Skip to main content

A Performance Measurement System for Staff of the Logistics Section: A Case Study for an Oil & Gas Company

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Economic and Financial Challenges for Eastern Europe

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

  • 512 Accesses

Abstract

Companies recognize the central role performance measurement plays in their success and are therefore becoming increasingly enthusiastic about their performance measurement efforts. Performance measurement indicators not only support the daily operation of the organization, but they are valuable in formulating any emerging problems as well. Logistics encompasses a complex set of activities that require an equally complex collection of metrics to adequately measure performance. However, many performance measurement systems have neither kept up with the changing role and scope of logistics nor have they been systematically examined or evaluated. Performance measurement systems should be evaluated at both the individual metric and system-wide levels in order to maintain relevance and effectiveness. This study aims to present the empirical findings and lessons learned from a field research on the development of the performance measurement system (PMS) for the logistics department of an Oil & Gas company. The implementation focuses on the procedure rather than on the structure of PMS offering a conceptual procedural framework with information and insights on how to design, implement, use, and assess a PMS, addressing an important gap identified in the literature. This research focuses on the evaluation of staff of the supply chain. Specifically, we propose a set of recommended criteria that can be applied to evaluate staff of the relevant department and demonstrate the use of these criteria through the evaluation of drivers’ performance. The primary motivation for evaluating performance at that level is that measurement systems guide management decisions. A well-crafted system of metrics will lead toward better decision-making by managers. The entire research effort lasted almost 6 months, involving multiple interactions between a researcher from academia and a practitioner from the company. Ultimately, the main findings are as follows: (1) how we can evaluate a drive; (2) the indicators and their parameters that contribute in revealing our assumptions about “good” and “bad” driver; (3) developing a prototype PMS; and (4) the use and review of the new PMS has led to improvements in people’s behavior, development of organizational capabilities, and improved performance results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akhtar, M., & Mittal, R. K. (2015). Implementation issues and their impact on strategic performance management system effectiveness – an empirical study of Indian oil industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(2), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2004). A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement. Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. (2012). Performance measurement: Challenges for tomorrow. International Journal Manager Review, 14(3), 305–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplice, C., & Sheffi, Y. (1995). A review and evaluation of logistics performance measurement systems. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 6(2), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulakis, N. (2015). Analytical methods and multicriteria decision support systems under uncertainty: The Talos system. Piraeus: University of Piraeus (UNIPI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches: International student edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delias, P., & Matsatsinis, N. (2009). A genetic approach for strategic resource allocation planning. Computational Management Science, 6(3), 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. (2005). MAUT—multiattribute utility theory. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 265–292). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. (1991, January–February). The performance measurement manifesto. Harvard Business, 131–137, 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elg, M., & Kollberg, B. (2012). Conditions for reporting performance measurement. Journal of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(1), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folan, P., & Browne, J. (2005). A review of performance measurement: Towards performance management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(7), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Gaughey, R. E. M. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, R. I. v. (2001). The contribution of performance measurement to the expansion of third party logistics alliances in the supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., & Siskos, Y. (2001). Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis, N., & Delias, P. (2003). AgentAllocator: An agent-based multi-criteria decision support system for task allocation. In Holonic and multi-agent systems for manufacturing (pp. 1082–1083). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(2), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., & Al Najjar, M. (2006). Management learning not management control: The true role of performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(3), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platts, K. W. (1994). Characteristics of methodologies for manufacturing strategy formulation. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 7(2), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platts, K. W., & Gregory, M. J. (1990). Manufacturing audit in the process of strategy formulation. International Journal of Production and Operations Management, 10(9), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PSAC. (2017). Industry overview. Calgary: Petroleum Service Association of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos, Y., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1985). UTASTAR: An ordinal regression method for building additive value functions. Investigação Operacional, 5(1), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos, J., Spyridakos, A., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1993). MINORA: A multicriteria decision aiding system for discrete alternatives. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 2(2), 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., & Matsatsinis, N. F. (2005). UTA methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 297–334). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Taylor, M. (2013). Antecedents of effective performance measurement system implementation: An empirical study of UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5485–5498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurmond, V. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 254–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gegitsidis, F., Delias, P. (2019). A Performance Measurement System for Staff of the Logistics Section: A Case Study for an Oil & Gas Company. In: Sykianakis, N., Polychronidou, P., Karasavvoglou, A. (eds) Economic and Financial Challenges for Eastern Europe. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12169-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics