![References:
Bana e Costa, C. A. (1993). Três convicções fundamentais na prática do apoio à decisão. Pesquisa Operacional,
13, 1-12.
Bana e Costa, C. A.; Ensslin, L.; Corrêa, E. C.; Vansnick, J. C. (1999). Decision Support Systems in action:
integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. European Journal of Operational Research, 113, p.
315-335.
Bana e Costa, C. A.; De Corte, J.M. & Vansnick, J.C. (2005). On the mathematical foundations of macbeth. In:
Multicriteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey [edited by Greco, J. F. & Ehrgott, S. M.], Springer Verlag,
Boston, Dordrecht, London, 409-442.
Bana e Costa, C. A, Lorrenço João C. ,Chabas, Mamuel P. , Bana e Costa, João C. “Development of Reusable
Bid Evaluation Models for the Portuguese Electric Transmissin Company”. Decision Analysis , Vol. 5, No. 1,
March , 2008, pp. 22–42.
Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (1992). The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 309-324.
Ensslin, L.; Dutra, A. & Ensslin, S. R. (2000). MCDA: a construtivist approach to the management of human
resources at a governmental agency. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 79-100.
Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press,
London.
Landry, M. (1995). A note on the concept of problem. Organization Studies, 16, 315-343.
Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Roy, B. (2005). Paradigms and Challenges, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis – State of the Art Survey. In:
Multicriteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey [edited by Greco, J. F. & Ehrgott, S. M.], Springer Verlag,
Boston, Dordrecht, London, 03-24.
Skinner, W. (1986). The productivity paradox. Management Review, 75, 41-45.
43/44](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kpimethodology-110206070738-phpapp02/85/Kpi-methodology-43-320.jpg)
Kpi methodology
- 1. Multicriteria Methodology for KPI Identification in Outsourced Projects Authors: Msc. Edilson Giffhorn, PMP, IPMA - Speaker PhD. Leonardo Ensslin PhD. Sandra Rolim Ensslin Msc. William Barbosa Vianna
- 2. Summary 1. Introduction 1.1 Social Issue 1.2 Bibliographical Support 1.3 Research Question and Objectiv 2. Theoretical Construct 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.2. Evaluation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 2/44
- 3. 1. Introduction 1.1 Social Issue: The economic growth of Brazil demands increased infra-structural improvements in the country. One of the areas that has been most affected by this growth is telecommunications. The fall of market reserve laws and the state monopolies in 1998 were the cornerstone of rapid changes and demands of the telecommunications consumer market. New challenges faced by system operators resulted in the need for new Project Management practices and partial service Outsourcing. 3/44
- 4. Consequently, Project Management focused efforts on reducing costs, quality and price. Outsourcing aimed to reduce costs, provide agility, flexibility and concentration of efforts in activities with higher added value. This led to an integration of both techniques, namely outsourcing of project execution. The role of project managers became essentially that of managing contracts of outsourced project providers. To a certain extent, the Project Manager no longer had direct control over activity resources but was, nonetheless, held accountable for results. 4/44
- 5. In this scenario, outsourced companies charter to their own needs causing conflict of interests and priorities. Consequently, the contracting company is susceptible to drops in productivity, delays, rework, and endangerment of the company image and project success. This situation comprises multiple undefined criteria: The decision-maker is unsure about which considerations to take into account during evaluation of outsourced project providers; Pressure due to compression of goal attainment timelines forces the decision-maker to adopt essentially intuitive management procedures; Misalignment between the strategic objectives of the contracting company and the outsourced providers. 5/44
- 6. 1.2 Bibliographical Support: The theoretical rationale for research was built around articles selected from databases of the CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) website, which can be accessed through the link: http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/portugues/index.jsp The CAPES website is linked to the Brazilian Ministry of Education. One of the missions of the website is to promote and provide access to scientific work. 6/44
- 7. Selected databases for consult to select the articles were: 7/44
- 8. A structured process was adopted for the selection of articles that contribute to the provision of theoretical rationale for research. Total: 35 articles 8/44
- 9. A study of this reference material revealed a gap in methods adopted to identify, organize, measure and integrate KPIs for Performance Evaluation to select or manage outsourced providers in order to meet service quality standards, in accordance with preferences and values of the Project Manager. 9/44
- 10. 1.3 Research Question and Objectiv: Research Question: How to develop a structured and personalized process that allows the Project Manager to identify, organize, measure and integrate KPIs within the context of outsourced projects? Objectiv: To build a performance evaluation model personalized for the Project Manager to be applied to outsourced project providers. 10/44
- 11. Summary 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Construct 2.1. Project Outsourcing and Performance Evaluation 2.2. MCDA-C and traditional MCDA methodologies 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.2. Evaluation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 11/44
- 12. 2. Theoretical Construct 2.1. Project Outsourcing and Performance Evaluation Outsourcing enables: concentration of efforts regarding essential competencies; increased speed, flexibility and specialization. In project outsourcing the client company hires another company to develop a project, establishing timelines, resources and costs for project execution activities. In Brazil, outsourcing gained force at the start of the 90s with the elimination of market reserve laws, the increase of fixed costs, tax burden and the number of assets needed to conduct support activities. 12/44
- 13. In telecommunications, outsourcing was definitively incorporated with the privatization of state-owned companies at the end of the 90s. In this context, the final result of a project depends on the joint action of different companies. This calls for the use of Performance Evaluation tools that allow a broader understanding regarding which KPIs will determine project results. The need for an instrument that enables the outsource company performance evaluation according to manager perception (decision- maker). Multicriteria Decision Aid – Constructivist (MCDA-C) approach was employed as the intervention instrument. 13/44
- 14. 2.2. MCDA-C and traditional MCDA methodologies MCDA-C consolidation as a management instrument occurred in the 80s with the works of: Roy (1996) and Landry (1995) – limits of objectivity for decision aid processes; Skinner (1986) and Keeney (1992) – attributes (objectives, criteria) are specific to the decision-maker in each context; Bana and Costa (1993, 1999) – MCDA convictions. Among others. MCDA-C emerges as a ramification of traditional MCDA to aid decision-makers in the contexts in which they have a partial understanding of this same context, and wish to broaden this knowledge to better comprehend the consequences of their values and preferences. 14/44
- 15. MCDA-C phases Source: Ensslin, Dutra, Ensslin (2000) 15/44
- 16. Summary 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Construct 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.1.1 Contextualization 3.1.2 Primary Assessment Elements 3.1.3 Concepts 3.1.4 Means-Ends Maps 3.1.5 Clusters 3.1.6 Hierarchical Value Structure 3.1.7 Descriptors - KPIs 3.2. Evaluation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 16/44
- 17. 3.1 Model Structuring 3.1.1 Contextualization The Case Study was developed in the branch of a telecommunications operator in southern Brazil. This operator has around 6000 workers, 10 million customers and yearly gross revenue of approximately 8 billion US dollars. Up until the 90s: state monopoly. In 1995: start of privatizations. Supplier contracts are drafted in the researched parent company. In the branches, data communication projects are conducted by outsourced companies. 17/44
- 18. Subsystem of Actors Label Build a model to evaluate the performance of outsourced companies according to values and preferences of the Project Manager. 18/44
- 19. 3.1.2 Primary Assessment Elements Open interviews were conducted in which the decision-maker was asked to discourse on this issue. Statements were analysed to identify Primary Assessment Elements (PAE): context characteristics or properties that the decision-maker considers may impact his/her values. Total Primary Assessment Elements: 60. 19/44
- 20. 3.1.3 Concepts Direction of preference for each PAE is identified, together with the psychological opposite, to understand the consequences that the decision-maker wishes to avoid in this concern: Concept (Eden, Ackermann, 1992). 20/44
- 21. 3.1.4 Means-Ends Maps Broadening of understanding through identification of hierarchical relations and relations of influence between concepts. “How can the end concept be obtained?” “Why is the end concept important?” 21/44
- 22. Means-Ends Map for Professional Qualification and Testing Clusters 22/44
- 23. 3.1.5 Clusters In order to continue with the understanding enhancement process, the relations of influence structure is converted to a Hierarchical Values Structure: incorporating the understanding of preferential judgement of the decision-maker (Keeney, 1992). Initial clusters are dismembered and, on migration to a Hierarchical Value Structure, are denominated Fundamental Points of View (FPV). 23/44
- 24. 3.1.6 Hierarchical Value Structure: Evaluate Performance of Outsourced Label Providers Technical Objectives Areas of Communication Concern Quality Alignment Fundamental FPV 1 – FPV 2 – Standards Professional FPV 3 – FPV 4 - FPV 5 – FPV 6 – FPV 7 - Points of Testing Priorities Routes Technique Organizational View: Compliance Qualification Strategic Objectives 24/44
- 25. 3.1.7 Descriptors - KPIs The construction of ordinal scales to measure Fundamental Points of View result in Descriptors (created in an interactive process with the decision-maker), or KPIs. Reference Levels or Anchors are identified for each KPI (Roy, 2005): KPI Excellence Good Level Market Neutral Level Jeopardize 25/44
- 26. Hierarchical Value Structure for FPV 2: KPIs ordinal measurement 26/44
- 27. Summary 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Construct 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.2. Evaluation 3.2.1 Value Functions 3.2.2 Substitution Rates 3.2.3 Global Evaluation and Impact Profile of the Current Situation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 27/44
- 28. 3.2 Evaluation KPIs are ordinal scales, and therefore descriptive, that do not allow mathematical operations. Information on differences of attractiveness should be added between levels to transform them into (numerical) interval scales. MCDA-C acknowledges these differences between ordinal and cardinal scales. The Macbeth method was adopted to transform ordinal scales into cardinal scales (Bana and Costa, 2008). Macbeth is a method used to transform ordinal scales into cardinal scales from absolute judgements concerning differences of attractiveness between scale levels. 28/44
- 29. 3.2.1 Value Functions Cardinal scales are built using information of difference of attractiveness between descriptor levels (ordinal scales) and M- Macbeth software, resulting in cardinal scales that meet preference judgements of the decision-maker: Value Functions. 29/44
- 30. Cardinal scales for FPV Professional Qualification: cardinal measurement 30/44
- 31. 3.2.2 Substitution Rates Information that allows the integration of cardinal scales should be incorporated to display measurement of aspects that are considered strategic (Fundamental Points of View) and tactical (Elementary Points of View, EPVs or KPIs). Integration is conducted using Substitution Rates and a Macbeth Peer-to-Peer Comparison method. 31/44
- 32. Potential actions that represent a contribution to the transition from Neutral level to Good level are created in each criteria in which an establishment of rates is desired. 32/44
- 33. 3.2.3 Global Evaluation and Impact Profile of the Status Quo The global model is provided using the sum of models of each FPV. This model can be used to aid the conducted management process with support from the global evaluation model. The decision-maker selected three real companies. 33/44
- 34. Status quo Impact Profile of the three companies: 34/44
- 35. Summary 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Construct 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.2. Evaluation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 35/44
- 36. 3.3 Recommendations This stage serves as support for the decision-maker to identify ways of improving evaluated performance, and to understand the consequences of actions within his/her strategic objectives implemented using KPIs. Despite its non-prescriptive nature, this stage aids the building of actions and understanding of consequences. For this: strategic objectives (FPV), in which performance enhancement is desired, are identified; EPV (KPI) and the corresponding status quo of the evaluated company impact level are displayed; actors involved are used to seek alternatives to improve EPV (KPI) impact. 36/44
- 37. KPI performance alteration – Revenue Loss with application of Alpha Actions: KPI – Revenue Loss Number of fines due to work stoppage with loss of revenue 0 • In initial meeting, convey norms for active system intervention; Good Level 2 • Adapt use of cable ducts to prevent extension works from interfering with active systems; 3 • Convey communication channels with the Management and Faults Centre; Neutral Level 4 Alpha Actions Portfolio: • Convey, in initial meetings, mandatory communication with the Management and 5 Faults Centre before and after scheduled intervention to certify system standardization; • In works timeline planning, observe the need for prior scheduling for active system intervention. 37/44
- 38. FPV2 Profile of Impact on status quo and with application of Alpha Actions: 38/44
- 39. The Recommendations stage provided means for the decision-maker to identify: where it is convenient to act; actions to promote enhancement; the consequences of implementing actions at local or operational level (in EPV - KPI), and tactical (FPV) and strategic level (Global). The function of the Recommendations stage is: To help provide a better understanding that enables the decision- maker to identify the means (actions) and consequences that best meet his/her objectives. 39/44
- 40. Summary 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Construct 3. Construction of the Performance Evaluation Model 3.1. Model Structuring 3.2. Evaluation 3.3. Recommendations 4. Final Considerations 40/44
- 41. 4. Final Considerations The support process allowed the decision-maker to reflect on the context and thus identify, organize, measure and integrate the aspects judged necessary and sufficient to evaluate outsourced providers, and therefore answer the research question: how to develop a personalized structured process that allows a Project Manager to identify, organize, measure and integrate KPIs within the context of outsourced project providers. The general objective was reached with the construction of the Performance Evaluation model described in the Case Study. The decision-maker (project manager) specified strategic objectives and, with the additional use of Means-Ends Maps, identified objective properties of the accountable context. These properties were then measured using KPIs. 41/44
- 42. The following study contributions can be highlighted: the use of a transparent and structured process to identify strategic objectives and the KPIs that operacionalize them; a demonstration of the MCDA-C approach used to identify, organize, measure and integrate KPIs; a demonstration of the management process used to promote actions that enhance status quo performance. 42/44
- 43. References: Bana e Costa, C. A. (1993). Três convicções fundamentais na prática do apoio à decisão. Pesquisa Operacional, 13, 1-12. Bana e Costa, C. A.; Ensslin, L.; Corrêa, E. C.; Vansnick, J. C. (1999). Decision Support Systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. European Journal of Operational Research, 113, p. 315-335. Bana e Costa, C. A.; De Corte, J.M. & Vansnick, J.C. (2005). On the mathematical foundations of macbeth. In: Multicriteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey [edited by Greco, J. F. & Ehrgott, S. M.], Springer Verlag, Boston, Dordrecht, London, 409-442. Bana e Costa, C. A, Lorrenço João C. ,Chabas, Mamuel P. , Bana e Costa, João C. “Development of Reusable Bid Evaluation Models for the Portuguese Electric Transmissin Company”. Decision Analysis , Vol. 5, No. 1, March , 2008, pp. 22–42. Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (1992). The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 309-324. Ensslin, L.; Dutra, A. & Ensslin, S. R. (2000). MCDA: a construtivist approach to the management of human resources at a governmental agency. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 79-100. Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, London. Landry, M. (1995). A note on the concept of problem. Organization Studies, 16, 315-343. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Roy, B. (2005). Paradigms and Challenges, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis – State of the Art Survey. In: Multicriteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey [edited by Greco, J. F. & Ehrgott, S. M.], Springer Verlag, Boston, Dordrecht, London, 03-24. Skinner, W. (1986). The productivity paradox. Management Review, 75, 41-45. 43/44
- 44. Questions? Thank You Msc. Edilson Giffhorn – edilson.giffhorn@gmail.com PhD. Leonardo Ensslin - ensslin@deps.ufsc.br PhD. Sandra Rolim Ensslin - sensslin@gmail.com Msc. William Barbosa Vianna - wpwilliam@hotmail.com 44/44