https://www.mdu.se/

Even though the literature available within the field of performance measurement and management (PMM) is extensive, a gap exists regarding how change is managed in performance measures (PM).  This gap is corroborated by the empirical data underlining that only a few organisations have mechanisms in place for managing PM change. The need to manage change in PM arises from the consensus that performance measurement systems (PMS) should reflect the strategy and direct environments of the company. As both strategies and environments are dynamic in nature the PMS ought to possess the capability to change. The paradox of combining dynamic strategies and environments with static PMS has created problems for companies as the competitive conditions change over time. With this background in mind, the purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge regarding how to manage change in performance measures. The contribution from this research will stem from analysis of six empirical studies and the results will be concluded in a set of guidelines regarding how to manage change in PM in practice.

This thesis has adopted a systems perspective and takes a qualitative, case-study based approach. In total six case studies and three literature studies have been conducted. The case studies have been conducted on three different continents and have focused on the deployed ways for managing change in PM and how the PM have evolved over time. The first literature study focused on the general literature within the field of PMM, the second literature study focused on the literature revolving around keeping PM updated and relevant over time whilst the third and concluding literature study focused on further expanding the theoretical base on how to manage change in PM and how PM evolve and change after their implementation. This thesis concludes that extensive PM change is necessary over time in order to establish and maintain appropriate PM, continuously improve the measurement process and boost performance. Further, in converse to the various approaches suggested in literature, all six approaches identified in the case studies are processes. Furthermore, each PM change process differs from another as highlighted in the empirical findings chapter.

Finally, 11 factors have been identified from the theoretical and empirical findings that affect the ability to manage change in PM: level of process documentation, process ownership, employee involvement and alignment (as an embedded part of the PM change process design), communication, culture, role of top-management, IT-infrastructure capabilities, resources available for facilitation, PM ownership and education. Finally, eight guidelines have been developed addressing how to manage change in performance measures.