A review of performance measurement’s maturity models

Authors

  • María Paula Bertolli Facultad de Ingeniería. UNICEN
  • Geraldina Yesica Roark Facultad de Ingeniería - UNICEN
  • Silvia Beatriz Urrutia Facultad de Ingeniería - UNICEN
  • Franco Javier Chiodi Instituto de la Industria - Universidad Nacional General Sarmiento

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17981/ingecuc.13.1.2017.07

Keywords:

Performance Management, Maturity Model, Performance Measurement, SME’s.

Abstract

Introduction: In a context as dynamic as today, SMEs need performance measurement systems (PMS) that are able to generate useful, relevant and reliable information to manage. Measuring the maturity of PMS is an essential step to achieve its evolution to an ideal state that allows a better control of the results and to act consequently, improving management and decision making.

Objective: To develop a bibliographic review to identify and characterize PMS maturity models, recognizing between them the most feasible models to apply in SMEs, in order to generate a contribution for the strengthening of such systems, facilitating effective and timely decision making in organizations.

Methodology: The research question defined is: which existing PMS maturity model can be used by industrial SMEs? Google Scholar database was consulted for searching information, using certain search parameters. Based on a previous criteria definition, the selected models are compared. Finally, the conclusions about these models are elaborated.

Results: From the results obtained through the bibliographic search in Google Scholar, different criteria were used to select the models to be characterized and compared. The four models selected were the proposed by Wettstein and Kueng, Van Aken, Tangen and Aho.

Conclusions: The models considered most adequate are those proposed by Wettstein and Kueng (2002) and Aho (2012), due to their easy application and the low requirement of resource use. However, as such models do not have an evaluation tool, it has to be defined by the company.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Fundación Observatorio PyME, «Informe 2015 - 2016. Evolución reciente, situación actual y desafíos para 2017. Tema especial: Indicadores de producción», Fundación Observatorio PyME, Buenos Aires, Argentina, sep. 2016.

[2] P. Narodowski, «El sistema de apoyo a PyMEs en los 90. Avances y dudas», La Plata: Mimeo, 2003.

[3] V. Moori Koenig y G. Yoguel, Metodología y diseño de indicadores para evaluar la competitividad de las firmas: el caso de una muestra de PyMEs del Gran Buenos Aires, 1°. San Miguel, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Instituto de Industria, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, 1999.

[4] M. E. Spina, C. A. Rohvein, S. Urrutia, G. Roark, D. Paravié y G. Corres, «Aplicación del modelo SCOR en Pymes metalmecánicas de Olavarría», Ingecuc, vol. 12, n.o 2, pp. 50-57, dic. 2016.

[5] A. Díaz Curbelo y F. Marrero Delgado, «El modelo SCOR y el Balanced Scorecard: una poderosa combinación intangible para la gestión empresarial», Visión Futuro, vol. 18, n.o 1, pp. 36-57, jun. 2014.

[6] M. Rosemann y T. Bruin, «Towards a Business Process Management Maturity», en ECIS 2005 Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems, Germany, Regensburg, vol. 37, 2005.

[7] U. S. Bititci, P. Garengo, A. Ates y S. S. Nudurupati, «Value of maturity models in performance measurement», Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 53, n.o 10, pp. 3062-3085, may 2015.

[8] M. Franco-Santos, M. Kennerley, P. Micheli, V. Martínez, S. Mason, B. Marr, D. Gray y A. Neely, «Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system», Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., vol. 27, n.o 8, pp. 784-801, jul. 2007.

[9] E. Pérez-Mergarejo, I. Pérez-Vergara y Y. Rodriguez- Ruiz, «Modelos de madurez y su idoneidad para aplicar en pequeñas y medianas empresas», Ing. Ind., vol. 35, n.o 2, 2014.

[10] M. Röglinger y J. Pöppelbuß, «What makes a useful Maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management», Eur. Conf. Inf. Syst., vol. 28, 2011.

[11] T. Wettstein y P. Kueng, «A maturity model for performane measurement systems», Manag. Inf. Syst., 2002.

[12] E. M. Van Aken, G. Letens, G. D. Coleman, J. Farris y D. Van Goubergen, «Assessing maturity and effectiveness of enterprise performance measurement systems», Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 54, n.o 5/6, pp. 400- 418, 2005.

[13] S. Tangen, Kungl. Tekniska högskolan i Stockholm, y Institutionen för industriell produktion, «Evaluation and revision of performance measurement systems», Department of Production Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2004.

[14] M. Aho, «What is your PMI? A Model for Assessing the Maturity of Performance Management in Organizations », PMA 2012 Conf., jul. 2012.

[15] P. Kueng, A. Meier y T. Wettstein, «Performance Measurement Systems Must Be Engineered», Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 7, n.o 3, jul. 2001.

[16] M. C. Paulk, C. V. Weber, B. Curtis y M. B. Chrissis, Eds., The Capability Maturity model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1995.

[17] C. F. Gibson y R. Nolan, «Managing the Four Stages of EDP Growth», Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 52, n.o 1, pp. 76-88, feb. 1974.

[18] G. F. Frederico, «Propuesta de un modelo para adecuar dos sistemas de medicion de desempeño a los niveles de madurez de gestión de la cadena de suministros», Tesis de doctorado, Universidad Federal de San Carlos, San Carlos, Brasil, 2012.

[19] A. D. Neely, Measuring business performance. Why, what and how. London: Economist, 1998.

[20] A. Rolstadas, «Enterprise performance measurement», Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., vol. 18, n.o 9/10, pp. 989-999, sep. 1998.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2017-01-01

How to Cite

Bertolli, M. P., Roark, G. Y., Urrutia, S. B., & Chiodi, F. J. (2017). A review of performance measurement’s maturity models. INGE CUC, 13(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.17981/ingecuc.13.1.2017.07

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2017): (January - June)

Section

In Press

License

Published papers are the exclusive responsibility of their authors and do not necessary reflect the opinions of the editorial committee. 

INGE CUC Journal respects the moral rights of its authors, whom must cede the editorial committee the patrimonial rights of the published material. In turn, the authors inform that the current work is unpublished and has not been previously published. 

All articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Licencia Creative Commons