Tailoring performance evaluation to specific industrial contexts – application to sustainable mass customisation enterprises

Abstract

This paper proposes an approach for measuring performance improvement through prioritising and aggregating performance indicators (PIs). The proposed approach helps practitioners build, in a formal way, their performance measurement systems. The novelty of the methodology lies in: (i) adapting PIs to specific industrial contexts according to companies concerns and (ii) supporting the decision-making process by providing a holistic and limited number of aggregated PIs. The context considered in the current research is sustainable mass customisation (SMC). Accordingly, a set of SMC indicators are used to illustrate the applicability of the methodology. The implementation and illustration with a real case showed some evidence of its usefulness and pointed out several improvement rooms.

Balancing modularity and solution space freedom: effects on organisational learning and sustainable innovation

“…creating or improving products and processes to contribute to the ecological environment (Boons et al 2013;Chen, Lai, and Wen 2006;Fiksel et al 2014;Flores et al 2008;Foxon and Pearson 2008). While firms have to pursue both customisation and sustainable innovation to remain competitive (Boër et al 2013;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015), pursuing both of these goals jointly is perceived as being very difficult (Boër et al 2013).The manufacturing paradigms of customisation and sustainable innovation are frequently referred to in the literature, yet mainly treated in isolation. Recent research has brought the two paradigms together and has proposed to simultaneously model customisation and sustainability (e.g.…”

“…Firms could deploy modularity to resolve the difficulty of simultaneously pursuing customisation and sustainable innovation (Chen, Lai, and Wen 2006;Davies, Brady, and Hobday 2007;Tang, Wang, and Ullah 2017), because modularity may enhance flexibility and sustainable product development (Ülkü and Hsuan 2017). However, modularity can also add variety to the operative resources needed (Raddats et al 2016), which negatively affects firms' environmental impact (Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015). Against this backdrop, the goal of this research is to understand the relationship between customisation and sustainable innovation.…”

“…Recent research has brought the two paradigms together and has proposed to simultaneously model customisation and sustainability (e.g. Boër et al 2013;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015). However, the way that customisation affects firms' sustainability remains open to debate (Boër et al 2013;Pourabdollahian, Taisch, and Piller 2014;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015).…”

“…Boër et al 2013;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015). However, the way that customisation affects firms' sustainability remains open to debate (Boër et al 2013;Pourabdollahian, Taisch, and Piller 2014;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015). Firms could deploy modularity to resolve the difficulty of simultaneously pursuing customisation and sustainable innovation (Chen, Lai, and Wen 2006;Davies, Brady, and Hobday 2007;Tang, Wang, and Ullah 2017), because modularity may enhance flexibility and sustainable product development (Ülkü and Hsuan 2017).…”

“…Firms that customise through higher degrees of modularity are able to offer more flexible configurations to their customers (Tang, Wang, and Ullah 2017). The degree of solution space freedom determines whether the solution's design can be adjusted to meet specific customer needs (Duray et al 2000;Steiner 2014;Medini, Da Cunha, and Bernard 2015). Business customers in technology-intensive (TI) industries often demand additional engineering and design changes (Davies et al 2011;Egelman et al 2017).…”