Upload
edilson-giffhorn
View
156
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Claio 2010 Presentation
Citation preview
Multicriteria Model to Improve the Use of Performance Evaluation Instruments with Focus
on Indicators
Msc. Edilson Giffhorn, PMP, IPMA - Speaker
PhD. Leonardo Ensslin
PhD. Sandra Rolim Ensslin
Msc. William Barbosa Vianna
ALIO-INFORMS Joint International Meeting6. – 9.6.2010, Buenos Aires - Argentina
Objective:
The aim of this paper is to present a process for improving the way to use the instruments of performance assessment on their way to identify, organize, measure and use the Performance Indicators.
2
3
1494
18th century
20th century – until 1950
20th century – after 1950
Tratactus de Computis et Scripturis - Summa de arithmetica, geometrica, proportioni et proportionalita(Brudan, 2009; Ensslin; Ensslin, 2009)
Industrial Revolution:Large corporations - production control(Leão, 1998)
Scientific Management:Evaluation of merit (people)(Guimarães et al. 1998)
Evaluate processes (Brandão, Guimarães, 2001)
The use of indicators as a management tool / control
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
4
Until1960
1960 - 1995
After 1995
1st Generation Indicators
2nd Generation Indicators
3rd Generation Indicators
Performance Indicators
Ensslin, Ensslin (2009)
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
5
1st Generation Indicators
Neely (1999); Ensslin, Ensslin (2009); Oliveira et al (2009)
Emphasis
Control
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
6
Bititci, Suwignjo, Carrie; (2001); Ensslin, Ensslin; (2009)
2nd Generation Indicators
Emphasis
Management
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
7
Ensslin, Ensslin (2009)
Characteristics of instruments
New requirements of the context
Generic context Specific context
Generic decision makers Specific decision makers
Monitoring Continuous Improvement
Ordinal scales Ordinal and Cardinal scales
Does not compare performance indicators
Comparison of performance by integration
Available quantitative properties
Quali-quantitative properties
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
8
Ensslin, Ensslin; (2009)
3rd Generation Indicators
Emphasis
Improve specific contexts in a personalized way
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
9
Ensslin, Ensslin (2009)
3rd Generation Indicators
Paradigm exchange
Isolated measures Integrated measures
Quantitative measures Quali-quantitative measures
Generic measures Specific measures for each context
Measures to control Measures to improve performance
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
10
Traditional historical and
financial orientation
Neely, Powell (2004)
Focus on the measure,
misaligned with the goals
and unbalanced
Leandri (2001)
Generic or pre-existing
Denton (2005), Tangen (2003)
Even with the recognition of new requirements, many applications of performance measurement continue to use the
1st and 2nd generation.Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
11
Consequences
Schneiderman (1999), Neely (2000), Bourne et al. (2002)
Denton (2005)
Measures not aligned to strategy.
Performance Evaluations poorly developed, misaligned with the strategy and decision-makers do not understand the impacts of their decisions and actions.
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
12
Research Theme
Explore ways of improving the identification / construction of the
Performance Indicators.
Provide greater chance of achievement the strategic objectives based on the tools
selected.
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
13
State of the Art
Process to identify the theoretical referencial
35 Articles
Article
Article
Article
Keywords
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
Ensslin, Dutra, Ensslin (2000)
14
MCDA-C Phases
Instrument of Intervention
Introduction
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
15
Ensslin et al. (2010)
Identify the important aspects in accordance with the decision maker.
Expand the understanding of the context of the decision maker.
Allow to take into account the interests of the actors involved with the monitoring of
the decision maker.Allow the decision maker to revise his
views in the course of the construction of their knowledge.
Recognize the ordinal and cardinal properties of the indicators.
Ensure that the decision maker legitimize the process with tools scientifically valid.
MCDA-C selected due:
Instrument of Intervention
Introduction
Evaluation Model
Conclusions
16
Structuring Phase
Identification of the Actors Subsystem
Evaluation Model
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Conclusions
17
Label:
Build a model to improve the mapping of the indicators on the instruments of performance evaluation.
Structuring Phase
Evaluation Model
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Conclusions
18
Best possible performance
Worst possible performance Scales used allow only statistical operations.
Objective underlying the EPA : Capactity to perform mathematical operations between scales.
Scales are constructed so as to enable mathematical operations between them.
EPA 61: mathematical operations
Intensity: Very Strong
Concept 61: Ensure that mathematical operations can be performed between the scales... use scales that allow only statistical operations.
Structuring Phase
Process to transform the Primary Assessment Elements in Concepts
Evaluation Model
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Conclusions
Structuring Phase
Evaluation Model
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Conclusions
Label
Areas of Concern
Concepts
21
Competitive
Excelence
Endanger
Definition LegitimationMathematical Foundations
Improve the Mapping of Indicators in the Performance Assessment
Instruments
PVF 6 – Ordinal Scales
PVF 7 – Cardinal Scales
PVF 3PVF 4 –
Value Function
PVF 5 – Substitution
RatesPVF 1 PVF 2
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
Good
Neutral
X% Y% Z%
A% B% C% D% E% F% G%
Impact profile of the Performance Measurement tool 1
Impact profile of the Performance Measurement tool 2
Impact profile of the Performance Measurement tool 3
Legend:
Global Evaluation
PM Tool 1
PM Tool 2
PM Tool 3
72
68
40
Process
W%
Evaluation Model
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Conclusions
General view of the final model.
22
Conclusion
The model will serve as a support instrument to make Performance Evaluations, in order to have greater accuracy and alignment between the operational level, tactical and strategic organization.
The model will give ways for improving the identification / construction of the Performance Indicators.
Conclusions
Introduction
Instrument of Intervention
Evaluation Model
23
THANKS
END
Msc. Edilson Giffhorn, PMP, IPMA: [email protected]
PhD. Leonardo Ensslin: [email protected]
PhD. Sandra Rolim Ensslin: [email protected]
Msc. William Barbosa Vianna: [email protected]