A state of the art and comparison of approaches for performance measurement systems definition and design

Abstract

To control their enterprises in a complex environment, decision-makers need to measure their enterprise regularly to perpetuate. For that, they use a specific set of performance indicators grouped in a coherent system named performance measurement systems (PMS). Such systems are generally defined and implemented using different methods. As business performance measurement appeared from the 1900s, a large number of approaches developed by researchers and practitioners have appeared since those years until today. They were not designed for the same purpose and on the same basis and each of them has advantages and disadvantages to measure optimally the performance. So, decision-makers have difficulties to choose among these methods the most appropriate to their needs when they want to design and implement their customised PMS. The objective of this paper is to present the main concepts that approaches are based on, to present a state of the art as exhaustive as possible of the approaches and methods themselves and to make a comparison between them in order to allow decision-makers to choose among them the one or a combination of several ones which would efficiently suit to their needs to reach their global objective of PMS design and implementation.

Model-Based Enterprise Continuous Improvement

“…Nevertheless, knowing how to measure performance and how to choose the corresponding indicators is not yet a talent that all companies still possess. This is why many methods have been proposed to help companies move in this direction [31,32].…”

Design of Enterprise Management System Based on Edge Computing Architecture

“…e system is a Windows e method in [4,5] and the proposed method are used to compare the system performance of the proposed method.…”

“…On the contrary, the lower the proportion of system bugs, the less the system vulnerabilities. In the system unit test phase, integration test phase, and acceptance test phase, the method in [4,5] and the proposed method are used to test, respectively, and the number of system bugs of different methods is compared, as shown in Figure 4.…”

“…According to Figure 4, in the system unit test phase, integration test phase, and acceptance test phase, the system bugs of the method in [4] account for 32%, 28%, and 21%, respectively, and the system bugs of the method in [5] account for 39%, 33%, and 42%, respectively, while the system bugs of the proposed method account for 9%, 11%, and 7%, respectively. erefore, the number of system bugs of the proposed method is relatively low, and the system vulnerabilities are less.…”

“…At present, the research on the enterprise management system has also made great progress. Ducq et al [4] proposed the design of the enterprise performance measurement system, using a group of specific performance indicators, and grouping them in the coherent system of the performance measurement system. e design objectives and basis are different, and each method has its advantages and disadvantages.…”