企业的过程绩效考核评价方法英文文献及翻译 第3页
A methodology for dynamic enterprise process performance evaluation
Text from: WenAn Tan, Weiming Shen, Jianmin Zhao. A methodology for dynamic enterprise
process performance evaluation. Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute, National Research Council of Canada, 800 Collip Circle, London, Ont, Canada N6G 4X8, Received 23 February 2006; received in revised form 12 October 2006; accepted 13 October 2006
Abstract
In order to manage enterprise businesses effectively, enterprise decision makers need to understand enterprise business processes from various perspectives using sophisticated process simulation and optimization tools. Evaluation of enterprise processes is毕业论文
http://www.751com.cn the basis of enterprise process simulation and optimization research for business process re-engineering. This paper proposes a methodology for dynamic enterprise process performance evaluation with metric measurement models based on Activity-Based Costing and Activity-Based Management (ABC/ABM) for six types of process flows within manufacturing enterprises, including activity flow, product information flow, resource flow, cost flow, cash flow, and profit flow. The proposed methodology uses time, quality, service, cost, speed, efficiency, and importance as seven criteria. A prototype software system has been implemented to validate the proposed methodology.
1 Introduction
Enterprise process modeling, simulation, and optimization have been the recent research focus in the development of flexible enterprise systems. There have been significant research efforts aiming at improving business process performance such as Plan Do Check Act (PDCA), Initiating-Diagnosing-Establishing-Acting-Learning (IDEAL) , Quality Improvement Paradigm (QIP) , and the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) . As researches related to identification of the evaluation items, the Goal Question indicator Measures (GQM) methodology was introduced by Basili and Rombach in 1988, refined by AMI in 1992 and by Pulford et al. in 1996, and was applied to the goal-driven software evaluation by Park et al.in 1996. Especially, Mendonca et al. converted the GQM to another GoalQuestion-Metric for improving evaluation processes in 1998. How do we evaluate the enterprise process? The answer to this question is the basis of enterprise process simulation and optimization research for business process improvements. There is a very important concept, business process reengineering (BPR), was proposed by Hammer in 1990. Then Hammer and Stanton suggested the key issues of BPR as organizational redesign, process reorganization, and the use of information technology. The fundamen本文来自辣'文~论^文,网tal definition of BPR proposed by Hammer is that starting from the very basic issues, reformation of the re-engineering process will dramatically improve an organization in terms of its cost, quality, service, and speed. Therefore, improvement and reengineering of a process is a fundamental tenet of BPR. Cheng and Tsai refined the definition and description of process re-engineering as ‘‘use of customer satisfaction as the primary target and examination of the information technology and operational process within and between organizations; and use of process analysis as a means to understand process performance and redesign the process in order to reach the target of simplification, cost reduction, and improvement of the service quality’’. Then they proposed Construction Management Process Re-engineering Method (CMPR). In their studies, the evaluation of process value is the sum of functional effectiveness and cost efficiency of a process with their linear weights. The functional effectiveness of process targets is the customer satisfaction. The cost efficiency of a process is also called the analysis index of cost structure of activities to represent the comprehensive efficiency of value-added index and the primary activity cost index. In fact, all of these indexes belong to the performance criteria of process structure. As a result, it is difficult to use the evaluation results directly to any related business decision-making. Fitzgerald et al. proposed a framework based on results (financial performance and competitiveness) and determinants (quality, flexibility, resource utilization, and innovation). Lynch and Cross presented a performance pyramid for performance measurement from vision, market, financial, customer satisfaction, flexibility, productivity, quality, delivery, cycle time, and waste. The structural AMBITE performance measurement cube introduced a tri-axis cube that is mapped into three dimensions: business processes, competitive priorities and manufacturing typology, and it uses metrics to measure enterprise performance from time, cost, quality, flexibility, and environment. Bradley et al. also introduced business process re-engineering and provided an overview of four BPR tools: DEC-model, Process Wise, Business Design Facility (BDF), and Enterprise Modeling System (EM毕业论文
http://www.751com.cn S— FirstStep). They proposed a methodology that can be used to compare different BPR software tools and to help BPR practitioners to assess how a particular BPR software tool will “fit” a particular process or industry sector. Folan and Browne described the evolution of performance measurement (PM) in four aspects: recommendations, frameworks, system and inter-organizational performance measurement. They proposed that the performance measurement literature was encroached into the processes related to performance management, and considered process performance management as a future research area. The concept of inter organizational PM has had a very fragmented history of development in the literature. Current studies of inter-organizational PM usually focus on supply chain PM, while the extended enterprise PM has been touched upon only briefly by the PM literature. Fawcett et al. were among the first to suggest that measurement systems should extend competitive strategy into the areas of supply chain integration (upstream) and to align with customer requirements (downstream). Beamon suggested that a frame work for supply chain PM can be derived from the se of three measures: resources, output and flexibility. These three measures have different goals, but it is important for overall performance success of the supply chain for the three to be measured. Lapide proposed a two-tier supply chain PM framework, which depicts the relationship between so-called Executive level metrics and Managerial level metrics in the supply chain. The former can be considered to be cross functional (and inter-organizational), process-based measures and the latter are function-based diagnostic measures. Basu proposed a six-step cycle framework in order to implement and sustain the benefits of a performance management system with new measures (i.e., measures for the extended supply chain), while Chan and Qi proposed a process-based PM framework for the supply chain based upon six so-called ‘‘processes’’: suppliers, inbound logistics, core manufacturer, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, and end customers. Each of these
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 下一页
企业的过程绩效考核评价方法英文文献及翻译 第3页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
