Page 272 - Operations Strategy

ImPoRTAnCE–PERfoRmAnCE mAPPIng 247
Both importance and performance have to be brought together before any judge-
ment can be made as to the relative priorities for improvement. Because something is
particularly important to its customers does not mean that an operation should give
it immediate priority for improvement. The operation may already be considerably
better than its competitors in this respect. Similarly, because an operation is not very
good at something when compared with its competitors’ performance does not neces-
sarily mean that it should be immediately improved. Customers may not particularly
value this aspect of performance. Both importance and performance need to be viewed
together to judge improvement priority.
Yet, although we have associated importance with the view of customers and perfor-
mance with the activities of competitors, the approach may be adapted to deviate from
this. For example, a company may choose to give importance to some aspect of opera-
tions activity even when customers do not find it important. If a company is working
towards providing customised products or services in the near future, it may regard flex-
ibility as being more important than do its customers, who are, as yet, unaware of the
change in the company’s market stance. Neither is performance always judged against
competitors. Although it may be an obvious benchmark, it does presuppose the exist-
ence of competitors. Many not-for-profit organisations may not see themselves as hav-
ing competitors as such. They could, however, assess their performance against other
similar organisations. Alternatively, they could measure performance against customer
perception or customer expectations.

the importance–performance matrix

The priority for improvement that each competitive factor should be given can be
assessed from a comparison of their importance and performance. This can be shown
on an importance–performance matrix that, as its name implies, positions each com-
petitive factor according to its score or ratings on these criteria. Figure 7.6 shows an
importance–performance matrix where both importance and performance are judged
using (in this case) a simple 9-point scale, and where the matrix is divided into zones
of improvement priority.
The first zone boundary is the ‘lower boundary of acceptability’, shown as line
AB in Figure 7.6. This is the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable per-
formance. When a competitive factor is rated as relatively unimportant (8 or 9
on the importance scale) this boundary will, in practice, be low. Most operations
are prepared to tolerate performance levels that are ‘in the same ballpark’ as their
competitors (even at the bottom end of the rating) for unimportant competitive
factors. They only become concerned when performance levels are clearly below
those of their competitors. Conversely, when judging competitive factors that are
rated highly (1 or 2 on the importance scale), they will be markedly less sanguine at
poor or mediocre levels of performance. Minimum levels of acceptability for these
competitive factors will usually be at the lower end of the ‘better than competitors’
class. Below this minimum bound of acceptability (AB) there is clearly a need for
improvement; above this line there is no immediate urgency for any improvement.
However, not all competitive factors falling below the minimum line will be seen
as having the same degree of improvement priority. A boundary approximately
represented by line CD represents a distinction between an urgent priority zone
and a less urgent improvement zone. Similarly, above the line AB not all competi-
tive factors were regarded as having the same priority. The line EF can be seen as the

M07 Operations Strategy 62492.indd 247 02/03/2017 13:06