International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 11 Performance Assessment of PT. X Automotive Companies Using Performance Prism and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Sentot Patria. W. S 1 , Ahmadi 2 , Okol S Suharyo 3 , Arica Dwi Susanto 4 Indonesian Naval Technology College, Bumimoro-Morokrembangan, Surabaya 60187, Indonesia E-mail: 1sentotpatria007@gmail.com, 2ahmadi@sttal.co.id, 3okolsrisuharyo@yahoo.com, 4aricadsusanto@gmail.com Abstract: The change of security and economic conditions along with globalization that occurs in Indonesia led to tight competition in the automotive industry business. Thus, it is required for them to carry out several management improvement programs and cost savings without reducing service quality in order to compete and survive. Researchers sought solutions using Performance Prism and Weighting by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method. Based on the results of weighting using the AHP method, there were 3 KPIs that had a large influence on employee performance, namely KPI 8 of personnel violations percentage with a weight of 0.160, KPI 10 of the amount of customer complaints with a weight of 0.142 and KPI 14 of the number of violations found with a weight of 0.123. Of the 14 KPIs identified, 8 KPIs was identified as well performance (green traffic light), 5 KPIs with moderate performance (yellow) and the remaining 1 KPI was identified as poor performance (red). The highest performance score was obtained by KPI 5 which is the number of personnel who receive training with the percentage of 160%. Meanwhile, the KPI with the lowest score which is also one of the red KPIs was KPI 13 of Personnel ratio compared to personnel list with a performance score of 33.33% (in red). Overall, employees performance was in good condition. This was indicated by the value of the Employee's total performance score of 85.23% (on a scale of 0% to 100%). Keywords: Automotive, AHP, Performance Prism, Weighting, Work Load 1. INTRODUCTION The change of security and economic conditions along with globalization that occurs in Indonesia led to tight competition in the automotive industry business. Thus,it is required for all automotive companies to carry out several management improvement programs and cost savings without reducing service quality in order to compete and survive.So far, the performance measurement system in automotive X has not represented organizational performance in a comprehensive and integrative manner. Therefore, it is necessary to redesign the performance measurement system. In automotive X, the performance measurement is performed as an evaluation that can provide solutions in making decisions to improve service to customers.However, performance measurement is generaly only based on financial aspects and the performance assessment is based on whether or not the target is met within a certain period. This paper used some literatures to support the research, for example paper titled Applicability of Performance Measurement Systems in Incentivizing the Operational Level Indirect Employees: A Literature Review (Perera, 2017). A Critique of the Balanced Scorecard as a Performance Measurement Tool (Allam, 2015). Double Performance Prism: innovation performance Measurement systems for manufacturing SMEs (Gardoni, 2017). Managing With Measures: The Stakeholder Perspective (Neely A. a., 2002). Measuring Strategic Performance in State-ownedOrganizations: An Evaluation of Five Proposed Contemporary Metrics (Prosper Gameli Agbanu, 2016). Performance Measurement System Design: Developing and testing a process based approach (Neely A. B., 2000). Performance measurement and performance management (Lebas, 1995). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction (Ittner, 1998). The use of the balanced scorecard in small companies. (Giannopoulos G. H., 2013). Performance measurement systems in SMEs: A review for aresearch agenda (Patrizia Garengo, 2005). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement (Atkinson, 1997). Web enabled measurement systems-management implications (Bititci, 2002). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems (Bourne, 2000). Measures that matter (Bierbusse, 1997). A scorecard for small business performance (Cook, 1995). The changing basis of performance measurement (Ghalayini A. a., 1996). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness (Ghalayini A. N., 1997). Lean organization, management by process and performance measurement (De Toni, 1996). The downside of the Balanced Scorecard: A case study from Norway (Antonsen, 2010). Applying the balanced scorecard for better performance of intellectual capital (Bose, 2007). The use of the balanced scorecard in small companies (Giannopoulos G. H., 2013). The performance prism in practice (A. Neely, 2001). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system (R. S. Kaplan, 1996). The solution to the above problems is using five dimensions called Performance Prism. Performance prism International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 12 has five facets/aspects which are the satisfaction of stakeholders and stakeholder contributionsfor top and bottom facets. Meanwhile, there are strategies, processes and capabilitiesfor the other facets. This model is not only based on strategy but also takes stakeholder satisfactioncontribution, organizational processes and capabilitiesinto account. Understanding the cause of stakeholders' (owners and investors, suppliers, consumers, labor, government and surrounding communities) satisfaction is an important step in the Performance Prism model. This Paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is review about the basic ship theory. Section 3 is the result and 4 is the discussion of research. Finally, the conclusion will be presented in section 5. 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Performance Prism Performance Prism is a model used for performance measurement that describes the performance of an organization as a 3-dimensional construct (prism) which has 5 sides. Performance assessment system in the form of Performance Prism model attempts to complete the previous models including the Balanced Scorecard. This model is not only based on strategy but also considers the satisfaction and contribution of stakeholders, the process and the capability of the company (M. Hudson, 2001). In principle, this method is carried out in two directions, namely considering satisfaction and funding needs of all stakeholders and also seeing the skatholders' contributions to the company. Figure 1. Five facets of performance prism In Figure 2.1, there are five facets of performance prism. The philosophy of performance prism comes from a prism building where the building has five sides, namely the upper and lower sides which are satisfaction and contribution, while the other three are strategy, process, and capability. Figure 2. The Scope of Performance Prism Performance Prism has 5 interrelated performance perspectives, namely: a. Stakeholder's Satisfaction Who are the organizational stakeholders and what are their wants and needs? Stakeholders considered here include consumers, labor, suppliers, owners / investors, along with the Government and the surrounding community. It is important for companies to strive to provide satisfaction with what their stakeholders want and need and to communicate well with them so that stakeholders can carry out their roles well for the success of the company. b. Strategy What strategies are needed to give satisfaction to the wants and needs of stakeholders? The strategy in this case is very necessary to assess organizational performance because it can be used as a monitor (reference) to what extent organizational objectives have been decided to improve organizational performance. c. Process What processes are needed to achieve the strategy that has been set? The process here is likened to a machine in achieving success, so how is the organization able to obtain high income with the lowest possible expenses, for example by optimizing the procurement system. d. Capability What capabilities are needed to carry out the existing process? Capability here is the capabilities possessed by the organization include its expertise, business practices, technology utilization, and supporting facilities. This organizational capability is the most basic foundation that an organization must possess to be able to compete with other organizations. e. Stakeholder's Contribution What contribution does the company need and want from stakeholders to develop their capabilities? Determining what should be assessed, which is the ultimate goal of performance measurement with this International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 13 Performance Prism model, means that the organization must consider what things are desired and needed from its stakeholders. It is because organizations are considered to have good performance if they are able to convey what they want from stakeholders that greatly affect the survival of their organization. Gambar 3. Hubungan antar perspektif Performance Prism 2.2 Key Perfomance Indicator (KPI) According to (J. Alegre, 2006), Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is a measuring tool that is used to facilitate management or even stakeholders in knowing information about a company's performance level. KPI provides a clear strategy and helps to monitor and improve company performance. KPIs must be chosen clearly to identify performance indicators that are important for the company. Inappropriate selection of KPIs can lead to inefficient and counterproductive performance measurement. Here is the flow of determining KPI: (Freeman, 2010). a. Identification of KPI and determination of selected KPI b. Weighting of KPIs and ratification of contracts with management c. Assessment and reporting of KPI achievements d. Ratification of KPI achievement, evaluation and feedback 2.3 Weighting with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was first developed in the 1970s (Saaty, 1999) from the Wharton School of Business which was useful for organizing information and judgment on the selection of the most preferred alternatives. The mechanism principle of the AHP method is to simplify unstructured problems and arrange them in a hierarchy. Each variable is compared one by one with other variables based on certain values. Then, the determination of variables with the highest priority is carried out and has a considerable impact on a system (Anthony, 2009). In making AHP method decisions, the following steps are needed: a. Identifying the problem and determine the solution expected from the previous observation process. b. Determining the hierarchial structure of the process which consists of the desired goals, criteria for achieving goals, and possible alternatives. Here is an overview of the hierarchical structure of the AHP method: c. Making a pairwise comparison matrix by setting the inverse value, provided that if A is preferred to B with an x scale, then B is preferred than A to a 1/ xscale. Here is the matrix d. Calculate priority weights, with the following stages: a) Changing the value of the matrix in decimal form. b) Summing each column and dividing elements in each column with the sum of the criteria for the column in question. The following is a table of basic pairwise comparisons: c) Performing the normalization vector eigen calculation by summing each row then dividing the number of criteria (= n). e. Determining the maximum eigen value (λmax) by adding up the multiplication of the number of columns from the pairwise comparison matrix with the normalized vector eigen. 1 f. Calculating the value of Consistency Index (CI):    1 maks n CI n     2 g. alculating the Consistency Ratio (CR) to find out the consistency of assessments made by management. The value of CR is accepted when 0.10. Calculations use the following formula: 3 Here is the random index value for some matrix sizes according to Saaty: International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 14 Table1. Random Index (RI) n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RI 0 0 0,58 0,90 1,12 1,24 1,32 1,41 1,45 1,49 2.4 Scoring Assessment by scoring method was used to equalize the scale of each indicator, so as to find out the achievement of each parameter. The data used was divided into 2 types, namely: (Wongrassamee, 2003). a. Qualitative data: Non-numerical data obtained from interviews, field observations, existing documents. b. Quantitative data: Data in the form of numbers which was obtained from calculations and can be an integer/decimal, such as: the number of bacteria in a lake, etc. 2.5 The making of Performance Assessing Tool (Template) The performance assessment in a companytriggers the competitiveness (Yadav, 2013). Underlying factors are an increase in the work ethic of company employees. In order to obtain data on company performance assessment, a assessing instrument (template) is needed as standard and standard form. The form of the template that has been designed, can be changed and adjusted to the state of the company in the future. The filling of the template is carried out by the superior in charge in the field. 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Identification of Stakeholder's Satisfaction and Contribution The designing of performance assessment system was using Performance Prism method. It started with identification of aspects that can meet stakeholder satisfaction along with identifying the contributionthat will be given by each stakeholder to employees if employees can satisfy the needs of the stakeholders. The processing of the results of the questionnaire distribution was described in the following table: Table2. Questionnaire Results of Consumer and Personnel Stakeholders STAKE HOLDER STAKEHOLDER'S SATISFACTION NUMBER OF RESPONDENT MEAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumer a. Maintained Security 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.6 b. Complaint handling well 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 c. Good quality work 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 d. Fast work completion 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 e. Adequate work equipment 5 - - - - - - - 0.5 f. Members are trained - 5 - - - - - - 0.5 g. Low price - - - - - - - 5 0.5 Staff Personnel a. Personal protective equipment 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 b. There are courses/training 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.9 c. Promotion or welfare 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 d. Additional personnel 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.5 e. Additional/regeneration of work equipment 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 STAKE HOLDER STAKEHOLDER'S CONTRIBUTION NUMBER OF RESPONDENT MEAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumer a. Being a loyal customer 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.3 b. Assist in promotion 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.1 c. Contribute to the Security 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.4 Staff Personnel a. Work better 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 b. Skill increases lead to the increase of quality work 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 c. Working hard 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 15 Table 3. Stakeholder's Satisfaction and Stakeholder's Contribution STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER'S SATISFACTION STAKEHOLDER'S CONTRIBUTION Investor a. Readiness of equipment technical conditions a. Giving reward and punishment b. Personnel readiness c. High productivity of work d. There are no work accidents Supplier a. Disciplined personnel a. Giving reward and punishment b. Pay attention to work safety c. There is no law violation Consumer a. Maintained Security a. Become a loyal customer b. Handling complaints properly b. Assist in promotion c. Good quality of work c. Contribute to the security d. Fast completion of work Staff Personnel a. Personal protective equipment a. Work better b. There are courses/training b. Skill increases lead to the increase of quality work c. Promotion or welfare c. Working hard d. Additional personnel e. Additional/regeneration of work equipment Government/Community a. Obey PNBP procedures a. Licensing Process b. Tax compliance c. Orderly reporting SIMAK Table 4. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) STAKEHOLDER NUMBER OF KPI KPI Investor 1 Percentage of Production equipment conditions 2 Percentage of Mechanical equipment conditions 3 Percentage of Automotive equipment conditions 4 Percentage of electrical equipment conditions 5 Number of trained personnel 6 Number of cars in repairing state Supplier 7 Personnel Attendance 8 Percentage of personnel violations Consumer 9 Number of reports lost 10 Number of customer complaints Staff Personnel 11 Occupational accident rate 12 The ratio rose to rank compared to the proposal 13 Personnel ratio compared to personnel list Government/Community 14 Number of violations findings Table5. Weighting of KPI STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER WEIGHT KPI KPI WEIGHT TOTAL WEIGHT Investor 0.329 Percentage of Production equipment conditions 0.080 0.026 Percentage of Mechanical equipment conditions 0.080 0.026 Percentage of Automotive equipment conditions 0.080 0.026 Percentage of electrical equipment 0.080 0.026 International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 16 conditions Number of trained personnel 0.080 0.026 Number of cars in repairing state 0.160 0.053 Supplier 0.213 Personnel Attendance 0.250 0.053 Percentage of personnel violations 0.750 0.160 Consumer 0.213 Number of reports lost 0.333 0.071 Number of customer complaints 0.667 0.142 Staff Personnel 0.123 Occupational accident rate 0.600 0.074 The ratio rose to rank compared to the proposal 0.300 0.037 Personnel ratio compared to personnel list 0.100 0.012 Government/Community 0.123 Number of violations findings 1.000 0.123 Based on the total weight value above, it is known that KPIs that had a large influence on the overall performance of the Employees were: a. KPI 8 of Personnel violations percentage with a total weight of 0.160. b. KPI 10 of Number of customer complaints with a total weight of 0.142. c. KPI 14 of Number of Violation findings with a total weight of 0.123. While other KPIs had a relatively small influence on the overall performance of employees. This means that employees should prioritize attention on KPIs with a large total weight value in improving employee performance, without ignoring other KPIs. 4. DISCUSSION Employee performance achievement value categories are represented by the following colours: a. Green, the KPI score is between 76% and 100%. This means that the achievement of the KPI has approached the target, the same or even exceeded the target. Thus, this achievement must be maintained and improved. b. Yellow, the KPI score is between 51% and 75%. This category indicates that the achievement of the KPI has not yet reached the specified target, but the value is quite close to the target. Employee management must be careful about the achievement of this KPI and need to take steps to improve it. c. In red, the KPI score is between 0% and 50%. This category indicates that the achievement of KPI is far below the target. So it requires serious and immediate handling steps to improve its performance. Table6. Category of Employee Performance Achievement Value ACHIEVEMENT VALUE NOTES ASSESSMENT COLOR 76% 100% Good Green 51% 75% Moderate Yellow 0% 50% Bad Red Table 7. Actual Value and Target of Each Employee KPI STAKE HOLDER KPI YEAR 2017 UNIT ACTUAL TARGET Investor Percentage of Production equipment conditions 52.35% 100% % Percentage of Mechanical equipment conditions 61.74% 100% % Percentage of Automotive equipment conditions 73.63% 100% % Percentage of electrical equipment conditions 69.23% 100% % Number of trained personnel 16 10 Person/People International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 17 Number of cars in repairing state 41 72 Piece Supplier Personnel Attendance 0 0 Person/People Percentage of personnel violations 0.93% 0% % Consumer Number of reports lost 0 0 Piece Number of customer complaints 0 0 Piece Staff Personnel Occupational accident rate 0 0 Piece The ratio rose to rank compared to the proposal 100% 100% % Personnel ratio compared to personnel list 33.33% 100% % Government/ Community Number of violations findings 0 0 Times Table8. Assessment Result of Employee's Performance STAKE HOLDER KPI TOTAL WEIGHT PERFORMANCE ABSO-LUTE PERFORMANCE TRAFFIC LIGHT Investor 1 Percentage of Production equipment conditions 0.026 52.35% 1.38% Moderate 2 Percentage of Mechanical equipment conditions 0.026 61.74% 1.62% Moderate 3 Percentage of Automotive equipment conditions 0.026 73.63% 1.94% Moderate 4 Percentage of electrical equipment conditions 0.026 69.23% 1.82% Moderate 5 Number of trained personnel 0.026 160.00% 2.63% Good 6 Number of cars in repairing state 0.053 56.94% 3.00% Moderate Supplier 7 Personnel Attendance 0.053 100.00% 5.33% Good 8 Percentage of personnel violations 0.160 99.07% 15.83% Good Consumer 9 Number of reports lost 0.071 100.00% 7.09% Good 10 Number of customer complaints 0.142 100.00% 14.21% Good Staff Personnel 11 Occupational accident rate 0.074 100.00% 7.38% Good 12 The ratio rose to rank compared to the proposal 0.037 100.00% 3.69% Good 13 Personnel ratio compared to personnel list 0.012 33.33% 0.41% Bad Government/ Community 14 Number of violations findings 0.123 100.00% 12.30% Good TOTAL SCORE OF EMPLOYEES 'S PERFORMANCE 85.23% GOOD 5. CONCLUSION Based on the research of performance assessment system design, the Employees used the Performance Prism method, then the assessmentwere implemented using thedata in year 2017. Based on the weighting results and AHP method, there were 3 KPIs that had a high impact on employees' performance, namely KPI 8 of Percentage of personnel violations with the weight of 0,160, KPI 10 of Number of customer complaints with a weight of 0.142 and KPI 14 of Number of violation findings with a weight of 0.123. Of the 14 KPIs identified, 8 KPIs were performed well (green traffic light), 5 KPIs had moderate performance (yellow) and the remaining 1 KPI performing poorly (in red). The highest performance score was obtained by KPI 5 of the number of personnel who trained/courses with the percentage of 160%. Meanwhile the KPI with the lowest score which was also one of the red KPIs was KPI 13 of personnel ratio compared to personnel list with a performance score of 33.33% (in red). Overall performance International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ISSN: 2000-001X Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2018, Pages: 11-18 www.ijeais.org/ijamsr 18 of employees was in good condition. This was indicated by the value of the Employee's total performance score of 85.23% (on a scale of 0% to 100%). 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research has been Supported by Indonesia Naval Technology College (STTAL). REFERENCE [1] A. Neely, C. A. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring business excellence, 5(2), 6-13. [2] Allam, E. A. (2015). A Critique of the Balanced Scorecard as a Performance Measurement Tool. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(7), 91-99. [3] Anderson, J. (1995). Computational Fluid Dynamics : the Basic with Applications. singapore: McGraw-Hill. [4] Anthony, R. N. (2009). Management Control System. New York: Mc Graw Hill. [5] Antonsen, Y. (2010). The downside of the Balanced Scorecard: A case study from Norway. The Scandinavian Journal of Management, 40-50. [6] Atkinson, A. a. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 25-37. [7] Bierbusse, P. a. (1997). Measures that matter. Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement, 6-11. [8] Bititci, U. T. (2002). Web enabled measurement systems – management implications. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1273-1287. [9] Bose, S. a. (2007). Applying the balanced scorecard for better performance of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 653-665. [10] Bourne, M. M. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operation and production management, 754-771. [11] Cook, R. a. (1995). A scorecard for small business performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 1-18. [12] De Toni, A. a. (1996). Lean organization, management by process and performance measurement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 221-236. [13] Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [14] Gardoni, F. L. (2017). Double Performance Prism: innovation performance Measurement systems for manufacturing SMEs. International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), 4(03), 113-128. [15] Ghalayini, A. a. (1996). The changing basis of performance measurement. Journal of Operations and Production Management, 63-80. [16] Ghalayini, A. N. (1997). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics, 207-225. [17] Giannopoulos, G. H. (2013). The use of the balanced scorecard in small companies. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 1-22. [18] Ittner, C. D. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research 36(Supplement), 1-35. [19] J. Alegre, R. L. (2006). A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 333-346. [20] Lebas, M. J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management. International Journal of Production Economics, 23-35. [21] M. Hudson, A. S. (2001). Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1096-1115. [22] Neely, A. a. (2002). Managing With Measures: The Stakeholder Perspective. Control, 28(7), 29-31. [23] Neely, A. B. (2000). Performance Measurement System Design: Developing and testing a process based approach. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, 20(10), 1119-1145. [24] Patrizia Garengo, S. B. (2005). Performance measurement systems in SMEs: A review for a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(1), 25-47. [25] Perera, R. M. (2017). Applicability of Performance Measurement Systems in Incentivizing the Operational Level Indirect Employees: A Literature Review. International Business Management, 1021-1027. [26] Prosper Gameli Agbanu, I. K. (2016). Measuring Strategic Performance in State-owned Organizations: An Evaluation of Five Proposed Contemporary Metrics. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(3), 138-151. [27] R. S. Kaplan, a. D. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard business review, 75-85. [28] Saaty, T. L. (1999). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Opeation Research, 9-26. [29] Wongrassamee, S. G. (2003). Performance measurement tools: the Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model. Measuring business excellence, 14-29. [30] Yadav, N. S. (2013). Performance measurement and management frameworks: research trends of the last two decades. Business Process Management Journal, 947-970.