Table 1, Complexity system view of Performance Measurement Systems
SYSTEM PROPERTY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INDCATORS ASSOCIATED DIMENSIONS
Ontological internal structures such as the people component, varied staff, behaviour factors (Elzinga et al., 2009), (Aguinis et al., 2011), leadership styles (Ukko et al., 2007), variety of information, diversity in practices, number of stakeholders (Toor and Ogunlana, 2010), (Wijngaard et al., 2006), (Nudurupati et al., 2015), organisation culture (Bititci et al., 2006)
Social controls
Teleological Measures for specific goals (Jääskeläinen and Laihonen, 2013),and objectives (van Bakel et al., 2015). (Junnila et al., 2009), (Mol and Beeres, 2005),
Technical controls
Functional Measures need specific methodologies and contingent factors (Nudurupati et al., 2011) (Micheli and Kennerley, 2005) (Lohman et al., 2004) (Micheli and Mari, 2014). PMS frameworks (Ferreira and Otley, 2009).
Technical controls
Genetic Measures evolve over time,(Mol and Beeres, 2005) Phases of product lifecycles (Ittner and Larcker, 1998), time factors (Caniato et al., 2014), continuous improvement, (Braz et al., 2011), (Elg et al., 2014)
Dynamic change controls
Tip: you open each paper and see what is there contribution and the impact, does it affect social or techinical and when does the system has to change.
As a conculustion, we make is that since such properties exist there is complexity and had to attain, there should be good reasons in the papers, each paper can take a summary of a few lines, try to avoid reduncucy words such “the paper talks about…” just dive in the real impact such , 3 elements were importan, size of project, skills of staff, this was done on implementtaion, however problems would occur” just an example