Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KPI Identification in
Outsourced Projects
Authors:
Msc. Edilson Giffhorn, PMP, IPMA - Speaker
PhD. Leonardo Ensslin
PhD. Sandra Rolim Ensslin
Msc. William Barbosa Vianna
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
1. Introduction
1.1 Social Issue:
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.
3/44
Consequently, Project Management focused efforts on reducing costs,
quality and price.
4/44
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.
5/44
1.2 Bibliographical Support:
http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/portugues/index.jsp
6/44
Selected databases for consult to select the articles were:
7/44
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
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
1.3 Research Question and Objectiv:
Research Question:
Objectiv:
10/44
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
2. Theoretical Construct
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
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.
13/44
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;
Among others.
17/44
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
3.1.2 Primary Assessment Elements
Open interviews were conducted in which the decision-maker was
asked to discourse on this issue.
20/44
3.1.4 Means-Ends Maps
21/44
Means-Ends Map for
Professional Qualification
and Testing Clusters
22/44
3.1.5 Clusters
23/44
3.1.6 Hierarchical Value Structure:
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
3.1.7 Descriptors - KPIs
Reference Levels or Anchors are identified for each KPI (Roy, 2005):
KPI
Excellence
Good Level
Market
Neutral Level
Jeopardize
25/44
Hierarchical Value
Structure for FPV 2:
KPIs
ordinal
measurement
26/44
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
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.
28/44
3.2.1 Value Functions
29/44
Cardinal scales for FPV
Professional Qualification:
cardinal
measurement
30/44
3.2.2 Substitution Rates
31/44
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
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.
33/44
Status quo Impact
Profile of the three
companies:
34/44
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
3.3 Recommendations
For this:
strategic objectives (FPV), in which performance enhancement is
desired, are identified;
37/44
FPV2 Profile of Impact on
status quo and with application
of Alpha Actions:
38/44
The Recommendations stage provided means for the decision-maker
to identify:
39/44
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
4. Final Considerations
41/44
The following study contributions can be highlighted:
42/44
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
Questions?
Thank You
44/44