Summary and concluding remarks
A review of the PMS&PMMS and best practice literature indicates that while there is no shortage of publications on M&PM in the business and organizational perspectives, but there is a dearth of research on how to measure activities/things more precisely and how they contribute to performance using an appropriate measurement theory. Measurement is rooted in mathematics ([2]), and broadly, mathematical measurement theories can be viewed from the hard sciences and soft (social) sciences perspectives. However recent philosophical writings and the axiomatization of many aspects of the measurement concepts in soft sciences, much differences have been bridged between these two perspectives. With this development, using mathematical formulation of the hard sciences (MT) and social sciences (RTM), a theoretical measurement foundation of the measuring attributes for M&PM is ensconced and empirically tested using a numerical analysis. The measuring attributes can measure quantitative as well as qualitative objects. The key of this theory is accuracy (reliability) and meaningfulness of things measured. This research has important implications to both PMS&PMMS academicians and practitioners. First, businesses and organizations are still relying on quantitative financial measures, and the more progressive ones use a few PMS/PMMS measures or indicators. Second, measurement in the social sciences is intriguing as imprecise or even meaningless measurement seem to work. However in the long run only a good M&PM system counts just like in physics as a bad system creates information asymmetry, encourage poor decisions, and increase inefficiency as illustrated in the numerical analysis. For an organization to succeed there is no choice but to embark on a good M&PM.
