IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 544–551 ScienceDirect Available online at www.sciencedirect.com 2405-8963 © 2018, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Peer review under responsibility of International Federation of Automatic Control. 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.375 © 2018, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. INTRODUCTION The topic of Performance Measurement and Management has been investigated for more than twenty five years leading to more than thirty five methods around the world, developed either by researchers or more pragmatically by practitioners, in order to define and implement indicators. Most of these methods are dedicated to the Performance Indicator (PI) definition and few of them are for the implementation. All these methods have been developed independently based on system theory, production management theory or accounting methods, according to the background of developers. Among all these methods, more or less used and well known, one can cite the famous ones or the most used or disseminated around the world as Balanced Score Card [1], the Performance Prism [2], ECOGRAI [3], IPMS [4], Medori [5] or DPMS [6]. Several studies were performed to compare methods for Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) from several points of views. For instance, [7] classifies these methods according to three categories: financial, goal centred and behavioural, concluding that each one has its own advantages to obtain a consistent PIS. In [8] seventeen definitions of what a Business Process Measurement System is, are analysed through methods available or theoretical articles. This analysis was made on the main features of a PIS, on its role in an organisation and on the process of use it. The main conclusions are that a Performance Indicator System (PIS) must be multi-dimensional (financial and non-financial), must include strategic objectives, performance targets and supporting infrastructure. [9] uses systematic review to analyse few methods in order to detect why some of them are more useful to manage organisations through measure, i.e. to obtain an efficient PIS. The most important aspect is that a method for PIS must help to the definition of detailed action plans extracted from measures, to measure progress, to have a vision (a perspective as a strategic map) and to have cause and effect relationships (links between indicators). In conclusion of these studies, it is noticeable that several recurrent points exist in each method such as a methodological approach to build the PIS, some basic concepts to define performance indicators as objectives, action means, etc. However, each of them has also some lacks in order to obtain an efficient PIS, easy to build and easy to use for decision makers. So, the conclusion is that each method, even the most famous ones, can be improved based on qualities of other ones. So, The objective of this paper is to go further not only in the comparison of methods but also in the definition of a generic framework that could help to define what should contain a method to define and implement Performance Indicator System. The objective is not to define a new method by itself but to build the base for the future combination of methods to collect, and to manage in order to use at the best the enterprise knowledge required to build an efficient PIS. So, in a first part, the paper will explain the difference between a method and a framework and why it is obvious to start from GERAM framework to perform this work. In a second part, a complementary analysis will be presented, highlighting what are the concepts and the components required for a method for PIS design and implementation. In a third time the paper will present GERAM framework developed by IFAP/IFIP taskforce. In a fourth time, GERAM is adapted to the domain of PIS and the base for the framework for PIS methods is presented. Then, perspectives for future works are proposed. Keywords: Performance indicators method, GERAM, Framework *univ.bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5218, Talence, France (e-mail: prenom.nom@u-bordeaux.fr} Abstract: The topic of Performance Measurement and Management has been investigated for more than twenty five years leading to more than thirty methods around the world, developed either by researchers or more pragmatically by practitioners, in order to define and implement indicators. Most of them are more oriented for the definition and few for the implementation. Other are simply a list of recommended PI’s. Several studies have been done to compare some of these methods and to explain the reasons of PI’s implementation failures. The objectives of this paper is to go deeper in detail in the comparison and in a second time to define a generic framework that could help to detect what should contain a generic method for Performance Indicator System definition and implementation and what is the knowledge that must be included in this kind of method to be more efficient. M. Ravelomanantsoa*. Y. Ducq*, B. Vallespir* State of the art and generic framework for performance indicator system methods