Shulou(Shulou.com)06/03 Report--

In today's society, with the rapid development of information technology, informatization has become an inevitable requirement for the survival and development of enterprises. However, with the in-depth implementation of the information strategy, it is still difficult for the government, users and enterprises to fully evaluate the effect of information application.

In order to make an effective evaluation of information performance, we first need to understand what is "information performance". "performance", also known as performance, performance, effectiveness and so on, reflects the performance and results produced by people engaged in a certain activity. Chinese "performance" puts more emphasis on the outcome of performance, while English "performance" also emphasizes the process of performance. " "performance evaluation" refers to the establishment of a specific index system against unified standards, the use of mathematical statistics, operational research and other methods, according to certain procedures, through qualitative and quantitative comparative analysis, to make an objective, fair and accurate comprehensive evaluation of the management process and management effect during a certain business period. " Information performance evaluation "refers to the objective, fair and accurate comprehensive evaluation of the benefits arising from the implementation of the information strategy with the help of the information performance evaluation index system.

A complete evaluation must be able to answer the following questions: why should the evaluation be conducted? What is the content of the evaluation? What are the subjects of impact assessment? When will the evaluation be made? How is the evaluation process implemented? And an evaluation framework is given from the three dimensions of content, background and process.

Specifically, a complete performance evaluation system should include eight elements: evaluation subject, evaluation goal, evaluation object, evaluation model, evaluation index, evaluation method, evaluation standard and evaluation report, as shown in figure 1.

As can be seen from the above picture, the elements of the performance evaluation system are related to each other, and the arrows show the direction of the relationship between the elements. The evaluation subject and evaluation object are the foundation, and the evaluation model, evaluation index, evaluation standard and evaluation method are the core of the performance evaluation system, which determine the content and credibility of the evaluation report. The evaluation report feeds back the results of performance evaluation to the evaluation subject, which provides a basis for further performance improvement.

In fact, in the industry, the evaluation methods of information performance are also various. this time we only discuss the most widely used balanced scorecard method, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Federal Enterprise Architecture performance reference model.

(I) balanced Scorecard (balanced score card,BSC)

The balanced Scorecard comes from the "Future organizational performance Measurement method" developed by the Norton Institute in 1990. At that time, the purpose of the project was to find a performance evaluation model that went beyond the traditional financial measurement. Therefore, the balanced Scorecard comprehensively evaluates organizational information performance from the perspectives of finance, customers, internal business processes, learning and growth (as shown in figure 2), and effectively combines financial indicators with non-financial indicators.

As can be seen from the above picture, there is a causal relationship among the four aspects of the balanced Scorecard. First of all, employees' knowledge and skills are the basis of enterprise innovation and improvement. Employees have enough skills to improve their work. Therefore, employee learning and growth is the basis to solve the problem of long-term vitality of the enterprise and to improve the internal management of the enterprise. Secondly, by improving the management ability, improving the work flow and providing customers with greater value, enterprises can naturally improve customer satisfaction, and the final customer satisfaction will naturally improve the financial performance of the enterprise.

(II) Analytic hierarchy process (analytic hierarchy process,AHP)

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was put forward by American operations researcher T.L.Saaty in 1977. It divides the elements related to decision-making into objectives, criteria, programs and other levels, carries out mathematical calculation through modeling, and makes quantitative and qualitative analysis. In performance evaluation, the evaluation factors are usually divided into three levels: target layer, criterion layer and index layer; the characteristics are flexible, concise and systematic.

In fact, most organizations combine balanced Scorecard and Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in information performance evaluation. For example, in the aspect of information performance evaluation, because the benefit evaluation of financial expenditure is difficult to be completed with a single quantitative index or non-quantitative index, after establishing a set of performance evaluation index system through BSC theory, the index system is sorted by AHP algorithm, and the corresponding weight is calculated, which provides an important decision-making basis for information performance evaluation. This reflects the effective combination of quantitative tools and modern management ideas. Figure 3 shows an example:

(III) performance reference Model (Performance Reference Model, PRM)

Performance reference model is one of the six reference models of the federal government architecture framework (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, FEAF). The Federal Government Architecture Framework is a method of building enterprise architecture issued by the Federal CIO Commission to help government planners implement a common approach. It contains a series of "reference models", and the performance reference model is related to information performance evaluation.

The performance reference model connects institutional strategies, internal business components and investments, and provides a way to measure the impact of these investments on strategic goals. The PRM model is mainly divided into three parts: the measurement domain, the measurement category and the measurement index (usually set by their respective institutions). The PRM structure is designed to clearly explain the causal relationship among input, output and results.

PRM uses the "line of sight" to reflect how value is created in the process of using inputs (such as technology) to generate output (such as processes and activities), thus affecting results (such as business and user outcomes). Figure 4 shows the key components of the PRM line of sight.

As can be seen from the figure above, what guides the entire PRM model is the "strategic outcome" (strategic outcomes), which represents a wide range of policies that drive the government's direction. In turn, PRM is built to enable the desired results of an organization to bring the necessary output and technology.

In a word, information performance evaluation is a complex system engineering designed to organizational structure, business process, management model, corporate culture and internal interest coordination and so on. therefore, organizations should consider the feasibility and practicability of each method when carrying out information performance evaluation and the construction of performance index system, and tailor all kinds of methods to find the suitable information performance evaluation method for the organization.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.