Google

How To... Create a Basic KPI Dashboard in Excel 2010

KPI Dashboard in Excel- Video Tutorial & Demo

Build a KPI Dashboard in 5 minutes

How to Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

A Definition of Key Performance Indicators

Definition: Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are goals or targets that measure how well an organization is doing on achieving its overall operational objectives or critical success factors for a particular project. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) must be objectively defined in order to provide a quantifiable and measurable indication of the organizations progress towards achieving its goals.

Selecting the Right Key Performance Indicators

An effective set of interlocking indicators provides feedback to individuals, groups, and the enterprise, directing the behavior of all.

Measures of performance have been used by management for centuries to review current operational capabilities. Such measures have been used to assess both departmental and corporate performance, as well as trend performance achieved against plan.

In many industrial facilities, these measurements are related to safety (number of incidents), environmental (number of releases), costs (percentage of departmental budgets used), and production (comparison of actual vs targeted production output). These measures are needed in order to determine not only if resources and costs have been managed for the production achieved, but also whether the assets or plant remain in good health. Clearly, these measures provide assurance that asset policies in place today do not limit capabilities for tomorrow.

In order to define a complete set of performance measures, companies must ensure that simple, workable measures are in place. The real challenge is not only to select those indicators that satisfy budgetary goals, but also to build the activities needed to meet the levels of asset performance required to meet strategic goals.

Selecting the right measures is vital for effectiveness. Even more importantly, the metrics must be built into a performance measurement system that allows individuals and groups to understand how their behaviors and activities are fulfilling the overall corporate goals.

Business challenge
When built into management processes, performance metrics become a system which will generate organizational behaviors that comply with what is measured, i.e., “you are what you measure.” Hence, this will encourage behaviors which help present a good score for the individual or for the department.

This may or may not, however, help to achieve strategic goals. Therefore, when building performance metrics, we must begin with the end result in mind. We need to focus on what we want as outcomes of our work processes. This presents a dilemma, as we do not work as a set of isolated departments, but in collaboration with others. Processes that begin with an individual are continued or completed by others. So, how do we effectively measure outcomes when a single individual or group is not controlling all the key steps?

Several basic frameworks have been proposed to build intelligent metrics that help form sets of composite measures to simplify this problem. For example, the SMART (see accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators ”) test is frequently used to provide a quick reference to determine the quality of a particular performance metric. But these do not, however, address how the measures will interact to stimulate an effective network of key processes. How can individuals see what the effects of their improvements are, if these get lost in the noise of company management reports?

One problem is that business processes are segmented, and many departments are collecting silos of information that produce metrics used only for the sake of measurement. These silos then reinforce divergent opinions of company performance and limit a common understanding of what new behaviors are needed. So, a major factor in implementing performance measurement is changing the way performance is measured and reported and how people view success within their own processes.

For many organizations, this is “where the rubber hits the road:” How can we build realistic, practical metrics which drive change? How can we articulate company objectives through enterprise-wide metrics in an integrated measurement system?

Asset performance metrics
An asset performance management (APM) initiative is comprised of business processes, workflows, and data capture that enable rigorous analysis to help define strategies based on best practices, plant history, and fact-based decision support.

An effective initiative must include three phases: Strategize, Execute, and Evaluate (SEE). All companies engage in some form of activities in the Execute phase, such as performing maintenance, inspections, and monitoring. However, most companies neglect the Strategize and Evaluate phases, where most of the real value of the work execution can be realized. In the Strategize and Evaluate phases, successful companies will not only perform analysis to determine appropriate asset strategies, but also use the information generated by the Execution phase to reevaluate their asset strategies and redefine how they do manage their assets and process risks.

As with many management issues, the key to building a set of performance metrics is to do it in stages, as noted in the accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators.” Clear corporate goals are important at this point, otherwise vague objectives will create impractical perspectives and metrics. Consider also current asset performance indicators: What is currently measured? How are these aligned with company objectives? For many, this lack of connectivity causes dissatisfaction with management reports and criticism of managers who “manage by the numbers.”

By contrast, well-organized metrics and scorecards provide operational measures that have clear cause-and-effect relationships with the desired outcomes. Each of these outcomes will build toward the goals of the perspective. And these metrics, if well chosen, will be the catalysts for change, providing warning signals to identify ineffective or failed asset performance strategies.

The best way to build this relationship is to “map” front-line activities all the way up to corporate goals. For many organizations undergoing strategic change, this may involve reorientation around new customer or supplier perspectives (company stakeholders). For others, building in customer perspective already may have occurred, but the linkages to external (or internal) stakeholder metrics may have been lost since the change program was initiated.

Four tactical perspectives
The accompanying “Performance Indicators for Managing Risk and Improving Profitability ” chart illustrates a high-level map developed for a chemical company using operational excellence goals of managing risks and improving profitability. From this strategic goal, perspectives have been defined which are specific to four functions: Operations, Reliability, Work Management, and Safety and Environmental.

Within these perspectives, each discipline can take charge of factors under its control by choosing the right metrics to measure its progress toward achieving the collective goal. At this stage, metrics should be reviewed to determine which will most effectively measure the desired outcomes. One question to consider is “at what stage it is reasonable to expect the metric to be a meaningful measure of performance?” Clearly some measures may not be effective if the work processes that generate their outcomes are still being built and learned.

So, for this example, the Operations objectives are to focus on delivering reduced operating costs, and managing the risks inherent in the process and in operational activities, while maximizing methanol output.

In the Safety and Environmental perspective, the focus is on providing the systems, procedures, and training which build operational awareness, skills, functional systems and capabilities to prevent, manage, and eliminate safety and environmental incidents.

And in the Work Management perspective, the focus is on efficiently completing maintenance work while minimizing the potential for future breakdowns and restoring assets to their operating condition.

Finally, for the Reliability perspective, the focus is to build the analytics and skills required to increase and improve plant uptime while preserving the integrity and life of plant assets.

From each of these perspectives, tactical metrics can be set to stimulate new outcomes, build new processes, and build skill development and learning—all with clear links to the goals of each individual perspective. Now the value of performance improvements can be easily seen and used to drive changes in functional behaviors and functional interactions.

Scorecards and performance reporting
With the perspectives aligned to corporate goals, key performance indicators (KPIs) can be organized into scorecards using well-considered metrics. KPIs can be chosen that directly achieve individual goals or fulfill shared objectives needed to maximize operating performance, such as asset availability, asset integrity, optimal process capability, or reduced utility consumption.

Metrics that build upon individual perspective goals need to be mapped from the lower-level operational measure to higher-level strategic measures. For example, within the Operations perspective, a strategic KPI candidate could be Plant Uptime. Obviously, this cannot be achieved by operations personnel alone or through a single new activity or the application of a new skill. But the lower operational KPIs of Reduced Startup Time and Increased Running Time at Optimal Output may be more under their control. Improvements in this metric will result in more product produced for the available hours in the operating period.

But if the plant is not available, operations staff will be limited. This is where the visibility and ownership of shared KPIs will come into play. Here, tactical KPIs of Maintenance Compliance and skill/learning development of Defining/Measuring Deterioration Mechanisms will need to be adopted. The compliance metric will ensure that effective maintenance is executed in a timely manner before extensive collateral damage has occurred. And, once the deterioration mechanisms are clearly understood, they can be monitored and interpreted by reliability, operations, and maintenance to reduce impact on production hours and save maintenance resources through timely planning.

From these integrated metrics, we now have to face the challenge of how to collect the data in a systematic manner and on a reasonably routine basis. Asset performance management systems provide transaction engines but often they leave many KPIs uncollected. This leaves manual processes to fill the gap, resulting in missing data records and inadequate information since, quite often, there is no time between scheduled work to record what has occurred. But if details are not recorded, later analysis is frustrated by poor or limited recorded information in the transactions and has to rely on less-reliable memories from craftsmen and contractors.

Solutions are needed here to pull basic data from enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and supplement these with post-event information. Often, however, there are too many individual work items to get all of the details around each event, so facts should be built for the significant events from which asset performance insights can be evaluated.

As direct costs associated with events are often a fraction of production losses (lost profit opportunities), production incidents need to be mapped to their corporate impact instead of providing only measures of man-hours expended. A production incident tracking system is vital so these events can be tied to systematic assessments of actual and potential losses. Figure 1 shows how maintenance measures as well as production losses can be combined to give a full measure of the business impact of events over time.

Routine reporting and automation of the KPIs provides management, reliability engineers, or asset performance analysts with the collective data. Then less time is spent collecting and more time is spent applying the data to achieve the benefits required for business success.

However, without a central location to collect, store, and report KPI data, it can be extremely difficult to manage metrics unified around a strategy map. The data must be accurate, trustworthy, and timely to make beneficial contribution to a site’s or a company’s strategies aimed at asset performance improvement. So, having a system that has all the data you need in one central location is important.

As shown in Fig. 2 , using a “dashboard” approach with dial gauges and graphical trends gives highly visible, visual feedback to groups and individuals on their operational and strategic performance achieved. These gauges appear in user Web-based home pages and graphic alerts can be auto-generated when changes in performance occur, signaling either successful improvements or failures of existing asset strategies.

Practical application
A petrochemical facility with approximately 50,000 assets employed had rigid preventive maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) programs in place. A primary corporate objective was to achieve a minimum return on net assets (RONA) of 12 percent, but the company had floundered around the 8 percent mark for the past few years. Preventable failures and lost production items were still prevalent.

The company initiated a focus on reliability to help achieve the expected RONA. A PM program was set up by functional location and scheduled in its maintenance management system. Predictive maintenance items such as vibration data collection and analysis, infrared switchgear inspections, ultrasonic thickness measurements, and oil sampling and analysis were routinely performed. The facility developed subject matter experts and established new work programs.

As a result, machine availability increased from poor earlier performance to between middle to top tier performance. However, critical machine failure still occurred randomly and unexpectedly. Production targets were affected, and RONA targets were still not achieved. Even though subject matter experts were in place and a focus on implementing preventive and predictive maintenance programs was occurring, unexpected failures were still affecting reliability and impacting production targets.

(A common problem with mature maintenance programs can be that they may not have been designed correctly, and that, on average, between 40 and 60 percent of the PM tasks typically serve very little purpose. This poses a significant issue for improving maintenance performance since no amount of perfection in planning and scheduling will make up for the inefficiencies of the maintenance program itself. Achieving 100 percent compliance with an initiative that is 50 percent useful and 50 percent wasteful is not good asset performance management.)

In spite of their efforts, preventable failures were still occurring at this facility. The production manager was given the primary responsibility to achieve the 12 percent RONA. In order to achieve this goal, she quickly realized that this must involve interdepartmental cooperation. To achieve that end result, she needed all departments to buy in to the goal and make everyone else accountable

as well. Within months, and after much discussion and many presentations to department heads, the KPIs began to show up on each department manager's scorecard.

Building an asset performance culture
With accountability comes responsibility, and in this case, the responsibility to achieve the corporate objective. Alignment processes were in full swing. A strategy was developed that employed KPIs to manage the effectiveness of the existing PM and PdM strategies. Knowing when to perform the PM and when and what PdM data to routinely capture for predictive maintenance is a must in order to be effective and eliminate the preventable failures that are occurring. If RONA was a key corporate objective, then howcould this company align their PM strategies to achieve the target? How can KPIs be used in this effort?

This company decided to incorporate an asset performance management strategy by first defining which assets were critical to achieving production targets. It decided to first focus on those efforts that had a business impact and were keeping the plant from achieving a 12 percent RONA. Only 4000 assets (8 percent of the total) were identified, including rotating, fixed, electrical, and instrumentation.

After the highly critical assets were identified, specific PM and PdM schedules were put in place, rather than the typical “once-per-month” philosophy that was previously employed. KPIs were aligned in an effort to meet the corporate objective and included items such as the number of failures on highly critical equipment, and percentage of highly critical equipment with optimized PM study completed.

As you can see, these are not the typical metrics that many companies employ. These metrics were designed to focus on the 4000 highly critical assets that were preventing the achievement of 12 percent RONA. The spotlight had now shifted from carrying out PM and PdM efforts on all 50,000 assets to the 4000 highly critical assets. Resources were aligned to employ methodologies to optimize PM plans for each of the critical assets.

When failures occurred in the facility on noncritical assets, significantly less attention was given to those events. Operators, maintenance technicians, process engineers, and management were refocusing their resource allocations on the 4000 highly critical assets. KPIs dictated which assets would receive the most focus based on consequence and impact of failure. This practical, easy-to-implement strategy, using KPIs, led to achievement of the desired 12 percent RONA.

Asset performance management benefits
Every organization needs a strategy for effective metrics mapped to corporate objectives in an asset performance management system that can track, trend, and analyze asset information for better business decision making. Having data in one central location and detailing asset events to promote easy querying and reporting is required.

For this company, the APM system promoted:

• A closed loop process of defining strategies, executing the performance of those strategies, and evaluating failed assets in order to determine if the initial strategy was ineffective and required change

• Use of a central repository for all technical and detailed asset event data

• Use of KPIs to measure progress and reinforce positive behaviors

• Elimination of departmental barriers (everyone had a common objective driven by corporate management)

• Use of statistical tools to evaluate asset performance and understand past failures and successes

• Delivery of corporate value (the RONA goal was achieved)

In this case, the benefits of this strategy included a clear understanding of a common goal, or an objective, and alignment of strategies and resources. The 12 percent RONA was now not just some corporate objective; it had real meaning to the site’s employees. Further, when targets were not met, a process was put in place to analyze the results and determine if the strategies for a specific asset needed to be changed. A continuous, closed loop business process was now in place.

KPIs in APM workflow
When KPIs are used in an APM workflow, an interface exists between the APM system and the maintenance management system. Data is automatically flowing between the two systems, generating key performance indicators. In one specific example for a pump (PMP-101), the strategy employed takes the tasks developed in the APM system and automatically enters them into the maintenance management system.

Typically, they are scheduled as work orders. In this workflow, all work order data is captured and sent to the APM system and a detailed data capture is performed regarding any event associated with PMP-101. This data is used to routinely capture KPIs that can be used as a set of criteria to automatically notify the user that an analysis is required. In the example, this would probably occur when a highly critical asset experienced a failure. The implementation of the APM system made the initiative much easier to achieve and adjustment of strategies simpler to accomplish.

SEE for clarity
When organizations are given a framework to monitor asset performance and empowered with a strategy review process, improvements in asset performance occur and production process constraints wither away. Benchmark levels of performance are achieved, and what were formerly regarded as “ideal” levels of production are regularly achieved.

Effective scorecards are a powerful catalyst for making the need for change visible and the opportunity for improvement clear. Alone, the opportunity is a powerful motivator. But harnessing that power with an APM system is essential to prevent the process from becoming fragmented with multiple conflicting improvements, causing confusion and instability.

An APM platform focused on reinforcing the cycle of Strategize-Execute-Evaluate (SEE) brings clarity and structure to the situation. An asset performance culture begins with defining or refining asset strategies (the Strategize phase), which requires an understanding of the production requirements, processes hazards, plant configuration, and the current organizational capabilities.

The Execute phase should capitalize on the information gathered when the asset strategies are applied and failures and successes occur. With an effective APM system, observations made by individuals in the Execute phase can be recorded and shared with various departments, offering new insights into how potential failures can be detected and prevented earlier.

With this culture in place, metrics and scorecards can progressively reveal opportunities for improvement in the Evaluate phase. Here the right metrics and scorecards replace the “blame culture” that surfaces in many situations where low-grade performance is revealed. With the right culture, following the cause-effect relationships in the strategy map can determine when and where systemic causes are being introduced and what improvements can be made.

These improvements can then cycle back to the Strategize phase where the strategies can be re-assessed to make effective holistic improvements to the asset configuration, the way failures are managed and mitigated, the organization's skills and capabilities, or the performance measurement system itself.

Anthony McNeeney is a senior APM consultant for the Asset Performance Management Consulting Group at Meridium , 10 S. Jefferson St., Roanoke, VA 24011, provider of asset performance management solutions; (540) 344-9205

BUILDING AND TESTING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

As with many management issues, it is often best to build a solution in stages. Suggested stages for performance indicators are:
1. Define the links between corporate goals and major operational perspectives.
2. Map these strategic links to required processes in each perspective area.
3. Define a set of near-term and medium-term metrics which drive the new outcomes in each perspective.
4. Define the gaps and dependencies across the organization which will need to be bridged to result in corporate success.
5. Implement the metrics as individual and group scorecards and monitor to secure the strategic results.

Use the SMART test

S = Specific: clear and focused to avoid misinterpretation.
M = Measurable: can be quantified and compared to other data.
A = Attainable: achievable, reasonable, and credible under conditions expected.
R = Realistic: fits into the organization's constraints and is cost effective.
T = Timely: doable within the time frame given.

Key performance indicators should be trendable, observable, reliable, measurable, and specific.

Source : http://www.mt-online.com/component/content/article/103-april2005/639-selecting-the-right-key-performance-indicators.html?directory=90

KPIs, or key performance indicators

KPIs, or key performance indicators help organizations achieve organizational goals through the definition and measurement of progress. The key indicators are agreed upon by an organization and are indicators which can be measured that will reflect success factors. The KPIs selected must reflect the organization's goals, they must be key to its success, and they must be measurable. Key performance indicators usually are long-term considerations for an organization.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SELECTION OF QUALITY

Every strategy, employment or business processes have measures of success. Without a measure of success, it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which a person or a business process can be effective. Indicators of success in achieving the strategy is called by various names.

Kaplan & Norton (2004) called it a strategic measures and key performance indicators, while Simons (2000) called it a critical performance variables. The Government called Key Performance Indicators. I prefer to call Key Performance Indicator. Acronym is called KPI, letters in English spelling.

Determination of indicators of the success of the strategy, work or an actual business process needs of employers and employees. Business process productivity measurement is the answer to shareholders who desire feedback always want the health business. The existence of key performance indicator is the answer to the desire of employees who always want more objective measures in assessing the results of his work.

Whatever its name, as a measure achievement of the strategy, a strategic success indicators (strategic measures) are both necessary to meet the following elements:


Can be a means of communicating the company's strategy (ability of the organization to Communicate Their strategy for measures)
Directly related to the chosen strategy the company (the selected measure adequately focuses on the strategic issue)
The indicators are kuantifitatif, have a certain formula in its calculations (quantifiable, can be evaluated objectively)
Indicators can be calculated (the measures are quantifiable, and repeatable reliabled)
Pemutakhirannya useful frequency (the frequency of updates are meaningfull)
Target setting for improvement can be done (meaningful targets for improvement are established)
Possibility of benchmarking with other companies to do (external benchmarking is feasible and / or Desirable)
Measurement is still valid (validity of measures - not old unvalid measures)
Data and resources available (availability of data and resources)
Measurement does not exceed the cost of the benefit (cost of measures not more than the benefit of measures)

The idea of ​​the above considerations is to ensure that companies choose indicators that meet the needs of idealism on the one side of the company, but on the other hand does not sacrifice practicality of implementation.

Morgan & Schiemann study in 1999 showed that "companies that succeed in business is a company that is also better in the management of human resources management system and measuring the productivity of their employees than other companies". And it starts with finding a quality key performance indicators and effective.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) as an indicator to determine the success

Many people or HRD practitioner who considers that the KPI is unnecessary and only makes the HRD busy, no results have a major impact on the company's progress.

It used to be, it is an ancient mindset that has been abandoned by many practitioners of HRD in Indonesia, today they are well aware that the Key Performance Indicators are needed. Evidenced by the many participants who attended the trainings organized by the HRD Forum.

Current HR practitioners in Indonesia are racing to deepen their knowledge and expertise in making the Key Performance Indicators that matches the work culture at their respective companies.

One of the things they are concerned about is, how to design Key Performance Indicators that can move all of its employees to work together more productively in achieving the targets that have been awarded against the company.

All companies recognize the importance of KPI as an indicator to determine the success of a corporate objective. But not all companies are already making KPIs (especially companies that have not made KPI) ABLE making, designing, selecting and determining and establishing KPI it RIGHT. Less strong basic understanding of the definition, function and role of KPIs makes a lot of companies are not exactly in the making and setting KPI. Errors in setting KPIs include: less optimal selected KPI, not just in determining the KPI, KPI that is not aligned with the objective of the selected KPI, which is not actually set KPI KPI, one of the weighting and others, all such errors will result in a FATAL due to be paid by the company MAHAL, the business processes that are not running toward his objective is FAST & ACCURATE, so Lost Opportunity inevitable both in terms of COST, TIME & PROFIT. In addition to the Lost Opportunity, errors in setting the KPI will lead the company can not measure the success of its correct target and lead to Misleading and False Information to companies, managers and employees ..

The company must have an understanding of the definition, function and role of KPIs in TRUE, armed with this understanding, companies must be able to design a KPI of mutual support, strengthen and drive the business process. Armed with this understanding as well, the company should be able to create a KPI on the corporate level, the Department, as well as employees of units of mutual support, strengthen and move the process toward OBJECTIVE Company's business.

KPIs differ depending on the nature and strategy of the organization. KPI is a key part of a measurable targets consisting of direction, KPI, measures, targets and time frames. For example: "increasing average revenue per customer from 10 thousand to 15 thousand dollars at the end of 2012". In this example, the 'average revenue per customer' is a KPI.

Develop Key Performance Indicators

Managing the performance of the company (managing company performance) effectively is probably one of the key tips for business towards an increasingly looming. In this context, the development of key performance indicators more systematically perceived as needs are almost inevitable.

Key performance indicators (KPI or often abbreviated) is the essential element in the process of performance management of each company. KPI itself is a series of key indicators that are measurable, and provide information to us how far we managed to achieve the performance targets imposed on us.

There are a number of important records that must be considered whenever possible we want to implement employee performance management system based KPI. Here we will discuss three record.

Note that the first, admittedly not easy to identify the KPI (key performance indicators) are appropriate for each position. There are a number of positions that are easy to set KPI, such as in marketing, sales or production parts. But it is rather difficult to develop KPI people in support or administration. KPIs such as what is appropriate for a secretary (the number to the superior smile of the day or the number of errors in the way the boss sets the agenda).

Ideally, each company could put together such a KPI Catalog for all positions in it (I already have this KPI is preparing a detailed catalog for all positions in the company, and when completed, may be published free of charge via this blog). For example, the KPI for sales / marketing course sales volume, or number of visits to prospects, or brand image index, and the like. For HR, KPI common examples such as the duration of the recruitment process, employee turnover, employee satisfaction scores, or levels of employee productivity.

Note the second, actually that is not less important is the achievement of set KPI monitoring system. Many companies have set KPI quite well but stalled in the middle of the road due to lack of support and good monitoring systems. For example, the company already has a KPI score of satisfaction of employees, but they do not have the tools to measure it.

Or another example, the KPI of IT has an average duration of desktop improvements, but they do not have a monitoring chart to record how long the average of their improvement process. Take another example, a section has a KPI on the number of customer complaints can be resolved completely, but then forgot to develop a mechanism to measure the process. Or even the definition and criteria "thoroughly settled" is also no explanation as to what.

The above example shows the importance of monitoring and support systems for the realization of the data documenting the KPI. Only with the support of monitoring schemes, the achievement of KPI every month or every quarter can be managed and controlled to the optimum.

Third record without a good monitoring system, development of performance could eventually lead to what I call sebegai "KPI Gaming". KPI or a game. And are usually susceptible to gaming on the parts or administrative support functions. KPI dimension should be recognized for this section is usually boils down to two things: the accuracy of the preparation of reports (such as financial reports, personnel administration, data sales, or accounting reports) and timeliness of the preparation of reports.

Well there is no monitoring system is neat, data KPI achievement of two things must be filled with the simple. As a result, the achievement of KPI that is often seen their data tend to always be "good" (eg is always 100% accuracy, and timeliness are always declared on time, but the timeliness of their own criteria they may not have a standard default). If this happens (and I often see it), then the KPI score of the support and administration always tends to be high (the average is always above 95!).

Thus, a three brief notes about the process-based application performance management KPI (key performance indicators). I think if the three elements above can be examined, treated and then managed to survive, then of course this will contribute significantly to the improvement of business performance.

You can not manage what can not be measured. So if your job can not be measured properly (through IEC), may be a sign of an organization or office is not managed properly.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI)

Key Performance Indicator, which is known by practitioners of HRD as KPI or Key Success Indicators (KSI), where the KPI is to help organizations define and measure progress in achieving organizational goals.

After analyzing the organization's mission, identify all stakeholders, and determine the objectives, needed a way to measure progress in achieving that goal. Key Performance Indicators are a way to measure it.

What is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

Key Performance Indicators are quantitative measurements, according to previous explanations, which describe the organization's critical success factors. Where the KPI is highly dependent on your organization.

KPI's business may be one of them is the percentage of revenue from customers.

A school may have a KPI that focuses on student graduation rates.

A Customer Service Department may be one of the key indicators of performance, in line with overall company KPIs, percentage of customer calls answered within the first minute.
Key Performance Indicators for social service organization might be number of clients assisted during the year.
Whatever Key Performance Indicators selected, they must reflect the organization's goals, they must be the key to success, and they must be measurable (measurable). Key Performance Indicators are usually long-term considerations. Definitions and how they measure the long-term nature does not change frequently dab. Objectives for a particular Key Performance Indicator may change as the organization's goals change, or as it gets closer to achieving the goal.

Key Performance Indicators reflect the purpose of the Organization

An organization that has the goal "to become the most profitable companies in the industry" will have Key Performance Indicators that measure profit and related fiscal policies. "Profit Before Tax" and "Equity" will surely be part of KPInya. However, "The cause of Percent Income for Life Community" might not be one of its Key Indicators of Performance. On the other hand, schools that do not care to make a profit, so the Key Performance Indicators will be different. KPIs like "Graduation Rate" and "Success In Finding Employment After Graduation", though different, but still describes the mission and goals for the school.
Key Performance Indicators should be measured

If a Key Performance Indicator for value, there must be a way to define and measure it precisely. "Generate More Repeat Customers" is useless as a KPI without any attempt to distinguish between new and old customers. "The company became the most famous" can not be said as a KPI because there is no way to measure the company's popularity or compare it with the popularity of other companies.

It is very important to define Key Performance Indicators and still have the same definition from year to year. To "Increase Sales" KPI, you should consider whether you want to measure the units sold or by dollar value of sales. Will re-cut of the sales in the month or the month of resale? Are the sales recorded for the KPI at list price or actual sale price?

You also need to set targets for each Key Performance Indicator. The company's goal to become an employer of many of those options may include KPI "Turnover Rate". After the Key Performance Indicator is defined as "the number of voluntary resignations and terminations for performance, divided by the total number of employees at the beginning of the period" and how to measure it is to gather information from the HRIS, the target should be set. "Reducing turnover of five percent per year" is an obvious target to be understood by everyone and everyone can take certain actions to achieve them.
Google