Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production, expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used. Performance is defined as the accomplishment of a given task measured against preset standards of achievement, such as accuracy, completeness, cost and speed.
In the wider context of performance management, productivity is measured against productivity KPIs. In their simplest form, productivity KPIs, such as # Units per man-hour, stand at the basis of both modern and older performance evaluation systems. However, it is only but natural that we ask ourselves the following question: How much productivity is there left to both measure and reflect on performance?
In her book, The Measurement Nightmare: How the Theory of Constraints Can Resolve Conflicting Strategies, Policies, and Measures (1999), Debra Smith talks to her readers about a real-life situation, based on one of the most common productivity KPIs in use: # Units per man-hour. And it all starts with defining the KPI. According to her, # Units per man-hour is a “summary of standard costing’s use of standard labor hours and standard labor rates, resulting in labor variance analysis and decisions designed to improve.”
“There is not one productivity indicator that does not reflect on performance. And there is not one neglected faction of performance that does not impact productivity in one way or the other.”
From here on, Debra Smith describes this particular situation in which, on an intuitive basis, some executive manager from a manufacturing company decides to increase # Units per man-hour by cutting labor costs with highly automated machines. So, instead of six loom operators, four were assigned to tend to one loom per shift.
And the effect was as expected…at first. # Units per man-hour had increased at the loom. However, because of the downtime of the looms which now increased, the total output of the looms had decreased.
Due to a lack of attending operators, the downtime of the machines escalated up to a point where it impaired all subsequent processes. When that happened, all downstream processes began to suffer from starvation. % On-time delivery of products declined, $ Labor costs went up due to # Overtime and, instead of going up, $ Net profit went down.
Debra Smith’s account of the negative side effects one productivity measure can propagate, when taken out of the context of performance, stand to show that there is more to productivity in performance than counting outputs per unit of input. And this is more visible when dealing with the most popular dimension, which is labor productivity.
In the context of performance management, labor productivity can be translated through individual KPIs. When dealing with employee performance, individual productivity KPIs become part of a more complex performance evaluation system. The overall individual performance index simulates an average between the score of the individual performance scorecard, the individual competencies score, and the employee behaviors score.
Where do KPIs fit into this equation? Productivity KPIs are mindfully incorporated into the individual performance scorecard, to best reflect the quantitative aspects of employee performance. And this is where everything gets tricky and we start asking ourselves: How much of one employee’s performance should be measured in terms of quantity?
Image Source: Freepik
Let’s take, for example, the automotive industry. With automotive manufacturing, productivity is a key performance indicator that measures the total production volume of the actual manpower, while taking into consideration the effective days officially scheduled for each automobile.
The core performance indicator of the automotive industry is # Hours per unit or # HPU, and it reveals the number of hours required to build a car. However, at its basis, this # HPU cannot be measured outside # Available manpower, # Effective working time, and # Individual production volume. Let’s add % Absenteeism rate to this reasoning.
When dealing with target production volumes it is important that the plant works at its full throttle to achieve those targets. Given this requirement, % Absenteeism rates should not be overlooked, as they have a major impact on the # Effective working time, which here on, impacts the # Production volume, and, ultimately, the # HPU.
However quantifiable, % Absenteeism rates also reflect on less quantifiable variables. This further takes us to the issue of % Employee engagement: a roughly quantifiable, uncontrollable driver of not only productivity but of performance as well.
So, how much productivity is there left, to both measure and reflect on performance? A great deal. And maybe the best way to look at it is by envisioning this revolving cartwheel…this continuous circle, which turns productivity into performance and vice versa.
All things considered, there is not one productivity indicator that does not reflect on performance. And there is not one neglected faction of performance that does not impact the former in one way or the other.
For more articles on productivity improvement, click here.
**********
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated as of September 18, 2024.
Companies can no longer afford to ignore sustainability. It is not just a trend but a major factor that drives where most businesses are headed. According to Globescan’s The State of Sustainable Business 2019, reputational risks, consumer demand, investor interest, operational risk, and employee engagement are some of the catalysts behind the sustainability efforts of most organizations.
Manufacturing is one of the industries that are pressured to realign their activities with the mounting call for sustainability practices. Sustainable manufacturing refers to developing products with minimal negative environmental impacts and maximum contribution to the conservation of natural resources. These products are expected to be economically sound and safe for employees, communities, and consumers.
Sustainable manufacturing aims to reduce the intensity of materials use, energy consumption, emissions, and unwanted byproducts while maintaining or improving the value provided for society and organizations.
Some relevant key performance indicators that are often considered when evaluating the sustainability of manufacturing companies are:
Environmental performance KPIs, such as: # Air emissions, % Energy utilization, % Hazardous waste etc.
Economic performance KPIs: % Product reliability, % Conformance to specifications, $ Material cost, % Labor cost etc.
Social performance KPIs: % Occupational health and safety, % Turnover rate, % Supplier commitment etc.
Sustainability standards are observed to ensure quality, transparency, compliance, and results in terms of making organizations accountable for their economic, environmental, and social performance.
Among the internationally renowned frameworks is the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards. The GRI Standards consist of Universal Standards, which apply to all organizations and report on human rights and environmental due diligence, the new Sector Standards for sector-specific impacts, and the Topic Standards that come with the revised Universal Standards and relate to a particular topic.
is to create a sustainable future enabled by transparency and open dialogue about impacts. In this regard, they are a provider of the world’s most widely used sustainability disclosure standards.
With GRI Standards, companies can publicly present the outcomes of their activities in a structured way. This allows their stakeholders and interested parties to better see their status of how they are responding to calls for sustainability. GRI Standards can be used by any type of organization, whether large or small, public or private, or from any location or industry.
As cited in the report “A Short Introduction to the GRI Standards,” the Reporting Process for organizations using the GRI Standards involves determining impacts and their significance, identifying material topics, or topics that are relevant to the organization’s activities, and reporting disclosures. The final stages are reporting the organization’s most significant impacts on the economy, environment, and people and publishing information and GRI content index.
The GRI Standards comprise three series of Standards: The GRI Universal Standards can be applied to your reporting. The GRI Sector Standards are for sectors while the GRI Topic Standards are used to report specific information regarding material topics.
Daimler’s Sustainability Report
An example of a sustainability report that is developed based on the GRI Standards comes from Daimler, one of the biggest producers of premium cars and the world’s biggest manufacturer of commercial vehicles.
In 2006, Daimler joined the multi-stakeholder network of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), where it initially was an organizational stakeholder. It later became a Gold Community Member and is now a member of the GRI Community.
Their report is based on the Daimler Group’s sustainable business strategies. It contains two conceptual levels: “Spurwechsel” section, which refers to the external sustainability developments and trends into a context with the internal strategies and measures and “Reporting” section which provides a detailed description of the goals, due diligence approach, measures, and achievements.
The Reporting section focuses on six areas of action: climate protection and air quality, resource conservation, livable cities, traffic safety, data responsibility, and human rights as well as on three enabler topics, which are cross-sector themes that can influence areas of action. The enabler topics are Integrity, People, and Partnerships.
As part of the Climate protection & air quality area of action, the manufacturer frequently monitors the compliance with the internal and external environmental protection requirements. This way, they can take proactive actions to eliminate possible damage.
As a result, the reduction of air emissions is an important focus of their sense of responsibility for the environment (Figure 1).
They consider the consumption of resources in production as an important factor in the environmental compatibility of their vehicles. Thus, they are working to make production more efficient and more environmentally friendly by using less water, energy, and raw materials.
Daimler evaluates in a consistent and transparent way the economic, environmental, and social impact in order to find the best solutions to remain climate-neutral and sustainable in the future.
In addition to this, they maintain regular contact with representatives of business, government, and other interest groups that advocate for the same goal.
Daimler also plays an active role in upholding the UN Global Compact, a voluntary initiative that encourages companies to integrate sustainability practices into their activities. Daimler shares on their website that they are involved in the thematic and regional working groups and initiatives of the pact.
“In the reporting year, these included the action platforms “Reporting on the SDGs” and “Decent Work in Global Supply Chains” as well as the UN Global Compact Expert Network and the German Global Compact Network,” Daimler states.
As part of its obligation, Daimler reports its initiatives on areas like human rights, labor standards, and environmental protection in its Sustainability Report
Reporting sustainability key performance indicators constantly, in a clear and transparent manner, can provide a clear overview of the environmental, social, and economic impacts, and based on this, the organizations can take proactive actions to reduce the negative impact.
In this context, The GRI Standards offer a consistent structure for companies to report information in a way that covers the most significant impacts on the economy, environment, and people.
To learn more about KPIs, visit the world’s largest database of documented KPIs: smartkpis.com.
Q: What is important in measuring public services performance?
A: Measuring performance in public sector organizations has many benefits. It allows managers to set up mechanisms to evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, and improve their strategic decision-making.
The core use and benefit of setting up performance measurement systems in public sector organizations are: Prognosis, Diagnosis, Motivation, Legitimation, and Learning and Improvement.
In layman’s terms, public sector key performance indicators (KPIs) serve two important purposes: 1. Report important information to citizens. 2. Provide information that directly describes the government’s activities.
Therefore, without understanding and evaluating KPIs, governments cannot fulfill their commitment to responsible spending and transparency, and the public cannot verify if the required services are being adequately performed.
In most organizational structures, KPIs have two notable attributes: 1. They determine what is important to the success of the organization. 2. They indicate the expected level of performance by attaching a target to each metric.
Last but not least, how do we identify the most meaningful public sector KPIs?
Identify the key value drivers (research studies). This refers to identifying all stakeholders categories properly (internal and external) and conducting a stakeholders analysis to reveal what aspects are of interest. What matters most for citizens in terms of public transportation? Is it the arrival on time? The frequency of arrivals? How about the employees–what do they think is critical for the operations? What data is needed for optimizing processes and adjusting working flows to deliver the best customer experience?
Choose a balanced set of KPIs (efficiency versus effectiveness, process versus impact measurement, quality versus quantity). KPIs should be used in context and in correlation. For this reason, a successful scorecard or dashboard looks into performance from various perspectives.
Balance between simple and complex measurements. While many KPIs that capture impact may be survey-based and require significant resources for data collection and reporting, some KPIs can be tracked in real-life with the help of digitalization and enable proactive management.
Solid background in working with process and performance management.
Former consultant for the public sector – Ministry of Community Development – UAE
Former business excellence and process reengineer at Zain telecom – Jordan
Passion for knowledge sharing and supporting the growth and improvement of organizations and individuals.
***
This feature was first published in the Ask Our Experts section of Performance Magazine Issue No. 24, 2023—Public Sector Edition. It offers deep dives and practical insights into the public sector’s performance in the post-pandemic era. To download the free digital copy, visit the TKI Marketplace. You can also purchase an additional printed copy via Amazon.
The popularity of sustainability has surged in recent years, causing organizations to grapple with balancing short-term profits with long-term sustainable practices. This has led to concepts like shared value and corporate social responsibility, with companies aiming to create economic and social value while reducing their environmental impact. The movement has sparked active efforts, with social innovators, policymakers, investors, and academics all striving to measure sustainability.
In today’s world, companies must move beyond outdated economic metrics and adopt KPIs that consider the triple bottom line, including social, economic, and environmental aspects of their operations, all while promoting sustainable human well-being.
However, sustainability is a constantly evolving concept that adapts to context and cannot be measured with a single yardstick. The balance between social, economic, and environmental considerations is crucial to achieving sustainability. It is like walking on a tightrope, requiring constant adjustments to maintain equilibrium in a changing world. Each context requires a unique approach, with varying weights and measures for different factors. Customized solutions are needed that address stakeholder needs while maintaining long-term balance, as a one-size-fits-all formula won’t work.
About the Expert
• As a Managing Director, Teodora leads development initiatives to support and enhance the organization’s strategic plan and manages the development and growth of the MENA branch of The KPI Institute.
• An expert researcher, consultant and practitioner with six years of experience in the deployment and implementation of KPI Management Frameworks.
• Pursuing a PhD. in Management on the topic: Rethinking the Performance Management Systems to ensure organizational sustainability, Lucian Blaga University, Romania
• Postgraduate Program in Entrepreneurship and Venture Creation, ISCTE Business School Lisbon, Portugal
• Master’s Degree in Project Management, Romanian-German University, Romania
Key performance indicators (KPIs) have been the north star guiding business strategy for decades. These criteria measure not only sales and revenue but also customer satisfaction as well as employee engagement.However, as the business landscape continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, the need for deeper insights and more agile measurement arises. This is where the potential of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) shines, opening doors to a new era of KPI innovation.
GenAI goes beyond automation to produce entirely novel content. It is a creative catalyst, opening up unprecedented possibilities for KPI innovation. Forget rigid, one-dimensional metrics. Powered by GenAI, KPIs become fluent, adaptive, and poetic, capturing not only the whats but also the whys and what-ifs.
Reimagining KPIs for exponential growth
From static to dynamic: GenAI is capable of integrating dynamic KPIs, meaning they can evolve alongside the company that uses them. KPIs also fit seamlessly into a changing market, with trends and strategies naturally shifting along the way.
Unveiling the unseen: Traditional KPIs often fail to hit the nail on the head by overlooking key, intangible factors that could affect performance. GenAI, however, can delve much deeper. With the help of GenAI, it is possible to determine brand sentiment before a particular campaign is launched, anticipate employee engagement within remote teams, or even predict customer turnover before it happens.
Personalized insights, enhanced action: Data mountains no longer need to be intimidating.GenAI transforms data into personalized narratives, crafting stories tailored to individual stakeholders. Sales teams can access actionable insights, marketing managers can monitor real-time customer sentiment, and CEOs can explore what-if scenarios for strategic foresight. This data-driven storytelling fosters informed decision-making and ignites action across the organization.
A practical guide to unlocking GenAI’s potential for KPI innovation
To effectively utilize GenAI tools like Gemini and ChatGPT for KPI innovation, follow these guidelines:
Define goals and challenges: Clearly articulate objectives, whether uncovering customer sentiment or anticipating market shifts.
Frame specific prompts: Use concise prompts such as “generate potential KPIs for measuring brand sentiment on social media.”
Provide relevant context: Enhance responses by furnishing background information about your industry, business model, and existing KPIs.
Experiment and refine: Iterate prompts, rephrase questions, and provide feedback to improve AI understanding.
Collaborate with experts: Involve human expertise in evaluating and implementing AI-generated insights.
While GenAI’s potential for KPI innovation is undeniable, it thrives on synergy, not substitution. The point is this: human guidance is essential. Act now, invest in your future, and become a master of the new KPI era by enrolling in The KPI Institute’sCertified KPI Professional course.
