CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
6.3 L IMITATION AND F UTURE W ORK
ensure that CPM solution is the only information source of the organisation. Consequently, this can also help avoid post-implementation issues such as lack of user confidence in the system.
The dilemma of innovation and controlling is one other factor a successful CPM implementation has to consider. With sophisticated data interconnectivity and integrated among IT business applications, automation is supposedly minimized overheads to plan project budget granularly and claim project expenses. Besides appropriate change management conduction, proper design of user experience to the CPM system is helpful to minimize resistance. However, earmarking funded budget to a specified purpose was suspected to reduce the flexibility allowed to R&D on emerging initiatives. Separation of performance system and setting up one other set of matrices to evaluate other emerging initiatives than operating business seems one potential resolution, especially for knowledge industry like software companies.
In summary, using timely and actionable metrics is essential to CPM. Having an effective methodology to identify metrics that are linked to strategic business drivers is necessary for CPM success. Effective metrics are generally easy to comprehend, provide context that shows the user what an acceptable level of performance is, and have standard measure. These key metrics must be reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure that that accurately reflect changing market conditions. Consequently, the CPM system must be equipped to adapt to continuous revisions in a seamless manner. Rolling forecast is the most effective application as the case to utilize CPM to support Company X business operation.
6.3 Limitation and Future Work
Multiple cases will be studied in this research and resulted in finding across these cases.
Research result of CPM implementation and key success factors analysis was outcome through in-depth and structured interview session as well as questionnaire. Although the whole process had done best to follow outlined research framework, the selected cases might not include the entire context of characteristics of performance management to the firms in software industry.
Nevertheless, the findings presented still was reference for corporations in software industry to build their performance management system. Moreover, despite of the interview and questionnaire was conducted in structured manner, and feedback was reconfirmed by interviewees. Personal bias still could not be excluded from feedback which might involve subjective judgement of CPM and PPM.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Extended studies are encouraged to keep track of these cases and watch their development.
Currently, most CPM initiatives are seen as solutions required to handle pressures to comply with regulations. More and more alignment to corporate strategies leads to enterprise wide solutions that raise business performance is expected in coming future. In addition to CPM and CPM, contemporary corporates continuously seek more effective approach to give consideration to innovation capabilities and controlling of business operation. Further in-depth researches on this meaningful topic will be in great demand by any industry, specifically to knowledge-intensive industries.
‧
Adler, Paul S, Goldoftas, Barbara, & Levine, I. David. (1999). Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science, 43-68.
Adler, S. P., (1988). Managing flexible automation. California Management Review, 34-56.
Allen, M. J., (1970). A Survey into the R&D Evaluation and Control Procedures Currently Used in Industry. Industry Economy, 161-181.
Bagozzi, P. R., Davis, D. F., & Warshaw, R. P. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological leaning and usage. Human Relations, 660-686.
Barrett, Richard. (2007). Planning and Budgeting for the Agile Enterprise - A driver-based budgeting toolkit. Oxford, UK: CIMA Publishing.
Bowen, E. David, & Lawler, Edward E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 31-40.
Boyett, H. Joseph, & Boyett, T. Jimmie. (2001). The Guru Guide to the Knowledge Economy (pp 46-47). John Wiley& Sons.
Brand, Stewart. (1999). The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility (pp 37). Basic Books.
Burns, Tom, & Stalker, Georage. (1961). The Management Innovation. London.
Bushe, R. Gervasc, & Shani, BA. (1991). Patallel Learning Structures: Increasing Innovation in Bureaucracies. Reading: Addision-Wesley.
Business Performance Management. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Performance_Management
Clark, Kim. (1996). Competing through manufacturing and the new manufacturing paradigm:
Is manufacturing strategy passe? Production and Operations Management, 42-58.
Collins, Kimberley. (2003). Profitability Analysis: Strategic Financial Service CPM Tool.
Gartner Research, pp 1-5.
Davis, D. F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
Duncan, B. Robert. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dualstructures for innovation. The Management Organization Design, pp 167-188.
Frolick, N. Mark, & AriyachandraThilliniR. (2006). Business Performance Management: One Truth. Informantion Systems Management, pp 41-48.
Garvin, David, & Levesque, Lynne. (2005). Emerging Business Opportunities at IBM (A).
‧
Global Business Services, IBM. (2011). Strategic Alignment and Performance Management from A Financial Perspective. Global Services, IBM.
Gregory, A. Marianne. (2004). Keys to Successful Performance Management: Getting Past The Excitement of Technology to Achieve Results. Business Intelligence Journal, pp 41-48.
Hackman, J. Richard, & Oldham, R. Greg. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hayes, Robert, & Gary, Pisano. (1996). Manufacturing strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts. Production and Operations Management, pp 25-41.
Herriot, E. R., & Firestone, A. W. (1983). Multi-site qualitative policy research: optimising description and generalisability. Educational Researcher, pp 14-19.
Hostmann, Bill, & Strange, H. Kevin. (2002). Data Model Options that Support CPM Deployments. Gartner Research, pp 1-3.
IBM. (2003). Growth Platform Guardian.
IBM. (2013). IBM IPD and Project Management Sharing.
Iervolino, C. (2012, 10 31). Assess CPM Maturity to Rate Your Performance Management.
Gartner, pp. 2-14.
Iervolino, Christopher, Van Decker, E. John, & Chandler, Neil. (2014). Strategic CPM as a Driver for Organizational Performance Management. Gartner, pp 3-10.
Kelly, Kevin. (1998). New Rules for the Wired Economy (pp 26).
Knott, Anne Marie. (1996). Do Manager Matter? Unpublished dissertation, UCLA.
Krishnaswamy, N. K., SivakumarIyer Appa, & Mathiraj, M. (2006). Management Research Methodology: Integration of Methods and Techniques.
Kurke, B. Lance. (1988). Does adaptation preclude adaptability? Strategy and Performance.
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, pp 199-222.
Lewler, E. Edward, & Mohrman, A. Susan. (1985). Quality circles after the fad. Harvard Business Review, pp 64-71.
Liberatore, Matthew, & Titus, George. (1983). The Practice of Management Science in R & D Project Management. Management Science, pp 962.
McGill, E. Michael, SlocumJohn, & LeiDavid. (1992). Management Practices in learning
‧
Mintzberg, Henry. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Nelson, Richard, & Winter, Sidney. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, MA.
Porter, E. Michael. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York.
Porter, E. Michael. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, pp 77-90.
Pridemore, Charles. (1983). Software Development Costs: Expense or Capitalize. Management Accounting, pp 33.
Rayner, Nigel, Buytendijk, Frank, & Geishecker, Lee. (2002). The Process That Drive CPM.
Gartner Research, pp 1-5.
SkinnerWickham. (1985). Manufacturing: The Formidable Competitive Weapon. New York:
John Wiley.
Software Industry. (2012). Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_industry
Stewart T. (1986). Task fit, ease-of-use and computer facilities. Managing computer impact: An international study of management and organizations, pp 63-76.
Tornatzky, G. L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation.
Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Tornatzky, G. L, & Klein, J.R. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp 28-45.
Trend Micro Inc. (2013). Trend Micro FY2012.4Q Results.
http://www.trendmicro.com/cloud-content/us/pdfs/finance/2012q4_e__final.pdf Trend Micro Inc, & Accenture. (2005). Change Management Plan. Taipei.
Trend Micro Inc., & Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. (2011). FIAT Phase II Workshop. Taipei, Taiwan.
Ulaga, W., & Sharma A. (2001). Complex and strategic decision making in organisation:
Implications for personal selling and sales management. Industrial Marketing Management, pp 427-440.
Van Decker, J. E. (2013, 7 30). Understanding the Costs Beyond Hardware and Software When Estimating Financial Management Projects. Gartner, p. 1.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, D. F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, pp 186-204.
White, Colin. (2005). The Next Generation of Business Intelligence: Operational BI. DM
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Review, pp 35-37.
Wikipedia. (2007). The general interaction between the main three groups. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SoftwareHouse-GroupsSequence.jpg
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Appendix
Totally Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree
Totally
Agree Other Comments 1. The project planning process (if applicable) is useful
2. The project request approval process is useful for project and resource planning
3. The cost centre submission process improved over last year
4. The overall budgeting process improved over previous year
5. The user interface is straight forward and friendly 6. The planning content/ categories fulfill your functional
needs and calculation logic/ result are good and improved over last year
7. The reporting function improved and more useful over past year
8. Earmarking funded budget in specific purpose to use, e.g. No. of VMs, is useful to manage execution
9. The implementation of timesheet to record resource consumption and integrating it to budget planning and actual execution is useful