A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators
Context: The definition and prioritization of indicators is now a common reality and an integral part of the evolution of the strategic, technical and business processes of any organization, whether public or private. Purpose: This paper proposes a new model regarding the definition and prioritizati...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Electronics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/6/967 |
| _version_ | 1797446711090610176 |
|---|---|
| author | Frederico Viana Almeida Edna Dias Canedo Robson de Oliveira Albuquerque Flávio Elias Gomes de Deus Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco Luis Javier García Villalba |
| author_facet | Frederico Viana Almeida Edna Dias Canedo Robson de Oliveira Albuquerque Flávio Elias Gomes de Deus Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco Luis Javier García Villalba |
| author_sort | Frederico Viana Almeida |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Context: The definition and prioritization of indicators is now a common reality and an integral part of the evolution of the strategic, technical and business processes of any organization, whether public or private. Purpose: This paper proposes a new model regarding the definition and prioritization of indicators. Herein, we also investigate the definition and prioritization models currently adopted by academia and industry, and analyze the context of the proposed strategies against the traditional view of indicator definition currently adopted. In addition, we conducted a survey with organizations that had well-defined indicator management processes, seeking to identify customer expectations with a new indicator management model proposed by this work. Method: To gather evidence, we defined a methodology that relates the literature review and an exploratory case study with the application of an experiment. Driven by a set of research questions, this methodology comprised four main phases: planning, literature review, experiment execution and documentation of results. The method used is supported by some techniques, such as design thinking, design sprint and the Cynefin framework. Results: The analysis of the results was carried out in two different ways: Through the verification of the achievement of specific objectives and through a questionnaire applied to assess the degrees of perception of all employees who participated in the work. Regarding the specific objectives, it is clear that most of the objectives were achieved. Regarding the applied questionnaire, it is clear that, although the collaborators did not have adequate knowledge regarding the conceptual and practical aspects of some approaches used in the proposed model, there was a general perception that the model, in fact, supported top management for decision making. For professionals, the proposed model has a restricted scope; that is, it does not serve all types of organizations. Conclusion: The model proposed in this work proved to be effective, considering that the indicators were defined, prioritized and optimized, with a focus on the user experience. As future work, we intend to expand the scope of the model’s performance, evaluating business indicators alongside IT indicators. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:45:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b42cdf23002e4afb8bb698da12061110 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2079-9292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:45:30Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Electronics |
| spelling | doaj.art-b42cdf23002e4afb8bb698da120611102023-11-30T21:01:45ZengMDPI AGElectronics2079-92922022-03-0111696710.3390/electronics11060967A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of IndicatorsFrederico Viana Almeida0Edna Dias Canedo1Robson de Oliveira Albuquerque2Flávio Elias Gomes de Deus3Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco4Luis Javier García Villalba5Department of Computer Science, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília 70910-900, BrazilDepartment of Computer Science, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília 70910-900, BrazilElectrical Engineering Department, National Science and Technology Institute on Cyber Security, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília 70910-900, BrazilElectrical Engineering Department, National Science and Technology Institute on Cyber Security, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília 70910-900, BrazilElectrical Engineering Department, National Science and Technology Institute on Cyber Security, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília 70910-900, BrazilGroup of Analysis, Security and Systems (GASS), Department of Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence (DISIA), Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Calle Profesor José García Santesmases, 9, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, SpainContext: The definition and prioritization of indicators is now a common reality and an integral part of the evolution of the strategic, technical and business processes of any organization, whether public or private. Purpose: This paper proposes a new model regarding the definition and prioritization of indicators. Herein, we also investigate the definition and prioritization models currently adopted by academia and industry, and analyze the context of the proposed strategies against the traditional view of indicator definition currently adopted. In addition, we conducted a survey with organizations that had well-defined indicator management processes, seeking to identify customer expectations with a new indicator management model proposed by this work. Method: To gather evidence, we defined a methodology that relates the literature review and an exploratory case study with the application of an experiment. Driven by a set of research questions, this methodology comprised four main phases: planning, literature review, experiment execution and documentation of results. The method used is supported by some techniques, such as design thinking, design sprint and the Cynefin framework. Results: The analysis of the results was carried out in two different ways: Through the verification of the achievement of specific objectives and through a questionnaire applied to assess the degrees of perception of all employees who participated in the work. Regarding the specific objectives, it is clear that most of the objectives were achieved. Regarding the applied questionnaire, it is clear that, although the collaborators did not have adequate knowledge regarding the conceptual and practical aspects of some approaches used in the proposed model, there was a general perception that the model, in fact, supported top management for decision making. For professionals, the proposed model has a restricted scope; that is, it does not serve all types of organizations. Conclusion: The model proposed in this work proved to be effective, considering that the indicators were defined, prioritized and optimized, with a focus on the user experience. As future work, we intend to expand the scope of the model’s performance, evaluating business indicators alongside IT indicators.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/6/967design thinkingdesign sprintCynefin frameworkindicatorssoftware projectsagile methodology |
| spellingShingle | Frederico Viana Almeida Edna Dias Canedo Robson de Oliveira Albuquerque Flávio Elias Gomes de Deus Ana Lucila Sandoval Orozco Luis Javier García Villalba A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators Electronics design thinking design sprint Cynefin framework indicators software projects agile methodology |
| title | A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators |
| title_full | A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators |
| title_fullStr | A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators |
| title_short | A Model for the Definition, Prioritization and Optimization of Indicators |
| title_sort | model for the definition prioritization and optimization of indicators |
| topic | design thinking design sprint Cynefin framework indicators software projects agile methodology |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/6/967 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fredericovianaalmeida amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT ednadiascanedo amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT robsondeoliveiraalbuquerque amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT flavioeliasgomesdedeus amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT analucilasandovalorozco amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT luisjaviergarciavillalba amodelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT fredericovianaalmeida modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT ednadiascanedo modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT robsondeoliveiraalbuquerque modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT flavioeliasgomesdedeus modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT analucilasandovalorozco modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators AT luisjaviergarciavillalba modelforthedefinitionprioritizationandoptimizationofindicators |