Environmental Performance Management System

In essence, different goals and potential audiences determine that two types of environmental performance assessments (comparative vs. absolute) can be distinguished (Markham & Lee, 2013). Whether site-specific, environmental conditions are accounted for constitutes an underlying watershed between them. As a result, disparate metrics are needed to accommodate these different assessments, which essentially demand “realism” to different extents. In the context of sustainability, the dilemma of pursuing “relative” or “actual” environmental outcomes are getting more prominent (Markham & Lee, 2013). A performance management system in any organization is an extremely vital HR function that drives and directs all decision-making processes in the organization, and determines the effectiveness of individual and organizational performances

Yet, evaluation is done on an individual basis, rather than comparing co-workers. These standards can be set using research on work sampling, production data, or expert opinions (Seiden & Sowa, 2011). Hence, these methods can be of qualitative nature, quantitative, or a mixture of both. Furthermore, the major advantage of the current implemented system is its ability to measure the relative importance of individuals, on the basis of their actual performance (Seiden & Sowa, 2011). Thus, this method is also good as many new performance measurements criteria will be added, by different professors. The intervention of internet and related technologies will help in reduced cost, time saving, and 24/7-hour availability in measurements of performance to the individuals (Seiden & Sowa, 2011). So, this system is an attempt to achieve competitive advantages in the marketplace.

In addition, absolute performance measurement systems compare