The global nickel market has witnessed substantial growth, with a projected CAGR of 7.3% from 2021 to 2028, reaching a market value of $59.14 billion [1]. Countries like Indonesia, holding the highest nickel reserves globally, particularly in Sulawesi [2-3], are poised to benefit from the stainless-steel demand [4]. PT. Terratrust Harmony Nickel (THN) is one of the companies that is involved in the mining of nickel in Sulawesi. Specifically, PT. THN's mining activities are situated in Southeast Sulawesi. However, in anticipation of the nickel market growth, PT. THN faces difficulties in monitoring performance. Without proper monitoring, the management had difficulties in managerial decision-making that had caused setbacks, such as delayed mining operations due to unresolved issues. In the end, the setbacks accumulated into extra costs, manpower shortages, postponed nickel ore shipments, and the worst thing were obstructing the company from achieving its strategic goals. The management had expressed the need for an effective performance monitoring system to ensure PT. THN's survivability in the fiercely competitive nickel mining industry. The importance of adhering to meticulously formulated strategies is crucial, especially in a landscape where rapid nickel demand growth is anticipated for years to come (General Manager of HRGA and SA, 2022). The research was conducted inline to the improvement project of PT. Terratrust Harmony Nickel performance management system. A suggestion had been provided by the (General Manager of HRGA and SA, 2022), stating that the current business issues could be mitigated by improving the performance management system by implementing solutions that enable real time performance monitoring. The improvement of the performance management system was expected to be done in a company-wide scope. The previous study by [5] had formulated key performance indicators based on the balanced scorecard framework to be implemented in the company’s performance management system. Therefore, the improvement solution implemented through the project was expected to utilize the study by [5] as a starting point.

1. Four Foundation and Five Rules

(Wibisono, 2016) [6] Had proposed guidelines that comprised four foundations and five rules in designing a performance management system. The four Foundations that act as principles stated that a performance management system should encourage partnership between management and employees, empowerment of all employees, integrated performance improvement, and independent performance management team. In line with the foundation, the five rules proposed stated that a performance management system should be easy to understand, long-term oriented, on a timely basis, focus on continuous improvement and use a quantitative approach. In the research, the guidelines proposed were utilized to evaluate the existing performance management system in order to determine whether that implemented performance management system had deficiencies regarding the foundations and rules. It should be noted that the existing performance management system had been implemented based on the same guidelines [5].

1.  Current Reality Tree

If there are any deficiencies arising from the evaluation of the existing performance management system by the four foundation and five rules, the author has to determine whether the deficiencies found is the root cause of the business problem. Therefore, The Current Reality Tree (CRT) of Goldratt’s theory of constraints (TOC) methodology was used to do problem structuring and identification. Current Reality Tree (CRT) is a tool which has been used by worldwide companies of all sizes, offering the ability to provide basic understanding on a complex system by depicting a logical structure of the state of existing condition (reality) in the given complex system. The logical structure of CRT identifies and represents the most probable causal-effects chain between “undesirable effects' ' (UDEs) in the given fixed and specific condition. Undesirable effects are problems that bring negative effects to other causes in a system, which should be reduced or removed, hence called “undesirable”. a CRT typically constructed in top-down manner, postulating the likely cause of the observed UDEs in a system or the top UDEs (symptoms or business issues) until the most bottom UDEs (root causes), which causes are unidentifiable or lie beyond one’s span of controls or sphere of influence. What distinguishes CRT from other system methods is that CRT does not attempt to model a complete system, instead this methodology models only the aspects that are pertinent to the problems in the system [7]. 

1.  Performance Dashboard
   1. Selecting Performance Dashboard as Solution

When brainstorming to find solutions, based on the alignment analysis between benefits offered by solution candidates with the identified root causes, the author determines the Performance dashboard as the more suitable solution to resolve the business issue. Serving as precedent in supporting the decision to make performance dashboard as solution, (Mardhotillah & Siswanto, 2014) [8] had conducted case studies regarding performance management system on three state-owned mining companies in Indonesia and found that all the mining companies already had established performance indicators that could be clustered based on Balanced Scorecard (BSC) perspectives. The performance indicators then can be used to construct and develop a proposed strategic dashboard model which is generally compatible with the needs of monitoring performance by mining companies in Indonesia. This finding of (Mardhotillah & Siswanto, 2014) [8] suitable to the project context as PT. THN had also already implemented performance indicators (KPI system) based on BSC [5].

1. Performance Dashboards in General

Performance dashboard is a performance management system that provides timely accurate information and insights based on the metrics that have been translated from the organization’s strategy and objectives based on the disciplines of performance management (for example, by balanced scorecard framework). The information and insights that are provided by a performance dashboard are customized to each user in accordance with the key activities and processes that need to be measured, monitored, and managed to achieve each users’ goals [9]. Typically, dashboards are predominantly graphical in design, presenting visual elements that help users to focus on key trends, comparisons, and anomalies. Performance dashboards often focus on showing data with particular purpose or objective, which means they inherently contain predefined conclusions. [10-11].

1. The Two Disciplines Underlining Performance Dashboards (Architectures)

According to (Eckerson, 2010) [9], starting in 2000, it was apparent that the performance dashboard was a product of convergence between performance management disciplines and business intelligence disciplines. Performance dashboards play an important role in performance management since they provide greater view into business performance by visual means of charting progress against goals. Business intelligence (BI) deals with the technical infrastructure necessary to deploy the performance management system, specifically, the performance dashboards. Without BI, organizations can't fully utilize the capabilities of a performance dashboard to align their employees and operations with strategic goals and make informed decisions. The two underlying principles are reflected on performance dashboards architecture, which comprise of business architecture and technical architecture. The business architecture encompasses various components, including stakeholders, strategy, resources, semantics, and metrics. The technical architecture of a performance dashboard consists of necessary technical components that are displays, applications, data stores, data integration, and data sources. The linchpin that connects the two architectures is the metrics used to define leading, lagging, and diagnostic measures of business performance. 

1. The Three Types of performance dashboards

The characteristics of performance dashboards could be described based on three distinct types [9], that are operational, tactical, and strategic. Each type places varying emphasis on the layers of information and applications. The following is a brief overview of these different performance dashboard types:

1. Operational Dashboards. Empower front-line workers to oversee and regulate day-to-day operational processes using detailed data that is frequently updated and emphasize monitoring over analysis or management. Generally used by front-line workers or operation staff

1. Tactical Dashboards. designed to monitor and manage departmental activities and projects, which emphasize analysis more than monitoring or management. Generally used by managers/analysts

1. Strategic Dashboards. focused on monitoring the execution of strategic objectives, communicating the organization's strategy, and reviewing performance during monthly strategy or operational review meetings. Strategic dashboards primarily emphasize management more than monitoring or analysis. Generally used by executives and board

1. Framework for Designing Performance Dashboards

Lempinen has conducted a research project aimed at creating a framework for designing performance dashboards [12].  The provided framework had been constructed by taking account the interplay between measurement design and information system design that serve as the pillars of a performance dashboard. Overall, the framework consisted of three phases, that are “what to measure?”, “where and how to capture data?”, “how to deliver performance information to the users?”. Additionally, the research project by (Lempinen, 2012) [12] formulated a set of design principles by looking deeper into the design challenges and their associated issues. 

Phase 1: What to measure?

In this phase of designing performance dashboards, a company focuses on determining what aspects it should measure and creates the design and selection of measures or metrics (business architecture of performance dashboards). Various models and frameworks have been introduced to categorize measures. Among these models, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is the most widely adopted and has demonstrated effectiveness as a measurement framework for performance dashboard systems [12]. This aligns with the research context, in which the existing performance management system utilizes the Balanced Scorecard framework for performance measurement [5].

Phase 2: Where and how to capture data? 

This phase involves establishing data capture processes to identify data sources and the methods used for data generation. During this phase, the feasibility of proposed metrics is examined in greater detail to determine if they can be effectively measured using the available data sources. This phase addresses several information system requirements, primarily focusing on information management and a more detailed scope of information [12].  Therefore, the discipline and the four elements that support data quality initiatives provided by (Lunger, 2008) [13] are applied in this phase. This phase would involve the technical challenges and complexities associated with integrating dashboards with legacy systems and applications that provide them with data.

Phase 3: How to deliver performance information to the users? 

During this phase, systems and procedures are established to regularly collect and process data necessary for measurements. These information provision processes focus on how metrics can be connected to databases and information systems, as well as how the measurement framework can be effectively communicated throughout the organization. Design considerations in this phase revolve in creating user interface, application logic, and data processing. Data processes were applied to gather and transform data into a usable format. The distribution of this information to users (reporting requirement) is primarily accomplished through a user interface. Dashboard interface design features are categorized as functional and visual. [12, 14]. Application logic is the engine that bridges the gap between Data processing and the user interface [15].

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework that guided the research. The main steps of conceptual framework are illustrated in blue boxes, which line of thinking could be traced by following the blue arrows. Overall, the conceptual framework consisted of ten steps. The Supporting data, framework, and methods needed for conducting each research step are depicted within the white boxes, connected by black arrows. Findings or data generated from one research step and utilized in the subsequent research step is depicted with labeled black arrows connecting the two research steps. Findings generated from the research steps, which also are research milestones that answers the research question, are highlighted and illustrated in the green dashed boxes.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

The data used in the research were composed of primary and secondary data. The primary data were collected through group interviews and surveys. On the other hand, the secondary data were collected from the existing performance management system in the company and the literature review. Before utilized in data analysis, the primary data collected through group interviews were mainly processed qualitatively through coding methods. Conversely, the primary data collected through surveys were responses to scaled (1-to-10) questions that could be processed quantitatively. Processed primary data, complimented by the secondary data, were then used in data analysis. The data analysis processes were guided with multiple tools or frameworks in order to formulate business solutions in the end.

The research began by testing whether the difficulties in monitoring the performance level across the company, caused by the performance management system that had not been implemented optimally on the company (General Manager of HRGA and SA, 2022). The author assesses the performance management system in place using the four foundations and five rules provided by (Wibisono, 2016) [6]. If a gap or deficiencies is identified from the assessment results, of which there are foundations or rules that are not met, it indicates that the performance management system is suboptimal. At this research step, the author conducted semi-structured group interviews, with questions formulated based on the 4 foundations and 5 rules by (Wibisono, 2016) [6]. The group interview was attended by general manager, manager, superintendent, and other personnels from the HRGA & Strategic Affairs division for the implementation and assessment on the performance management system in the company was the responsibility of this division. Additionally, the General Managers of HRGA & Strategic Affairs were the ones who put forward the business issue and the statement that the existing performance management system was not yet optimal.

After the deficiencies had been identified in the performance management system, a causal relationship analysis, using current reality tree (CRT), was carried out to causally structured business issues and deficiencies (obtained from gap analysis) in order to describe the company situation and identify the root causes of the business issues. Subsequently, the root causes were compared to the deficiencies in the company’s performance management system. If they match, it suggests that the deficiencies on the performance management system, is the underlying cause (root cause) of the business issue and requires resolution. The formulated CRT was then reviewed by the GM HRGA & Strategic Affairs to ensure its alignment with the actual conditions of the company.

After identifying the root causes, it is essential to devise a business solution that can tackle these causes. In the brainstorming session, to determine which alternative solution was most suitable, the benefits of each solution were linked to the already identified root causes and were compared, from which the performance dashboard was the most suitable solution. The comparison was done by the author and verified by GM HRGA & Strategic Affairs.

Nonetheless, evaluating the appropriateness of a solution solely based on its offered benefits is inadequate. The author must also ascertain the feasibility of implementing the solution within the company. (Eckerson, 2010) [9] Proposes ten criteria that can be used to assess a company's readiness for implementing a performance dashboard, in terms of organizational readiness and technical readiness. To assess company readiness of the company, both organizational and technical, the author conducted a semi-structured interview, which was attended by personnels from the HRGA & Strategic Affairs division. The interview was conducted based on the questions provided by (Eckerson, 2010) [9] that correspond to his ten criteria for evaluating company readiness to implement performance dashboards. Complimented by the suitability or linkage between performance dashboards benefits and root causes, if the the required readiness criteria are fulfilled, then performance dashboards, besides being the more appropriate solution, would also be deemed fit to be implemented to resolve the business issue.

After establishing that performance dashboards were the appropriate business solution, the next step is to implement the business solution within the company. However, it is imperative to first identify the individuals responsible for designing and deploying the performance dashboard as well as the primary users and other stakeholders of the dashboard project. Hence to compliment the steps of the project onward, a stakeholder analysis was conducted. The pool of potential stakeholders to be analyzed came from company-wide personnel, however grouped by their job level (president director, general managers, managers, superintendents, supervisors, staff/officers, and admins). The stakeholder analysis was done by surveying personnels from the HRGA & Strategic Affairs division. The response by the respondent were deemed sufficient to be used as main consideration for stakeholder analysis as the division holds the main responsibility in carrying out the project and had already experiences in carrying out various other performance management related projects, some of them has company wide-scope. Besides that, the job scope of various job positions in the HRGA and Strategic Affairs division required integration and frequent interaction with people across the company, as well as being up to date to any latest development. 

The next step, before going into the implementation step of performance dashboards, was to determine which type of performance dashboard to be implemented, whether it is an operational, tactical, strategic, or combination between the three types. In this step, users input played a crucial role in deciding the applications and layers of information that would be included in the dashboard. In determining the performance dashboards type to be implemented, users input played a crucial role. Therefore, to help collect users input, a general comparison of main characteristics of performance dashboards types, proposed by (Eckerson, 2010) [9], was adopted into closed interview questions at which the characteristics of each performance dashboard types became the options. 

The implementation process of the performance dashboard followed the framework formulated by (Lempinen, 2012) [12]. In the "What to measure" stage, metrics to be displayed on the performance dashboards were formulated based on the existing KPIs and user input. These metrics were adjusted according to the type of performance dashboard. Besides that, the metrics were also adjusted to be proportional to the balanced scorecard perspectives. Then, in the "Where and how to capture data" stage, the data sources needed to populate the metrics were identified. At this stage, the company should already have the technical or information systems capable of providing consistent performance data from across the company (no conflicting data between departments or divisions). Additionally, four elements supporting "data quality" initiatives were instilled in this design stage, ensuring that the data sources could populate data accurately and timely, in addition to being consistent. Finally, the stage "How to deliver performance information to the user" was focused on designing a system that could process data from the identified sources into the formulated metrics, and on designing the dashboard display or user interface based on available and viable BI tools that could be utilized. 

After the performance dashboard was implemented, the new performance management system would be reevaluated using the four foundations and five rules provided by (Wibisono, 2016) and compared with the initial deficiencies identified in the first gap analysis. The results of this re-evaluation aimed to assess whether the initial deficiencies had been resolved by the implementation of performance dashboards, and whether new gaps or deficiencies had emerged. If the initial deficiencies had been resolved, it would mean that the solution optimally resolved the root cause of the business issue.

1.  Gap Analysis on Existing Performance Management System

The deficiencies in the existing performance management system were identified and listed in Table 1. The deficiencies identified indicate that all foundations and three out of five rules had not been met by the existing performance management system. Therefore, the implementation of the performance management system in the company had been proven suboptimal. 

Table 1. Gaps or Issue in the performance management system in PT. THN

Table 1. Gaps or Issue in the performance management system in PT. THN (continued)

The causal analysis conducted in the research is depicted in the form of a CRT diagram shown in Figure 2. The issue with monitoring performance across the company arises from various factors. There's no reliable alert system, and performance reporting becomes obsolete due to outdated or untimely reports, often resulting from manual or semi-manual data processing. The scattered and unstandardized presentation of data in reports makes them time-consuming to create, leading to a lack of informativeness. Conflicting and inconsistent reports further complicate the situation, exacerbated by the incompleteness of data. Additionally, the lack of employee understanding and involvement, coupled with infrequent performance measurements, hinders the report-creation process. The manual process also introduces the risk of human error, making reports untrustworthy. From the causal analysis, six root causes were identified and all of them are related to the suboptimality of the performance management system in place. Therefore, it can be concluded that the suboptimal performance management system is the root cause of the business issue.

Figure 2. Current Reality Tree 

1. Linking Performance Dashboards Benefits with Root Causes

The analysis in linking performance dashboards benefits with the root cause identified in the CRT is briefly presented in Table 2. Based on the analysis, in terms of addressing the root causes, the performance dashboard is assessed as capable of completely resolving all root causes.

Table 2. Performance dashboards benefits to address the root causes

1. Company Readiness Assessment

The brief results of the assessment regarding organizational readiness are included in Table 3. It is presented that not all readiness criteria are met. The table shows that six out of ten criteria were not met. Although not all readiness criteria are met, it does not mean that performance dashboards automatically considered as an unsuitable solution. Based on literature that shows that performance dashboards have been widely implemented in various companies and have had positive impacts, and considering the alignment between the benefits of performance dashboards and the root causes of business issues, various pragmatic solutions were formulated to ensure that the company can meet all the readiness criteria for implementing performance dashboards. It should be noted that the formulated solutions will serve as considerations or additional items that are included in next research steps. Therefore, even though the company may not initially be sufficiently ready to implement performance dashboards, the company can be made ready with some preparations. At the end of this research step, it can be concluded that performance dashboard is a suitable solution for the business issue.

Table 3. PT. THN readiness analysis

Table 3. PT. THN readiness analysis (continued)

Table 3. PT. THN readiness analysis (continued)

The stakeholder analysis was done based on assessment of the power and interest level of the stakeholders in regard to the project. Based on their interest and power level, the stakeholders were mapped into quadrants of “manage closely”, “keep informed”, “monitor”,” keep satisfied” (see Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Stakeholder analysis

The president director, general managers, and managers, which constituted the top-level management or executives, were mapped into the “manage closely” quadrant. With moderate-to-high interest and power in regard to the project, these stakeholders were identified as the main candidate of users of the performance dashboards. It had been brought to light that the executives were the one that had the most understanding about performance management and had urgent and clear needs for the performance dashboards The superintendents or mid-level managers were mapped into the “keep satisfied” quadrant. They have power that enables them to bring significant effects to the project. On the other hand, their interest in the performance dashboards were relatively low as they would worry about negative performance assessments. The supervisors, staff/officers, and admins were mapped into the “monitor” quadrant. Even though they had relatively low power and interest in regards to the performance dashboards. Data to generate performance information usually starts from the bottom level [9]. The company owner or shareholders were mapped into the “keep informed” quadrant. Even though they did not possess the power to directly influence the project, however they would also like to be able to monitor the performance of the company and how the company would thrive in the harsh environment of the industry

1.  Type of Performance Dashboards to be Implemented

The brief comparison performance dashboards type and the decision making of what characteristics should the performance dashboard possess are presented in Table 4. In short, the dashboard to be implemented is strategic performance dashboards.

Table 4. Decision making on performance dashboards type

Table 4. Decision making on performance dashboards type (continued)

1. Performance Dashboard Design

1. What to Measure

The selection of metrics to be used in the performance dashboards were drawn from the existing KPI in the company, as proposed by (Marpaung et al., 2022) [5] through balance scorecard methods. In formulating the KPI, (Marpaung et al., 2022) [5] had already cascaded the company’s corporate level objectives, as well as division/business unit level of strategies and objectives from the company vision, mission, and strategy. The corporate level objectives cascaded by (Marpaung et al., 2022) [5] were used to curate the metrics. Beside that in curating the metrics to be included into the performance dashboards, the balanced scorecard perspectives were used. The executives also had requested a little bit of ability to drill down some of the metrics to provide additional performance information. In the end, all of the curated metrics are categorized into top layer metrics (the outcome metrics) and drilled-down metrics. How the top layer and drilled-down metrics linked to the balanced scorecard perspectives and the corporate level strategies are illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5. The metrics linkage to the BSC perspectives and corporate level objectives

Table 5. The metrics linkage to the BSC perspectives and corporate level objectives (continued)

1. Where and How to Capture Data

After identifying potential data sources in the legacy information system to supply the metrics in the performance dashboards, preparatory works, like building database and automatization in certain departments, as well as consolidating and standardizing departmental databases are done to ensure that the data sources would be able to provide consistent and trustworthy performance data, in accordance with the metrics. While consolidating the data sources across the company, the discipline and the four elements that support data quality initiatives, that are governance, technology, processes, and people (Lunger, 2008) [13] were also applied. The main initiatives implemented to support data quality for the performance dashboards data sources are listed in Table 6. 

Table 6. Data quality initiatives

After the preparation works had been done, the data sources to supply the metrics, then, were truly can be identified. The identified data sources (databases) to supply each metrics are listed in Table 7. 

Table 7. Data sources of the metrics

Table 7. Data sources of the metrics (continued)

1. How to Deliver Performance Information

Based on users’ input, technical and procedural requirements for data processing, application logic, and user interface were established. The technical requirements for user interface and application logic, that had been derived from user’s input, are listed in Table 8. The requirements for the user interface and application logic are mostly in regard to standardized report templates or presentation format and navigation procedure. 

Table 8. Technical Requirements for user interface and application logic

The technical and procedural requirements for data processing are listed in Table 9, which are mostly in regards to how data from databases could be regularly or automatically collected and processed to supply the metrics measurements based on the input from the user interface and application logic.

Table 9. Technical and procedural requirements for data processing

Table 9. Technical and procedural requirements for data processing (continued)

By the gaps analysis, gaps or deficiencies in the new performance management system, where the performance dashboards have been implemented, were identified, listed, and compared to the deficiencies that had been identified on the previous management system (pre-performance dashboards) in Table 10. By the new performance management system, almost all deficiencies from the previous system had been resolved, however there are two that still had issues. Regarding the “partnership” foundation of an ideal performance management system, there were still departments, especially those dealing with confidential data, that have not fully embraced the performance management system by maintaining information. Regarding the “keep it stupid simple” rules of an ideal performance management system, not all manual processes that are prone to human error can be automated by the tools that had been already used in the performance dashboards implementation. The automation of the processes requires tools with more capability beyond the one that had been utilized, however this would mean that the company needs to invest more as the required tools usually are not open source. In short, as almost all deficiencies from the previous system had been resolved, the business issues should have been greatly reduced.

Table 10. Before vs after performance dashboards implementation

Table 10. Before vs after performance dashboards implementation (continued)

Table 10. Before vs after performance dashboards implementation (continued)

Initially, the company had implemented a performance management system, however sub-optimally. The performance management systems possessed deficiencies in regards to the four foundations and five rules of designing performance management systems. The root cause of the business issue had been identified to be the deficiencies found in the performance management system. Therefore, the performance dashboard had been chosen to resolve the root cause based on the offered benefits and the company readiness. The metrics of the performance dashboards had been formulated based on the corporate level objectives, and the balanced scorecard perspectives. Initiatives based on four elements that support data quality as well as technical requirements had been implemented into the performance dashboards infrastructure. In the end, the root causes of the business issue were resolved as most of the deficiencies that were initially identified in the performance management system had been resolved. In other words, the performance management system of the company had been improved. 

1. Fortunebusinessinsights.com. "Nickel Market Size, Share & Covid-19 Impact Analysis, By Application (Stainless Steel, Special Steels, Batteries, Electroplating, Alloys, and Others), and Regional Forecast, 2021-2028." (2022) https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/nickel-market-106576.
2. Arifianto, Budiawan Sidik. "Nikel Dan Kemajuan Ekonomi Daerah." (2021). https://www.kompas.id/baca/riset/2021/11/01/nikel-dan-kemajuan-ekonomi-daerah
3. nikel.co.id. "Sejarah Perkembangan Nickel di Indonesia." (2022), https://nikel.co.id/sejarah-perkembangan-nikel-di-indonesia/.
4. Pubs.usgs.gov. "Nickel." (2022), https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-nickel.pdf.
5. Marpaung, Sara Nadira, Dermawan Wibisono, and Muhammad Hanafi. "Proposed a Design Company Performance Management System by Using Balanced Scorecard in a Nickel Mining Company (Case: PT Gema Kreasi Perdana)." https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V5-i12-26
6. Wibisono, D. "How To Create World Class Company, Guide for Directors and Managers." (2016).
7. Mabin, Victoria. "Goldratt's" Theory of Constraints" thinking processes: A systems methodology linking soft with hard." (2015).https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/1999/PAPERS/PARA104.PDF. 
8. Mardhotillah, Aisyah Shalih, and Joko Siswanto. "Performance Indicators Identification and Performance Dashboard Model Development for State-Owned Mining Companies in Indonesia."https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Siswanto-Joko/publication/362301392_Performance_Indicators_Identification_and_Performance_Dashboard_Model_Development_for_State-Owned_Mining_Companies_in_Indonesia/links/62e202323c0ea87887624461/Performance-Indicators-Identification-and-Performance-Dashboard-Model-Development-for-State-Owned-Mining-Companies-in-Indonesia.pdf. 
9. Eckerson, Wayne W. Performance dashboards: measuring, monitoring, and managing your business.John Wiley & Sons, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119199984. 
10. Alexander, Michael. Excel Dashboards & Reports for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2022.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p9B6EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Alexander,+M.+(2022).+Excel+Dashboards+%5C%26+Reports+for+Dummies.+John+Wiley+%5C%26+Sons.&ots=ef7kS6iDd4&sig=NZZymIGPQDU0MUhXwPeLGyzHaog. 
11. Memon, M. "Dashboard vs Report: Similarities and Differences." Databox Blog, (2023), https://databox.com/dashboard-vs-report#:~:text=Dashboards%20offer%20objective%20data%20and,it%20as%20you%20review%20it.
12. Lempinen, Heikki. "Constructing a design framework for performance dashboards." Nordic Contributions in IS Research: Third Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, SCIS 2012, Sigtuna, Sweden, August 17–20, 2012. Proceedings 3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32270-9_7
13. Lunger, K. "Debunking Three Myths of Pervasive Business Intelligence: How to Create a Truly Democratic BI Environment." Business Intelligence Journal 13.4 (2008): 38-41.https://tdwi.org/~/media/62A8401CFF0441DB90CBD2E945A0D681.pdfTim. 
14. Abdelfattah, Mohamed. "A comparison of several performance dashboards architectures." (2013).. https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2013.52005
15. Nerode, Anil, and Richard A. Shore. Logic for applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=90HhBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Nerode,+A.,+%26+Shore,+R.+A.+(2012).+Logic+for+applications.+Springer+Science+%5C%26+Business+Media.&ots=cxoICUDN1r&sig=OAhS9h7vUoXZAmqYl0wpbrlPLjQ.