What Are the Ways to Measure Business Process

• Review
• Open Admission
• Published: 18 October 2016

Business process operation measurement: a structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics

SpringerPlus volume 5, Commodity number:1797 (2016) Cite this article

• 27k Accesses

• 54 Citations

• three Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

Measuring the operation of concern processes has become a fundamental effect in both academia and business concern, since organizations are challenged to achieve constructive and efficient results. Applying performance measurement models to this purpose ensures alignment with a business concern strategy, which implies that the pick of functioning indicators is organization-dependent. Nonetheless, such measurement models more often than not endure from a lack of guidance regarding the performance indicators that exist and how they can be concretized in practice. To fill this gap, we conducted a structured literature review to notice patterns or trends in the research on business procedure performance measurement. The study also documents an extended listing of 140 procedure-related performance indicators in a systematic manner by further categorizing them into 11 performance perspectives in lodge to proceeds a holistic view. Managers and scholars tin can consult the provided list to choose the indicators that are of interest to them, considering each perspective. The structured literature review concludes with avenues for further research.

Groundwork

Since organizations endeavor to mensurate what they manage, performance measurement is a fundamental issue in both the literature and in practice (Heckl and Moormann 2010; Neely 2005; Richard et al. 2009). Performance measurement is a multidisciplinary topic that is highly studied past both the management and information systems domains (business concern procedure management or BPM in particular). Unlike performance measurement models, systems and frameworks have been developed past academia and practitioners (Cross and Lynch 1988; Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001; EFQM 2010; Kueng 2000; Neely et al. 2000). While measurement models were initially limited to fiscal performance (e.1000., traditional controlling models), a more balanced and integrated arroyo was needed offset in the 1990s due to the challenges of the rapidly changing order and applied science; this approach resulted in multi-dimensional models. Maybe the best known multi-dimensional performance measurement model is the Counterbalanced Scorecard (BSC) developed by Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2001), which takes a four-dimensional approach to organizational performance: (1) financial perspective, (2) customer perspective, (3) internal business procedure perspective, and (4) "learning and growth" perspective. The BSC helps interpret an organization's strategy into operational operation indicators (also chosen performance measures or metrics) and objectives with targets for each of these operation perspectives. Even today, the BSC is by far the most used operation measurement approach in the business earth (Bain Company 2015; Sullivan 2001; Ulfeder 2004).

Every bit important for measuring an organization's performance is process-oriented direction or business process management (BPM), which is "about managing entire chains of events, activities and decisions that ultimately add together value to the organization and its customers. These 'chains of events, activities and decisions' are chosen processes" (Dumas et al. 2013: p. i). In detail, an organization can practise more with its current resources past boosting the effectiveness and efficiency of its way of working (i.e., its business concern processes) (Sullivan 2001). In this regard, bookish research too suggests a strong link between business organisation process performance and organizational operation, either in the sense of a causal relationship (Melville et al. 2004; Smith and Reece 1999) or as distinctive indicators that co-exist, equally in the BSC (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001).

Nonetheless, functioning measurement models tend to requite fiddling guidance on how business concern (procedure) performance indicators can be chosen and operationalized (Shah et al. 2012). They are limited to mainly defining performance perspectives, possibly with some examples or steps to derive functioning indicators (Neely et al. 2000), only without offering concrete indicators. Whereas fairly large bodies of research exist for both performance models and business concern processes, no structured literature review of (process) functioning measurement has been carried out thus far. To the best of our knowledge, existing reviews cover 1 or another aspect of performance measurement; for instance, reviews on measurement models or evaluation criteria for performance indicators (Heckl and Moormann 2010; Neely 2005; Richard et al. 2009). Despite the considerable importance of a comprehensive and holistic approach to business concern (process) performance measurement, little is known regarding the state of the research on alternative performance indicators and their operationalization with respect to evaluating the performance of an organization's work routines. To some extent, this lack of guidance can be explained past the fact that performance indicators are considered organization-dependent, given that strategic alignment is claimed by many measurement models such equally the BSC (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001). Although the option of appropriate performance indicators is challenging for practitioners due to the lack of all-time practices, it is also highly relevant for performance measurement.

The gap that we are studying is the identification and, in detail, the concretization/operationalization of process-related performance indicators. This study enhances the information systems literature, which focuses on the design and evolution of measurement systems without paying much attending to essential indicators. To make full this gap, our written report presents a structured literature review in society to describe the current country of business process performance measurement and related functioning indicators. The selection to focus on the business procedure management (BPM) bailiwick is motivated past the close link betwixt organizational functioning and business organisation process functioning, likewise every bit to ensure a clear scope (specifically targeting an arrangement's style of working). Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions.

• RQ1. What is the current country of the research on business procedure operation measurement?

• RQ2. Which indicators, measures and metrics are used or mentioned in the current literature related to business procedure functioning?

The objective of RQ1 is to identify patterns in the current body of knowledge and to annotation weaknesses, whereas RQ2 mainly intends to develop an extended list of measurable process performance indicators, categorized into recognized performance perspectives, which can be tailored to diverse purposes. This list could, for case, serve as a supplement to existing performance measurement models. Practitioners tin can utilise the list as a source for best practice indicators from bookish research to detect and select a subset of performance indicators that fit their strategy. The study will thus non address the development of specific measurement systems just rather the indicators to be used within such systems. To make our intended listing system-contained, we will brainstorm with the BSC approach and extend its performance perspectives. Given this generic arroyo, the research findings tin too be used by scholars when building and testing theoretical models in which procedure functioning is one of the factors that must be concretized.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. "Theoretical background" section describes the theoretical background of performance measurement models and performance indicators. Next, the methodology for our structured literature review is detailed in "Methods" section. The subsequent sections present the results for RQ1 ("Results for RQ1" section) and RQ2 ("Results for RQ2" section). The word of the results in provided in "Discussion" department, followed by terminal comments ("Decision" department).

Theoretical background

This section addresses the concepts of operation measurement models and performance indicators separately in order to be able to differentiate them further in the study.

Performance measurement models

According to overviews in the performance literature (Heckl and Moormann 2010; Neely 2005; Richard et al. 2009), some of the most cited performance measurement models are the Counterbalanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001), self-assessment excellence models such as the EFQM (2010), and the models by Cantankerous and Lynch (1988), Kueng (2000) and Neely et al. (2000). A distinction should, notwithstanding, be made between models focusing on the unabridged concern (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001; EFQM 2010; Cross and Lynch 1988) and models focusing on a single business process (Kueng 2000; Neely et al. 2000).

Organizational performance measurement models

Organizational performance measurement models typically intend to provide a holistic view of an organization's performance by considering different performance perspectives. As mentioned before, the BSC provides 4 perspectives for which objectives and performance indicators ensure alignment between strategies and operations (Fig. ane) (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001). Other organizational performance measurement models provide like perspectives. For instance, Cantankerous and Lynch (1988) offer a four-level performance pyramid: (ane) a top level with a vision, (2) a second level with objectives per business concern unit in market and fiscal terms, (3) a third level with objectives per business operating system in terms of customer satisfaction, flexibility and productivity, and (four) a bottom level with operational objectives for quality, delivery, procedure time and costs. Another alternative view on organizational performance measurement is given in business organisation excellence models, which focus on an evaluation through cocky-assessment rather than on strategic alignment, admitting by also offering performance perspectives. For case, the EFQM (2010) distinguishes enablers [i.e., (i) leadership, (2) people, (iii) strategy, (iv) partnerships and resources, and (five) processes, products and services] from results [i.e., (1) people results, (2) customer results, (3) gild results, and (4) key results], and a feedback loop for learning, creativity and innovation.

Fig. 1

An overview of the functioning perspectives in Kaplan and Norton (1996, 2001)

Full size image

Since the BSC is the virtually used performance measurement model, we have chosen it as a reference model to illustrate the function of an organizational functioning measurement model (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001). The BSC is designed to notice a rest betwixt financial and non-financial performance indicators, between the interests of internal and external stakeholders, and between presenting past operation and predicting futurity performance. The BSC encourages organizations to directly derive (strategic) long-term objectives from the overall strategy and to link them to (operational) brusk-term targets. Concrete performance measures or indicators should be defined to periodically measure the objectives. These indicators are located on one of the iv operation perspectives in Fig. ane (i.due east., ideally with a maximum of five indicators per perspective).

Table one illustrates how an organizational strategy can be translated into operational terms using the BSC.

Table i An instance of translating an organizational strategy into operational terms using the BSC

Full size table

During periodical measurements using the BSC, managers can assign color-coded labels according to actual performance on short-term targets: (1) a green label if the organisation has achieved the target, (two) an orange label if it is nearly achieved, or (3) a red label if it is not accomplished. Orange and red labels thus indicate areas for improvement.

Furthermore, the BSC assumes a causal or logical human relationship betwixt the iv performance perspectives. An increase in the competences of employees (i.due east., performance related to "learning and growth") is expected to positively bear on the quality of products and services (i.e., internal business process performance), which in turn volition lead to improved customer perceptions (i.e., customer performance). The results for the previous perspectives will then contribute to fiscal performance to ultimately realize the organization's strategy, mission and vision (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001). Hence, indicators belonging to the fiscal and customer perspectives are assumed to measure performance outcomes, whereas indicators from the perspectives of internal business concern processes and "learning and growth" are considered as typical performance drivers (Kaplan and Norton 2004).

Despite its widespread use and acceptance, the BSC is also criticized for appearing also general by managers who are challenged to adapt it to the culture of their organization (Butler et al. 1997) or find suitable indicators to capture the diverse aspects of their organization's strategy (Shah et al. 2012; Vaivio 1999). Additionally, researchers question the choice of four distinct operation perspectives (i.e., which do not include perspectives related to inter-organizational functioning or sustainability issues) (EFQM 2010; Hubbard 2009, Kueng 2000). Further, the causal relationship among the BSC perspectives has been questioned (Norreklit 2000). To some degree, Kaplan and Norton (2004) responded to this criticism by introducing strategy maps that focus more than on the causal relationships and the alignment of intangible assets.

Business organisation process performance measurement models

In addition to organizational models, functioning measurement can besides focus on a unmarried concern process, such equally statistical process control, workflow-based monitoring or process performance measurement systems (Kueng 2000; Neely et al. 2000). The approach taken in business procedure performance measurement is mostly less holistic than the BSC. For instance, in an established BPM handbook, Dumas et al. (2013) position time, cost, quality and flexibility every bit the typical performance perspectives of business organisation process operation measurement (Fig. ii). Similar to organizational operation measurement, concrete functioning measures or indicators should be defined for each procedure performance perspective. In this sense, the established perspectives of Dumas et al. (2013) seem to further refine the internal business organization process performance perspective of the BSC.

Fig. two

An overview of the performance perspectives in Dumas et al. (2013)

Full size epitome

Neely et al. (2000), on the other hand, present x steps to develop or define process performance indicators. The process operation measurement arrangement of Kueng (2000) is also of high importance, which is visualized as a "goal and performance indicator tree" with five process performance perspectives: (1) financial view, (2) customer view, (three) employee view, (4) societal view, and (5) innovation view. Kueng (2000) thus suggests a more holistic approach towards process performance, similar to organizational performance, given the central part of business concern processes in an organization. He does and then by focusing more on the dissimilar stakeholders involved in certain business processes.

Performance indicators

Department "Performance measurement models" explained that performance measurement models typically distinguish unlike operation perspectives for which performance indicators should be further defined. We must, still, notation that we consider performance measures, performance metrics and (central) functioning indicators as synonyms (Dumas et al. 2013). For reasons of conciseness, this work will mainly refer to operation indicators without mentioning the synonyms. In addition to a proper noun, each functioning indicator should too take a concretization or operationalization that describes exactly how information technology is measured and that can consequence in a value to be compared against a target. For instance, regarding the example in Table 1, the qualitative statements to mensurate client satisfaction constitute an operationalization. Nonetheless, unlike ways of operationalization tin can be practical to measure the aforementioned performance indicator. Since organizations tin profit from reusing existing performance indicators and the related operationalization instead of inventing new ones (i.e., to facilitate benchmarking and salvage time), this piece of work investigates which performance indicators are used or mentioned in the literature on concern process functioning and how they are operationalized.

Neely et al. (2000) and Richard et al. (2009) both present evaluation criteria for functioning indicators (i.e., in the sense of desirable characteristics or review implications), which summarize the general consensus in the functioning literature. First, the literature strongly agrees that performance indicators are organization-dependent and should exist derived from an arrangement's objectives, strategy, mission and vision. Secondly, consensus in the literature also exists regarding the need to combine financial and not-fiscal performance indicators. Nevertheless, disagreement still seems to exist in terms of whether objective and subjective indicators demand to be combined, with objective indicators preferred by almost advocates. Although subjective (or quasi-objective) indicators face challenges from bias, their use has some advantages; for instance, to include stakeholders in an assessment, to address latent constructs or to facilitate benchmarking when a fixed reference point is missing (Hubbard 2009; Richard et al. 2009). Moreover, empirical inquiry has shown that subjective (or quasi-objective) indicators are more than or less correlated with objective indicators, depending on the level of particular of the subjective question (Richard et al. 2009). For instance, a subjective question can be fabricated more objective by using clear definitions or past selecting only well-informed respondents to reduce bias.

Methods

We conducted a structured literature review (SLR) to find papers dealing with performance measurement in the business process literature. SLR tin can be defined equally "a ways of evaluating and interpreting all available inquiry relevant to a item research question, topic expanse, or phenomenon of interest" (Kitchenham 2007: p. vi). An SLR is a meta report that identifies and summarizes evidence from before research (Rex and He 2005) or a way to address a potentially large number of identified sources based on a strict protocol used to search and appraise the literature (Boellt and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015). It is systematic in the sense of a systematic arroyo to finding relevant papers and a systematic manner of classifying the papers. Hence, according to Boellt and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015), SLR as a specific type of literature review tin only be used when 2 conditions are met. Start, the topic should exist well-specified and closely formulated (i.e., limited to performance measurement in the context of business organization processes) to potentially place all relevant literature based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Secondly, the enquiry questions should be answered by extracting and aggregating show from the identified literature based on a high-level summary or bibliometric-type of content analysis. Furthermore, King and He (2005) as well refer to a statistical analysis of existing literature.

Informed by the established guidelines proposed by Kitchenham (2007), we undertook the review in distinct stages: (1) formulating the research questions and the search strategy, (2) filtering and extracting data based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and (3) synthesizing the findings. The remainder of this section describes the details of each stage.

Formulating the research questions and search strategy

A comprehensive and unbiased search is one of the fundamental factors that distinguish a systematic review from a traditional literature review (Kitchenham 2007). For this purpose, a systematic search begins with the identification of keywords and search terms that are derived from the research questions. Based on the research questions stipulated in the introduction, the SLR protocol (Boellt and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015) for our report was divers, every bit shown in Tabular array ii.

Table ii The structured literature review protocol for this written report, based on Boellt and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015)

Full size tabular array

The ISI Web of Science (WoS) database was searched using predetermined search terms in November 2015. This database was selected because information technology is used by many universities and results in the almost outstanding publications, thus increasing the quality of our findings. An important requirement was that the papers focus on "business concern process*" (BP). This keyword was used in combination with at least 1 of the following: (1) "performance indicator*", (2) "performance metric*", (iii) "operation measur*". All combinations of "keyword in topic" (TO) and "keyword in title" (TI) have been used.

Tabular array three shows the degree to which the initial sample sizes varied, with 433 resulting papers for the most permissive search query (TOxTO) and 19 papers for the virtually restrictive one (TIxTI). The next phase started with the about permissive search query in an try to select and assess equally many relevant publications as possible.

Tabular array 3 The number of papers in the web of science per search query (until Nov 2015)

Full size table

Filtering and extracting data

Figure 3 summarizes the process for searching and selecting the literature to be reviewed. The listing of papers found in the previous stage was filtered by deleting 35 duplicates, and the remaining 398 papers were further narrowed to 153 papers by evaluating their title and abstruse. Subsequently screening the body of the texts, 76 full-text papers were considered relevant for our telescopic and constituted the final sample ("Appendix 1").

Fig. three

Exclusion of papers and number of primary studies

Full size paradigm

More than specifically, studies were excluded if their main focus was not business process performance measurement or if they did non refer to indicators, measures or metrics for business performance. The inclusion of studies was non restricted to any specific type of intervention or outcome. The SLR thus included all types of research studies that were written in English language and published up to and including November 2015. Furthermore, publication by peer-reviewed publication outlets (e.g., journals or conference proceedings) was considered as a quality criterion to ensure the academic level of the enquiry papers.

Synthesizing the findings

The analysis of the concluding sample was performed by means of narrative and descriptive assay techniques. For RQ1, the 76 papers were analyzed on the ground of bibliometric information (east.g., publication blazon, publication yr, geography) and general performance measurement issues by paying attending to the methodology and focus of the study. Details are provided in "Appendix 2".

For RQ2, all the selected papers were screened to identify concrete performance indicators in order to generate a comprehensive list or checklist. The latter was done in dissimilar phases. In the beginning phase, the structured literature review immune us to analyze which performance indicators are mainly used in the process literature and how they are concretized (east.g., in a question or mathematical formulation), resulting in an unstructured list of potential functioning indicators. The indicators were also synthesized by combining similar indicators and rephrasing them into more than generic terms.

The next phase was a comparative study to categorize the output of stage 1 into the normally used measurement models in the performance literature (see "Theoretical background" section). For the purpose of this study, we specifically looked for those organizational performance models, mentioned in "Theoretical background" section, that are cited the well-nigh and that suggest categories, dimensions or performance perspectives that can be re-used (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001; EFQM 2010; Cross and Lynch 1988; Kueng 2000). Since the BSC (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001) is the most commonly used of these measurement models, nosotros began with the BSC as the overall framework to categorize the observed indicators related to business (process) performance, supplemented with an established view on process performance from the procedure literature (Dumas et al. 2013). After, a structured list of potential performance indicators was obtained.

In the 3rd and final phase, an evaluation study was performed to validate whether the output of phase two is sufficiently comprehensive according to other performance measurement models, i.east., non included in our sample and differing from the most commonly used performance measurement models. Therefore, nosotros investigated the degree to which our structured list covers the items in two variants or concretizations of the BSC. Hence, a validation by other theoretical models is provided. We note that a validation by discipline-matter experts is out of scope for a structured literature review but relates to an opportunity for further inquiry.

Results for RQ1

The concluding sample of 76 papers consists of 46 journal papers and 30 conference papers (Fig. 4), indicating a wide variety of outlets to reach the audience via operations and production-related journals in detail or in lower-ranked (Recker 2013) information systems journals.

Fig. 4

The distribution of the sampled papers per publication type (Due north = 76)

Full size paradigm

When considering the chronological distribution of the sampled papers, Fig. 5 indicates an increase in the uptake of the topic in recent years, especially for conference papers merely also for journal publications since 2005.

Fig. 5

The chronological distribution of the sampled papers per publication type (N = 76)

Full size image

This uptake seems particularly situated in the Western world and Asia (Fig. 6). The countries with five or more than papers in our sample are Federal republic of germany (12 papers), the Usa (6 papers), Espana (5 papers), Croatia (5 papers) and China (5 papers). Figure half-dozen shows that business concern process performance measurement is a worldwide topic, with papers across the different continents. Nonetheless, a possible explanation for the higher coverage in the Western earth could be due to its long tradition of measuring work (i.e., BSC origins).

Fig. half dozen

The geographical distribution of the sampled papers per continent, based on a paper's beginning author (N = 76)

Full size epitome

The vast bulk of the sampled papers address artifacts related to business organization (process) operation measurement. When looking at the inquiry paradigm in which the papers are situated (Fig. 7), 71 % address design-science inquiry, whereas 17 % conduct research in behavioral science and 12 % present a literature review. This could be some other explanation for the increasing uptake in the Western earth, as many design-scientific discipline researchers are from Europe or N America (March and Smith 1995; Peffers et al. 2012).

Fig. seven

The distribution of the sampled journal papers per research paradigm (Due north = 76)

Full size paradigm

Effigy 8 supplements Fig. 7 by specifying the research methods used in the papers. For the behavioral-science papers, case studies and surveys are every bit used. The 54 papers that are situated within the design-science paradigm explicitly refer to models, meta-models, frameworks, methods and/or tools. When mapping these 54 papers to the 4 artifact types of March and Smith (1995), the vast majority present (1) methods in the sense of steps to perform a task (e.g., algorithms or guidelines for performance measurement) and/or (ii) models to depict solutions for the topic. The number of papers dealing with (three) constructs or a vocabulary and/or (4) instantiations or tools is much more limited, with 14 construct-related papers and ix instantiations in our sample. We also looked at which evaluation methods, defined by Peffers et al. (2012), are typically used in the sampled design-science papers. While 7 of the 54 blueprint-scientific discipline papers do not seem to report on whatsoever evaluation effort, our sample confirms that nigh papers apply 1 or some other evaluation method. Example studies and illustrative scenarios appear to exist the almost frequently used methods to evaluate design-science research on business organization (process) performance measurement.

Fig. eight

The distribution of the sampled journal papers per research method (N = 76)

Total size prototype

The sampled design-science research papers typically build and test performance measurement frameworks, systems or models or suggest meta-models and generic templates to integrate performance indicators into the process models of an organization. Such papers can focus on the procedure level, organizational level or even cantankerous-organizational level. Yet, the indicators mentioned in those papers are illustrative rather than comprehensive. An all-inclusive list of generic performance indicators seems to be missing. Some authors propose a prepare of indicators, just those indicators are specific to a sure domain or sector instead of being generic. For instance, Table 4 shows that 36 of the 76 sampled papers are dedicated to a specific domain or sector, such as technology-related aspects or supply chain management.

Tabular array four The number of sampled papers dedicated to a specific domain or sector (N = 76)

Total size tabular array

Furthermore, the reviewed literature was analyzed with regard to its (one) telescopic, (ii) functionalities, (3) terminology, and (4) foundations.

Starting with scope, information technology is observed that near two-thirds of the sampled papers can be categorized equally dealing with procedure-oriented performance measurement, whereas one-third focuses more on general operation measurement and management problems. Nonetheless, virtually of the studies of procedure performance as well include general performance measurement as a supporting concept. A minor cluster of eight research papers specifically focuses on business procedure reengineering and measurement systems to evaluate the results of reengineering efforts. Furthermore, other researchers focus on the measurement and assessment of interoperability bug and supply chain management measurements.

Secondly, while analyzing the literature, 2 groups of papers were identified based on their functionalities: (one) focusing on performance measurement systems or frameworks, and (two) focusing on certain functioning indicators and their categorization. Regarding the first group, it should be mentioned that while the procedure of building or developing a performance measurement system (PMS) or framework is well-researched, only a small-scale number of papers explicitly accost procedure functioning measurement systems (PPMS). The papers in this outset group typically advise concrete steps or stages to be followed by particular organizations or hash out the conceptual characteristics and design of a performance measurement system. Regarding the 2d group of performance indicators, nosotros can differentiate 2 sub-groups. Some authors focus on the process of defining functioning indicators past listing requirements or quality characteristics that an indicator should run into. However, many more authors are interested in integrating performance indicators into the process models or the whole architecture of an organization, and they suggest concrete solutions to do so. Compared to the first group of papers, this 2d grouping deals more with the categorization of operation indicators into domains (fiscal/non-fiscal, lag/atomic number 82, external/internal, BSC dimensions) or levels (strategic, tactical, operational).

Thirdly, regarding terminology, different terms are used past dissimilar authors to discuss performance measurement. Performance "indicator" is the most normally used term amongst the reviewed papers. For instance, it is oft used in reference to a key operation indicator (KPI), a KPI area or a operation indicator (PI). The concept of a procedure functioning indicator (PPI) is as well used, mainly in the process-oriented literature. Functioning "measure" is another prevalent term in the papers. The least-used term is performance "metric" (i.e., in only nine papers). Although the concepts of functioning indicators, measures and metrics are used interchangeably throughout most of the papers, the concepts are sometimes defined in dissimilar ways. For instance, paper 17 defines a performance indicator as a metric, and paper 49 defines a performance measure out as an indicator. On the other hand, paper seven defines a performance indicator every bit a set of measures. Yet another perspective is taken in paper 74, which defines a performance mensurate as "a description of something that can be directly measured (e.g., number of reworks per day)", while defining a functioning indicator as "a description of something that is calculated from operation measures (due east.yard., pct reworks per twenty-four hour period per direct employee" (p. 386). Inconsistencies exist not simply in defining indicators just likewise in describing performance goals. For example, some authors include a sign (e.g., minus or plus) or a verb (east.g., decrease or increase) in front end of an indicator. Other authors effort to draw performance goals in a SMART way—for instance, by including a time indication (e.g., "inside a certain period") and/or target (eastward.g., "5 % of all orders")—whereas most of the authors are less precise. Hence, a corking degree of ambiguity exists in the formulation of operation objectives among to the reviewed papers.

Finally, regarding the papers' foundations, "Performance measurement models" section already indicated that the BSC plays an of import office in the general literature on operation management systems (PMS), while Kueng (2000) also offers influential arguments on process performance measurement systems (PPMS). In our literature review, we observed that the BSC was mentioned in 43 of the 76 papers and that the results of 19 papers were mainly based on the BSC (Fig. 9). This finding provides boosted evidence that the BSC tin be considered the most frequently used operation model in academia also. However, the measurement model of Kueng (2000) was also mentioned in the sampled papers on PPMS, though less frequently (i.e., in six papers).

Fig. 9

The importance of the BSC co-ordinate to the sampled papers (Due north = 76)

Full size image

Interestingly, the BSC is besides criticized past the sampled papers for not being comprehensive; for instance, due to the exclusion of ecology aspects, supply chain management aspects or cantankerous-organizational processes. In response, some of the sampled papers also define sector-specific BSC indicators or suggest additional steps or indicators to make the process or business more sustainable (see Table 4). Nonetheless, the majority of the papers concur on the demand for integrated and multidimensional measurement systems, such as the BSC, and on the importance of directly linking performance measurement to an arrangement'south strategy. However, while these papers mention the required link with strategy, the prioritization of indicators according to their strategic importance has been studied very little thus far.

Results for RQ2

For RQ2, the sampled papers were reviewed to distinguish papers with performance indicators from papers without performance indicators. A further stardom was made between indicators found with operationalization (i.east., concretization past ways of a question or formula) and those without operationalization. We note that for many indicators, no operationalization was bachelor. We discovered that just 30 of the 76 sampled papers independent some type of performance indicator (namely 3, 5, half dozen, seven, eleven, sixteen, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 30, 35, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 71, 73). In total, approximately 380 individual indicators were found throughout all the sampled papers (including duplicates), which were combined based on similarities and modified to utilize more generic terms. This resulted in 87 indicators with operationalization ("Appendix 3") and 48 indicators without operationalization ("Appendix 4").

The 87 indicators with operationalization were then categorized according to the four perspectives of the BSC (i.e., financial, customer, business processes, and "learning and growth") (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001) and the four established dimensions of process performance (i.due east., fourth dimension, toll, quality, and flexibility) (Dumas et al. 2013). In particular, based in the identified indicators, we revealed xi sub-perspectives inside the initial BSC perspectives to better emphasize the focus of the indicators and the different target groups (Table 5): (1) financial performance for shareholders and superlative management, (two) customer-related performance, (3) supplier-related performance, (4) society-related performance, (5) general process performance, (6) time-related procedure performance, (7) toll-related process performance, (8) process functioning related to internal quality, (ix) flexibility-related procedure functioning, (ten) (digital) innovation functioning, and (11) employee-related operation.

Table v A description of the observed performance perspectives, linked to the Counterbalanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001)

Full size table

For reasons of objectivity, the observed performance indicators were assigned to a single perspective starting from recognized frameworks (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001; Dumas et al. 2013). Bias was further reduced by following the definitions of Table 5. Furthermore, the authors of this commodity commencement classified the indicators individually so reached consensus to obtain a more objective categorization.

Boosted rationale for the identification of xi performance perspectives is presented in Tabular array half-dozen, which compares our observations with the perspectives adopted by the nigh normally used performance measurement models (come across "Theoretical background" section). This comparing allows usa to highlight similarities and differences with other respected models. In particular, Tabular array half-dozen shows that nosotros did non discover a dedicated perspective for strategy (EFQM 2010) and that we did non differentiate between financial indicators and market indicators (Cross and Lynch 1988). Nonetheless, the similarities in Table 6 prevail. For instance, Cross and Lynch (1988) also acknowledge unlike process dimensions. Further, Kueng (2000) and the EFQM (2010) also differentiate employee operation from innovation performance, and they both add a split perspective for results related to the entire club.

Tabular array six The comparison of our observed performance perspectives with the perspectives taken in the almost usually used performance measurement models in the literature (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001; EFQM 2010; Kueng 2000; Cross and Lynch 1988)

Total size table

Figure x summarizes the number of performance indicators that we identified in the procedure literature per observed functioning perspective. Non surprisingly, the initial BSC perspective of internal business process performance contains most of the operation indicators: 29 of 87 indicators. However, the other initial BSC perspectives are too covered by a relatively high number of indicators: 16 indicators for both financial performance and customer-related performance and 26 indicators for "learning and growth". This event confirms the close link betwixt process performance and organizational performance, equally mentioned in the introduction.

Fig. 10

The number of performance indicators with operationalization per performance perspective

Full size image

A more detailed comparing of the perspectives provides interesting refinements to the state of the research. More specifically, Fig. 10 shows that five performance perspectives have more than than ten indicators in the sample, indicating that bookish research focuses more on financial performance for shareholders and top management and performance related to customers, process time, innovation and employees. On the other hand, fewer than v performance indicators were plant in the sample for the perspectives related to suppliers, club, procedure costs and process flexibility, indicating that the literature focuses less on those perspectives. The latter remains largely overlooked by academic research, possibly due to the newly emerging character of these perspectives.

Nosotros must, however, note that the majority of the operation indicators are mentioned in only a few papers. For instance, 59 of the 87 indicators were cited in a single paper, whereas the residue are mentioned in more one paper. Eleven performance indicators are frequently mentioned in the process literature (i.e., past 5 or more papers). These indicators include four indicators of client-related performance (i.e., customer complaints, perceived customer satisfaction, query time, and delivery reliability), three indicators of fourth dimension-related process performance (i.e., process cycle time, sub-procedure turnaround time, and process waiting time), one cost-related operation indicator (i.e., process cost), two indicators of process performance related to internal quality (i.east., quality of internal outputs and deadline adherence), and ane indicator of employee operation (i.e., perceived employee satisfaction).

Consequent with "Operation indicators" department, the different performance perspectives are a combination of financial or price-related indicators with not-financial data. The latter also have the upper hand in our sample. Furthermore, the sample includes a combination of objective and subjective indicators, and the vast majority are objective indicators. Simply 8 indicators explicitly refer to qualitative scales; for instance, to measure the degree of satisfaction of the different stakeholder groups. For all the other performance indicators, a quantifiable alternative is provided.

It is important to remember that a distinction was made between the indicators with operationalization and those without operationalization. The listing of 87 performance indicators, as given in "Appendix three", tin can thus be extended with those indicators for which operationalization is missing in the reviewed literature. Specifically, we found 48 boosted performance indicators ("Appendix 4") that mainly address supplier performance, procedure performance related to costs and flexibility, and the employee-related aspects of digital innovation. Consequently, this structured literature review uncovered a total of 135 operation indicators that are directly or indirectly linked to business concern process performance.

Finally, the total list of 135 performance indicators was evaluated for its comprehensiveness by comparing the identified indicators with other BSC variants that were not included in our sample. More specifically, based on a random search, we looked for two BSC variants in the Web of Scientific discipline that did not fit the search strategy of this structured literature review: one that did not fit the search term of "business process*" (Hubbard 2009) and another that did non fit any of the performance-related search terms of "performance indicator*", "functioning metric*" or "performance measur*" (Bronzo et al. 2013). These 2 BSC variants cover thirty and 17 performance indicators, respectively, and are thus less comprehensive than the extended list presented in this report. Most of the operation indicators suggested by the 2 BSC variants are either directly covered in our findings or could be derived after recalculations. But five operation indicators could not be linked to our list of 135 indicators, and these suggest possible refinements regarding (1) the growth potential of employees, (2) new markets, (3) the social operation of suppliers, (4) philanthropy, or (5) industry-specific events.

Discussion

This structured literature review culminated in an extended list of 140 performance indicators: 87 indicators with operationalization, 48 indicators without operationalization and 5 refinements derived from two other BSC variants. The evaluation of our findings confronting two BSC variants validated our piece of work in the sense that we present a more exhaustive list of performance indicators, with operationalization for most, and that but pocket-size refinements could exist added. However, the comprehensiveness of our findings tin can be claimed simply to a sure extent given the limitations of our predefined search strategy and the lack of empirical validation by subject-matter experts or organizations. Notwithstanding these limitations, conclusions can be fatigued from the large sample of 76 papers to respond to the inquiry questions (RQs).

Regarding RQ1 on the country of the enquiry on business procedure performance measurement, the literature review provided additional testify for the omnipresence of the BSC. Well-nigh of the sampled papers mentioned or used the BSC as a starting indicate and basis for their research and analysis. The literature study too showed a variety of enquiry topics, ranging from behavioral-science to design-science research and from a focus on performance measurement models to a focus on performance indicators. In add-on to inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe operation indicators and targets, the main weakness uncovered in this literature review deals with the concretization of performance indicators supplementing operation measurement systems. The SLR results suggest that none of the reviewed papers offers a comprehensive measurement framework, specifically ane that includes and extends the BSC perspectives, is procedure-driven and encompasses as many concrete performance indicators as possible. Such a comprehensive framework could be used as a checklist or a best practice for reference when defining specific operation indicators. Hence, the current literature review offers a first footstep towards such a comprehensive framework by means of an extended list of possible performance indicators bundled in 11 functioning perspectives (RQ2).

Regarding RQ2 on process functioning indicators, the literature study revealed that scholars measure out functioning in many different ways and without sharing much detail regarding the operationalization of the measurement instruments, which makes a comparison of research results more than difficult. As such, the extended list of performance indicators is our main contribution and fills a gap in the literature by providing a detailed overview of functioning indicators mentioned or used in the literature on business process performance. Another novel aspect is that we responded to the criticism of missing perspectives in the original BSC (EFQM 2010; Hubbard 2009; Kueng 2000) and identified the narrow view of performance typically taken in the procedure literature (Dumas et al. 2013). Figures 1 and 2 are now combined and extended in a more exhaustive way, namely past ways of more perspectives than are offered past other attempts (Tabular array 6), by explicitly differentiating between functioning drivers (or lead indicators) and performance outcomes (or lag indicators), and past because concrete performance indicators.

Our work also demonstrated that all perspectives in the BSC (Kaplan and Norton 1996, 2001) relate to business concern process performance to some degree. In other words, while the BSC is a strategic tool for organizational operation measurement, it is actually based on indicators that originate from business organization processes. More than specifically, in add-on to the perspective of internal business processes, the financial operation perspective typically refers to sales or revenues gained while doing business organisation, particularly subsequently executing business processes. The customer perspective relates to the implications of product or service delivery, specifically to the interactions throughout business organisation processes, whereas the "learning and growth" perspective relates to innovations in the way of working (i.eastward., business processes) and the degree to which employees are prepared to conduct and innovate business organization processes. The BSC, however, does not present sub-perspectives and thus takes a more than loftier-level view of functioning. Hence, the BSC can be extended based on other categorizations made in the reviewed literature; for example, related to internal/external, strategic/operational, financial/non-fiscal, or cost/fourth dimension/quality/flexibility.

Therefore, this written report refined the initial BSC perspectives into eleven functioning perspectives (Fig. 11) past applying three other performance measurement models (Cross and Lynch 1988; EFQM 2010; Kueng 2000) and the respected Devil's quadrangle for procedure performance (Dumas et al. 2013). Additionally, a more holistic view of business procedure performance can be obtained past measuring each performance perspective of Fig. xi than can be achieved past using the established dimensions of time, cost, quality and flexibility as commonly proposed in the process literature (Dumas et al. 2013). Every bit such, this study demonstrated a highly relevant synergy betwixt the disciplines of procedure management, organization direction and operation management.

Fig. xi

An overview of the observed performance perspectives in the business process literature

Full size image

We also found out that not all the performance perspectives in Fig. 11 are equally represented in the studied literature. In detail, the perspectives related to suppliers, society, procedure costs and process flexibility seem under-researched thus far.

The eleven operation perspectives (Fig. 11) can be used by organizations and scholars to measure the performance of business processes in a more holistic way, considering the implications for different target groups. For each perspective, performance indicators tin can be selected that fit item needs. Thus, we do not assert that every indicator in the extended list of 140 performance indicators should always be measured, since "Theoretical groundwork" section emphasized the need for arrangement-dependent indicators aligned with an arrangement's strategy. Instead, our extended list tin can be a starting betoken for finding and using advisable indicators for each operation perspective, without losing much time reflecting on possible indicators or ways to concretize those indicators. Similarly, the list tin can be used by scholars, since many studies in both the process literature and direction literature intend to measure the performance outcomes of theoretical constructs or adult artifacts.

Consequent with the to a higher place, we admit that the observed functioning indicators originate from dissimilar models and paradigms or can be specific to certain processes or sectors. Since our intention is to provide an exhaustive list of indicators that can be practical to mensurate business process performance, the indicators are non necessarily fully compatible. Instead, our findings allow the recognition of the role of a business organization context (i.e., the peculiarities of a business organisation activity, an organization or other circumstances). For instance, a manufacturing organization might choose different indicators from our list than a service or non-profit arrangement (eastward.g., manufacturing lead time versus friendliness, or carbon dioxide emission versus stakeholder satisfaction).

Some other bespeak of word is defended to the difference between the performance of specific processes (known as "procedure performance") and the performance of the entire process portfolio (besides chosen "BPM performance"). While some indicators in our extended listing conspicuously get beyond a single process (east.g., competence-related indicators or employee absenteeism), it is our opinion that the actual functioning of multiple processes can be aggregated to obtain BPM performance (east.thousand., the sum of process waiting times). This distinction between (actual) process performance and BPM performance is useful; for example, for supplementing models that effort to predict the (expected) performance based on capability development, such every bit process maturity models (eastward.g., CMMI) and BPM maturity models (Hammer 2007; McCormack and Johnson 2001). Even so, since this written report has shown a shut link between process performance, BPM functioning, and organizational functioning, it seems better to refer to dissimilar performance perspectives than to differentiate between such operation types.

In future research, the comprehensiveness of the extended list of performance indicators can be empirically validated by subject-matter experts. Additionally, case studies can be conducted in which organizations utilize the list as a supplement to performance measurement models in order to facilitate the selection of indicators for their specific concern context. The to the lowest degree covered perspectives in the bookish research also seem to be those that are newly emerging (namely, the perspectives related to close collaboration with suppliers, society/sustainability and procedure flexibility or agility), and these demand more attention in future research. Some other enquiry avenue is to elaborate on the notion of a business context; for instance, past investigating what information technology means to have a strategic fit (Venkatraman 1989) in terms of performance measurement and which strategies (Miller and Friesen 1986; Porter 2008; Treacy and Wiersema 1993) are typically associated with which performance indicators. Additionally, the bear on of environmental aspects, such as market velocity (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000), on the selection of functioning indicators tin can exist taken into account in future research.

Determination

Business quotes such every bit "If you cannot measure information technology, you cannot manage it" or "What is measured improves" (P. Drucker) are sometimes criticized because not all important things seem measurable (Ryan 2014). Nonetheless, given the perceived need of managers to measure their business and the broad variety of functioning indicators (i.e., ranging from quantitative to qualitative and from financial to non-financial), this structured literature review has presented the status of the research on business procedure performance measurement. This structured approach allowed united states of america to detect weaknesses or inadequacies in the current literature, especially regarding the definition and concretization of possible operation indicators. We continued by taking a holistic view of the categorization of the observed performance indicators (i.e., measures or metrics) into 11 performance perspectives based on relevant operation measurement models and established process performance dimensions.

The identified functioning indicators inside the 11 perspectives constitute an extended listing from which practitioners and researchers can select appropriate indicators depending on their needs. In total, the structured literature review resulted in 140 possible functioning indicators: 87 indicators with operationalization, 48 additional indicators that demand further concretization, and v refinements based on other Counterbalanced Scorecard (BSC) variants. As such, the 11 performance perspectives with related indicators can be considered a conceptual framework that was derived from the electric current process literature and theoretically validated past established measurement approaches in organization management.

Future inquiry tin can empirically validate the conceptual framework past involving subject-matter experts to assess the comprehensiveness of the extended list and refine the missing concretizations, and by undertaking case studies in which the extended listing tin can be applied by specific organizations. Other inquiry avenues exist to investigate the link between actual process performance and expected process performance (as measured in maturity models) or the bear upon of certain strategic or environmental aspects on the choice of specific operation indicators. Such findings are needed to supplement and enrich existing performance measurement systems.

Abbreviations

BH:

behavioral science

BPM:

business concern process management

BSC:

balanced scorecard

DS:

design-science

RQ:

research question

SLR:

structured literature review

TO:

keyword in topic

TI:

keyword in title

References

• Bain Company (2015) Management tools and trends 2015. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/direction-tools-and-trends-2015.aspx. Accessed April 2016

• Boellt SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) On being 'systematic' in literature reviews in IS. J Inf Technol 30:161–173

  Article  Google Scholar

• Bronzo M, de Resende PTV, de Oliveira MP, McCormack KP, de Sousa PR, Ferreira RL (2013) Improving operation aligning business analytics with process orientation. Int J Inf Manag 33(2):300–307

  Article  Google Scholar

• Butler A, Letza SR, Neale B (1997) Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Long Range Plann 30(ii):242–253

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cantankerous KF, Lynch RL (1988) The "SMART" mode to define and sustain success. Natl Product Rev eight(i):ane–23

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business organization process management. Springer, Berlin

  Book  Google Scholar

• EFQM (2010) EFQM—the official website. http://www.efqm.org. Accessed Apr 2015

• Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10–11):1105–1121

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hammer M (2007) The process audit. Harv Passenger vehicle Rev 4:111–123

  Google Scholar

• Heckl D, Moormann J (2010) Process performance management. In: Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (eds) Handbook on business organization process management 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–135

  Chapter  Google Scholar

• Hubbard G (2009) Measuring organizational functioning: beyond the triple bottom line. Autobus Strateg Environ 18(3):177–191

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar

• Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The balanced scorecard. Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business organization Schoolhouse Press, Boston

  Google Scholar

• Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) The strategy-focused organisation. How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

  Google Scholar

• Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2004) Strategy maps. Converting intangible avails into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business organization Printing, Massachusetts

  Google Scholar

• King WR, He J (2005) Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Commun Assoc Inform Sys 16:665–686

  Google Scholar

• Kitchenham B (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software applied science (version two.3) (technical written report EBSE-2007-01). Keele University and University of Durham

• Kueng P (2000) Procedure performance measurement organization: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Qual Manag 11(ane):67–85

  Article  Google Scholar

• March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on data engineering science. Decis Support Syst xv(4):251–266

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• McCormack Thousand, Johnson WC (2001) Business process orientation. St. Lucie Press, Florida

  Volume  Google Scholar

• Melville N, Kraemer Grand, Gurbaxani V (2004) Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q 28(2):283–322

  Google Scholar

• Miller D, Friesen PH (1986) Porter'south (1980) Generic strategies and operation: an empirical test with American data part I: testing porter. Organ Stud 7(1):37–55

  Article  Google Scholar

• Neely A (2005) The evolution of functioning measurement research. Int J Oper Prod Manag 5(12):1264–1277

  Article  Google Scholar

• Neely A, Mills J, Platts K, Richards H, Gregory M, Bourne Yard, Kennerley 1000 (2000) Operation measurement arrangement pattern: developing and testing a procedure-based approach. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(ten):1119–1145

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Norreklit H (2000) The balance on the balanced scorecard. A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Manag Accoun Res eleven(1):65–88

  Article  Google Scholar

• Peffers Grand, Rothenberger M, Tuunanen T, Vaezi R (2012) Design science research evaluation. In: Peffers K, Rothenberger 1000, Kuechler B (eds) DESRIST 2012. LNCS 7286. Springer, Berlin, pp 398–410

  Google Scholar

• Porter ME (2008) The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv Charabanc Rev 86(1):78–93

  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Recker J (2013) Scientific research in information systems. A beginner'southward guide. Springer, Berlin

  Book  Google Scholar

• Richard PJ, Devinney TM, Yip GS, Johnson G (2009) Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practise. J Manag 35(3):718–804

  Google Scholar

• Ryan L (2014) 'If y'all can't measure it, y'all can't manage it': not truthful. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/02/x/if-you-deceit-measure-information technology-you-deceit-manage-it-is-bs/#aca27e3faeda. Accessed Apr 2015

• Shah L, Etienne A, Siadat A, Vernadat F (2012) (Value, Risk)-Based performance evaluation of manufacturing processes. In: INCOM proceedings of the 14th symposium on data control bug in manufacturing, 23–25 May 2012. Bucharest, Romania, pp 1586–1591

• Smith TM, Reece JS (1999) The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting. J Oper Manag 17(2):145–161

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Sullivan T (2001) Scorecards ease businesses' remainder act. Infoworld, 8 Jan, p 32

• Treacy Thousand, Wiersema F (1993) Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harv Motorbus Rev 71(1):84–93

  Google Scholar

• Ulfeder South (2004) The new imperative. Enterprise leadership. CIO advertising supplements, fifteen February, p S5

• Vaivio J (1999) Exploring a non-fiscal management accounting change. Manag Acc Res 10(iv):409–437

  Article  Google Scholar

• Venkatraman Northward (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manag Rev xiv(3):423–444

  Google Scholar

Download references

Authors' contributions

AVL initiated the conception and design of the study, while AS was responsible for the collection of data (sampling) and identification of performance indicators. The analysis and interpretation of the data was conducted past both authors. AVL was involved in drafting and coordinating the manuscript, and AS in reviewing information technology critically. Both authors read and canonical the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank American Journal Experts (AJE) for English language editing.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they accept no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included inside the article (and its additional files).

Consent for publication

Non applicative.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with homo participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration – Section of Business organization Informatics and Operations Management, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Kingdom of belgium

   Amy Van Looy & Aygun Shafagatova

Respective author

Correspondence to Amy Van Looy.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 7.

Table seven The terminal list of sampled papers (N = 76)

Full size table

Appendix 2: The mapping of the structured literature review

The mapping details per sampled paper tin can be found here.

https://bulldoze.google.com/file/d/0B_2VpjwsRLrlRHhfRHJ4ZFBWdEE/view?usp=sharing.

Appendix 3

See Table viii.

Tabular array 8 The list of operation indicators with operationalization

Full size tabular array

Appendix 4

See Tabular array nine.

Table 9 Additional list of performance indicators without operationalization

Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open up Access This commodity is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(southward) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Eatables license, and signal if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

Virtually this commodity

Cite this article

Van Looy, A., Shafagatova, A. Business organization process functioning measurement: a structured literature review of indicators, measures and metrics. SpringerPlus 5, 1797 (2016). https://doi.org/x.1186/s40064-016-3498-1

Download citation

• Received: 17 June 2016

• Accepted: 10 October 2016

• Published: 18 October 2016

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1186/s40064-016-3498-1

Keywords

• Business procedure
• Performance measurement
• Indicator
• Measure
• Metric
• Structured literature review
• Systematic literature review

akhurstrobjecia.blogspot.com

Source: https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-3498-1

Share :