Urban mobility concerns the transportation of people and goods in a city. Over the years, this subject has received attention from several academic fields that research distinct aspects related to this area. Environmental factors (air and noise pollution), social issues (access to quality transportation, sprawl and population satisfaction), biological factors (deforestation and damages to health), and political issues (decision making in public administration and investment in new transportation modalities) have been explored from different perspectives and with different methods in both quantitative (through mathematical models and computer simulation) and qualitative studies (through Delphi studies and action research). Regardless of the focus of these studies – to evaluate the existing systems, to propose new solutions, to verify the need for improvement, or to propose interventions – it is necessary to have in mind the adequate performance measures of urban mobility for the relevant aspects to be properly examined. The objective of this work is to identify urban mobility performance indicators, and the elements of an urban mobility performance monitoring system presented in the literature and their application. Finally, the work proposes a research agenda to assist in the further development of knowledge regarding this topic within the engineering management field.

O objetivo deste estudo é aprofundar os conhecimentos de modelagem de processos não estruturados, ou seja, processos pouco especificados e geralmente modelados por um conjunto de tarefas e outro de restrições, comparando os três métodos envolvidos para melhor compreender quais são suas principais diferenças. Para isso, foi desenvolvida uma breve revisão bibliográfica sobre métodos e ferramentas de modelagem de processos declarativos e imperativos, seguida de um estudo comparativo constituído pela modelagem de um processo genérico de desenvolvimento de um produto em três ferramentas distintas: BPMN, DCR Graphs e DECLARE. Como resultado, é possível observar que o BPMN dentre as notações de modelagem analisadas, mostra-se mais intuitiva, porém apresenta pontos restritivos do ponto de vista de modelagem para processos não estruturados, que não restringem as atividades de modelagem de processos de negócios, mas requer adaptações para processos não estruturados. Já as ferramentas DCR Graphs e DECLARE, são semelhantes em seus recursos, porém o DCR possibilita expressar restrições com apenas quatro tipos de relações, enquanto com o DECLARE é necessário combinar operadores lógicos e temporais para construí-las.

The purpose of this study is to deepen the knowledge of modeling unstructured processes, that is, processes that are not specified and are usually modeled by a set of tasks and another of constraints, comparing the three methods involved to better understand their main differences. For this, a brief literature review was developed on methods and tools for modeling declarative and imperative processes, followed by a comparative study of the modeling of a generic product development process in three different tools: BPMN, DCR Graphs and DECLARE. As a result, it is possible to observe that BPMN among the notations of the analyzed model is more intuitive, but presents restrictive points of view from the modeling point for unstructured processes, which don’t restrict business process modeling activities, but requires adaptations to unstructured processes. The DCR Graphs and DECLARE tools are similar in their capabilities, however, DCR allows you to express constraints with only four types of relationships, whereas with DECLARE you need to combine logical and temporal operators to construct them.

Os métodos de gerenciamento e ferramentas atualmente utilizados, por suas características que variam de acordo com a plataforma empregada, muitas vezes não atendem totalmente às necessidades específicas da produção e ao desenvolvimento de novas tecnologias em todas as aplicações. Com um método não estruturado, neste trabalho foram analisadas três ferramentas online (Trello, Pipefy e Podio), sendo comparadas as operações e os recursos de cada em um processo de produção de software. Esse processo foi modelado nas três ferramentas, adaptando-se o funcionamento para a realidade de cada. Simulando as atividades com o passo a passo de produção, foram adicionados erros possíveis para entender como as ferramentas se comportavam e, por fim, avaliadas individualmente conforme padrões desenvolvidos pelos autores. As ferramentas têm diferenças de desempenhos e se adequam a situações distintas, portanto tomamos alguns pontos como padrão: A ferramenta Trello é dinâmica e se adapta facilmente a qualquer problema, mas não possui formas de organização tornando o trabalho desconexo se não acompanhado de perto. A ferramenta Pipefy possui configurações para estruturar atividades que não possuem essa característica, mas perde-se em fluidez. A ferramenta Podio mostrou-se a menos capaz de estruturar métodos de forma simples e ágil e, apesar de ser poderosa, torna complexo o trabalho e menos dinâmico. A ferramenta que mais se adaptou ao processo proposto foi o Pipefy pela sua capacidade de organizar os dados e suas configurações de entrada e saída

The management methods and tools currently used, due to their characteristics that vary according to the platform used, often do not fully meet the specific needs of production and the development of new technologies in all applications. With an unstructured method, in this work three online tools (Trello, Pipefy and Podio) were analyzed, comparing the operations and resources of each one in a software production process. This process was modeled in the three tools, adapting the operation to the reality of each. Simulating the activities with the production step-by-step, possible errors were added to understand how the tools behaved and, finally, evaluated individually according to standards developed by the authors. The tools have different performance and suit different situations, so we take a few points as standard: The Trello tool is dynamic and easily adapts to any problem, but has no organization forms making the work disconnected if not closely monitored. The Pipefy tool has settings for structuring activities that do not have this feature, but are lost in fluidity. The Podio tool has proved to be the least able to structure methods in a simple and agile way and, despite being powerful, it makes the work complex and less dynamic. The tool that most adapted to the proposed process was Pipefy for its ability to organize data and its input and output configurations.

Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) are becoming ubiquitous in institutions for several reasons. PMS are being used to support actions in some day-to-day situations such as decision-making, communicating expectations, taking preventive measures and learning and understanding the processes, business environment and markets in which a company operates. There are a few reasons that lead to systems remain unchanged for an extended period, and often it requires the work of experts to design, analyze and implement a PMS. This paper presents a framework that, through a structured set of processes, guides the development of a PMS. This framework does not target companies of specific industries or sizes and is intended to be used to assess, design and implement a PMS for organizational units, such as departments, or even stand-alone initiatives, like projects.

It is known that the expression R&D is widely used by organizations and the academia to represent procedures for building new knowledge and technology that take the form of techniques, processes, products, and services. R&D encompasses a wide range of activities, usually organized as projects that have a diverse (and sometimes not well-defined) scope, employ diverse re- sources, demand diverse capabilities, have high risk, among other elements. This makes managing R&D initiatives a difficult task because the context in which these initiatives are being developed must be understood in order to know what elements affect project performance and how to efficiently and ef- fectively organize them, balancing what is desired with their inherent uncertain- ty. This work focuses on understanding the main characteristics of R&D pro- jects in engineering and how they influence elements that affect project perfor- mance. It is part of a larger research project that seeks to study meta-models of R&D projects in engineering for a more effective and efficient building of knowledge and technology, embracing the idea of embedding flexibility in managing them. The method used was a systematic literature review (SLR) with the use of bibliometric and content analysis techniques. The result of this work provides objective insights to: what these projects are, what characteristics they share, what elements are important for managing them, and what the relationship among characteristics, elements and project success is.

Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) have been adopted as a management support tool in several industry segments. The data obtained through these systems bring knowledge about an organization’s operations and must be interpreted to support decision making. The use of data analytics methods may guide this transformation of data into useful and insightful information that provides knowledge. However, current PMS do not embed data analytics tools for data processing and visualization in a straightforward manner. This paper presents a procedure for the evaluation, design, and implementation of a PMS integrated with a data analytics process. The use of this procedure is illustrated through two application cases in maintenance and service operations: the earlier deals with maintenance management of an automobile manufacturer, while the latter is used to analyze the performance assessment surveys of a university’s certificate program courses. Results associated with the utility, usability, and feasibility of the procedure are discussed. The framework is not restricted to specific industries or operations and can be used in organizational units, such as departments or branches, independent processes or self-contained projects.

Publications in all knowledge areas have recently become more readily accessible through the effort invested in the organization of these scholarly works by knowledge platforms and reference databases such as SCOPUS and Web of Science (to cite only a few). A large number of researchers, to take the most advantage of this ease of access to published works, conduct systematic literature reviews (SLR) with the intent of being comprehensive and systematic in their literature review approach. The conduction of an SLR, however, is comprised of a set of time demanding tasks, such as search terms definition, a collection of works, content analyses and writing reports. Researchers have to focus both on this process and on the content, and as the number of publications grows ever more, there is a trade- off related to the time to be invested in each. In this paper, the FastSLR process for conducting SLRs is presented, that streamlines the tasks necessary for conducting an SLR, allowing researchers to focus on the content and the decisions related to this content that they have to make when proceeding with their SLR. This process was developed using an inductive approach based on the knowledge accumulated during the execution of several SLRs in the industrial and systems engineering domain. The advantage of this process is the guidance provided to the researcher regarding the application of reference management, data visualization, and content analysis tools. It also offers aids in decision making during the iterative stages and cycles of the process, increasing the agility in execution and confidence in results, such as in the definition of sample size by presenting a table with sample size values, which guarantees statistical representativeness for the analyzed data. This process was applied in one work about Performance Management. There was improvement in the time taken for SRL execution compared to previous experiences based on a more traditional SLR model. Since the proposed model accounts for the management of the research project, using it increases the confidence and the quality of the information obtained

Disparities in economic development, transport policies, and infrastructure across nations and modes of transport make the integration of multimodal corridors a challenging task for regional organizations like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), European Union (EU), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In this chapter, a framework based on nontariff barriers arising from the lack of interconnectivity between modes, lack of infrastructure, and tariff barriers arising from cabotage and customs regulation at the interface is proposed to analyze the issues faced by a regional organization in the creation of multimodal transport corridors. Multimodal transport networks are used by third-party logistics (3PL) service providers who offer end-to-end cargo delivery services. Better multimodal transport networks are expected to improve intraregional trade and attract multinational enterprises (MNEs) to the region, thereby increasing foreign direct investment (FDI). We introduce multimodal transport and discuss the economic and regional characteristics of the ASEAN region. This is followed by an overview of transport-related infrastructure development in the region. An analysis of the issues faced by regional organizations in the integration of multimodal corridors using the proposed framework follows.

Project Management Offices (PMOs) are organizational structures in charge of managing and coordinating several simultaneous projects within companies. Due to the complexity of different projects’ objectives, it’s usual to simplify project indicators and control them by means of the well-known triple constraint or “iron triangle”: scope, cost and time. This approach does not account for the organizational strategy, internal and external stakeholders’ interests, nor other specific indicators. The problems due to the lack of integration caused by this oversimplification are yet amplified in complex project portfolios related to technology development and deployment, since in this kind of scenario the marketing competition demands new features, at lower costs, in no time. These points could be addressed by operations management approaches, such as the Performance Management Systems Design Framework (PMSDF). To identify the viability and relevance in using this method in PMOs, this work adopts a mixed methods research. Is begins with a Systematic Literature Review to better understand performance management routine and tools in PMO. It was followed by meetings with two project management consultants, to identify the best practices, habits and advises, to check the differences between practitioner and academic views. Finally, it was conducted interviews with the PMO Director of a trucks’ manufacturer and a PMO Manager in an agrarian-cattle-breeding cooperative, to verify how such companies measure their PMO’s successes. The last step was to adapt the PMSDF to the project management context, evaluating the PMO operation in a medium-sized software development company and propose the restructuration of its Performance Management System