=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1128/intro12
|storemode=property
|title=Choice Navigation: Towards a Methodology for Performance Assessment
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1128/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-1128
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/confws/StorbjergNB13
}}
==Choice Navigation: Towards a Methodology for Performance Assessment==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1128/paper12.pdf
Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe 87
Choice Navigation: Towards a Methodology for Performance Assessment
Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen and Thomas Ditlev Brunoe
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark
shs@m-tech.aau.dk
Abstract and maximizes the customer value. Several researches and
practitioners in the industry have adopted the three
Based on the increased demand for product customization
fundamental capabilities, and continued this line of research,
and the intensified competition, manufacturing companies
defining and developing a more comprehensive
are today more than ever required to deliver product variants understanding of what characterises and constitutes a
in an efficient manner. Research on mass customization has,
successful mass customizer [Fogliatto et al., 2012; Lyons et
up until now, primarily focused on clarifying the al., 2012; Piller & Tseng, 2010; Walcher & Piller, 2011].
organizational capabilities defining successful mass However, recent studies report that experience in industry
customizers. Choice navigation is identified as one of the
adopting and building these capabilities, is for many
three fundamental capabilities. The process of building this
companies an unsuccessful quest, leading to in worst cases
capability does not occur as a discrete event, it is a change company closures [Piller et al., 2012b]. Based on this
process. Based on literature review and analysis, this paper
knowledge, we argue that the industry lacks more detailed
addresses the change process in relation to implementation
and comprehensive guidance, on how to undertake the
of the choice navigation capabilities. A framework for transition from conventional approaches at manufacturing,
performance assessment, supporting implementing of the
to mass customization as a manufacturing strategy.
choice navigation capabilities, is forwarded. Research on mass customization has also lately increasingly
focused on the “how to” of mass customization, in order to
1 Introduction provide improved guidance for companies in the
A broadly recognized trend of today’s markets is the organisational transition, when following a mass
demand for customized products and services meeting the customization strategy, e.g. [Partanen & Haapasalo, 2004;
individual customer’s needs. Simultaneously today’s Pollard et al., 2011].
manufacturers are faced with demands for delivering The same situation holds true when focusing on choice
products faster and cheaper. These market trends happen in navigation. Significant amount of research and valuable
concurrence with the increased saturation and globalization knowledge have been generated on what choice navigation
of markets. Consequently, today’s manufacturers are on top is about, including how to develop product configuration
of the demand for customization, also faced with increasing systems. However, the topics of how to support the
demands for operating in an effective & efficient manner. transition towards MC, and additionally the process of
Perfectly suited to this challenge, mass customization arose building the choice navigation capabilities, have thus so far
as a concept and an operations strategy in the late 80’s, only been scarcely addressed.
combining the ability to deliver products that meet the An alternate method of supporting organisational change,
individual customers’ needs, as well as having an efficiency which is often addressed in other streams of literature, is the
similar to mass production [Davis, 1989]. Since then, use of performance management. In relation to this, Nielsen,
research has focused on clarifying the fundamental, or Brunø and Jørgensen [Nielsen et al., 2012] have introduced
defining, characteristics of the firms that successfully adopts an overview of metrics and a framework for measuring a
the mass customization strategy. This has led to the company’s performance as a mass customizer. However, as
introduction of three fundamental dimensions in enabling the metrics only focus on solution space assessment or mass
the mass customization ability. The three dimensions are by customization in general, no guidance is given in regard to
[Salvador et al., 2009] framed as the three fundamental mass choice navigation.
customization capabilities; Solution space development, The purpose of this paper is based on this shortcoming in
robust process design and choice navigation. the existing literature on mass customization to answer the
This paper focuses on the process of building the choice following research questions:
navigation capability. This capability, or rather set of How can performance assessment support the
capabilities, refers to the ability to support customers in the implementation of the choice navigation capabilities? What
process of selecting the solution or variant that fulfils the performance assessment methodologies are appropriate?
customer requirements out of a pre-defined solution space, In order to answer this, the choice navigation capability is
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
88 Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe
further detailed in the following section by the use of central navigation in the perspective of [Heiskala et al., 2010]
literature In section 3, a model is introduced describing the primarily relates to the configuration system, its features,
dimensions along which performance assessment is relevant user interface layout and ability to configure a variety of
in the context of choice navigation. Based on this model, products as well as undertake data migration.
relevant performance assessment methodologies are based Instead of arguing for or against these different views, the
on the literature review introduced in section 4. In choice navigation capability has more recently by e.g.
conclusion, the results of the literature review are discussed, [Forza & Salvador, 2007] also been described from a more
and direction for potential further research is given. holistic perspective. Building on this, the implementation of
the choice navigation capability is more than just
2 Choice Navigation - What is it about? implementing a configuration system, it is about managing
organizational change, which involves both changes in
What performance assessment methodology is appropriate systems and people. Following this, we suggest that this
depends on the object or artefact of measurement, as this process should be viewed from a socio-technical perspective
defines what is relevant to measure, and how measurement [Trist, 1981].
can be done. As the fundamental capabilities of mass
customization are defined at a rather abstract level, it is 2.1 Choice Navigation from a Socio-Technical
challenging to relate this to specific activities, or activity- System Perspective
areas, in a firm. Based on the aforementioned premise, the
principal questions are: What is choice navigation really Viewing this concept from a socio-technical point of view,
about? What does the choice navigation capability mean in it is implied that a company’s capability to perform choice
an industrial context? Which activities, systems and human navigation does not rely entirely on the technical systems,
competencies does this abstract and high level capability but to some extent also on the people using the system,
refer to? whether internal sales people or external customers.
The choice navigation capability is by [Salvador et al., Based on the above, we argue that choice navigation as
2009] defined as, the capability of “supporting customers in depicted on Figure 1, consists of both social assets, such as
identifying their own solutions, while minimizing behaviour, routines and skills of e.g. sales personnel, as well
complexity and the burden of choice”. By this definition it as technical assets such as information systems, tools etc.
is revealed that, the concept of the choice navigation Based on this, we argue that the choice navigation capability
capability, builds on assuming a causal relation between the is to be viewed as a higher level abstract capability, which is
efforts required of the customer to identify the solution, and constituted by a set of more concrete capabilities.
the customer satisfaction. Consequently when customers
e.g. are exposed to an assortment of too many choices, the
cognitive cost of evaluation outweighs the value of
increased variety [Huffman & Kahn, 1998; Piller et al.,
2012a]. Based on this knowledge, companies are required to
simplify the navigation of their product assortment.
It could seem as if MC-scholars are more or less in
agreement on the underlying phenomena of choice
navigation. However, if the literature on mass customization
and choice navigation is reviewed, it is revealed that the
conception of the choice navigation capability varies. Figure 1 Choice navigation as a socio-technical system capability
Some authors, e.g [Da Silveira et al., 2001; Fogliatto et al., with multiple abstraction levels.
2012] describes choice navigation as a customer Another argument for taking a more holistic and socio-
manufacturer communication, involving the transfer of technical system perspective on the choice navigation
knowledge from manufacturer to customer, and vice versa. capability, is found in the following definition of
Hence a knowledge transferring process done by so-called capabilities, which both encompasses human assets, and
agents of information transfer, which in this connection are technical assets. According to [Boer et al., 2001],
described as the manufacturer and its customers. In contrary capabilities can be described as “Integrated stocks of
to this, other authors, e.g. [Franke & Piller, 2003; Heiskala resources that are accumulated over time through learning,
et al., 2010; Mortensen et al., 2008; Trentin et al., 2013] or established through deliberate decisions. These stocks of
describe choice navigation, as a configuration system resources include internalised behaviours, technical skills,
involving the use of dedicated IT support, in the form of a organisational routines, and corporate assets such as
product configurator, also referred to as choice board, or information systems, databases, libraries, tools, and
customer design system. handbooks”.
Investigating the underlying view of the choice navigation
capability in these cases, it is evident that in both [Da 3 Transition Towards Choice Navigation
Silveira et al., 2001; Fogliatto et al., 2012] the choice Mass customization calls for a transformed company
navigation capability is described as primarily relating to the [Boynton et al., 1993]. As highlighted by [Salvador et al.,
agents of information transfer, whereas the view on choice 2009], this transformation is not something that can be
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe 89
realized in a single event, it is an on-going or continuous 3) The output performance of the choice navigation process
improvement activity. In addition to these three performance dimensions, it is also
The purpose of this paper is to clarify performance relevant to describe the performance of the mass
assessment methodologies, that can give valuable feedback customization process. This is however not included as an
on the implementation of the choice navigation capabilities, additional dimension, as it is believed to be hard to
so that corrective actions can be taken. distinguish between the performance of choice navigation,
Based on the viewpoint that the choice navigation capability and the performance of the mass customization process.
is comprised of both social and technical capabilities, key According to the three aforementioned dimensions, as well
questions in relation to this are: How to understand and as literature review, relevant performance assessment
model the process of building the choice navigation methodologies are introduced in the subsequent section.
capabilities? Which performance constructs can be
identified, i.e. along which dimensions can performance of 4 Performance Assessment Methodologies
this socio-technical configuration system be described?
In relation to the first question [Boer et al., 2001] has It has for long been recognized that performance assessment
introduced the model depicted in Figure 2, which describes has an important role to play in the efficient and effective
the central constructs in the process of building capabilities management of organizations [Kennerley & Neely, 2003].
for continuous innovation. This topic has, as reckognized by among others [Folan &
Browne, 2005], also gained focus in an ever-increasing
Capabilities number of academic fields.
The research on performance assessment was initiated in
Levers Behaviour Performance
management accounting in the beginning of the 20th
century, and later gained a broader role into non-financial
disciplines, such as operations management, marketing, and
Contingencies human resource management [Chenhall & Langfield-Smith,
Figure 2 CIMA behavioural model by [Boer et al., 2001]. 2007]. Organisational performance is as highlighted by
As the model in Figure 2 links elements such as capabilities, [Cameron, 1986] among others, by no means a simple
performance and levers, we have chosen to take point of phenomenon; rather, it is a complex and multidimensional
departure in this, in modelling of the central elements concept. There are several purposes of conducting
involved in implementing the choice navigation capabilities. performance assessment, [Melnyk et al., 2004] highlights
The outcome, which is depicted at Figure 3, shows how the one which quite accurate defines the purpose of
choice navigation process, which consists of interplay performance assessment in this context;
between behaviour of the technical system and the social “closed-loop deployment of organizational strategies,
system, determines the choice navigation performance. allowing relevant information to feed back to the
Furthermore, the choice navigation process is affecting the appropriate points facilitating decision and control
choice navigation capabilities, by e.g. development of processes”.
routines based on repeated behaviour. The choice Assessment of organisational performance, in order to
navigation process is in turn affected by the capabilities of provide control information, has split into two main streams
the company, and the levers brought in use, e.g. IT systems, in literature; one stream focusing on metrics, performance
etc. Finally the levers utilized are based on feedback or measures, performance measurement systems, and
control information from the performance of the process. approaches to performance management, e.g. [Folan &
Browne, 2005; Melnyk et al., 2004; Neely et al., 2005]. The
CN Capabilities
1
other stream of literature, which is dominatantly within
Technical Social
Mass Customization quality management literature, focuses more on the use of
Performance
capability maturity frameworks, in the assessment of
organisational capabilities, e.g. [Maier et al., 2012].
CN Process
CN
Despite different approaches and focus, the two streams of
Levers literature both provide methodologies for feedback,
Technical Social Performance
recommendations and control information enabling
3
2 assessment of an improvement effort. In order to clarify
Feedback
what performance assessment methodologies are
Figure 3 Behavioural model of the socio-technical CN system, appropriate, central contributions within each of these
outlining the three dimensions of performance assessment. Model streams are reviewed in the following, and reference is
is based on modifications to model of [Boer et al., 2001]. given to the three performance dimensions identified in
Based on the constructs of this process in building the above.
choice navigation capabilities, three dimensions have, as The performance measurement methodologies are assessed
depicted at Figure 3, been identified potential in describing agains three criterias:
the performance of this process: 1) What is measured? Do the methodology encompass
1) The degree to which the capabilities have been built performance assessment by quantitative performance
2) The choice navigation process performance measures or assessment of organizational capabilities?
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
90 Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe
2) Non domain-specific? Are the methodology non Business Process Reengineering process. The framework
specific for a particual domain, i.e. are the consists of three dimensions:
methodology more generally applicable. • Business processes: customer order fulfilment, vendor
3) Operationalizable? Are the methodology supply, engineering, manufacturing, etc.
operationalizable, i.e. not only conceptual. • Competitive priorities: time, cost, quality, flexibility,
Only the performance measurement methodologies meeting environment
the three requirements are introduced in the following. • Order-delivery type: make-to-stock, assemble-to-order
make-to-order, engineer-to-order.
4.1 Performance Measurement and Management With regard to these three dimensions, combinations of
Performance measurement has its roots in early accounting different strategic performance indicators (SPI’s) can be
systems, the first financial ratios and budgetary control generated. Each of these strategic performance indicators
procedures was developed in DuPont and General Motors can be broken down into lower level indicators. This
during the early 1900s [Neely et al., 2005]. Since then the breakdown is done context specific, and the performance
demands from managers, to assess the effectiveness and indicators are thus customised to the context of application.
efficiency of specific areas, have resulted in a proliferation In addition to the structural framework [Bradley, 1996] also
of approaches to performance measurement [Chenhall & introduce a procedural framework for PM system design.
Langfield-Smith, 2007]. Today, basically all areas of an This describes how to link the performance indicators with
organisation are in the scope of performance measurement the company’s strategy statement and business processes.
and management, each with distinct perspectives and Balanced Score Card (BSC) [2,3]
purposes. One of the most recognized and broadly applied
The research on performance measurement can according to performance systems or frameworks is the BSC, which was
[Folan & Browne, 2005], be said to give recommendations developed by [Kaplan & Norton, 1992]. The BSC approach
on four different levels or dimensions. Recommendations gives a holistic view of the organization by simultaneously
for: looking at four different perspectives on performance; (1)
1) Individual performance measures Financial, (2) internal business, (3) customer, (4) innovation
2) Structural frameworks (set of performance measures) and learning. BSC is based on this a good example of a
3) Procedural frameworks (process of building performance assessment system that employs a balanced set
performance measures systems) of financial and non-financial measures. The BSC approach
4) Performance measurement systems (the integration of is based on the principle that a performance system should
the above) provide managers with sufficient information to address the
The term performance framework refers, as stated in [Folan following questions:
& Browne, 2005], to the active employment of particular • How do we look to our shareholders (financial
sets of recommendations. What is in common for most of perspective)?
the performance measurement frameworks and systems are, • What must we excel at (internal business perspective)?
that the performance measurement boundaries, dimensions • How do our customers see us (customer perspective)?
and relations in between the measures are given. • How can we continue to improve and create value
Rather than giving an extensive review on literature on (innovation and learning perspective)?
performance measurement and management, the objective The performance measures to be utilized in the BSC system
of this paper is more to clarify performance assessment is initially to be formulated during the system development
methodologies relevant for choice navigation. process, according to the BSC system design methodology..
Based on this focus, the literature review concentrates on Based on this, no performance measures are explicitly pre-
performance measurement systems and structural defined by the approach.
frameworks. Literature on individual metrics and literature
on procedural frameworks are thus omitted. For a review of Comparative Business Scorecard [2,3]
individual performance measures we refer to [Chenhall & With point of departure in the balanced scorecard, [Kanji,
Langfield-Smith, 2007] . Similarly, for a more extensive 1998] introduced the Comparative Business Scorecard. This
review of the available performance measurement framework is based on adaption of TQM principles to
frameworks we refer to [Folan & Browne, 2005; Neely et monitor progress and performance toward towards
al., 2005; Pun & White, 2005]. excellence. To enable this the performance measures
The performance measurement methodologies found focuses on the drivers of success; delight the stakeholders,
relevant based on the criterias listed in the following. For ensure stakeholder value, process excellence and
each method, it is in brackets indicated, which of the organisational learning.
performance assessment dimensions, depicted at Figure 3, As noted in [Kanji, 1998] this framework is merely an
the metholody is supporting. attempt to go a step further and extend the understanding of
the four BSC perspectives. The framework is in
AMBITE performance cube [2,3] methodology and structure, thus not radically different than
The structural performance framework introduced by the BSC.
[Bradley, 1996] is specifically designed to suit a so called
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe 91
General Motors Integrated Performance Measurement Results and Determinants Matrix [2,3]
System [2,3] The performance measurement framework introduced by
This integrated performance measurement system is an [Fitzgerald et al., 1991] is especially developed for the
outcome of significant investments within General Motors services businesses. The framework employs a distinction
in the early 90’s, in the design of a performance between measures of results, and measures of the
measurement and feedback system, consisting of 62 determinants of the results. The frame work involves several
measures [Gregory, 1993]. The framework is, in order to measures, e.g. competitiveness, liquidity, capital structure
provide valuable input in a complex organisation, designed and market ratios, that according to the author do not vary
to be applied at various organisational levels, with specific across the three generic service types, which is identified.
measures for each level. The measures can generally be split
Strategic Measurement Analysis and Reporting
in measures of results, e.g. quality and responsiveness, and
measures of the process of strategy implementation. The Technique (SMART) [2,3]
The Strategic Measurement Analysis and Reporting
measures ensures that employees retain their focus on
Technique (SMART) system, also known as the
continuous improvement through teamwork in the key
business activities. Performance Pyramid, is designed by [Lynch & Cross,
1992]. The system is designed with the intent of creating a
Integrated Performance Measurement Framework [2,3] management control system of performance indicators, that
Similarily to the approach of General Motors, the Integrated can assist in defining and sustaining organisational success.
Performance Measurement System of [Medori & Steeple, The framework employs a hierarchical view of business
2000], encompasses multiple measures. The structural performance measurement, in the sense that it is modelled
performance framework is composed of five sub-systems as a pyramid with four hierarchical levels of objectives and
each with distinct purposes of performance measurement, measures. The SMART system includes a 10 step
and each with different performance measures. The five procedural framework describing the performance
sub-systems of the performance framework interact and co- assessment process.
ordinate in a controlled fashion. The integrated performance
Structural Performance measurement matrix [2,3]
framework does not include any procedural elements,
[Keegan et al., 1989] have proposed a structural
besides a set of principles that should be considered
alongside the framework. performance measurement framework which seeks to
integrate different dimensions of performance. The
Performane Prism [1,2,3] framework is modelled as a 2x2 performance measurement
The Performance Prism framework introduced by [Neely et matrix, that categorises performance measures based on two
al., 2002] offers a new approach to measuring organisational dimensions; financial versus non-financial and internal
performance in that it integrates strategy, capabilities and versus external.
performance measures. The framework is built upon the
argument that one of the greatest fallacies of measurement In addition to the performance measurement systems
design is that performance measures should be derived from described in above, a number of more conceptual
strategies. performance measurement systems have been identified;
The performance framework includes five inter-related and Dynamic Performance Measurement Systems (DPMS)
weighted aspects; Integrated Performance Measurement Systems (IPMS),
1) Stakeholder satisfaction; who are the organization's key Framework for multinational companies, and the ICAS
stakeholders and what do they want and need? performance measurement framework. Furthermore, a
2) Stakeholder contribution; what contributions does the number of more procedural focused performance
organization require from its stakeholders? measurement systems or frameworks have been identified,
3) Strategies; what strategies does the organization have to for an overview of these we refer to [Browne et al., 1988].
put in place to satisfy the wants and needs of these key
stakeholders? 4.2 Capability Assessment Methodologies
4) Processes; what critical processes does the organization The assessment of organisational capabilities, is another
need to operate and enhance these strategies? promising way of providing feedback and control
5) Capabilities; what capabilities does the organization information in process improvement initiatives. The
need to operate and enhance these processes? purposes or drivers for adopting a capability based approach
To each of the aspects of the framework specific to performance assessment are however, as highlighted by
performance measures are given, accompanied by their [Maier et al., 2012], other than process improvement. Some
results, trends, targets, standards, initiatives and action might adopt capability assessment based on imposed
plans. These data-sets are included in scorecards to facilitate conformance requirements. In other cases customers may
the performance management. The measurements are explicitly require compliance with certain frameworks, or
furthermore connected with each other through sets of the competition on the market place may implicitly require
hypothetical relationships called "success map". Together compliance.
the five viewpoints provide a comprehensive and integrated Capability assessment frameworks are generally designed to
framework for managing organisational performance. assess the maturity of either the entire organization, or a
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
92 Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe
selected domain, e.g. process or functional area. The Communciation Grid [1]
capability assessment is typically conducted by appraisal of Based on the stand that effective communication is key to
the activities done, against a predefined set of criteria’s, avoid problems within engineering design, the
which most often is gathered in a framework. Process communication maturity grid has been developed by [Maier
improvement is a central Total Quality Management (TQM) et al., 2006]. The purpose of this framework is to assess the
concept, and much of the research on capability maturity maturity of the communication of the engineering design
assessment, has been done within quality management. The activities. The grid measures the maturity within 5 process
use of capability maturity assessment frameworks has since areas against four generic maturity levels.
the concept of measuring maturity was introduced in the
Design Process Audit Grid [1]
early 90’s proliferated across a multitude of domains.
A good design is key for company success. Based on this
The work on capability framework can generally be split up
into capability maturity models, and capability grids, which [Moultrie et al., 2007] has developed the design process
audit grid. The grid is developed to assess the maturity of
according to [Maier et al., 2012] can be distinguished on
the design processes within SME’s. Based on 24 process
three aspects; work orientation, mode of assessment and
intent. areas the activities in design from requirements capture to
As with the performance measurement frameworks, the aim introduction in manufacturing are asessed against four
maturity levels.
of this paper is not to conduct an extensive review, due to
this only the grids and maturity models that are identified as Innovation Audit Maturity Grid [1]
relevant in this context, are addressed in the following. For a The innovation audit maturity which is introduced by
more comprehensive review of capability assessment [Chiesa et al., 1996], focuses on the product development
frameworks we refer to [Maier et al., 2012]. processes through which innovation and innovation
Based on an extensive literature search [Maier et al., 2012] management is performed. The grid consists of 8 process
have identified 61 maturity grids. Before conducting the areas each with 2-4 sub-questions. The audit methodology
review, the number of methodologies for review have been uses a two level approach a rapid assessment and an in-
narrowed down to 24 based on requirement to among other depth audit.
things a grid-based approach. Utilizing the criterias from
section four in the review of these grids, five grids have Product and Cycle time Excellence Maturity Grid [1]
been identified relevant. The purpose of the Product and Cycle time Excellence
Similarly [Kohlegger et al., 2009] review based on (PACE) maturity grid is to assess and improve the
extensive literature search, and preliminary filtering, 5 progression of the new product development process
maturity models. If the three criterias listed introductory in [McGrath & Akiyama, 1996]. The PACE maturity grid
section 4 are utilized in evaluation, only the CMM model is encompasses 10 process areas related to product
found relevant. development, and measures against four levels of maturity.
The capability assessment metholodgies found relevant is R&D Effectiveness Maturity Grid [1]
described in the following. It is for each indicated in The maturity grid for measuring R&D Effectiveness is
brackets which of the performance assessment dimensions developed by [Szakonyi, 1994] based on several decades of
depicted at Figure 3 the metholody is supporting. experience and work with a number of companies. The
Capability maturity models (CMM) [1] framework measures 10 processes related to R&D.
The Capability Maturity Models (CMM) was first
developed at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at 5 Conlusion & Discussion
Carnegie Mellon University [Paulk et al., 1993]. Where the There seems to be general agreement between the industry
focus of the first CMM models was to support assessment and academia that the competition on the market place
software development within a number of sub-processes, an displays a trend of higher price competition combined with
integrated capability maturity model (CMMI) has later been the demand for customization. The requirement of
introduced [Chrissis et al., 2003]. companies to meet the individual customers’ demand at a
The integrated model consists of 22 process areas, and reasonable price continues to characterize a central
supports product development in general. The capability challenge for industrial manufacturers today. Based on this,
maturity model works as a multi-level maturity ranking successfully managing the radical organizational change
process, where a number of important areas, relative to an that following it requires to follow a mass customization
organisations’ performance, have been clarified. For each of strategy, is still an important topic. The purpose of this
these areas a number maturity levels has been defined, each paper is to support clarification of a methodology for
with distinct capabilities, i.e. practices, methods, skills, tools assessing the performance of the choice navigation process.
etc. By auditing the practices done in a company, the The aim of the research is to enable an improved
capabilities and maturity levels can be identified. Due to management of the organizational change in the process of
this, progressively greater levels of performance are building the choice navigation capabilities.
reflected, as an organisation matures in general or within According to the conducted literature review and analysis, a
specific areas. variety of methods for giving feedback and control
information on performance have been clarified. In
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe 93
answering if any methods are appropriate for giving relevant [Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. 2007] Robert H.
feedback information to the process of implementing the Chenhall and Kim Langfield-Smith. Multiple
choice navigation capabilities the first step is to review and perspectives of performance measures. European
discuss the available methods at a typological level. Management Journal, 25(4), 266-282. 2007
Two types of performance assessment methodologies are [Chiesa, V., et al. 1996] Vittorio Chiesa, Paul Coughlan and
identified from existing literature on quality management Chris A. Voss. Development of a technical innovation
and process improvement; 1) performance measurement audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
systems and 2) capability maturity assessment frameworks. 13(2), 105-136. 1996
Use of metrics in performance measurement systems enable [Chrissis, M. B., et al. 2003] Mary Beth Chrissis, Mike
the provision of information on the output performance of Konrad and Sandy Shrum. CMMi Addison-Wesley
the choice navigation process is. As highlighted by [Neely Boston.2003
et al., 2005] this enables that the efficiency and [Da Silveira, G., et al. 2001] Giovani Da Silveira, Denis
effectiveness of the process can be quantified. Borenstein and Flavio S. Fogliatto. Mass
Another type of input is given if the capabilities in relation customization: Literature review and research
to the choice navigation process are assessed. As noted by directions. International Journal of Production
Maier this type of assessment enables that the maturity of Economics, 72(1), 1-13. 2001
the process, understood as what collective assets, e.g. skills, [Davis, S. M. 1989] S. M. Davis. From “future perfect”:
routines, tools, systems etc. have been built around the Mass customizing. Strategy & Leadership, 17, 1989
process can be evaluated. [Fitzgerald, L., et al. 1991] Lin Fitzgerald, Stan Brignall,
We consider both types of performance assessment as Rhian Silvestro, Christopher Voss and Johnston
highly relevant in giving feedback information to the Robert. Performance measurement in service
process of implementing the choice navigation capabilities. businesses Chartered Institute of Management
Based on this we suggest that the discussion is more Accountants London.1991
centralized on how to actually combine these, than on which [Fogliatto, F. S., et al. 2012] F. S. Fogliatto, G. J. C. da
is most beneficial. As a first step in establishing a combined Silveira and D. Borenstein. The mass customization
and customized methodology for performance assessment, decade: An updated review of the literature.
the existing methodologies need to be assessed. For this International Journal of Production Economics, 2012
purpose the focal paper contributes to existing literature on [Folan, P., & Browne, J. 2005] Paul Folan and Jim Browne.
mass customization with a socio technical system model A review of performance measurement: Towards
describing which constructs are relevant in the performance performance management. Computers in Industry,
assessment. With the use of this model, the existing 56(7), 663-680. 2005
literature on performance assessment is reviewed and [Forza, C., & Salvador, F. 2007] Cipriano Forza and
classified. The research thus enables that a performance Fabrizio Salvador. Product information management
assessment metholodogy supporting the building of choice for mass customization: Connecting customer, front-
navigation capabilities can be proposed based on further office and back-office for fast and efficient
research. customization Palgrave Macmillan.2007
[Franke, N., & Piller, F. T. 2003] Nikolaus Franke and
References Frank T. Piller. Key research issues in user interaction
[Boer, H., et al. 2001] Harry Boer, Sarah Caffyn, Mariano with user toolkits in a mass customisation system.
Corso, Paul Coughlan, José Gieskes, Mats International Journal of Technology Management,
Magnusson, Sara Pavesi and Stefano Ronchi. 26(5), 578-599. 2003
Knowledge and continuous innovation: The CIMA [Gregory, M. J. 1993] Mike J. Gregory. Integrated
methodology. International Journal of Operations & performance measurement: A review of current
Production Management, 21(4), 490-504. 2001 practice and emerging trends. International Journal of
[Boynton, A. C., et al. 1993] Andrew C. Boynton, Bart Production Economics, 30, 281-296. 1993
Victor and II Pine. New competitive strategies: [Heiskala, M., et al. 2010] Mikko Heiskala, Juha Tiihonen,
Challenges to organizations and information Matti Sievänen and Kaija-Stiina Paloheimo. Modeling
technology. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 40-64. 1993 concepts for choice navigation of mass customized
[Bradley, P. 1996] P. Bradley. A performance measurement solutions. International Journal of Industrial
approach to the re-engineering of manufacturing Engineering and Management, 1(3), 97-103. 2010
enterprises. CIMRU, NUI Galway, 1996 [Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. 1998] Cynthia Huffman and
[Browne, J., et al. 1988] Jimmie Browne, John Harhen and Barbara E. Kahn. Variety for sale: Mass customization
James Shivnan. Production management systems: A or mass confusion? Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491-
CIM perspective Addison-Wesley UK.1988 513. 1998
[Cameron, K. S. 1986] Kim S. Cameron. Effectiveness as [Kanji, G. K. 1998] Gopal K. Kanji. Measurement of
paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of business excellence. Total Quality Management, 9(7),
organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 633-643. 1998
32(5), 539-553. 1986
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria
94 Simon Haahr Storbjerg, Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev Brunoe
[Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. 1992] RS Kaplan and DP Norton. [Neely, A. D., et al. 2002] Andy D. Neely, Chris Adams and
The balanced scorecard- measures that drive Mike Kennerley. The performance prism: The
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 1992 scorecard for measuring and managing business
[Keegan, D. P., et al. 1989] Daniel P. Keegan, Robert G. success Prentice Hall Financial Times London.2002
Eiler and Charles R. Jones. Are your performance [Neely, A., et al. 2005] Andy Neely, Mike Gregory and Ken
measures obsolete? Management Accounting, 70(12), Platts. Performance measurement system design: A
45-50. 1989 literature review and research agenda. International
[Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. 2003] Mike Kennerley and Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Andy Neely. Measuring performance in a changing 25(12), 1228-1263. 2005
business environment. International Journal of [Nielsen, K., et al. 2012] Kjeld Nielsen, Thomas Ditlev
Operations & Production Management, 23(2), 213- Brunø and Kaj Asbjørn Jørgensen. A FRAMEWORK
229. 2003 STUDY ON ASSESSMENT OF MASS
[Kohlegger, M., et al. 2009]Michael Kohlegger, Ronald CUSTOMIZATION CAPABILITIES.2012
Maier and Stefan Thalmann. Understanding maturity [Partanen, J., & Haapasalo, H. 2004] Jari Partanen and Harri
models results of a structured content analysis. Haapasalo. Fast production for order fulfillment:
Proceedings of I-KNOW, , 9. pp. 2-4. Implementing mass customization in electronics
[Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. 1992] Richard L. Lynch and industry. International Journal of Production
Kelvin F. Cross. Measure up!: The essential guide to Economics, 90(2), 213-222. 2004
measuring business performance Mandarin.1992 [Paulk, M. C., et al. 1993] M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B.
[Lyons, A. C., et al. 2012] A. C. Lyons, A. E. C. Chrissis and C. V. Weber. Capability maturity model,
Mondragon, F. Piller and R. Poler. Mass version 1.1. Software, IEEE, 10(4), 18-27. 1993
customisation: A strategy for customer-centric [Piller, F., et al. 2012a] F. Piller, E. Lindgens and F. Steiner.
enterprises. Customer-Driven Supply Chains, 2012 Mass customization at adidas: Three strategic
[Maier, A. M., et al. 2006] Anja M. Maier, Claudia M. capabilities to implement mass customization.2012a
Eckert and P. John Clarkson. Identifying requirements [Piller, F. T., & Tseng, M. M. 2010] Frank T. Piller and
for communication support: A maturity grid-inspired Mitchell M. Tseng. Handbook of research in mass
approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(4), customization and personalization: Strategies and
663-672. 2006 concepts World Scientific.2010
[Maier, A. M., et al. 2012] Anja M. Maier, James Moultrie [Piller, F., et al. 2012b]Part 7: Overcoming the challenge of
and PJohn Clarkson. Assessing organizational implementing mass customization Innovation
capabilities: Reviewing and guiding the development Management.
of maturity grids. Engineering Management, IEEE [Pollard, D., et al. 2011] Dennis Pollard, Shirley Chuo and
Transactions On, 59(1), 138-159. 2012 Brian Lee. Strategies for mass customization. Journal
[McGrath, M., & Akiyama, C. 1996] ME McGrath and CL of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 6(7)2011
Akiyama. PACE: An integrated process for product [Pun, K., & White, A. 2005] KF Pun and AS White. A
and cycle time excellence. Setting the PACE in performance measurement paradigm for integrating
Product Development, Butterworth and Heinemann, strategy formulation: A review of systems and
Boston, , 17-29. 1996 frameworks. International Journal of Management
[Medori, D., & Steeple, D. 2000] David Medori and Derek Reviews, 7(1), 49-71. 2005
Steeple. A framework for auditing and enhancing [Salvador, F., et al. 2009] Fabrizio Salvador, Pablo Martin
performance measurement systems. International De Holan and Frank Piller. Cracking the code of mass
Journal of Operations & Production Management, customization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(3),
20(5), 520-533. 2000 71-78. 2009
[Melnyk, S. A., et al. 2004] Steven A. Melnyk, Douglas M. [Szakonyi, R. 1994] Robert Szakonyi. Measuring R&D
Stewart and Morgan Swink. Metrics and performance effectiveness-I. Research Technology Management,
measurement in operations management: Dealing with 37, 27-27. 1994
the metrics maze. Journal of Operations Management, [Trentin, A., et al. 2013] Sales configurator capabilities to
22(3), 209-218. 2004 avoid the product variety paradox: Construct
[Mortensen, N. H., et al. 2008] N. H. Mortensen, R. development and validation. Computers in Industry,
Pedersen, M. Kvist and L. Hvam. Modelling and 2013
visualising modular product architectures for mass [Trist, E. 1981] Eric Trist. The evolution of socio-technical
customisation. International Journal of Mass systems. Occasional Paper, 21981
Customisation, 2(3), 216-239. 2008 [Walcher, D., & Piller, F. T. 2011] Dominik Walcher and
[Moultrie, J., et al. 2007] James Moultrie, P. John Clarkson Frank T. Piller. The customization 500 (1st edition
and David Probert. Development of a design audit tool ed.). Aachen: Lulu Press.2011
for SMEs*. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 24(4), 335-368. 2007
Michel Aldanondo and Andreas Falkner, Editors
Proceedings of the 15th International Configuration Workshop
August 29-30, 2013, Vienna, Austria