KR102036774B1 - Method for evaluating performance using qsc and recordable media thereof - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a performance evaluation method using QSC and a recording medium thereof, and more particularly, to a quality scorecard (QSC) that measures performance by quantitative performance evaluation in terms of quantitative performance. It relates to the performance evaluation method using QSC and its recording medium, which can measure and manage the quality-based performance by evaluating the performance by utilizing it.
In order to achieve the above object, the performance evaluation method using QSC according to the present invention includes a prevention index, an evaluation index, and a final result designed based on a cost of quality (COQ). QSC Framework design phase that maps activity items that require evaluation to QSC (Quality Scorecard) items with indicators, and measures quantitative performance of QSC (Quality Scorecard) items for each activity item. A measurement indicator design step of preparing a measurement index having a performance measurement scale for the evaluation step, an evaluation step of creating an evaluation result according to a measurement indicator designed for an activity item corresponding to the quality scorecard (QSC) item, and a score; And a result derivation and analysis step of deriving a result of the input variable (prevention cost (P), evaluation cost (A)) and the calculation variable (result cost (F)) based on the evaluation result. do.

Description

METHODS FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE USING QSC AND RECORDABLE MEDIA THEREOF}

The present invention relates to a performance evaluation method using QSC and a recording medium thereof, and more particularly, to a quality scorecard (QSC) that measures performance by quantitative performance evaluation in terms of quantitative performance. It relates to the performance evaluation method using QSC and its recording medium, which can measure and manage the quality-based performance by evaluating the performance by utilizing it.

In the big data era and as the automated decision making system becomes more common, the necessity for making decisions by qualitative performance management is emerging in every aspect.

Currently, the most commonly known performance indicator is the Balance Scorecard (BSC), which measures quantitatively (quantitative) performance of a company's performance measurement. It is divided into financial, customer, process, learning and growth perspectives. BSC is a performance management technique that helps to implement balanced management performance management by creating and managing measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) for these four perspectives. This clarifies the organization's strategy, the logic implied by the strategy, and the consistency of the logic, and induces the activities of members of the organization as an effective communication tool for the strategy. It also aligns activities among individuals, organizations and different departments to a common goal, and uses performance measurement systems to promote organizational change now and in the future and to achieve the organization's core strategic goals.

Due to these advantages, Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2006-0090046 (Performance Evaluation System), Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2006-0087617 (Business Innovation Performance Management Business Model for Government, Finance, and Enterprises Aiming for Extended CPM), Korea As in Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2008-0112141 (Method of Management and Performance System for Construction Project based on Data Warehouse using GS) and Korean Patent No. 10-1689207 (IT Service Performance Index Management System and Method) There have been many developments of performance management systems utilizing BSC.

However, in the case of the BSC, the balance between one financial point and three non-financial points can be cooperated, but the quality cannot be evaluated. This means that performance can be assessed for tasks with quantitative data, but not for qualitative tasks.

Republic of Korea Patent Publication No. 10-2006-0090046: Performance Evaluation System Republic of Korea Patent Application Publication No. 10-2006-0087617: Government, Finance, and Business Innovation Performance Management Business Model for Extended CPM Republic of Korea Patent Application Publication No. 10-2008-0112141: Construction project performance management method and system based on data warehouse using PCS Republic of Korea Patent No. 10-1689207: IT service performance indicator management system and method

The present invention was conceived by recognizing the above points, and an object of the present invention is to use the QSC (Quality Scorecard) to measure the performance from the evaluation of the quantitative performance (Qualitative Performance) to the performance. The purpose of this study is to provide a performance evaluation method and a recording medium using QSC, which enable quality-based performance measurement and management.

The present invention relates to a performance evaluation method using QSC and a recording medium thereof, and more particularly, to a quality scorecard (QSC) that measures performance by quantitative performance evaluation in terms of quantitative performance. It relates to the performance evaluation method using QSC and its recording medium, which can measure and manage the quality-based performance by evaluating the performance by utilizing it.

In order to achieve the above object, the performance evaluation method using QSC according to the present invention includes a prevention index, an evaluation index, and a final result designed based on a cost of quality (COQ). QSC Framework design phase that maps activity items that require evaluation to QSC (Quality Scorecard) items with indicators, and measures quantitative performance of QSC (Quality Scorecard) items for each activity item. A measurement indicator design step of preparing a measurement index having a performance measurement scale for the evaluation step, an evaluation step of creating an evaluation result according to a measurement indicator designed for an activity item corresponding to the quality scorecard (QSC) item, and a score; And a result derivation and analysis step of deriving a result of the input variable (prevention cost (P), evaluation cost (A)) and the calculation variable (result cost (F)) based on the evaluation result. do.

In addition, the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention, in the QSC (Quality Scorecard) item, as a precautionary indicator 'purchase order review', 'supplier quality plan', 'supplier review and evaluation', 'design quality dictionary Review ',' product / service design qualification test ',' field experiment ',' operation quality planning and support ',' prevention of safety accidents', 'environmental (resources) pollution prevention', 'cost of quality control', 'statistical process' Management / process management, quality program planning, quality performance research, analysis and reporting, quality education, quality improvement, product defect compensation plan, insurance premiums, contract / document review, At least one item from the group including 'Marketing Research' and 'Customer / User Recognition Survey' includes selected items, and 'Evaluation of Buyer Retest / Inspection', 'Qualification of Supply', ' Evaluation equipment (device maintenance cost), 'special test', 'research support', 'initial system inspection and test', 'process 'Measurement', 'acquisition and construction of measurement equipment', 'internal audit', 'measurement and evaluation of financial performance', 'acquisition of external certification', 'product evaluation', 'site inventory and spare parts evaluation', 'field evaluation of products' , At least one item selected from the group including 'product / service use status' and 'customer satisfaction evaluation', and as 'performance target', 'strategic progress rate', 'detailed execution plan', 'fine / penalty' , 'Number of proposals per capita', 'number of improvement teams resolved', 'number of training programs', 'training plan execution rate', 'training time and training cost per person per layer', 'product development cycle time', 'production cost', 'Inventory Level', 'Inventory Turnover', 'Rework / Repair', 'Retest / Retest', 'Design Corrective Action', 'Rework due to Design Change', 'Return', 'Customer Complaints' At least one in the group that includes 'increase in new customers', 'equity return', 'sales amount', 'sales increase rate', 'pretax profit', 'market share' The above is characterized by including the selected item.

In addition, in the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention, at least one or more of the COQ measurement method, proxy input measurement method, system level measurement method, and value level measurement method are selected as the performance measurement measure in the measurement indicator design step. However, the COQ measurement method is a method of measuring what is a direct resource of an activity, the proxy input measurement method is a method of determining an indirect approximate input measurement, and the system level measurement method is measuring a performance. It is a method of measuring how systematically prepared activities (Activity), the value level measuring method is characterized in that the method of measuring the performance by quantitatively presenting the expected value of the activity measuring the performance .

In addition, the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention, the step of deriving and analyzing the results, for each activity item to be evaluated using the numerical input (P, A) and output variable (F) The efficiency is derived by applying the input-oriented CCR-DEA model according to the linear programming function of the CCR-DEA model.

<Linear Programming Functions of CCR-DEA Model>

<Legend of Linear Programming Function of CCR-DEA Model>

In addition, the recording medium storing the program for the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention is characterized in that the program for evaluating the performance according to the performance evaluation method using the QSC.

It relates to a performance evaluation method using the QSC and the recording medium according to the present invention by the configuration as described above, more specifically in the evaluation of the quantitative performance (Quantitative Performance) in the evaluation of the performance (Qualitative Performance) By using QSC (Quality Scorecard) to evaluate performance, it has the advantage of being able to measure and manage quality-based performance.

1A is a flowchart conceptually illustrating a procedure for developing a QSC QSC Framework utilized in the present invention.
Figure 1b is a diagram representing the index to consider when measuring QSC utilized in the present invention
Figure 1c is a diagram representing the main issues to occur when measuring the QSC utilized in the present invention
1D is a graphical representation of HOQ elements corresponding to the determination of the correct performance measurement category.
1e is a diagram showing a simplified example of QSC indicators using QFD.
Figure 1f is a diagram showing a HOQ element corresponding to the simplification of the QSC indicator utilized in the present invention
2 is a flowchart showing the flow of a performance evaluation method using QSC according to an embodiment of the present invention.
3 is a diagram illustrating a hierarchical framework in which items of a procedure document are classified by activities.
4 illustrates a hierarchical framework for creating a QSC item.
5A illustrates a performance evaluation method using QSC and a quality measurement system hierarchical framework utilized in a recording medium according to the present invention.
5B is a diagram illustrating an example of creating a quality measurement system hierarchical framework according to an exemplary embodiment of a performance evaluation method using a QSC and a recording medium according to the present invention.
6A is a schematic drawing of a performance evaluation method using QSC according to the present invention and measurement indicators utilized in a recording medium thereof;
FIG. 6B is a diagram illustrating an example of a method of evaluating a performance indicator utilizing QSC according to the present invention and a drawing of a measurement index design chart prepared according to an embodiment of the recording medium. FIG.
FIG. 7A shows a matrix of excellence in system construction (execution) and analysis and improvement among the performance evaluation methods utilizing QSC and the performance measurement scale used for the recording medium according to the present invention, and used in the system level measurement method. One drawing
7b schematically shows four types of performance evaluation methods utilizing QSC according to the present invention and four types of performance measurement scales used in the recording medium thereof.
FIG. 7C is a diagram illustrating a score chart framework utilized for a system level measurement method of a performance evaluation method using a QSC and a performance measurement scale used for a recording medium according to the present invention.
8 is a diagram showing an example of a score for each category performed according to an embodiment of the performance evaluation method and the recording medium using the QSC according to the present invention.

Hereinafter, with reference to the drawings and embodiments will be described in more detail the performance evaluation method using the QSC and the recording medium according to the present invention.

1A is a flowchart conceptually illustrating a procedure for developing a QSC QSC Framework utilized in the present invention, and FIG. 1B is a diagram schematically illustrating an indicator to be considered when measuring QSC used in the present invention, and FIG. 1C is used in the present invention. Figure 1d is a schematic representation of the major issues that will occur when measuring the QSC, Figure 1d is a diagram representing a HOQ element corresponding to the determination of the correct performance measurement category, Figure 1e is a simplified example of QSC indicators using QFD Figure 1f is a diagram showing the HOQ elements corresponding to the simplification of the QSC indicator utilized in the present invention, Figure 2 is a flow chart of the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to an embodiment of the present invention 3 is a diagram illustrating a hierarchical framework in which items of a procedure document are classified by activities, and FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a hierarchical framework in which QSC items are created. 5A is a diagram illustrating a performance evaluation method using a QSC according to the present invention and a quality measurement system hierarchical framework utilized in a recording medium thereof, and FIG. 5B is a performance evaluation method using a QSC according to the present invention. And a drawing illustrating an example of creating a quality measurement system hierarchical framework according to an embodiment of the recording medium, and FIG. 6A illustrates a performance evaluation method using QSC according to the present invention and a design drawing of measurement indicators utilized in the recording medium. 6B is a diagram showing an example of preparing a measurement indicator design chart prepared according to an embodiment of a performance evaluation method and a recording medium using the QSC according to the present invention, and FIG. 7A is a diagram illustrating the use of the QSC according to the present invention. Among the performance evaluation methods and performance measurement measures used in the recording medium, the superiority of the system construction (execution) used in the system level measurement method and the excellence of analysis and improvement Figure 7b is a diagram showing the tricks, Figure 7b is a diagram showing the four types of the performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention and the performance measurement scale used in the recording medium, Figure 7c according to the present invention Figure 4 is a diagram showing the Score Chart Framework used in the system level measurement method of the performance evaluation method using the QSC and the performance measurement scale used in the recording medium, Figure 8 is a performance evaluation method using the QSC according to the present invention and its A diagram showing an example of a score for each category performed according to an embodiment of a recording medium.

First, the theoretical background of the performance evaluation method using C according to the present invention and the quality scorecard (QSC), which is the core content utilized in the recording medium, will be described.

One. QSC  Three perspectives reflected in the design

1-1. Reflection of cost of quality (COQ)

QSC utilized in the present invention reflects the concept and viewpoint of cost of quality (COQ). By reflecting the elements of the COQ from all perspectives, it is possible to check all of the quality and quality-oriented elements considered in the work or organization's activities.

1-2. Apply PAF Model

Quality costs have the concept of a PAF model, which is classified as prevention, appraisal, and failure. The failure cost is classified into four categories, which are divided into External Failure and External Failure. In the present invention, the concept of PAF is defined as Final Result instead of Failure. Therefore, it is defined as Prevention, Appraisal, Internal Final Result and then External Final Result.

Examining quality activities from a PAF perspective examines everything about how well prevention is being done, how well it is being implemented and assessed and what is the outcome.

1-3 Applying Causal Relationships to PAF Models

By applying the PAF model, you can check all the quality elements and compare the resources put into P, A and F for each activity. As a result, it is possible to naturally analyze the causality of how the quality effort for preparation (P) and execution (A) affects the quality of the result (F). Therefore, the analysis of causality on P, A, and F enables feedback from a qualitative point of view, such as in which areas more resources can be invested in applying the evaluation scale.

2. QSC  Framework Development Process

Qualitative performance indicators, which consider three perspectives to be reflected in designing performance indicators, are named QSC (Quality Scorecard) in the present invention. In the present invention, the QSC Framework was developed using this indicator. The QSC Framework is developed by following seven steps. 1A is a flowchart conceptually illustrating a procedure for developing a QSC QSC Framework utilized in the present invention.

Step 1: Build a Value Hierarchy for the Unit of Measure

When measuring business performance, design hierarchies of activities that are important to be measured. It is a visual expression of how the various elements intertwine and pursue a common purpose.

Step 2: isolate the main activity of the measurement object

This step is to select what activities are important in the value hierarchy. Separate activity is an important factor in measuring performance.

Step 3: determine the relative weight of each activity

In this step, weights of the activities selected in step 2 are calculated. This allows you to prioritize which activities are more important and less important, even under the same value hierarchy.

Step 4: conduct a mutual impact analysis between the activity factor and the COQ factor

This step is to create a correspondence table between COQ Elements and selected activities. This is called Cross Impact Analysis. The grid analysis (Matrix comparison) between COQ and Activity allows you to check and analyze how relevant each other is.

Step 5: Design the measurement by intersecting the characteristics of each impact

In this step, you will use the grid analysis to design a measure of the activity at the intersection points you think you need to measure.

Step 6. Scale testing through MECE review

This step is to check whether the measures are not duplicated or if they are sufficiently measured. This will be reviewed whether it is mutually exclusive and sufficient through the MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive) Review. This checks whether the measures from the COQ perspective fully measure the activity of the activity.

Step 7: Prioritize Activities and Identify Improvement Items through QEA Analysis

It is a step to measure performance based on the results up to the previous stage and to prioritize which items should be improved further. The priority is determined by comparing and analyzing how the inputs from preparation (P) and execution (A) affected results (F). In this step, Quality Envelopment Analysis (QEA) is applied to which Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is applied.

3. QSC  Things to consider when measuring

Every company operates with a vision and objectives. That is why QSC develops indicators to measure Quality Focused Performance (QFP).

A company's business can be divided into three stages and measured.

The first step is Prevention Measure. At this stage, the company thinks about what should be prepared for the high performance level. Secondly, in the course of the work, Appraisal Measure can check what quality factors the company is checking for. Finally, the Final Result Measure will provide insight into how well the work was done and provide feedback on the causality of those factors. FIG. 1B is a diagram schematically illustrating an indicator to be considered when measuring QSC.

4. QSC  Key issues that occur during measurement

Issue 1: How do you determine key quality cost factors?

Indeed, when we design quality indicators, we must decide how to determine the core COQ elements that should be standardized. Finding COQ Elements here means checking all the activities of the PAF model (Prevention, Appraisal, Final result), and checking them in the past for a review of past literature and international standards, The point is to organize and classify elements.

Issue 2: How do you design your metrics?

Indeed, the indicator of activity is the decision of how to design. Metric design is also a way to use expert metrics. At this point, a review should be made to determine whether their indicators reflect all quality indicators and whether they can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Issue 3: How do you evaluate the measurements?

Measurement indicators for each item have been designed and how the level of the indicators should be measured should be determined. Quantitative data is immediately quantified, and the method of quantifying qualitative data must be decided.

Issue 4: How will you prioritize your activities?

Once the metrics are measured, we must decide how to prioritize them.

Issue 5: How to use measurement results

Finally, we should consider how to prioritize the results of the derived indicators in the organization's operations. In other words, some adjustments must be made in each item resource allocation step to make a conclusion about predicting more desirable results in the next year or the future.

Figure 1c is a diagram representing a major issue that will occur when measuring the QSC utilized in the present invention.

5. QSC  Element

5-1. QSC element design

In order to determine the correct performance measurement category, the measurement indicators must include the quality cost component of the P-A-F Model and meet the basic requirements for performance measurement. Detailed-QSC (Detailed-QSC) indicators are detailed QFD deployments of five requirements (SMART: Specific, Measurable, Action Oriented, Relevant, Timely) and COQ elements presented by Jerry and L. Harbour. We designed the performance indicators corresponding to the importance of quality cost items analyzed through. The reason for using the SMART criteria is to simplify and simplify the measurement category and to objectify potential performance indicators. The determination of the correct performance measurement category corresponds to ① (What (CA)) and ⑤ (Rating) of the structure of the HOQ. 1D is a diagrammatic representation of a HOQ element corresponding to the determination of the correct performance measurement category.

QSC indicators are collected by combining MB models with literature surveys and international standards (ISO 9001, ISO 9004, BS 6143, AS 2561, etc.) including quality cost factors defined by ASQ. The simplification process of the QSC element begins with reviewing the quality cost items and compares the correlations between items to delete or consolidate the items by priority. FIG. 1E is a diagram illustrating a simplified example of QSC indicators utilizing QFD.

-The correlation between the quality cost item and 'SMART' is compared with 1 (△: weak relationship), 3 (○: normal relationship), 9 (◎: strong relationship), and the priority of each item by the relative weight of the quality cost factor. Derive

-Items with lower priority by priority are deleted, and similar items are integrated while maintaining the existing meaning of the item, and S-QSC (General-QSC), D-QSC (Detailed-) Developed by QSC

QFD is developed as shown in Fig. 1e, which is an example of evaluation (A, Appraisal), to derive the priority of quality cost items and define QSC items according to the priorities.

Simplification of QSC items corresponds to ② (How (EC)) and ③ (Relation Ship Matrix) of the structure of HOQ. Figure 1f is a diagram showing a HOQ element corresponding to the simplification of the QSC indicator utilized in the present invention.

5-2. QSC factor derived items

□ S-QSC (Simple-Quality Scorecard)

S-QSC is a simple-QSC that simply conceptualizes each item of QSC and is suitable to be used in small companies. It is a grouping of G-QSC, which is a middle classification, and includes the G-QSC and D-QSC categories. It consists of five prevention items, four evaluation items, six performance items, and a total of 15 items.

Table 1 summarizes the S-QSC List.

Item S- QSC prevention
(Prevention) P.1.1 Quality Assurance P.1.2 Product / Service Development P.1.3 Operational (Manufacturing or Service) Quality Assurance P.1.4 Quality Assurance Reserve P.1.5 Customer / Market Analysis evaluation
(Appraisal) A.2.1 Supplier and Product Evaluation A.2.2 Evaluating the operating system A.2.3 Product and Site Evaluation A.2.4 Customer / Market Evaluation result
(Final Result) FR.3.1 Leadership Performance FR.3.2 Human Resource Performance FR.3.3 Operational Performance FR.3.4 Product and Service Performance FR.3.5 Customer Performance FR.3.6 Financial and Market Performance

□ G-QSC (General-Quality Scorecard)

G-QSC is a mid-class theorem that makes D-QSC's detailed quality perspectives more universally available, and is recommended for use by companies of the appropriate size. G-QSC is grouped into the items of D-QSC. It can be grouped into the S-QSC item, which is a small category, and encompasses the D-QSC item, which is a large category. It consists of 10 prevention items, 8 evaluation items, 12 performance items and a total of 30 items. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the G-QSC List.

Item G-QSC prevention
(Prevention) P.1.1.1 Supplier Quality Planning P.1.1.2 Supplier Assessment P.1.2.1 Design Preview P.1.2.2 Product / Service Design Test P.1.3.1 Operational Quality and Support Plan P.1.3.2 Operational Process Management P.1.4.1 Defect Compensation Plan P.1.4.2 Insurance P.1.5.1 Contract and Document Review P.1.5.2 Customer / Market Research evaluation
(Appraisal) A.2.1.1 Product Evaluation A.2.1.2 Assessing Purchased Products A.2.2.1 Product Evaluation A.2.2.2 Evaluation of the operating system A.2.2.3 External Authentication A.2.3.1 Final Product Evaluation A.2.3.2 Site Evaluation A.2.4.1 Brand Awareness Assessment result
(Final Result) FR.3.1.1 Strategic Planning and Implementation FR.3.1.2 Social Responsibility FR.3.2.1 Human Resource Performance FR.3.2.2 Human Resource Development FR.3.3.1 Business system performance FR.3.3.2 Performance of core business FR.3.4.1 Product / Service Development Performance FR.3.4.2 Product / Service Follow-up FR.3.5.1 Customer Satisfaction FR.3.5.2 Customer Awareness FR.3.6.1 Financial Performance FR.3.6.2 Market Performance

□ D-QSC (Detailed-Quality Scorecard)

As a Detail QSC, D-QSC will be able to respond to Cross Impact Analysis when the size of a company is large or needs to be measured in detail. D-QSC consists of 20 prevention items, 16 evaluation items, 24 performance items and a total of 60 items. Table 3 summarizes the D-QSC List.

Item D-QSC prevention
(Prevention) P.1.1.1.1 Review of Purchase Order P.1.1.1.2 Supplier Quality Planning P.1.1.2.1 Supplier Review and Evaluation P.1.2.1.1 Preliminary Review of Design Quality P.1.2.2.1 Product / Service Design Qualification Test P.1.2.2.2 Field Experiment P.1.3.1.1 Operational Quality Planning and Support P.1.3.1.2 Safety Accident Prevention P.1.3.1.3 Prevention of environmental (resources) pollution P.1.3.2.1 Cost of Quality Control P.1.3.2.2 Statistical Process Control / Process Control P.1.3.2.3 Quality Program Planning P.1.3.2.4 Quality Performance Survey, Analysis and Reporting P.1.3.2.5 Quality Education P.1.3.2.6 Quality Improvement P.1.4.1.1 Product Defect Compensation Plan P.1.4.2.1 Premium P.1.5.1.1 Contract / Document Review P.1.5.2.1 Marketing Research (Market Research) P.1.5.2.2 Customer / User Recognition Survey evaluation
(Appraisal) A.2.1.1.1 Buyer Retest / Inspection A.2.1.1.2 Supply Qualification A.2.1.2.1 Evaluation Equipment (Device Maintenance Cost) A.2.2.1.1 Special Tests A.2.2.1.2 Research Support A.2.2.2.1 Initial System Check and Test A.2.2.2.2 Process Control Measurement A.2.2.2.3 Acquisition and construction of measuring equipment A.2.2.2.4 Internal audit A.2.2.2.5 Financial Performance Measurement and Evaluation A.2.2.3.1 Acquisition of External Certification A.2.3.1.1 Product Evaluation A.2.3.1.2 On-site Inventory and Spare Parts Evaluation A.2.3.2.1 On-Site Evaluation of the Product A.2.4.1.1 Product / Service Usage Status A.2.4.1.2 Customer Satisfaction Evaluation result
(Final Result) FR.3.1.1.1 Achievement of strategic target FR.3.1.1.2 Detailed execution plan progress rate FR.3.1.2.1 Penalty / Penalty FR.3.2.1.1 Number of proposals per capita FR.3.2.1.2 Improvement Team Resolution FR.3.2.2.1 Number of training programs FR.3.2.2.2 Training Plan Execution Rate FR.3.2.2.3 Training hours and training costs per capita FR.3.3.1.1 Product Development Cycle Times FR.3.3.1.2 Production cost FR.3.3.1.3 Stock level FR.3.3.1.4 Inventory Turnover FR.3.3.2.1 Rework / Repair costs FR.3.3.2.2 Retest / Retest FR.3.4.1.1 Design corrective action FR.3.4.1.2 Rework due to design changes FR.3.4.2.1 Returns FR.3.5.1.1 Number of customer complaints (claims) FR.3.5.2.1 Increase in the number of new customers FR.3.6.1.1 Return on Equity FR.3.6.1.2 Revenue FR.3.6.1.3 Sales growth rate FR.3.6.1.4 Pretax Income FR.3.6.2.1 Market Share

In sum, when evaluating an activity, the indicator design is designed against the Activity's Prevention, Appraisal, and Final Result perspectives. You can check it.

Hereinafter, a description will be given of an embodiment of a performance evaluation method using a QSC and a recording medium using the QSC according to the present invention for measuring performance using the QSC developed above. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a performance evaluation method using QSC according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Step 1: QSC  Framework design phase ( S10 )

Process 1: The process of classifying items in the procedure by activity

Creating Hierarchy The first step is to classify the horizontal axis (X-axis) procedure items by activity. This is called Value Hierarchy. Each task in the procedure is divided into categories and classified into activities. Accordingly, the present invention can collect another quantitative and qualitative data as a result of performance measurement for each activity. 3 is a diagram illustrating a hierarchical framework in which items of a procedure document are classified by activities. The red numbers (30, 40, 30, etc.) used in the Value Hierarchy are the weight of each item. This can be determined using AHP or the like.

Course 2: Creating a QSC Item

Horizontal Axis To measure the quality level of each activity item, arrange the QSC items developed on the vertical axis (Y axis). This corresponds to the BSC view of QSC items. Prevention of QSC corresponds to learning among BSC points, Appraisal corresponds to O & CS (Operation & Customer Satisfaction), and final result corresponds to financial part among BSC points. This allows the present invention to check that no COQ elements are missing. 4 is a diagram illustrating a hierarchical framework in which QSC items are created.

This completes the matrix based on cross impact analysis. Comparing Prevention with Activity 1-1, there will be QSC elements that fall under Prevention, and the QSC elements correspond to the activities or activities of the Activity to measure what is needed. 5A is a diagram illustrating a performance evaluation method using QSC and a quality measurement system hierarchical framework utilized in a recording medium according to the present invention, and FIG. 5B is a performance evaluation method using QSC and its recording according to the present invention. According to an embodiment of the medium, an example of creating a quality measurement system hierarchy framework is shown. The hierarchical framework shown in FIG. 5B uses S-QSC.

Step 2  : Metrics design phase ( S20 )

Course 1. Metric design stage

In step 1, each activity was associated with a QSC item, and it was decided which part of the measurement was needed. In order to quantitatively or qualitatively measure each activity, the completion of a measure index for each item should be preceded. In the present invention, a method for measuring QSC performance is performed as follows.

Analysis of the indicator design method suggested below to the existing performance measures shows whether the existing performance measures are designed for prevention or appraisal-oriented, and the final result. You can see if it is designed oriented.

The left column of the hierarchical framework created will contain preventive indicators, evaluation indicators and performance indicators. When using the S-QSC, 15 metrics will be arranged. Suppose you design a measurement index for a specific activity i. Compare the 15 views with the activity i and design a measurement index for the items that you think need to be measured. In this case, a measurement index may not be prepared for items that are not necessary. The more measurement indicators, the more the quality-oriented evaluation. However, when making too much measurement effort, it is desirable to create an appropriate number of measurement indicators because the effort for measurement may be too much compared to the time required for actual work. Do.

If Activity i requires performance measurement, the actual measurement is completed by designing what the performance measurement is, how often to evaluate it, and how to manage and gather data. 6A is a schematic drawing of a performance evaluation method using QSC according to the present invention and measurement indicators utilized in the recording medium, and FIG. 6B is a view illustrating a performance evaluation method using QSC and the recording medium according to the present invention. The example of preparation of the measurement index design drawing created according to this is shown.

Course 2. Select performance measure

In order to complete the metrics, the performance measures should be designed first. As for the method of designing the performance measurement scale, the following four methods can be used in the present invention.

The first is the COQ measurement, which measures the direct input and output of this activity as a monetary value. It is quantitative because it directly uses the PAF (prevention, evaluation, outcome) cost item. For example, if the cost of preparation for a given job is measured to be high, it is assumed that the level of prevention against the quality level is such that it measures performance. These measures are most obvious and the consensus can be maximized, but they may not be measurable, so we cannot apply them to all indicators.

The second method is to determine indirect approximate input measurements as proxy input measurements. This method has the same quantitative properties as the COQ method. For example, when measuring the accuracy of a task, the number of nonconformance reports (NCRs) from self-audit can be used as an approximation to judge the actual sophistication of the task. The number of nonconformities themselves does not accurately represent the sophistication of the work. However, it is a measure of the approximate level, and such information forms a common consensus among experts in the field.

The third method is system level measurement. It is a measure of how systematically the performance measuring activity is performed, and it is applied when it is difficult to provide quantitative figures.

For example, as shown in FIG. 7A, a method of quantifying the level of work may be used by constructing a matrix of excellence of system construction (execution) and excellence of analysis and improvement in a matrix. If the system implementation (implementation) is in the effective phase (A) and the analysis and improvement level is in the settling phase (B), then it can be measured at the political level of 70%. Although a qualitative explanation for each level of measurement is required, it has the advantage of quantifying ambiguous measurement concepts.

The fourth method is to measure value levels. This is a way to measure performance by quantitatively presenting the expected value of performance-measuring work. It is to create and apply an estimated equation that measures the future value of the level of work. For example, if a task is likely to lead to an accident, then an estimate of the event-related variables is used to determine the formula and to estimate the monetary value based on that formula. Although there is an advantage in sharing quantitative figures, there may be difficulties in forming consensus on the estimated equations.

In the present invention, it is desirable to design the measurement by selecting one of the four methods presented above when measuring the performance of an activity. QSC model applied in the present invention can be obtained more meaningful results by designing the performance measurement indicators from the above four perspectives. FIG. 7B is a diagram schematically showing four types of performance evaluation methods utilizing QSC according to the present invention and performance measurement measures used in the recording medium.

On the other hand, since the design of COQ measurement, proxy input measurement, and value level measurement among the four methods proposed by the indicator design has quantitative properties, no separate scoring method is required, but if the indicator design is designed as a system level measurement method, There is a need for a scoring method that can be quantitatively presented. Therefore, in designing the Scoring Method, the system level measurement method considers input (P, A) and performance (F) on the X-axis, and the system (P, A) and value (F) on the Y-axis. It is preferable to tie it.

FIG. 7C is a diagram illustrating a score chart framework used for a system level measurement method of a performance evaluation method using a QSC and a performance measurement scale used for a recording medium according to the present invention. In FIG. 7C, X-axis represents input cost, and Y-axis reflects the degree of profit and loss. Cost of Non-Sustainability (CONS) means a short-term benefit from poor quality. For example, in the case of wastewater treatment costs, it means using the wrong method to treat the wastewater to the benefit of the company. Value of Sustainability (VOS) means that despite good quality, the company does not benefit. For example, in the case of wastewater treatment costs, the correct method of treating wastewater has good quality performance, but it is not profitable because companies have used the cost. Thus, both Cost of Non-Sustainability (CONS) and Value of Sustainability (VOS) are related to the company's sustainability. Value of Good Quality (VOGQ) and Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) are related to corporate performance and corporate profit (potential value). Value of Good Quality (VOGQ) and Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) are proportional to each other. As a company's performance improves, its profits will increase, and as its performance decreases, its profits will decrease.

Step 3  : Evaluation step (S30)

It is the step of determining the performance measurement method and then scoring the results.

<Write evaluation results>

When the indicator design is completed according to the defined performance measurement method, the evaluation result of the cross-matrix task is prepared as quantified figures. Once created, Score for P, Score for A, and Score for F are calculated for all activities.

8 is a diagram showing an example of a score for each category performed according to an embodiment of the performance evaluation method using the QSC and the recording medium according to the present invention.

Step 4  : Derivation and Analysis Stage

Comparing the ranking of the efficiencies among the activities in the procedure, it is a step to implement improvement, drafting and improvement plan to improve quality competitiveness with limited resources.

<Efficiency Derivation>

An input-oriented CCR-DEA model that maximizes output within a given input range can be used as an efficiency analysis model. Efficiency is derived by applying the input-oriented CCR-DEA model according to <Equation 1> for each activity item to be evaluated using the quantized input variables (P, A) and output variables (F). Table 4 summarizes the legend for the CCR-DEA model. Here, DMU (Decision Making Unit) means activity for evaluating a company's work.

Equation 1: Linear Programming Functions of CCR-DEA Model

<Efficiency Score and Efficiency Ranking>

Referring to Table 5, which summarizes examples of efficiency scores and efficiency rankings, the results of applying the CCR-DEA model to the Activity items using the linear programming method are as follows. , 'Request for Construction Contract', 'Construction', 'Completion', and 'Acquisition and Deduction' have the efficiency value of 1 and ranked first in the efficiency ranking. Each of these activities has an input value (P, A) and an output value (F), and if you analyze the productivity of the output versus the input, that is, the efficiency results as shown above.

Result Analysis

In the above Table 5, Activity1 to Activity7 are interpreted as having an efficiency score of 1, that is, a good performance against input, and Activity8 to Activity12 are less than 1, which means that the performance score is not good. In particular, facility takeover and acceptance (Activity 12) is 0.9401, the lowest efficiency score, which translates into more failures than resources for input.

Based on these results, we can give feedback to increase the efficiency of failure cost by putting a little more resources into prevention cost and evaluation cost for the part that needs resource adjustment. It is a good baseline for redistributing appropriate resources.

The drawing and the performance evaluation method using the QSC described above and the recording medium thereof are just one embodiment for carrying out the present invention, and should not be construed as limiting the technical idea of the present invention. The scope of protection of the present invention is defined only by the matters set forth in the claims below, and the embodiments which have been improved and changed without departing from the gist of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art. It will be said to belong to the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims (5)

In the performance evaluation method using the QSC that evaluates the performance of the performance by using the Quality Scorecard (QSC) item using an evaluation system that processes and computes the data,
The Quality Scorecard (QSC) item, which has prevention indicators, evaluation indicators, and final result indicators designed on the basis of cost of quality (COQ), lists the activities that require evaluation. A measurement index design step for creating a corresponding QSC framework design step and a measurement index having a performance measurement scale for quantitative performance measurement of a quality scorecard (QSC) item for each activity item, and the QSC (Quality) An evaluation step of preparing an evaluation result according to a measurement indicator designed for an activity item corresponding to a scorecard item, and an input variable (prevention cost (P), evaluation cost (A)) and calculation based on the evaluation result. Includes the derivation and analysis steps to derive the outcome of the variable (result cost (F)),
The QSC (Quality Scorecard) item includes
As a preventive indicator, 'purchasing document review', 'supplier quality plan', 'supplier review and evaluation', 'preliminary design quality review', 'product / service design qualification test', 'field experiment', 'operation quality plan and support' , 'Safety accident prevention', 'Environmental (resources) pollution prevention', 'Quality management expenditure cost', 'Statistical process management / process management', 'Quality program planning', Quality performance investigation, analysis and reporting ',' Quality education ' At least one of the groups including 'quality improvement', 'product defect compensation plan', 'premium', 'contract / document review', 'marketing research (market research)' and 'customer / user recognition survey' Contains the selected item,
Buyer Retest / Inspection, Supply Qualification, Evaluation Equipment (Equipment Maintenance), Special Testing, Research Support, Initial System Inspection and Testing, Process Control Measurement ',' Acquisition and Construction of Measurement Equipment ',' Internal Audit ',' Measurement and Evaluation of Financial Performance ',' Acquisition of External Certification ',' Product Evaluation ',' On-site Inventory and Spare Parts Evaluation ',' On-Site Evaluation of Products ',' At least one item selected from the group including 'product / service use status' and 'customer satisfaction evaluation',
Strategic Goal Achievement, Detailed Execution Plan Progress Rate, Penalty / Penalty, Per capita Proposals, Improvement Team Resolutions, Number of Educational Programs, Educational Plan Execution Rate Training time and training costs per person, 'product development cycle time', 'production cost', 'stock level', 'stock turnover', 'rework / repair operation cost', 'retest / reinspection', 'design corrective action' , 'Rework due to design changes', 'returns', 'customer complaints (claims)', 'increase in new customers', 'return on equity', 'sales', 'increase in sales', 'pre-tax', At least one item from a group that includes "market share",
In the measurement indicator design step, at least one of COQ measurement method, proxy input measurement method, system level measurement method, and value level measurement method is selected as the performance measurement measure.
The COQ measurement method is a method of measuring what is a direct resource of an activity,
The proxy input measurement method is a method of determining an indirect approximate input measurement value.
The system level measurement method is a method of measuring how systematically prepared for the activity measuring performance,
The value level measuring method is a method of measuring performance by quantitatively presenting an expected value of an activity measuring performance,
In the step of deriving and analyzing the results, the input-oriented CCR-DEA according to the linear programming function of the following CCR-DEA model for each activity item to be evaluated using the quantized input variables (P, A) and output variables (F). Performance evaluation method using QSC characterized by applying the model to derive efficiency.
<Linear Programming Functions of CCR-DEA Model>

<Legend of Linear Programming Function of CCR-DEA Model>

delete delete delete A recording medium storing a program for evaluating performance according to the performance evaluation method using the QSC of claim 1.

Images