PurposeMeasurement of the innovation process performance is critical for both managers and researchers. However, existing performance frameworks (PFs) neglect performance indicators (PIs) and dimensions relevant to the current innovation landscape in companies as well as lack support in the definition of action plans. Thus, this paper aims to introduce a new and updated PF for measuring innovation performance and defining improvement actions.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed PF is developed from literature and action-oriented case studies in two European manufacturing companies. First, the literature review enabled the synthesis of framework elements into a “conceptual” PF capable of illustrating the current state of knowledge in the field. Then, this PF was applied in the case studies that enriched the conceptual form with empirical insights, resulting in a new and updated PF.FindingsThe review enabled the systematisation of nine dimensions and 259 PIs that were fragmented throughout the literature. In turn, empirical insights from the case studies gave rise to an actionable procedure for providing a comprehensive diagnosis of the company's situation considering the new trends as well as defining improvement actions. Although the results from the two cases cannot be generalised, the findings encourage broader applicability.Originality/valueThe novelty of this research resides on the fact that the PF consolidates elements from the literature but combined with empirical insights in a new actionable way that supports managers in performance measurement and provides researchers with an extensive systematisation of dimensions and PIs.

Sustainability indicators have emerged as a key element in a market where customers are interested in the environmental impacts of the products they consume. Companies are trying to incorporate them into their Performance Measurement System (PMS). However, there is little information available to managers to guide them on the incorporation. Hence, this paper presents the results of an action research carried out to improve the PMS of a Brazilian consumer goods company with the incorporation of sustainability indicators. The findings illustrate that is possible to incorporate them into the PMS as long as there are stakeholders interested in establishing strategic objectives for sustainability.

No abstract

The occurrence of natural or anthropic disasters in Brazil and the world emphasizes the importance of humanitarian logistics. Scholars and practitioners have developed modeling approaches to support aid delivery planning, but little attention has been given to the selection of community or collective temporary shelters. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel multi-criteria decision model focused on the principles of humanitarian logistics for the selection and spatial location of community or collective temporary shelters. This model not only incorporates evaluation criteria from documents published by humanitarian aid organizations and related literature but also the expertise of 23 experienced humanitarian logisticians from the Brazilian Civil Defense. The results quantify the importance of each criterion and enable the development of a decision tool, the ShelterPro software, that can be used to support the decision-making process of selecting temporary shelters. The results also indicate that safety of the facility, cultural adequacy, and location accessibility are the most valuable criteria. With these insights and the decision supporting tool, better humanitarian decisions can be made by humanitarian logistics managers, local authorities, or designated officials in the selection and location of temporary shelters in emergency response.

Performance indicators (PIs) are critical to the measurement of the innovation process. However, existing studies neglect PIs and dimensions relevant to companies in the current innovation landscape. This paper bridges this gap in prior research by reviewing and systematising PIs for the innovation process. It builds upon a systematic literature review to analyse scientific publications on innovation PIs published between 1983 and 2018. Thus, this study identifies the characteristics of relevant publications as well as systematises 259 PIs into nine company-specific and contextual dimensions and further categorisations. The analysis discusses the top-cited PIs and finds that more qualitative and leading PIs than quantitative exist in the literature. Furthermore, additional PIs are needed to address areas, such as leadership quality and tacit knowledge. This study may constitute an opportunity for academics to identify relevant measurement instruments and innovation managers to find an initial reference to support the selection of PIs.