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