Table 2

Categorization of configurator performance measures in the literature

Performance perspectivePerformance categoryPerformance measureForza and Salvador (2002) Trentin et al. (2012) Tiihonen et al. (2013) Gerth et al. (2016) Myrodia et al. (2017) Kristjansdottir et al. (2018) Wang et al. (2019) Shafiee et al. (2019) Shafiee et al. (2021) Bredahl Rasmussen et al. (2021) Zhang and Shafiee (2022) Schobel et al. (2018) Mueller et al. (2022) Campo Gay and Hvam (2022) 
Overall performanceUser acceptanceUse of configurator QL    QTQT      
User satisfaction and acceptance        QL     
ProfitabilityReturn on investment     QT  QT QT   
Project profitability         QL*    
Yearly turnover    QT         
Contribution ratio    QT         
EffectivenessSpecification outputNumber of documents   QT          
High-level efficacy by applicability  QT           
Specification detail            QL 
Product/service qualityGeneral impression of quality QL*       QL*    
Number/reduction of errorsQL    QT  QT  QT QL
Accuracy of calculations/estimations   QLQT    QL*    
EfficiencyParameter complexityNumber of attributes  QT    QTQT QT   
Number of constraints  QT    QTQT QT   
Required number of operation inputs           QT  
Required documents            QL 
Productivity in time/costProduct delivery timeQL  QT          
Required labor hoursQL    QT   QL*  QTQL
Time to complete configuration  QTQT QT   QL* QTQT 
Cost/savings on development     QT QTQTQL    
Cost/savings on training        QT     
Cost/savings on operation and maintenance     QT QTQTQL    
Increased sales due to fast response time     QT        
Process complianceProcess standardizationProducts specified and ordered following standard measures         QL*    

Note(s): QL: qualitative; QL*: quantitative value derived from qualitative data; QT: quantitative

Source(s): Authors’ own creation/work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal