Performance measurement: Key performance indicators as drivers in assessing risk and improving value in the services sector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research investigated the relationship among Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), risk assessment capabilities and value creation in service sector firms. The study also sought to examine the effect of KPI`s components on risk assessment & value capitalisation, and how they either facilitate or hinder implementation, monitoring and continuous improvement processes. In this context, a quantitative cross-sectional research design was applied using an online survey of shared middle and senior managers in service organizations. After filtering, the final version of segmented sample included a total of 215 respondents engaged in different service businesses. The analysis was determined using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. The results showed that all components of KPIs have significant positive relationships with risk assessment and value improvement outcomes First, performance drivers were found to be the most significant predictor of both constructs. As such, the results show that both risk assessment and value improvement had a positive effect on implementation/monitoring processes which in turn enabled continuous improvements. Performance measurement, risk management and value creation in service organizations: A performance at-risk-based conceptual model. The results have numerous managerial, practical and policy implications for the service sector. This drives home the necessity of creating integrated KPI systems that include risk assessment and value improvement factors. In building on existing theory, the study is of substantial interest in that it provides empirical evidence for these organizational mechanisms related to service organizations. Resilient Organizations in the Service Sector picture of Resilience across Performance Management with KPIs, Risk Assessment and Value Creation strategies offering a comprehensive foundation for sustainable organizational success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it