Business Key Performance Indicators—KPIs

  • Paweł D. DomańskiEmail author
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 245)


Industry requires CPA measures from the beginning. Scientific results describe the loop quality in some, often artificial domains. On the other hand, industry requires simple and straightforward numbers, that are monetary or can be easily translated into currency measures. It is caused by the fact that any decision upon process improvement is taken using financial incentives with the Return Of Investment as the main measure. This chapter describes business approach to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). They are often custom and specific, but they describe the control quality in simple verbal form. As the drawings are the most popular way for data exchange by engineers, the visualization aspect plays an important role in the industrial approach.


  1. 1.
    Bhutta, K.S., Huq, F.: Benchmarking best practices: an integrated approach. Benchmarking: Int. J. 6(3), 254–268 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cross, R., Iqbal, A.: The Rank Xerox experience: benchmarking ten years on. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Benchmarking—Theory and Practice, pp. 3–10 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Domański, P.D., Golonka, S., Jankowski, R., Kalbarczyk, P., Moszowski, B.: Control rehabilitation impact on production efficiency of ammonia synthesis installation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55(39), 10,366–10,376 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dziuba, K., Góra, R., Domański, P.D., Ławryńczuk, M.: Multicriteria control quality assessment for ammonia production process (in Polish). In: Zalewska, A. (Ed.) 1st Scientific and Technical Conference Innovations in the Chemical Industry, pp. 80–90. Warszawa, Poland (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feigenbaum, A.V.: Quality control: principles, practice and administration: an industrial management tool for improving product quality and design and for reducing operating costs and losses. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (1951)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabor, J., Pakulski, D., Domański, P.D., Świrski, K.: Closed loop NOx control and optimization using neural networks. In: IFAC Symposium on Power Plants and Power Systems Control, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 188–196 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jelali, M., Thormann, M., Wolff, A., Müller, T., Loredo, L.R., Sanfilippo, F., Zangari, G., Foerster, P.: Enhancement of product quality and production system reliability by continuous performance assessment of automation systems (AUTOCHECK). Technical Report Final report to Contract No RFS-CR03045, EUR 23205, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinney, T.: erformance monitor raises service factor of mpc. In: Proceedings of the ISA, Houston, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marlin, T.E., Perkins, J.D., Barton, G.W., Brisk, M.L.: Benefits from process control: results of a joint industry-university study. J. Process Control 1(2), 68–83 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell, W., Shook, D.: Finding the needle in the haystack—an innovative means of visualizing control performance problems (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ordys, A., Uduehi, D., Johnson, M.A.: Process Control Performance Assessment—From Theory to Implementation. Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smuts, J.F., Hussey, A.: Requirements for successfully implementing and sustaining advanced control applications. In: Proceedings of the 54th ISA POWID Symposium, pp. 89–105 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu, P., Guo, L., Duan, Y., Zhou, W., He, G.: Control loop performance monitoring based on weighted permutation entropy and control charts. Can. J. Chem. Eng. (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xia, C., Howell, J.: Loop status monitoring and fault localisation. J. Process Control 13(7), 679–691 (2003), selected Papers from the sixth IFAC Symposium on Bridging Engineering with Science - DYCOPS - 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimmerman, T.: Metrics and KPI for robotic cybersecurity performance analysis. Technical Report NISTIR 8177, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Control and Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations