Development of Solutions for Improvement of the …...80 PI’s e RI’s and 10 KPI’s. After deciding on what indicators to use, and what you need to measure it’s very important

Development of Solutions for Improvement of the Productive System Cunha, A.

1/9

Development of Solutions for Improvement of the Productive System

António Mª. Gouveia Coutinho Alegria da Cunha

Instituto Superior Técnico – Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica

Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1096-001 Lisboa, Portugal

[email protected],

Abstract: In the current competitive environment fostered by the demand of global markets and in particular

consumers, industrial companies need to have production systems that are able to quickly and efficiently adapt

to new challenges. It is therefore vital that there are practical models to support reorganization of production

processes. In response to this need the philosophy Lean or Lean Manufacturing arises. This philosophy

encompasses a set of methodologies and tools in order to focus on peoples empowerment, reorganize and

control operational processes and reduce waste. Thus it was developed an operational control system through

Performance Indicators. A case study was conducted in a company, Zeugma-Tsi. S.A. in Mafra. It was made a

diagnosis to the productive system and the methodologies already applied in the company. With the

identification of the difficulties and problems it was then proposed a Performance Indicator System that allows

the company to control its operating process. With the developed system was then proposed some ways of

presenting the information contained in the indicators, through Dashboards and Balance Scorecards. This

approach allows the company to improve its efficiency, reducing waste and raising awareness people.

Key Words: Lean Manufacturing, Performance Indicators, Dashboards, Balance Scorecards

1. Introduction

Given the increasing shift in the global financial

sector and the consequent changes in markets,

organizations are required to keep up with these

changes efficiently to remain competitive in the

market. Typically restructuring of policies and

processes are advantageous for organizations.

However, a new planning requires a high need for

time and monetary resources. Continuous

improvement is a management tool that significantly

reduces costs in solving problems. Focusing on

small constant changes to achieve the objectives,

continuous improvement has several methodologies

for measurement, control and performance in order

to reduce waste.

2. Historical Background

The concern to develop alternative thinking and

improvement solutions in modern organizations is

an initiative that goes back to the organizations of

the nineteenth century, where programs and ideas

developed by employees were rewarded and had a

positive impact on organizations (1).


2/9

Between the late 1800s and early 1900s much

importance was attributed to studies relative to

management, developing methods in order to help

managers analyze and solve problems related to

production. With the arrival of the Industrial

Revolution and the increase in the complexity of

products, the hand labor costs gained greater relief

than the costs of raw materials, which potentiate the

development of innovative management ideas,

which led to the Age Scientific Management (2).

With drivers such as Henry Ford and Sakichi

Toyoda the doors opened to new ways of producing

and managing. Researchers like Deming, Juran or

Gilberth used these examples to develop new

philosophies for improving organizations, thus

enabling the contemporary policies (3).

In the last century with the need for continuous

improvement on a global level within organizations,

there were several concepts of quality and

improvement processes focused on reducing waste,

simplifying the production and quality improvement,

like Key Performance Indicators or Visual

Management.

3. Performance Indicators

Performance assessment is a method that helps

organizations to align their daily tasks with the

strategy (4). It is essential to define appropriate

performance indicators for the organization that

allow not only to reduce waste, but also increase

efficiency, improve resource management and

distinguish requirements and customer preferences

(5) (6), as Baker said "What you can measure you

can manage" (7). An indicator is a way for an

organization to be able to use efficiently and

productively manage the huge amounts of

information they have making them able to perform

corrections and improvement using the

measurements made.

There are four kinds of Indicators (4):

- Key Result Indicators: usually measured over

longer periods of time; their use should be

more focused to the executive committee

members, measure currency and financial

topics;

- Result Indicators and Performance Indicators:

these indicators are not key to business but

they aligning teams and the organization on a

common strategy;

- Key Performance Indicators: represent a set of

measurements that are the most critical

aspects of organizational performance to be

successful immediate or future.

According to Kaplan, Norton and then Parmenter

there are six (6) Critical Success Factors (CSF’s) to

define Indicators. These CSF’s help organizations

defining the areas of intervention and the scope for

the indicators.

Figure 1. Critical Success Indicators (4)

Financial Results

Utilization of Assets, optimization of

working capital.

Costumers Increase customer

satisfaction, targeting costumers that generate most

profit

Environment/Community

Local Support, Job Applications, etc.

Internal Process

On-time deliveries, technologies

improvements.

Learning and Growth

Increasing expertise

and adaptibility.

Employee Satisfaction Positive company

culture, retention of

key staff


3/9

David Parmenter (4) suggests using a philosophy

like "onions" to describe these four dimensions. The

outer skin describes the overall condition of onion

("the amount of water, sun and nutrients absorbed")

this corresponds to the outer skin KRI's. When

peeled, onion reveals more information layers of

IR's and PI's until find the center which corresponds

to the KPIs (4).

Figure 2. "Onion" Method (4)

David Parmenter (4) suggests also the use of the

10/80/10 rule, which says that a company should

adapt their indicators to be distributed as 10 KRI’s,

80 PI’s e RI’s and 10 KPI’s. After deciding on what

indicators to use, and what you need to measure it’s

very important to know how to use the information,

how to show. According to David Parmenter (4)

Indicators should be presented like showed in

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Result Presentation

4. Case Study Description

A case study application was made at Zeugma with

the purpose of making finding problems and

opportunities for improvement in their internal

processes.

Zeugma is a company specialized in industrial

production systems and new technological solutions

for any industry. The main areas of involvement and

expertise are Converting Machines, development

and production of new machines satisfying the

requirements imposed by the customer, Factory

Automation, lines or assembly of robotized cells,

test or quality control and Retrofitting operations.

Internally Zeugma is a company that drives Lean

Manufacturing tools and methodologies, but any

other company there are knowledge that is needed

in order to do so.

Zeugma is experiencing a period of growth,

increasing production as well as variety of products.

To accompany this growth is necessary to have an

administrative growth, i.e., it is necessary to create

KRI’s

RI’s e PI’s

KPI’s

Peel to find PI’s and RI’s

Peel the onion until the KPI’s

Dashboard to the

executive board

members

Balance Scorecard (BSC’s) for

project and team managers

Monthly Scoreboard with the most relevant PI’s and RI’s

Monthly Dashboard with up to 10 KRI’s

Monthly Scoreboard with performance of teams

Weekly Scoreboard with up to 5 KPI’s

Daily Scoreboard with 2 or 3 KPI’s


4/9

Visual Management System using Performance Indicators

internal conditions that support the development

and production, viable proposals, budgets, order of

materials, reduce errors and waterproof the system

and processes. Thus, the creation of processes for

continuous monitoring and control of company

activities is essential for healthy growth.

This paper is motivated to help and present Zeugma

with know-how to monitoring their internal process.

Also it is made a suggestion to make this monitoring

viable.

5. Methodology

To answer the need for controlling internal process

and production it was proposed to create a

Performance Indicator System that would cover

Zeugma’s needs. In order to help the company in

the creation of the system the methodology

presented on Figure 4 was created. It is intended to

combine the information acquired from the

Diagnosis, the Process Flowchart and the CSF’s to

create a System for Indicators that follow the correct

rules of application and usage.

Figure 4. Methodology

6. Diagnosis

Zeugma projects are mostly prototypes, by this fact

it is difficult to exactly define the time necessary for

the execution of each project phase. So the

activities times are set at the beginning of projects,

drawing on the experience of employees with more

years of service. The vagueness of these steps

causes many doubts on planning activities and

could even derail the whole process, with direct

impact on the definition of the purchase orders of

the materials used in the manufacture of Zeugma’s

products, one of the most critical steps. This issue is

very often reflected on project results. The Table 1

reflects these results on two projects randomly

picked from a list of projects and in addiction was

very quickly understood that there wasn’t any type

of on time control performed on these projects, the

delays and costs were just “fitted in a black bag that

no one could see inside.

Project X Project Y

Sold

Hours

(h)

Real

Hours

(h)

Sold

Hours

(h)

Real

Hours

(h)

Project Management 60 8 82 135

EMEC – Mechanical Eng. 226 826,5 0 0

EAUT – Automation Eng. 176 282 62 30

EELE – Electrical Eng. 0 77 38 25

AMEC – Mechanical

Assembly 190 677,5 416 866,5

AELE – Electrical

Assembly 174 593 146 201

Tests, Commissioning &

Training 40 243 72 180,5

Table 1. Sold Hours Vs. Real Hours

As is showed on Table 1 there are a lot

discrepancies between the time sold to perform

each task and the time that was really used to do it,

these discrepancies cause the project to:

1. delay delivery;

Indicators

Diagnosis

Process Flowchart

Critical Success Factor (CSF's)


5/9

2. Cash flow issues;

3. Higher costs than expected.

These discrepancies are caused by:

1. Over development or rework;

2. Unexpected work or requirements changed;

3. Delay on components deliveries.

During the development of a project the result of

development carried out by engineering, as well as

models, design and layouts are the BOM's (Bill of

Materials), which contain all the material necessary

for the development of the project. The release of

these material lists have to be planned so that,

according to the lead time of the material, it

becomes possible to start the process of

assembling the planned date. Due to this fact all

project phases need to be very actively controlled.

7. Proposals

The Indicator System developed follows the rules

introduced earlier, adapted to the needs and

capacity of the company and are grouped and

presented as follows:

Figure 5. Indicators System

The Indicator System development was carried out

with the diagnostic inputs presented in the previous

chapter, as well as meetings with the company's

employees. These inputs together with the flowchart

of Zeugma’s operational process, Figure 8, and

study of CSF made possible to identify situations

where action is needed, which was not carried out

any inspection or control or the one made was not

adequate, and where the greatest difficulties were

felt.

6.1 KRI’s

The Key Result Indicators are presented to the

shareholders of Zeugma, so that they can conduct a

rapid assessment of the company status. These

indicators were discussed and proposed to meet the

needs and difficulties presented by key

stakeholders of the company.

Indicator Formula Objective Measure

Commercial

Opportunities ∑ 𝑂𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠

8.000.000€

anual Monthly

Cost Effectiveness ∑ 𝐸𝐵𝐼𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 ≥ 10% Monthly

Total Sales Service ∑ 𝑃𝐼𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 > 95% Monthly

Business Volume ∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 7.000.000€

anual Monthly

EBITDA ∑(𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟. 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠)

∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 ≥ 10% Monthly

Project Penalties ∑ 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 0 Monthly

Table 2. KRI's

7.2 PI’s & RI’s

The following PI’s and RI’s, are proposed to meet

the other CSF's and complement the inner layers of

the "onion". These indicators were defined (and

decided) with the help of the teams of Zeugma

which revealed what they felt was necessary. With

the evaluation of the comments and the previously

KRI’s

Executive Board

Members

Shareholders

RI’s & PI’s

Project and Production Managers

Equipas de Projeto

KPI’s

Production Managers

Executive Board

Members


6/9

performed analysis the following indicators

presented on Table 3 and Table 4 were defined.

It is expected that these indicators help Zeugma’s

teams making the right decisions and understanding

where and how they can improve.


Direct Costs

∑(𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡

+ 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡

+ 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠) < 100.000€ Monthly

Maintenance

Costs

∑(𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

+ 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

+ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠) < 10.000€ Annual

Electrical

Efficiency

∑ 𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔

∑ 𝑘𝑊 <

58€

𝑘𝑊 Monthly

CO2

Efficiency


∑ 𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑂2

<36408€

𝑡𝑜𝑛𝐶𝑂2

Monthly

Gasoline

Efficiency


∑ 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐺𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

<301€

𝐿 Monthly

Water

Efficiency


∑ 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

<12€

𝐿 Monthly

Residue

Treatment

∑ 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑠

− ∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 > 0 Monthly

Table 3. RI's


Occupation

EMEC

∑ 𝑂𝑇′𝑠𝐸𝑀𝐸𝐶(ℎ)

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝐸𝑀𝐸𝐶 𝑥40𝑥100 ≤ 100% Daily

Occupation

ELEC

∑ 𝑂𝑇′𝑠𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶 (ℎ)

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶 𝑥40𝑥100 ≤ 100% Daily

Occupation

EAUT

∑ 𝑂𝑇′𝑠𝐸𝐴𝑈𝑇 (ℎ)

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝐸𝐴𝑈𝑇 𝑥40𝑥100 ≤ 100% Daily

Occupation

AMEC

∑ 𝑂𝐹′𝑠𝐴𝑀𝐸𝐶 (ℎ)

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝐴𝑀𝐸𝐶 𝑥40𝑥100 ≤ 100% Daily

Occupation

AELE

∑ 𝑂𝐹′𝑠𝐴𝐸𝐿𝐸 (ℎ)

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝐴𝐸𝐿𝐸 𝑥40𝑥100 ≤ 100% Daily

Success Rate

FAT

∑ 𝑆𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠1ª𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡 𝐹𝐴𝑇

∑ 𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑠𝐹𝐴𝑇

𝑥100 < 95% Monthly

Nº Ideas ∑ 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑁𝐴 6 Months

Ideas

Participation

Rate

∑ 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑥100 > 90% 6 Months

5s Evaluation ∑ 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠

∑ 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 > 120 Monthly

Table 4. PI's

7.3 Project Indicators

There are essentially 3 CSF’s for effective project

management, Time, Cost and Customer

Satisfaction. Despite the need to fulfill these 3

CSF’s a project manager needs the help of his team

to make the project a success and, for example, the

manager needs to have a good internal workflow to

make production possible. It’s because of facts like

the ones described previously that we cannot

despise the other CSF’s. Due to this reason the

Project Indicators were created.

As explained on the previous section Zeugma’s

projects were like a black bag, where the

employees fit everything in (costs, delays, etc.) and

in the end of the project they see the outcome.

Technically Zeugma always complies with costumer

expectation, but not so often on internal

expectations, i.e., time and cost. To mitigate this

very high risk of having not profitable projects it is

proposed to have the following PI’s and RI’s, to

accompany project decisions.

The indicators on Table 5 were chosen to create

awareness on all the employees involved on the

project. With the display on-time of these indicators

the employees can help the project manager reduce

cost, wastes and delays on the delivery of the

project. This is a way to assure that everybody can

look for deviation and contribute with positive and

on –time improvement possibilities.


7/9


Earned Value

(𝑅𝐼𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡+𝑅𝐼𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠+𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡

𝑥 < 95%

95% <

𝑥 < 100%

𝑥 > 100%

Responsibilities ∑ 𝑂𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙

∑ 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑥100 < 98% Weakly

Responsibilities ∑ 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 < Budget Weakly

Material Costs ∑ 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑥100 < 98% Weakly

Material Costs ∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 < Budget Weakly

Other Costs ∑ 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑥100 < 2% Weakly

EMEC Time

Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝐸𝑀𝐸𝐶

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐸𝑀𝐸𝐶

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

ELEC Time

Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

EAUT Time

Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝐸𝐴𝑈𝑇

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐸𝐴𝑈𝑇

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

AMEC Time

Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝐴𝑀𝐸𝐶

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐴𝑀𝐸𝐶

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

AELE Time

Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝐴𝐸𝐿𝐸𝐶

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐴𝐸𝐿𝐸

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

Test

Time Spent

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠

∑ 𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡

𝑥100 < 100% Daily

Time Left 𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐸𝑇𝐷 NA Daily

Critical

Component

𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝. 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒 NA Daily

Standard

Component

𝑇𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝. 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒 NA Daily

Project

Disturbances ∑ 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 < 8 Weakly

Table 5. Project RI's & PI's

Using all these indicators Zeugma’s projects can be

controled, if the information is easilly acessible by

the project stakeholders, also the teams can

benefict by having access to this information so they

can present solutions or suggest improvements

solutionsby this reason it’s suggested to have a

Dashboard like the one on Figure 6, to easilly

present the information measured.

Figure 6. Project Dashboard

7.4 KPI’s

At the most inner layer of the "onion" we have the

key monitoring indicators for the operating results,

where the focus is to evaluate all the CSF's less

financial, as these indicators do not measure

monetary amounts, but still allow uncover some

information about performance financial company.

Once again the choosing of these KPI’s intends to

fulfill all gaps in motorization of the operating

process.

It is expected for the indicators on Table 6 to be

critical measurements. These indicators imply, if

needed, prompt and critical changes on the

company internal or even external process.


Client

Satisfaction

∑ 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑆𝐴𝑇 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦

∑ 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝐴𝑇 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦 > 90% Monthly

Overall

Performanc

e PRN02

∑ 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠

∑ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 ≥ 95% Weakly

Proto

Project Vs.

∑ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒

∑ 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒 > 1 3 Months


8/9

Series

Project

Disturbanc

es

∑ 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠

∑ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 ≤ 8 Weakly

Waiting

Time ∑

𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑂𝐹 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑒

𝐸𝑇𝐷 < 2 days Monthly

Service

Satisfaction

∑ 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝐴𝑇 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦

∑ 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝐴𝑇 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦 ≥ 90% Monthly

Workers

Satisfaction

∑ 𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦

∑ 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠 > 90% 3 Months

Client

Complaint

Rate

∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡

∑ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 = 0 Monthly

Warehouse

Waiting

Time

∑(𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 − 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒)

∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 < 1 𝑆𝑒𝑚. 3 Months

Table 6. KPI's

To present these indicators it is proposed to use a

BSC, like the one Figure 7. Balance Score Cards

are made to be very quick and easy to present and

make understandable the metrics and

measurements so it is a very good way to present

these indicators.

Figure 7. Balance Score Card KPI's

8. Conclusions

Indicators are an excellent way to simplify and

synthesize the information, which is why this

company is strongly dedicated to their development

and use, even though they often do not do so in the

most correct way.

The diagnosis made in the company showed that

there was a great deficit of utility in the indicator

system used so far and many situations where the

lack of knowledge of some metrics or settings was

revealing of serious management problems,

particularly in Project Management.

Zeugma’s has started to use the metrics proposed

in this paper, and it is expected it will start to drive

their projects instead of being driven by them. Also

it’s expected that the knowledge brought by this

paper will help the company information to flow to

the right user at the right time.

References 1. An Overview of continous improvement: from

the past to the present. Bhuiyan, Nadia e Baghel, Amit.

Canada : Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2005, Vol.

43. 0025-1747.

2. Dailey, Kenneth W. The Lean Manufacturing

Pocket Handbook. s.l. : DW Publishing Co., 2003.

3. García-Alcaraz, Jorge Luis, Maldonado-

Macías, Aidé Aracely e Cortes-Robles, Guillermo.

Lean Manufacturing in the Developing World:

Methodology, Case Studies and Trends from Latin

America. USA : Springer International Publishing, 2014.

4. Parmenter, David. KEY PERFORMANCE

INDICATORS: Developing, Implementing, and Using

Winning KPIs. USA : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010.

5. Gabcanova, Iveta. Balanced Scorecard as a

tool for human resources management in financial

organizations. Tomas Bata University in Zlín.

6. Management by Measurement: Designing Key

Indicators and Performance Measurement Systems.

Franceschini, Fiorenzo, Galetto, Maurizio e Maisano,

Domenico. Itália : Springer, 2007.

7. Baker, Ronald J. Measure What Matters to

Customers: Using Key Predictive Indicators. USA : John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.

≤ 8

> 90%

= 0

≥ 95%

𝑩𝑺𝑪𝑲𝑷𝑰


9/9

Figure 8. Zeugma's Process Flowchart

Documents

Development of Solutions for Improvement of the …...80 PI’s e RI’s and 10 KPI’s. After deciding on what indicators to use, and what you need to measure it’s very important