Journals / MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 17

MEASURING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TURKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

TÜRK İMALAT SANAYİ BAĞLAMINDA İŞLETME PERFORMANSI DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Pages
137–152
Publication Date
2007-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The aim of this study is to find out the relations between the variables that can measure performance of companies and variables that can affect these performance variables and then to explain the relations between the two groups in the context of the Turkish manufacturing industry

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Both the success and continuity of an organization depend on its performance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Measuring the performance of an organization means evaluating the level to which organizational goals have been attained.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The aim of this study is to find out the relations between the variables that can measure performance of companies and variables that can affect these performance variables and then to explain the relations between the two groups in the context of the Turkish manufacturing industry
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Performans ölçümü · Türk İmalat Sanayi · Kanonik korelasyon analizi

Abstract

Both the success and continuity of an organization depend on its performance. Measuring the performance of an organization means evaluating the level to which organizational goals have been attained. Generally, profitability is used to evaluate companies, but a single measure of performance can not provide a clear concentration on the critical mission of organizations. The aim of this study is to find out the relations between the variables that can measure performance of companies and variables that can affect these performance variables and then to explain the relations between the two groups in the context of the Turkish manufacturing industry

Özet

İşletmelerin başarıları ve devamlılığı gösterdikleri performansa bağlıdır. İşletme performansının değerlendirilmesi, işletmenin kuruluş amaçlarını ne ölçüde gerçekleştirdiğinin değerlendirilmesi demektir. İşletmelerin performanslarının değerlendirmesinde genellikle karlılık esas alınsa da tek bir ölçüt bunun için yetersizdir. Çalışmanın amacı işletmelerin performansını çok boyutlu değerlendirebilecek performans göstergelerini ve işletme performansını etkileyebilecek faktörleri tespit etmek ve bu iki grup arasındaki ilişkileri Türk İmalat Sanayi bağlamında tartışmaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYYURT, P. D. N., ORHUNBILGE, N. (2007). MEASURING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TURKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 17, 137–152. https://ajindex.com/articles/3519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. AKAL, Z. (1994).
  2. Total Performance, Productivity, Profitability and Cost Comparison Between Manufacturing Public Business, (Turkish), National Productivity Centre Publications, Ankara, pp.1 AKAL, Z. (1996). Performance Measurement and Control in Business, (Turkish) National Productivity Centre Publications, Ankara, pp.1 AMARATUNGA, D., DAVID B., MARJAN S. (2000). “Assesment of facilities management performance- what next ?”, Facilities, Vol.18, N. ½, pp. 66-75
  3. ANDERSON, M. H., PREZAS A., (1999). “Intangible Investment, Dept Financing, and Managerial Incentives”, Journal of Economics and Business, 51, pp. 3-19
  4. BARKER, R.C., (1995). “Financial Performance Measurement: Not a Total Solution” Management Decision, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 31-39
  5. BARNEY, J.B., (1991). “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99-120.
  6. BERNSTEIN, J.I., (1998), “Inter-Industry and U.S. R&D Spillovers, Canadian Industrial Production and Productivity Growth.” Industry Canada, Working Paper No., http: //strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/en/ra01581e.html, 26.07.2004
  7. BLUNDELL, R., GRIFFTH, R., REENEN J. V., (1995). “Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms”, Review of Economic Studies, 66, Issue 3, pp. 529-554
  8. BRIGHAM, E.F., EHRHARDT, M.C., 2002,
  9. Financial Management, Thomson Learning, 10th Ed. pp.10 BRYNJOLFSSON, E., HITT, L., (2000). “Beyond Computation; Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, Vol. 4, Fall, pp. 23-48
  10. CHAN, LUIS K. C., YASUSHI H., LAKONISHOK J., (1992) “Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan”, The Journal of Finance, December, pp. 1739-1764
  11. CHIN, K. S., PUN K. F., (2003). “Development of knowledge-based self-assessment system for measuring organizational performance”, Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 24, Issue 4, May, pp. 443-455
  12. CO, H.C., CHEW K.S., (1997). “Performance and R&D expenditures in American and Japanese manufacturing firms”, Int. J. Prod. Res., vol.35, No.12, pp.3333-3348
  13. DHAWAN, R., (2001). “Firm Size and Productivity Differential: Theory and Evidence from a Panel of US Firms”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 44, pp. 293 ELLIOTT, J.W., (1972). “control, size, growth and financial performance in the firm” The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Jan., pp. 1309-1320
  14. FAMA, E.F., FRENCH K. R., (1992). “The Cross-Section of Exepected Stock Retu