Search results

This study explains the importance of performance measures and identifies the specific performance measures of sustainable lean manufacturing (SLM) for automobile industries. Awareness towards sustainability and continuous improvement approaches demand monitoring of the sustainable lean impact on organization/industry, and hence, identifying the specific performance metrics is of peak importance.

In this study, specific metrics for social, economic and environmental performance are identified from a systematic literature review of 82 significantly related journal articles. The importance of the identified metrics is assessed with the help of questionnaire responses from a group of industrial experts.

Performance indicators are statistically analyzed category wise and assessed. The key metrics are summarized based on the survey data followed by a discussion with industrial experts. From this study, performance measures have been identified and validated through hypothesis testing for Indian automobile industries. Certification of IATF16949 implementation found an important vertical for SLM implementation. In this study, SLM implementation initiatives are discussed, and reward scheme for outstanding performers are identified as important initiatives are followed by small improvement culture.

The proposed discussion of this study is useful for industrialist and researchers, as SLM performance measures are well explained for Indian automobile industries. In this study, future research direction is also explained related to other industries. These summarized performance measures will help to maintain SLM in industries.

This paper presents the original literature review based on the study of SLM, as no extensive study is available where SLM performance measure explained for automobile industries. Key initiatives and vertical of SLM are well explained for Indian automobile industries. This study proposed a complete framework for SLM implementation considering competitive manufacturing targets.

Most strategies stumble in the implementation phase. This article outlines a market‐validated process, and practical guidelines, for deploying well‐calibrated metrics to optimize implementation. The primary audience is mid‐level and senior executives charged with the responsibility for implementing strategy.

This approach focuses on how to design and deploy a balanced set of performance metrics to guide the implementation of strategy. It reviews conventional approaches and pitfalls, citing examples from a diverse array of businesses, then presents “best practices” for measuring what’s important. A key thesis is that good metrics reinforce implementation, while poor metrics actually interfere with implementation.

Misaligned metrics often impede implementation, eliciting counterproductive behavior from key managers. A better approach involves creating and deploying a smaller set of multidimensional metrics, closely aligned with the firm’s strategies. Successful firms move beyond simple budgetary indicators: they formulate a small set of metrics that directs management focus outside the firm (into the marketplace); translate qualitative aspirations into quantitative targets, using a common language; align the firm’s metrics with other managerial systems (like rewards) to motivate and galvanize the management team.

The approach and logic described are universal, but the actual metrics may need to be adapted to fit the strategies, stakeholders, and competitive position of each firm, and refined over time to dovetail with the firm’s budgetary process.

Strategy programs need to be expanded to focus on the implementation process – where performance measurement is instrumental. More attention should be given to simplifying and distilling performance indicators, and broadening and its stakeholders will help facilitate implementation, and ultimately, enhance stakeholder value. managerial perspective so that implementation challenges can be flushed out and resolved.

The rational, practical approach described offers managers specific guidelines for bringing strategies to life – for bridging the gap between aspirations and real performance. It illustrates common pitfalls, and outlines how to measure and optimize performance, improve implementation, and galvanize the management team.

Measuring or monitoring supply chain performance reveals the gap between planning and execution and helps companies to identify potential problems and areas for improvement. However, it is recognized that developing key performance indicators (KPIs), or metrics, is very challenging and a set of practical guidelines is not readily available for companies and supply chain management (SCM) practitioners. This paper seeks to offer a practical approach to performance measurement and to present a list of essential KPIs.

This paper offers insights from industry in the area of supply chain performance measurement and a practical approach to developing performance metrics.

The experience from, and the review of, industry standards and best practices in supply chain performance measurement suggest that “less is better” as to developing performance metrics. Companies should focus on only a small list of KPIs which are critical for their operations management, customer service, and financial viability. Potential KPIs should be developed for each of the supply chain operations‐reference (SCOR) model's four meta‐processes (plan, source, make, and delivery) and need to be hierarchically grouped such as primary and secondary metrics.

The paper offers a background of why performance measurement is necessary for SCM success, pragmatic guidelines for designing and implementing performance metrics, and critical KPIs with the definition, examples, and computation mechanism.

Despite the importance of performance measurement for successful SCM, many companies wonder how to put performance metrics in place and make them work in practice. This paper offers an industry‐oriented, practical approach to performance measurement in SCM contexts and proposes key performance metrics which can be easily adapted for different businesses.

Intense competition forces companies to become involved in supply chain collaboration with their upstream and downstream partners. The key to ensuring that the participating members are progressing on the right track of creating the best‐in‐class practice is to conduct benchmarking. Benchmarking stimulates collective learning for performance improvement that brings benefits to all participating members. However, previous research has focused mainly on supply chain benchmarking at the intra‐company ‐‐ rather than the inter‐company ‐‐ level. Inter‐company benchmarking requires a new perspective for understanding collaborative learning amongst the participating members that encourages them to improve supply chain performance as a whole. This research aims to develop a benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration that links collaborative performance metrics and collaborative enablers. The proposed benchmarking scheme can be used to examine the current status of supply chain collaboration among the participating members, identify performance gaps and systematize improvement initiatives.

The paper reports a comprehensive review of supply chain performance measurement systems and raises a set of research issues leading to selected research questions.

The articles which have been published in selected peer‐reviewed international journals in the last ten years were collected by using databases Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge. The articles were scrutinized based on authors' perspective analysis (using supply chain measures and metrics, and enhancing supply chain performance as the key perspectives). The articles contributing significantly in the domain of supply chain measures and metrics were selected for final review and various issues were identified.

The paper argues that, despite considerable evidence from the literature in supply chain performance measurement in recent years, there is a large scope for research to address the issues in supply chain performance measurement, including: characteristics of measures and metrics, benchmarking of measures, use of management practices, integration and partnership and socio‐environmental relevance.

The insights deduced in the paper are primarily based on 28 articles selected for critical review and analysis in the domain of supply chain measures and metrics and hence should be interpreted only as key concerns in the area.

The paper reports an evaluation of 28 key articles reported in the domain of supply chain performance measurement and indicates the research opportunities in the area.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an operational definition of alignment within the context of a performance measurement and management system in order to create a measurement model that can be used in survey‐based research, particularly under conditions of dramatic strategic change.

Data are collected using an in‐depth case study and analyzed using the methods of grounded theory development. Particular attention is given to multi‐level analysis within an organisation.

Alignment must be assessed with a multi‐dimensional model that looks beyond goals and performance. Distinctions must be made between goals and processes and between intrinsic definitions of alignment and their cultural context.

The research was conducted within one major organisation that was undergoing a strategic shift from process efficiency to product innovation. Work by other researchers suggests that the findings may be more broadly generalisable, but further investigation remains to be done.

The ability to maintain alignment through a period of transition is a basis of dynamic capabilities. It is found that certain aspects of performance measurement and management must be de‐emphasised during these transitions.

By using grounded theory development, this study results in a criterion‐free measurement model of alignment that represents an operational definition of the construct.

This paper seeks to measure in a quantitative way the degree of alignment among a set of performance measures between two organizations.

This paper extends Venkatraman's test of coalignment to assess the alignment of a set of performance measures governing a contractual inter‐organizational relationship. The authors applied the test and present coefficients of misalignment across three sets of measures: those used by a service provider involved in the research, those used by customers contracting the services, and those documented in 11 contracts studied.

Results confirmed a high degree of alignment between target and actual operational performance in the contracts. The alignment of customers' financial objectives and contracts' operational metrics was low. Calculations show poor alignment between the objectives of the provider and the contribution received from the contracts.

Some limitations of the conclusions include the small sample of contracts used in the calculations. Further research should include not only actual contracts, but also failed ones.

It is possible that misaligned goals, represented in misaligned performance measures, lead to tensions in intra‐firm relationships. If these tensions are not addressed properly the relationship could be unstable or terminated prematurely. This method of measuring alignment could detect early potential dangers in intra‐firm relationships.

This paper extends Venkatraman's test of coalignment to assess the alignment of a set of performance measures governing a contractual inter‐organizational relationship. Management researchers and business professionals may use this methodology when exploring degrees of alignment of performance measures in intra‐functional and inter‐firm relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of research and development in the measurement of maintenance performance. It considers the problems of various measuring parameters and comments on the lack of structure in and references for the measurement of maintenance performance. The main focus is to determine how value can be created for organizations by measuring maintenance performance, examining such maintenance strategies as condition‐based maintenance, reliability‐centred maintenance, e‐maintenance, etc. In other words, the objectives are to find frameworks or models that can be used to evaluate different maintenance strategies and determine the value of these frameworks for an organization.

A state‐of‐the‐art literature review has been carried out to answer the following two research questions. First, what approaches and techniques are used for maintenance performance measurement (MPM) and which MPM techniques are optimal for evaluating maintenance strategies? Second, in general, how can MPM create value for organizations and, more specifically, which system of measurement is best for which maintenance strategy?

The body of knowledge on maintenance performance is both quantitatively and qualitatively based. Quantitative approaches include economic and technical ratios, value‐based and balanced scorecards, system audits, composite formulations, and statistical and partial maintenance productivity indices. Qualitative approaches include human factors, amongst other aspects. Qualitatively based approaches are adopted because of the inherent limitations of effectively measuring a complex function such as maintenance through quantitative models. Maintenance decision makers often come to the best conclusion using heuristics, backed up by qualitative assessment, supported by quantitative measures. Both maintenance performance perspectives are included in this overview.

A comprehensive review of maintenance performance metrics is offered, aiming to give, in a condensed form, an extensive introduction to MPM and a presentation of the state of the art in this field.

To understand human resource (HR) practices outcomes on HR decision making, strategic human resource management (HRM) and organizational performance by exploring the HR data quality along with descriptive and predictive financial and non-financial metrics.

This work utilizes the grounded theory method. After the literature was reviewed, 113 HR managers of multinational and national companies in India were interviewed with a semi-structured questionnaire. The collected interview data was analyzed with NVivo 8.0 software.

It is interesting to uncover the descriptive and predictive non-financial and financial metrics of HR practices and their influence on organizational performance. It was found that HR data quality moderates the relationship between the HR practices outcome and HR metrics. This study found that HR metrics help in HR decision-making for strategic HRM and subsequently affect organizational performance.

This study has uniquely provided the descriptive and predictive non-financial and financial metrics of HR practices and their impact on HR decision making, strategic HRM and organizational performance. This study highlights the importance of data quality. This research offers insights to the HR managers, HR analysts, chief HR officers and HR practitioners to achieve organizational performance considering the various metrics of HRM. It provides key insights to the top management to understand the HR metrics' effect on strategic HRM and organizational performance.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the approaches and metrics used to measure supply chain (SC) performance, and to understand the relative perceived importance of such measures.

This research is based on empirical data captured through a survey of SC professionals in a variety of business sectors.

The research confirms the importance of the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach, with BSC, SCOR and economic value added being the most commonly used tools. Economic metrics dominate, focused on cost and customer service. While social and environmental-related measures are of emerging importance, they appear to be of similar importance to economic metrics only when backed up by a legal obligation.

The small sample of 51 companies was based on access and the group is not wholly representative of all businesses. Respondents were mainly managers from EU countries involved in procurement, logistics and transport activities. Surveyed companies included manufacturing, automotive, retail, logistics services and wholesaling businesses.

The common key performance indicators (KPI’s) are identified. These include measures related to: quality, efficiency, responsiveness, health and safety, employees, emission, natural resources utilisation, waste and recycling. Issues that influence the usage of measurement systems as well as the company and SC levels are ranked.

Implementation of a monitoring system and subsequent usage of the collected data may help to reduce negative external impacts on society and the environment.

The field of SC performance management is still developing, with growing empirical work. Nevertheless this paper is one of the first attempts to carry out such an analysis focused on metrics and their usage. The survey instrument has been tested and can now be applied to other contexts.