA Y DIVERSIDAD BIOLÓGICA

In its simplest form a PMS can be described as a closed-loop system that provides information which controls the future functioning of a process (Nalder, 1980). The fundamental elements of a closed-loop system are the process being controlled, feedback, inputs and outputs (Fig. 1). The important element in PMS terms is the feedback (Otley, 1987; Maskell, 1991; Globerson, 1985; Hanna and Burns, 1997) which can have a positive effect on performance (Pritchard et al., 1988). In addition its effect on an individual’s behaviour has been recognised as essential for learning and for motivation in performance-oriented organisations (Ilgen et al., 1979).

Maskell (1991) describes a PMS as having seven common characteristics: they are directly related to strategy; they mainly use non-financial measures; they vary between location; they change over time; they are simple and easy to use; they supply fast feedback; and they are improvement focused. The authors have previously described a PMS as having a set of twenty-two characteristics (Johnson and Evans, 1997). Three characteristics appeared regularly throughout PMS literature: the most relevant measure should be used; measures should be derived from strategy; and the effect on peoples’ behaviour should be incorporated. These three characteristics may not be the most important ones but they should be considered key characteristics.

The authors have participated in the design and implementation of a co-development PMS and observed the system in operation. This took place in a vehicle manufacturer (VM) who was undergoing a major change initiative requiring an improvement in the co-development performance from its supply-base. Twenty-two characteristics of a “good” PMS for co-development were built from the literature and used as a form of checklist in the design of the measurement system (ibid.). In parallel with their involvement in the activity the authors conducted 54 interviews with relevant engineers, managers and directors from the VM and 9 of its suppliers. The transparency of the PMS was identified as one of the key characteristics.

TRANSPARENCY

This section will describe what transparency is and why transparency is important in a PMS.

What is it?

If something is transparent it can be seen through (The Oxford Minidictionary). A good example being a piece of glass. If the piece of glass is clear and free from ‘bits’

full vision through the glass is possible, it is said to be transparent. The piece of glass can be frosted to restrict vision but allow light to pass through. This effect is described as translucence. Taken to the extreme if the piece of glass is darkened to the extent that no light passes through it is not transparent it becomes opaque. In their work on ‘Lean Thinking’ Womack and Jones (1996) describe transparency as a key principle. An example they cite is that of a visual management system clearly

Figure 1 Closed-loop system

displaying performance to target that anyone can see. This was in complete contrast to the previous system that was secretive and tightly guarded by management.

Transparency can also be described as something that is easy to understand (The Oxford Minidictionary). That is to say that the meaning or importance of something is seen/known/realised, or that it is clear how a system works or operates. An example being transparency of financial trading information between auction and dealer markets where the price information process is visible to all users which results in a fairer system and more importantly allows overall process improvements to be made to the system (Pagano and Roell, 1992).

This paper takes transparency as being made up of two dimensions: something that can be seen through and something that is easy to understand, and from this a model of transparency can be constructed, Fig. 2. Assuming that the purpose of using the model is to help understand how to increase the transparency of a PMS, some important points can be drawn. If the ‘ease of understanding’ of a PMS is increased independently of ‘ease to see through’ e.g., from ‘Now’ to point A, the system has become easy to understand but it can not be seen. An example being if a PMS has been redesigned to make it easy understand and use more effectively but the feedback to the person(s) who need to change is limited to a simple numerical score. The weakness of this approach is that although effort has been expended to increase understanding the recipient can not identify where or why a change in a score occurred only that there was a change. If an increase in the ‘ease to see through’ the PMS is made in isolation to the ‘ease of understanding’ the system, e.g., from ‘Now’ to point B, the system can be clearly seen but is still difficult to understand. An example being feedback from a PMS that is presented as a percentage score and has been redesigned to show the 20 variable equations with which the score is calculated.

Why have a transparent PMS?

The context in which organisations approach performance measurement systems is fundamental to the effectiveness of the system. The level of transparency of a PMS should be determined by the philosophy an organisation pursues to ensure their long-term economic well being. For example, a philosophy of continual improvement which is central to World Class Manufacturing must be supported by a PMS that encourages improvement (Maskell, 1991; Dixon et al., 1992; Lynch and Cross, 1992; Stainer and Nixon, 1997). Therefore, the design of a performance measurement system must be rooted in an understanding of exactly what the organisation needs to do to exploit its sources of competitive advantage.

This understanding should be communicated throughout the organisation, via the PMS, so that all employees are aware of the company goals towards which they are working (Fitzgerald and Moon, 1996). A PMS should be used to increase the level of understanding of key performance criteria throughout an organisation.

Targets and the rate of process improvement should be set and communicated via the PMS (Kaydos, 1991; Sink, 1986). If the level of performance measurement system transparency is not conducive with the organisation needs (e.g., continual improvement) the system can be said to be ineffective.

This applies not only within organisations but between organisations as in the purchaser-supplier business relationship and especially in the area of supplier development (Krause and Ellram, 1997). Effective communication is a critical aspect of successful purchaser-supplier relationships (Carter and Miller, 1989) Krause and Ellram (1997) suggest that the performance of suppliers can be significantly raised by the buying firm communicating their expectations to suppliers in an effective manner. Practitioners and theorists concur on the benefit of PMS transparency.

However, achieving transparency can be challenging, especially in a product development context that bridges a customer-supplier relationship.