58 / 188
56
• Thirdly, the acceptance of the PMMS by the users [3] is ultimately important
because only then the prerequisite for generating impact with the PMMS is
fulfilled. Therefore, it has to be defined who the users are. Possible users
could be the responsible top, middle or lower managers or other stakeholders
such as staff that is gathering data or customers. All their concerns should
be looked at. A major factor that is leading to a higher acceptance by
users is that the users are actively involved in the process of creating the
performance measurement system [17]. Only then they feel that they can
actively influence the PMMS. Also giving feedback on the recorded data and
the calculated KPIs as well as possible actions to be taken to ensure a high
rate of acceptance might be taken into account.
• Fourthly, an appropriate reporting or representation of the performance
helps to create acceptance of users. Examples are graphical representations
of the main KPIs on the shop floor.
In the sense of the third aspect the implementation of a PMMS can be seen – as
any change in an organisation – as a change process and thus should be supported by
a change management process. An example can be seen in the change management
process of Kotter’s eight-step approach [31].
Action orientation, usefulness and economy
Ultimately the purpose of a PMMS should be to stimulate action and thus
impact on the organisation it is used in or put simply to be useful [41]. This guideline is
mentioned among the guidelines for the management process as it is based on the effect-
mechanisms within the process and a reliable measuring process as well as the acceptance
of the users. Only if the above mentioned guidelines are fulfilled to a satisfactory level is
the PMMS able to induce change.
A trap for PMMS is the creation of a data graveyard, which is neither read,
observed nor taken into account when making decisions. Therefore, the economy of the
system has to be discussed. In general, this requires that the cost of gathering information
and generating the report should be in a favourable relation to the effect of the system
[10]. This includes several aspects: firstly, the cost of gathering information should be
kept as low as possible (see: availability of information). Secondly, a maximum number
of reported performance elements should be observed (as many as necessary as few
as possible). For performance measurement systems a number of maximum 20 KPIs
can be viewed as a rule of thumb. Thirdly – and this is the link to action orientation –
for each indicator and for the whole PMMS, the degree to which the indicators help
to explain the cause-and-effect-mechanisms and measure the outcome for the focal
organisation should be estimated. Indicators could be how critical for the long and
short term success the indicators are. When regarding the size of an organisation, this
means that usually bigger organisations can use more KPIs and more sophisticated tools
because the expected contribution in terms of savings or expected sales is higher whereas
smaller organisations might have to concentrate on single aspects and less detailed data.
Another aspect that is especially linked to PMMS for supply chains is the fact
that often the responsibility for the whole supply chain is often distributed over several
organisational units if not even over several economically independent entities. Thus