Context-based measurement

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488481.019

15 - Context-based measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Graham Clark and

Tony Powell

Edited by

Andy Neely

Show author details

Graham Clark: Affiliation:
University of York, UK
Andy Neely: Affiliation:
Cranfield University, UK

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter introduces a method for collecting performance data in context. The method, termed Context-based Measurement (CbM), preserves a rich description of the circumstances of a measure. This contextual information is often overlooked, but essential in preserving the meaning of measurement information.

The principle of CbM can be explained using the metaphor of the Global Positioning System (GPS). In aircraft navigation, for example, a GPS receiver derives the speed and direction of an aircraft by recording over time the coordinates of longitude, latitude and altitude. This contextual data is then used to derive the distance to the destination, communicate progress to date and calculate the optimum flight path.

Now imagine if we had an equivalent of the Global Positioning System for the measurement of organizations. The coordinates of longitude, latitude and altitude might be replaced by ones of resource used, process performed and product produced. If we designed a GPS for an organization, we could measure its performance (e.g. cost or quality) in the context of the resource used, the process performed and the product delivered. Such an approach could help us specify our targets, communicate our performance and signal our strategy. This is context-based measurement.

The remainder of this chapter explains the method of CbM in more detail using a case study in the automotive industry. The reader should note, however, that the principles are not specific to an industry or discipline. We start by explaining how structures are essential to understanding in any form of measurement.

Type: Chapter
Information: Business Performance Measurement
Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice
, pp. 318 - 336

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488481.019 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahl, V., and Allen, T. F. H. (1996). Hierarchy Theory: A Vision, Vocabulary and Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Berg, C., and Colenso, K. (2000). “Work breakdown structure practice standard project: WBS vs. activities. In Project Management Standards, 69–71. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.Google Scholar

DeMarco, T. (1982). Controlling Software Projects: Management, Measurement and Estimation. New York: Yourdon Press.Google Scholar

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Doyle, R. (2003). The classification of content management systems. Gilbane Report, 11(2), 2–13.Google Scholar

Fleming, Q. W., and Koppelman, J. M. (2000). Earned Value Project Management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.Google Scholar

Finkelstein, L., and Leaning, M. (1984). A review of the fundamental concepts of measurement. Measurement, 2(1), 25–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jörgensen, M. (1995). Experience with the accuracy of software maintenance task effort prediction models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(8), 674–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kamel, R. F. (1987). Effect of modularity on system evolution. IEEE Software, 4(1), 48–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kerzner, H. (1998). In Search of Excellence in Project Management: Successful Practices in High Performance Organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar

Medori, D., and Steeple, D. (2000). A framework for auditing and enhancing performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(5), 520–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Neely, A. D., Richards, A. H., Mills, J. F., Platts, K. W., and Bourne, M. C. S. (1997). Designing performance measures: a structured approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(11), 1131–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pattee, H. H. (1985). Universal principles of measurement and language function in evolving systems. In Casti, J., and Karlqvist, A. (eds.), Complexity, Language, and Life: Mathematical Approaches, 268–81. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Powell, A. L. (2001) Right on Time, Modelling and Managing Time-constrained Software Development, DPhil Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, 2001.

Roche, J., and Jackson, M. (1994). Software measurement methods: recipes for success. Information and Software Technology, 36(3), 173–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rook, P. (1991). Software Engineer's Reference Book. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar

Tausworthe, R. C. (1980). The work breakdown structure in software project management. Journal of Systems and Software, 181, 184–6.Google Scholar

Turner, J. R. (1993). The Handbook of Project-based Management. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Vickery, B. C. (1960). Faceted Classification: A Guide to the Construction and Use of Special Schemes. London: Aslib.Google Scholar

YorkMetrics, (2005). CONTEXT. Performance Measurement software by YorkMetrics Ltd. www.yorkmetrics.com.Google Scholar