Since the focal company has over fifty suppliers, it decided only to empirically evaluate a subgroup of these with both the self-assessment and external assessment checklists. The questionnaire, meanwhile, was applied in a more free-lance manner, which allowed the focal company to gain a deeper perspective of the requirements for closer business integration via EE PM procedures.
Using the family product level as a basis for selecting a subgroup of suppliers allowed the focal company to apply the self-assessment checklist. They considered that since the different product families they produce have substantially similar characteristics, the results would not be reduced in their validity by being applied to only a small number of suppliers. There- fore, in considering a subset of three suppliers, with a further sub-string of six second-tier suppliers behind and directly influencing these, the following results were obtained for the self-assessment checklist, as applied by the focal company (see Figure 11, a screenshot from the dashboard which contains a generic bar-graph of the result). Figure 11 was developed by applying the self-assessment checklist and using the weighting procedure outlined above.
Figure 11. Dashboard screenshot of self-assessment checklist results
In detail, the graph results of the self-assessment provide a visual list of specific EE PM administrative areas which require particular attention for the focal company; these are (with comments added, derived from the question-level results inputted by the user):
• Standardisation.(medium.improvement.required): The focal company feels that standards for EE PM could be improved inside the company walls, from the actual record-keeping involved to the utilisation of these in the company, and the continued improvement of the uses made of these standards.
• Performance.measurement:.Strategic.(medium.improvement.required): The fo- cal company currently feels that, with regard to the strategic utilisation of the results of the PM system in place, it could improve. This improvement could cover how performance measure results are being fed into the strategy development process, and how the EE PM techniques are being used.
• Organisation. and. its. operation. (high. level. improvement. required): The focal company in general feels that they have not done enough to ensure clear responsibili- ties for PM in terms of: ensuring personnel with the appropriate responsibilities for PM are in position, with proper delegation and power hierarchies in place; and the development and operation of PM committees is ongoing.
• Future.plans.(medium.improvement.required): The focal company feels that their current PM is rather blind to the future and needs to take into account future trends more seriously.
• Extended.enterprise.performance.measurement.policy.and.objectives.(extremely.
high.level.improvement.required): The focal company are very concerned at their present level on this parameter. There is currently a dearth of official PM policies and objectives in the focal company, and so the employment and utilisation of these is practically non-existent. EE PM policies and objectives have to be put in place so this can change.
• PM.effects.(medium.improvement.required): The focal company would like to be clearer on how PM affects its operations, and what all the visible and invisible effects involved are.
• Education.and.its.extension.(very.high.level.improvement.required): The focal company is concerned that the message of EE PM is not filtering sufficiently far down the organisational hierarchy; operational personnel do not seem to have a good understanding of PM.
• Assembling.and.disseminating.PM.information.and.its.utilisation.(high.level.
improvement.required): The focal company feels that its three main suppliers are not cognisant enough of the EE PM information that it supplies. Further, they fear these suppliers may not be taking the information supplied seriously.
• Analysis.(high.level.improvement.required): The focal company is aware that it must improve its ability and the use it makes of the EE PM tools and techniques avail- able.
Other areas in the self-assessment checklist are deemed to be under control. From the above comments, it becomes clear that there are a number of sectors in which the focal company can improve its position in terms of EE PM, in particular in the setting of EE PM policy and objectives, which will probably have a beneficial impact upon other parameters when in place.
If we turn to an examination of the external assessment checklist, the following results have been obtained (see Figure 12) as part of the examination of the focal company upon these parameters. Figure 12 was developed by applying the external assessment checklist and using the weighting procedure outlined previously.
In detail, the graph results of the external assessment provide a visual list of specific EE PM administrative areas which require particular attention for the focal company; these are (with comments added, derived from the question-level results inputted by the user):
• Performance.measurement.leadership.for.each.EE.node.(medium.improvement.
required): Senior executive leadership and continual management and responsibility for the implemented PM could be improved further in the focal company.
• Performance. measurement. and. operational. results. (high. level. improvement.
required): The focal company is worried that the results being produced from the PM system in such areas as products, processes, and services, and operational results in general are not being developed to sufficiently refined levels, and need further enhancement.
• Management.of.the.performance.measurement.system.(very.high.level.improve- ment.required): The focal company is very worried about their current performance management levels: in particular, process and supplier measurement and the continued maintenance of EE measures are of heightened concern.
Figure 12. Dashboard screenshot of external assessment checklist results