Cloud computing · Abstract-supported qualitative empirical study

The evolution of performance measurement systems in SaaS startups: a contingency-based approach across the investment cycle

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies · 2026

Bruno S. D. Santos, Luiz G. R. Antunes, Rafael F. Falcão, Luiz F. Lugoboni

Summary

Startups did not follow a linear PMS trajectory; they reactively adjusted measurement systems around market expansion, product development and fundraising. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific b2b growth and sales question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Startups did not follow a linear PMS trajectory; they reactively adjusted measurement systems around market expansion, product development and fundraising.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How do SaaS startups structure and evolve performance-measurement systems across stages of venture funding?

Design

Nine semi-structured interviews with founders and CEOs; open, axial and selective coding used to build an emergent theoretical model.

Sample and setting

Nine SaaS startups at different stages of venture funding; founders and CEOs were interviewed.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The accessible publisher record does not state detailed limitations beyond the qualitative interview design; generalizability and retrospective-reporting issues require editorial review.

Research sources

Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

2.5/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.

Sample · 0.4/1

The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.

Comparison · 0.5/1

The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.

Read the paper