Published Jul 15, 2010
Claudio Luis Piratelli Mischel Carmen N. Belderrain


The development process for a Performance Measurement System (PMS) can be split into four phases: (1) design; (2) planning and construction; (3) implementation, and; (4) operation and updating. The design phase focuses on the choice of performance indicators and is crucial to the success both of the PMS and the organization. This paper deals with the design phase for a PMS based on the Performance Prism using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for modeling and ranking of the performance indicators. The application of the ANP as support for the PMS design was executed in the higher education sector with a view to the management of an undergraduate course in Production Engineering. The model and its results assured the representation of the various stakeholders´ objectives – in a significant and balanced manner – through 58 performance indicators distributed in four clusters: satisfaction, processes, capabilities and contribution.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 3456 | PDF Downloads 35



Performance Measurement System, ANP, undergraduate course, The Performance Prism

Akkermans, H.A. & van Oorschot, K.E. (2005). Relevance assumed: a case study of Balanced Scorecard
development using system dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(8), 931-941.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating
performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
20(7), 754-771.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Platts, K. & Mills, J. (2002). The success and failure of performance measurement
initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(11), 1288-1310.
Bressiani, F., Alt, P.R.C. & Massote, A.A. (2001). Using the Balanced Scorecard as an Instrument of
Improving Performance of an Institution of Higher Education. Proceedings of the Brazilian Congress on
Engineering Education (COBENGE), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, 29. [in Portuguese]
Fernandes, B.H. (2004). Competencies and organizational performance: an empirical study. Doctoral
dissertation, Faculdade de Economia e Administração, USP, Brazil. [in Portuguese]
Figueira, J., Salvatore, G. & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the art
surveys. Boston: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Gomes, L.F.A.M., Araya, M.C.G. & Carignano, C. (2004). Decision making in complex scenarios:
Introduction to Discrete Methods of Multicriteria Decision Support. São Paulo: Pioneira Thomson
Learning. [in Portuguese]
Handy, C. (2002). The Performance Prism: Measuring more is easy, measuring better is hard. In: Neely,
A., Adams, C. & Kennerley, M (2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and
Managing Business Success. Great Britain: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
Keeney, R.L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking, Cambridge (USA):
Harvard University.
Kennerley, M.P. & Neely, A.D. (2000). Performance Measurement Frameworks – A Review.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance Measurement, 291-298.
Law n. 10,861 of April 14th, 2004. (2004). Brasília, Federal District, Brazil. Retrieved Jun 26, 2005, from [in Portuguese]
Lee, M.C. (2007). A Method of Performance Evaluation by Using The Analytic Network Process and
Balanced Scorecard. Proceedings of The International Conference on Methods and Applications of
Multicriteria Decision Making, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea.
Macedo, A.R., Trevisan, L.M.V., Trevisan, P & Macedo, C.S. (2005). Higher Education in the XXI
Century and the Brazilian university reform. Revista Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em
Educação, Rio de Janeiro, 13(47), 127-148. [in Portuguese]
Neely, A., Adams, C & Kennerley, M. (2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and
Managing Business Success. Great Britain: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
Neely, A. & Bourne, M. (2000). Why measurement initiatives fail. Measuring Business Excellence, 4(4),
Neely, A., Gregory, M. & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: developing a
literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
25(12), 1228-1263.
Normative Ordinance n. 4, of August 5th, 2008. (2008). Brasília, Federal District, Brazil. Retrieved
August 7, 2008 from [in Portuguese]
Oliveira, C.A. & Belderrain, M.C.N. (2008). Considerations on finding the AHP priority vectors. In:
Encuentro Nacional de Docentes de Investigación Operativa. Posadas, Argentina. [in Portuguese]
Paula, D.C. & Salomon, V.A.P. (2008). Using indicators to analyze the application of methods for
decision making with multiple criteria. Proceedings of XL Simpósio Brasileiro de Pesquisa Operacional
“A Pesquisa Operacional e o uso racional dos recursos hídricos”, João Pessoa, PE. [in Portuguese]
Piratelli, C.L., Belderrain, M.C.N & Azzolini Jr., W.A. (2009). Using Monte Carlo Simulation for
Analyze potentials shortcomings of the Evaluation Instrument for Course Accreditation. Proceedings of
16nd Simpósio de Engenharia de Produção: “Ensino de Engenharia de Produção”, Bauru, SP, 16. [in
Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy. In: Montgomery, C. A. & Porter, M.
E. (1998). Strategy: Searching for competitive advantage. Rio de Janeiro-RJ: Campus. [in Portuguese]
Saaty, R.W. (2003). Decision Making in Complex. The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making
and The Analytic Network Process for Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback [Superdecisions
Tutorial]. Retrieved Jun 01, 2008, from
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York (USA): McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T.L. (2001). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process,
Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publisher.
Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory – With The Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with
benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks, Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. & Peniwati, K. (2007). Group decision-making: Drawing out and reconciling differences.
Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. & Vargas, L.G. (2006). Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. Economic,
Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks, New
York: NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Silva, A.C., Nascimento, L.P., Ribeiro, J.R & Belderrain, C. N. (2009). ANP and Ratings model applied
to SSP. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh, PA, ,
10, 1-11.
Smith, M. (2005). The Balanced Scorecard. Financial Management, Feb 2005, 27-28.
Suwignjo, P, Bitici, U.S. & Carrie, A.S. (2000). Quantitative models for performance measurement
system. International Journal of Production Economics, 64, 231-241.

Most read articles by the same author(s)