INMA_A01.QXD

through information on process effectivenessand efficiencyas introduced in Chapter 4

in the section on objective setting, where we noted that it is important to include both

effectiveness and efficiency measures.

The need for a structured performance management process is clear if we examine the

repercussions if an organisation does not have one. These include: poor linkage of measures

with strategic objectives or even absence of objectives; key data not collected; data inaccu-

racies; data not disseminated or analysed; or no corrective action. Many of the barriers to

improvement of measurement systems reported by respondents in Adams et al. (2000) also

indicate the lack of an effective process. The barriers can be grouped as follows:


 senior management myopia– performance measurement not seen as a priority, not

understood or targeted at the wrong targets – reducing costs rather than improving

performance;


 unclear responsibilities for delivering and improving the measurement system;


 resourcing issues– lack of time (perhaps suggesting lack of staff motivation), the neces-

sary technology and integrated systems;


 data problems– data overload or of poor quality, limited data for benchmarking.

These barriers are reinforced by the survey by Cutler and Sterne (2000) which

describes the main obstacles to metrics development as lack of qualified personnel

(31%), data overload (19%) and lack of technical resources (software) (19%).

To avoid these pitfalls, a coordinated, structured measurement process such as that

shown in Figure 9.2 is required. Figure 9.2 indicates four key stages in a measurement

process. These were defined as key aspects of annual plan control by Kotler (1997). Stage

1 is a goal-setting stage where the aims of the measurement system are defined – this will

usually take the strategic Internet marketing objectives as an input to the measurement

system. The aim of the measurement system will be to assess whether these goals are

achieved and specify corrective marketing actions to reduce variance between target and

actual key performance indicators. Stage 2, performance measurement, involves collect-

ing data to determine the different metrics that are part of a measurement framework as

discussed in the next section. Stage 3, performance diagnosis, is the analysis of results to

understand the reasons for variance from objectives (the ‘performance gap’ of Friedman

and Furey, 1999) and selection of marketing solutions to reduce variance. The purpose of

stage 4, corrective action, according to Wisner and Fawcett (1991), is

to identify competitive position, locate problem areas, assist the firm in updating strategic

objectives and making tactical decisions to achieve these objectives and supply feedback

after the decisions are implemented.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR INTERNET MARKETING

Effectiveness
Meeting process
objectives, delivering
the required outputs
and outcomes. ‘Doing
the right thing.’

Efficiency
Minimising resources
or time needed to
complete a process.
‘Doing the thing right.’

Figure 9.2 A summary of the performance measurement process

What should we do about it?

Why is it happening?

What is happening?

What do we want to achieve?



    







  











   





  



REVIEW

Who?

When?

MEASURE

Who?

When?

How?

CONTROL

Who?