From Dashboard to Decision Evaluating KPI Governance and Corrective-Action Closure

References

[1] Abraham, R., Schneider, J. and vom Brocke, J. (2019) ‘Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda’, International Journal of Information Management, 49, pp. 424–438. ScienceDirect

[2] Alles, M.G., Kogan, A. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2002) ‘Feasibility and economics of continuous assurance’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(1), pp. 125–138. Crossref

[3] Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000) ‘Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(7), pp. 754–771. Crossref

[4] Chingezi, E., Chingezi, L., Ganyani, L., Yelduora, P.G. and Mupa, M.N. (2026) ‘Reducing repeat findings and control failures in operationally intensive U.S. enterprises: A data- driven internal audit framework for remediation, loss prevention, and governance improvement’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 30(3), pp. 2188–2199. Crossref

[5] Few, S. (2006) Information Dashboard Design: The Effective Visual Communication of Data. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

[6] Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., Gray, D. and Neely, A. (2007) ‘Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(8), pp. 784–801. Crossref

[7] Goh, B.W. (2009) ‘Audit committees, boards of directors, and remediation of material weaknesses in internal control’, Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(2), pp. 549–579. Crossref

[8] Johnstone, K.M., Li, C. and Rupley, K.H. (2011) ‘Changes in corporate governance associated with the revelation of internal control material weaknesses and their subsequent remediation’, Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), pp. 331–383. Wiley

[9] Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) ‘The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance’, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), pp. 71–79.

[10] Khatri, V. and Brown, C.V. (2010) ‘Designing data governance’, Communications of the ACM, 53(1), pp. 148–152. ACM

[11] Machekera, G., Mtemeli, P.S., Dongo, M.M. et al. (2026) ‘From trench safety to lifecycle reliability: A project-control framework for water and sewer reticulation delivery in U.S. communities’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews . ResearchGate (Accessed: 2 September 2026).

[12] Micheli, P. and Manzoni, J.F. (2010) ‘Strategic performance measurement: Benefits, limitations and paradoxes’, Long Range Planning, 43(4), pp. 465–476. ScienceDirect

[14] Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995) ‘Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), pp. 80–116. Crossref

[15] Nunes, F., Pereira, R. and Alves, A.C. (2024) ‘Implementing key performance indicators and designing a performance dashboard in an automotive components company’, Administrative Sciences, 14(8), 175. MDPI

[16] Okebu, D.T. and Mupa, M.N. (2026) ‘Predictive training analytics for competency-based pilot instruction: Early detection of checkride risk, procedural noncompliance and safety-relevant learning gaps’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews . ResearchGate (Accessed: 2 September 2026).

[17] Olist (2018) Brazilian E-Commerce Public Dataset by Olist, version 7. Kaggle. Kaggle (Accessed: 2 September 2026).

[18] Pauwels, K., Ambler, T., Clark, B.H., LaPointe, P., Reibstein, D., Skiera, B., Wierenga, B. and Wiesel, T. (2009) ‘Dashboards as a service: Why, what, how, and what research is needed?’, Journal of Service Research, 12(2), pp. 175– 189. SAGE

[19] Svanberg, J., Öhman, P., Samsten, I., Neidermeyer, P.E., Rana, T. and Danielson, M. (2025) ‘Addressing the exception prioritization problem in continuous auditing systems with thresholding’, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 32(4), e70022. Wiley

[20] Taanisa, T., Mukwata, N.A., Sydney, J., Ganyani, L., Maturure, R.N., Chingezi, E., Yelduora, P.G. and Mupa, M.N. (2026a) ‘AI- enabled audit analytics for SME financial reporting and anomaly detection: A risk-based framework for early irregularity identification and control strengthening’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 30(3), pp. 1113–1126. Crossref

[21] Taanisa, T., Mukwata, N.A., Sydney, J., Ganyani, L., Maturure, R.N., Chingezi, E., Yelduora, P.G. and Mupa, M.N. (2026b) ‘From variance analysis to decision intelligence: Integrating finance audit and data science to improve SME budget governance and risk- aware growth’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 30(3), pp. 666–675. Crossref

[22] Van Elten, H.J., Sülz, S., Van Raaij, E.M., Wehrens, R. and De Bont, A. (2022) ‘Big data health care innovations: Performance dashboarding as a process of collective sensemaking’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(2), e30201. JMIR

[23] Vasarhelyi, M.A., Alles, M.G. and Kogan, A. (2004) ‘Principles of analytic monitoring for continuous assurance’, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 1(1), pp. 1–21. Crossref

[24] Yigitbasioglu, O.M. and Velcu, O. (2012) ‘A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research’, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), pp. 41–59. ScienceDirect

@article{1723142,
      author = {Allen Teerahumba, Emmanuel Hagan, Flora Phiri, Trevor Kauyu, Munashe Naphtali Mupa},
      title = {From Dashboard to Decision Evaluating KPI Governance and Corrective-Action Closure},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {3},
      pages = {1879-1892},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1723142.pdf},
      abstract = {Dashboards are often treated as neutral windows onto organizational performance, yet the decisions they prompt depend on definitions, denominators, aggregation rules, refresh cycles, thresholds and follow-through mechanisms. This study develops and tests a KPI Governance and Corrective-Action Closure Framework (KGCACF) for resource-constrained organizations. The empirical component uses the Brazilian E-Commerce Public Dataset by Olist, obtained from Kaggle, comprising 99,441 orders. Seven operational KPIs were calculated under paired definitions across 86 eligible weeks: delivery lateness, on-time delivery, cancellation, average order value, repeat-customer activity, delivery cycle and approval latency. Management signals were compared against stated thresholds. The paired definitions generated 47 disputed signals in 602 metric-week comparisons (7.81%). The largest decision instability occurred for on-time delivery (18 disputed weeks), delivery cycle (13) and average order value (11). A corrective-action scenario used 26,575 exception events derived from reproducible validation, service and anomaly rules. With identical modeled review capacity, FIFO processing produced a mean high-severity closure time of 482.3 days and 9.2% high-severity SLA compliance; severity/SLA sequencing produced 4.2 days and 100.0% compliance. These are queueing results under explicit assumptions, not observed organizational effects. An evidence-gate sensitivity scenario further shows that an assumed 12% retest-failure rate would reopen 3,191 administratively closed cases. The paper contributes a KPI contract, dispute log, dashboard heat maps, decision register, corrective-action schema and closure-verification protocol. The results show that dashboard value arises not from visualization alone but from governed meaning, accountable action and verified resolution.},
      keywords = {key performance indicators; dashboard governance; decision latency; corrective action; action registers; performance measurement; data governance; SMEs; nonprofit organizations},
      month = {September},
  }