KPI tree - a hierarchical relationship structure of key performance indicators for value streams
Author:
Bumba Alberto1ORCID, Gomes Manuel1ORCID, Jesus Cristiano23ORCID, Lima Rui M.3ORCID
Affiliation:
1. 1 Bosch Car Multimédia Portugal/Assembly INF, PRO, CU, CC (BrgP/MFE21) (BrgP/MFE21) , , Braga , Portugal 2. 2 CiTin – Industrial Technology Interface Centre , Advanced Production Systems Department , , Arcos de Valdevez , Portugal 3. 3 ALGORITMI Research Centre / LASI, Department of Production and Systems, School of Engineering , University of Minho , Guimarães , Portugal
Abstract
Abstract
Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) have been a potential answer to problems related to production systems monitoring, allowing the management and manipulation of data collected at various levels in organizations. PMS can be defined as a group of indicators in an information system. There are several types of PMS, however, the relationship between indicators in a PMS is still an issue that needs to be explored, as the KPIs in a production system are not independent and may have an intrinsic relationship. The purpose of this paper is to present a multilevel structure and its intrinsic structural relation for managing and analysing KPIs for a value stream production system. This hierarchical structure has different KPI levels such as Improvement KPIs, Monitoring KPIs, and Results KPIs or KPR (Key Performance Results), intrinsically related from the strategic levels to the operational levels. This provides a useful tool for the management of production systems, being used to analyse, and support the organization's continuous improvement processes.
Publisher
Stowarzyszenie Menedzerow Jakosci i Produkcji
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality,Management Information Systems
Reference39 articles.
1. Aikhuele, D. O., Ansah, R. H., Sorooshian, S., 2017. Performance model formation for lean product design and development. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(5), 1092–1100. 2. Ante, G., Facchini, F., Mossa, G., Digiesi, S., 2018a. Developing a key performance indicators tree for lean and smart production systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), 13–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.227 3. Ante, G., Facchini, F., Mossa, G., Digiesi, S., 2018b. Developing a key performance indicators tree for lean and smart production systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), 13–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.227 4. Beelaerts van Blokland, W., van de Koppel, S., Lodewijks, G., Breen, W., 2019. Method for performance measurement of car companies from a stability-value leverage perspective: The balancing act between investment in R&D, supply chain configuration and value creation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 10(1), 411–434. DOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2017-0024 5. Braz, R. G. F., Scavarda, L. F., Martins, R. A., 2011. Reviewing and improving performance measurement systems: An action research. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 751–760. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.06.003
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|