Composite indicator for designing products at research and production instrument-making enterprise

This article describes a method for developing a composite indicator aimed to measure the design quality of products produced by a research and instrument-making enterprise, which does not require economic or financial analysis of the development quality and the results of product maintenance. A brief analysis of the currently used approaches to assessing the quality of the production and design process has been carried out. The indicator allows you to compare two different organizational structures of product design management (for example, the previous and the new one) at the same enterprise or similar activities of the same enterprise in the terms of quality. The weight coefficients are determined by the method of hierarchy analysis, by constructing a matrix of pairwise comparisons of key performance indicators in terms of their significance or importance for achieving the goal of improving the design quality. It is proposed to use five KPI groups: design automation; centralization (decentralization, coordination degree in the decision making) of design process management; parallelizing the execution of design processes; resource consumption of design processes; regulation of the design

Keywords: design, key performance indicator, key effectiveness indicator, integrated design quality indicator, quality assessment, instrument-making enterprise, automation, centralization, parallelization, resource intensity, regulation, weight coefficient, hierarchy analysis method


  1. KPi LIB. Indicator library (KPI).
  2. S. M. Evseenko. Experienve of development, implementation and qualitative assessment of innovative development program for a high-tech enterprise//Innovatsii. 2019. № 6. P. 9-19.
  3. GOST 15467-79 (All Uion State Stamdart CMEA 3519-81) Product quality management. Basic concepts. Terms and definitions, 6th edition. (May 2009.) Moscow, 1987. P. 40.
  4. E. N. Syshchikova. An integrated approach to assessing the efficiency of an industrial enterprise//Organizator Proizvodstva. 2016. Vol. 70. № 3. P. 71-82.
  5. F. H. Doronina. An integral approach in a comprehensive assessment of the enterprise efficiency//Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta im. S. Yu. Witte. Series 1: «Economics and Management». 2017. № 1 (20). P. 40-47.
  6. T. A. Kuzovkova, D. V. Kuzovkov, A. D. Kuzovkov. Expert-qualimetric method of integral assessment for the effectiveness of innovative projects and the use of new technologies//Sistemy upravleniya, svyazi i bezopasnosti ( 2016. № 3. P. 1-54.
  7. Russian Ministry of Economic Development (2019). Guidelines for the use of an integral key indicator of the innovative activities effectiveness for joint stock companies with state participation, state corporations, state companies and federal state unitary enterprises (Appendix 1 to the minutes of the meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission on Technological Development under the Government Commission on Economic Modernization and Innovative Development of Russia dated March 19, 2019, № 10-D01).
  8. A. V. Trachuk, N. V. Linder. Innovative activity of industrial companies: measurement and evaluation of efficiency//Strategicheskie resheniya i risk-menedzhment. 2019. Vol. 10. № 2. P. 108-121.
  9. T. I. Aliev. Fundamntal principles of systems design. St. Petersburg, 2015 .20 p.
  10. K. K. Chuprov. Express-method for diagnostics of the company’s business processes//Consultant directora. 2005. Vol. 20. P. 6-10.
  11. N. A. Dubinina. Indicators for assessing business processes of an enterprise//Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Economics series. 2016. Issue 2 (29). P. 179-191.
  12. Р 50.1.028-2001. Information technology to support the products life cycle. Functional modeling methodology. Moscow, 2001. 50 p.
  13. David A. Marka, Clement McGowan. SADT structural analysis and design methodology. 1986 .243 p.
  14. V. K. Fedyukin. Methods for parametric assessment of product quality//Kachestvo. Innovacii. Obrazovanie (ezhemesyachnyj nauchno-prakticheskij zhurnal). 2007. Vol. 5. P. 32-38.
  15. S. M. Kovalev, V. M. Kovalev. Modern methodologies and standards for describing business processes: advantages, disadvantages and areas of application//Spravochnik ekonomista. 2006. Vol. 11. P. 2-10.
  16. E. E. Luneva. Identification of priority business processes and their assessment at the instrument-making enterprise//Izvestiya Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. 2009. Vol. 314. № 5. P. 220-225.
  17. A. A. Vichugova, E. A. Dmitrieva, G. P. Tsapko. Development of a data model of the ENOVIA SMARTEAM PDM system for managing specifications when creating radio electronic equipment//Prikladnaya informatika. 2010. Vol. 5 (29). P. 23-29.
  18. E. E. Luneva, I. N. Kurenkov, E. A. Dmitrieva, G. P. Tsapko. Adaptation of the robust design Taguchi method for optimizing business processes//Sistemy upravleniya I informacionnye tekhnologii. 2011. Vol. 2 (44). P. 91-95.
  19. E. E. Luneva. Process management of project activities for an instrument-making enterprise: Phd thesis. 05.13.01. FGBOU VPO «National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University». 2011 . 21 p.
  20. Yu. A. Sukhanova, I. N. Kurenkov, E. E. Luneva, G. P. Tsapko. Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of business processes of an instrument-making enterprise. Tomsk, 2011.
  21. T. Saati. Decision making. Hierarchy analysis method. Moscow, 1993. 314 p.
  22. O. I. Larichev. Objective models and subjective decisions. Moscow, 1987. 143 p.
  23. Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade (2017). Methodological recommendations for organizing digital production at defense industry enterprises. Moscow, 2017. 239 p.
  24. O. V. Tochilin. Key performance (benefits) indicators of innovation and investment activity in the creation of aircraft systems//Upravlencheskie nauki. 2017. Vol. 2. P. 56-65.
  25. D. Mogilko. Business Process Analytics. Proektirovanie organizacii. Business studio.
  26. Yu. B. Kuzmin. Assessment of the automation level//Neftyanoe hozyajstvo. 2009. Vol. 10. P. 104-107.
  27. S. M. Evseenko, D. A. Skorokhodov. On the degree of mechanization and automation of organizational and technological processes at an enterprise and a ship//Morskie intellektual’nye tekhnologii. 2013. Vol. 3 (21). P. 44-50.
  28. S. M. Evseenko, D. A. Skorokhodov. On the degree of intellectualization, robotization and comprehensive assessment of the management of organizational and technological processes at an enterprise and a ship//Morskie intellektual’nye tekhnologii. 2013. Vol. 4 (22). P. 53-61.
  29. A. A. Ershov. Method and evaluation of the effectiveness of intellectualization for the development of automated control systems for complex production and technical systems//Nauchnoe obozrenie. Tekhnicheskie nauki. 2014. Vol. 1. P. 155-156. http://science-engineering/ru/ru/article/view?id=221.
  30. S. M. Evseenko. On the degree of centralization and decentralization of managing organizational and technological processes//Morskie intellektual’nye tekhnologii. 2017. Vol. 3 (37). Vol. 3. P. 70-81.
  31. Y. Brigham, M. Erhardt. Financial management/Trans. from English. St. Petersburg, 2009. 960 p.
  32. A. E. Ivanov. The origin of the synergetic approach in the study of mergers and acquisitions: debunking the main myth about synergy//Voprosy ekonomiki. 2013. Vol. 42 (570). P. 69-80