Hi everybody Can any body throw some light on balanced score card & its implementation. REgards Ashit
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Members
I require information about SAP-HR. What are the benefits of learning this and what kind of job is offered once this is learnt?
In Bangalore, I need to know the Institutes imparting this training
Thanks
Pooja.
From India, Allahabad
I require information about SAP-HR. What are the benefits of learning this and what kind of job is offered once this is learnt?
In Bangalore, I need to know the Institutes imparting this training
Thanks
Pooja.
From India, Allahabad
Hi
Hope this article helps you.
Cheerio
Rajat
Why the balanced scorecard
Financial numbers, which were the scorecard of success for the industrial age, are woefully inadequate to measure the health and viability of organizations in the information age.
Financials measure what has already happened – the past. That worked fine in the industrial age, when things didn’t change very quickly. Today, with the accelerating pace of change of the information age, running a company solely on financial data is as foolish as driving down the highway at top speed using the rear-view mirror.
There have been many changes in organizations over the past few decades. Functional silo management of departments such as sales, production, finance and so on is grudgingly giving way to process-based understanding of businesses that is unearthing long-hidden cross-functional dependencies and inefficiencies. Total quality management (TQM) has driven this, showing that organizational process flows weave through the different silos. TQM also started to shift the balance of power, allowing people at the front line to identify ways to improve the business, not just executives.
In the old industrial age, it was believed that efficiencies came from developing large batches – the economic order quantity (EOQ) suggested an efficiency gained from manufacturing many thousands or millions of identical widgets before re-tooling the machinery (Henry Ford epitomized this when he said that ‘you can have any colour you want, as long as it’s black’). Today, with market segmentation and niche marketing, companies and governments that produce both products and services are moving to an economic order quantity of one. Customized products and services for every customer – something that was considered impossible a few years ago. Add to this the fact that economies of scale is, for the most part, an accounting illusion that rarely works in practice, as detailed in a previous article.
In addition to adapting to fast-changing customer niches, the pace of change overall is accelerating. Product life-cycles are getting shorter and shorter. Companies like Sony have four teams working to create new generations of products before the latest one has been released – they’re working to make their own products obsolete before they’ve hit the shelves.
At the turn of the last century (1900), the average worker in North America only had a few years of grade school education. It was believed that they couldn’t make decisions on their own, and so bureaucracies were changed to eliminate risk and create uniformity. Today workers have on average at least a couple of years of post-secondary education, and the pace of change is accelerating every day. Success comes from taking measured risks, not from eliminating risks, and bureaucracy simply hampers competitiveness.
In this day and age measuring success on financial measures simply doesn’t work, because those financial measures relate to a world that no longer exists. Today, intangible assets such as quality, motivation, and customer loyalty are often more critical than physical assets. And yet, traditional financial accounting only considers physical assets, for the most part. Already, Ernst & Young has shown that as much as 40% of professional investors’ valuations of companies are based on non-financial factors.
If you hold a manager solely accountable for financial measures, you’re probably going to hurt the company (or the government department) in the long run. Part of the reason is that the focus is so short-term – on quarterly dividends or annual budgets. In order to meet these constraints, someone may lay off people or cut research or cut advertising, all of which impair the long-term success of the company. For example, research has been shown that companies that cut advertising expenses during a recession generally had a difficult recovery – or didn’t recover at all – from the recession, while those companies that maintained those expenditures did recover.
Lagging indicators that measure the past, like financial measures, are important – you need to measure what you have done. However, you also need leading indicators, which predict future performance. You need them all.
And that’s where the Balanced Scorecard comes in. Kaplan and Norton, who introduced the Balanced Scorecard concept, set out four basic types of measures that you need in a Balanced Scorecard approach:
financial measures
customer measures
internal business process measures
learning and growth measures
The financial measures are the traditional measures that most people are familiar with. Customer measures include factors such as market share, customer retention, customer satisfaction, customer profitability, and even measuring things such as the customer value proposition, your image, and your reputation. Internal business-process measures can include quality and other operational measures, innovation, and post-sale service. Kaplan and Norton group factors such as employee satisfaction, retention and productivity with IT systems and capabilities, and motivation and empowerment under learning and growth.
These four types of measures are Kaplan and Norton’s initial template, and are not intended as a hard and fast rule. You have to decide what types of measures you need to use. In particular, the last factor, ‘learning and growth’ is one that can be difficult, in practice to understand and use. Many organizations, in using a balanced scorecard, separate the human aspects from IT.
financial measures
customer measures
people measures
business process measures
infrastructure
Infrastructure can include actual physical infrastructure, IT, and other resources. People measures include factors such as employee satisfaction, learning and productivity. It also includes leadership measures. There is a great deal of talk about leadership, but if you don’t measure it (with 360-degree surveys) and hold managers accountable, it usually won’t improve. In developing the StressCosts Formula™, I integrated research to show that leadership style is the root cause of workplace stress and lost productivity. However, if you don’t measure it, hold managers accountable, and support them in improving, productivity won’t improve. This is the essence of the Balanced Scorecard approach – to measure the leading indicators so you can change what is going to happen, not just look in the mirror at what has happened.
For government and associations the different types of measures will of course change as there are different priorities. However, the essence of the Balanced Scorecard approach is that you use a balanced set of lagging and leading indicators to measure performance.
creating a strategy map
Once you have your strategic plan developed, a strategy map is a simple and powerful way to lay it out and communicate it to others. A strategy map shows how your organization creates value for each key stakeholder by showing clear cause-and-effect relationships between strategic objectives. It takes what can be a complex and hard-to-understand strategic plan and shows everyone in the organization how they contribute to the success of the organization as a whole.
To develop a strategy map, first identify the 4-5 different perspectives that are most relevant for your organization. As mentioned in the previous article, Kaplan and Norton’s original four perspectives were financial, customer, internal and learning and growth, and these feed into the strategy map.
From these perspectives you need to identify which perspective is dominant. A for-profit organization, for example, will likely have the financial perspective as the topmost element of its strategy map, with the other elements feeding into it, because its ultimate purpose is to deliver value to its shareholders. That’s the bottom line – both literally and figuratively.
A professional organization, in contrast, would likely have a different category called ‘member perspective’ at the top of the strategy map hierarchy, because it exists to create value for its members. There would certainly be a financial perspective, but this is not the end-purpose of an association. A government body also would likely have the value it provides to its citizens or constituents as the most important area of focus, with other factors such as financial, internal and learning and growth elements feeding into that ultimate measure of value.
Once you have identified the perspectives that you will be addressing, you then look at your strategic initiatives and categorized them according to these perspectives. For example, a new plant or a new computer system could fall under ‘infrastructure’ or ‘learning and growth’, depending on the model you used. Leadership development and wellness programs may go into ‘people’ or ‘learning and growth’, and growing revenues or increasing profitability would fall under ‘financial’.
southwest airlines
Southwest Airlines is the only airline to be consistently profitable for two and a half decades. If we look at a simplified model of their strategy as an example, their shareholder value comes from maximizing profits and RONA (Return on Net Assets). This, in turn comes from growing revenues and using the smallest number of planes possible. All of these fall into the financial arena.
In order to grow revenues, Southwest has to attract and retain more customers. This comes from their positioning as the low-cost, no-frills provider and from being consistently on-time. All of these would fall into the ‘customer’ perspective.
Minimizing the number of planes comes from Southwest’s legendary turnaround time, where they unload a plane, fuel and equip it and reload it safely and quickly. Quicker turnaround means you need fewer planes to fly the same number of routes. Turnaround time, which relates to Southwest’s internal processes, also contributes to its on-time service and low prices.
In order to provide the quick turnaround, Southwest, which is highly unionized, has to have the full buy-in of its employees, particularly the ground crew. They did this by encouraging employee stock purchases. In that way, as the ground crew worked more efficiently, Southwest was able to turn their planes around more quickly, keep prices low, provide on-time service, and attract and retain more customers. Bottom line – profits and RONA go up, which increases shareholder value. Since the ground crewmembers are mostly shareholders, they won. Southwest aligned goals, as explained in an earlier article.
These strategies can be mapped visually, as shown below:
Once you’ve placed all your strategies onto the map, you connect the related strategies. For example, as outlined above, the revenue growth contributes to profits and RONA, so you can draw a line from revenue growth to profits and RONA. Ground Crew Commitment is essential for the fast turnaround, so a line is dawn there, and so on, as illustrated below.
This one diagram, very clearly, shows how each aspect of the organization contributes to the success of the whole. What took half a page of text to describe at the beginning of this section on Southwest is shown in the same space in a way that allows everyone to understand it clearly. It also identifies the critical paths and critical drivers, and shows that the foundation of sustainable success is not in the financial and marketing strategies, but rather in learning and growth, which encompasses human capital, information capital, and organization capital.
building your balanced scorecard
Once you have your strategy map, you can then identify which areas you want and need to measure, and these measures build your balanced scorecard. Some of these measures, like financial measures, are lagging measures, showing what’s already happened. Other measures, such as ground crew commitment and fast turnaround are leading indicators, foreshadowing future performance (customer, financial, etc.).
You don’t want to measure everything. Even if that was possible, you’d need to invest far more resources than was worthwhile. You need to identify what needs to be measured, how, and what would be an appropriate measure.
Southwest, for example, measures turnaround time by measuring on-ground time and on-time departures. It measures ground crew commitment by the percentage of the ground crew that own company stock.
At first, this may take some experimentation. You may need to measure a number of things and then, over a year or two, decide if they are useful and valid measures, or not. This is not a quick fix. It can take time to develop a valid and reliable balanced scorecard.
Once you have reliable measures in your balanced scorecard, you can set specific targets, and then launch initiatives to attain these targets. This is often where year-to-year operational plans are developed.
creating a balanced scorecard
Once you’ve developed your strategy, mapped it, and built your balanced scorecard, you need to make it relevant to each part of your organization.
You do need to communicate your strategy to the overall organization so they understand where you’re going and why. Your strategy map can be a powerful tool for this because it succinctly lays out your strategies and shows how they contribute to your ultimate objectives.
However, not all strategies will be relevant or controllable by all areas in the organization, so you can’t hold everyone in the organization accountable for your entire balanced scorecard. You can only hold them accountable for those areas that they can influence or control. The measures for different areas or departments in your organization don’t have to be identical, just aligned, with each other and with the corporate scorecard.
Unfortunately, in most organizations departmental scorecards are at odds with the corporate strategy. Shareholders in private sector firms hold them accountable for short term gains and dividends, which can impair long-term financial viability. In the public sector, which is held accountable for fiscal responsibility, each department is punished if they are fiscally responsible. If they don’t spend all the money in their budget by year end, they lose it the next year, which encourages waste. Public servants don’t want to do it, but they are punished if they don’t and so the system continues ad infinitum.
You have to make sure that each part of your organization has a scorecard that includes both lagging and leading indicators – ones that show what has happened and that predict future results, respectively.
For each department or sub-unit in your organization, you need to identify which of your strategies are influenced by or controlled by that particular group. You can break down their activities (because at its most basic a strategy is an activity or a series of activities) and link them to the overall corporate strategies. Then you can identify which ones should be or need to be measured.
Let’s look, for example, at the piece of the strategy map for Southwest Airlines that we discussed .
If you are looking at the ground crew division, there’s not much point in holding the manager of these services directly responsible for the RONA or for low prices. However, as was discussed in part 2 of this series, Southwest does measure lagging indicators such as on-ground time and on-time departures, and leading indicators such as the percentage of the ground crew that own company stock. These are the things that they control, and by keeping these in line, this part of the organization can impact the profits and RONA of the organization.
In addition to the activities and strategies directly impacted by a particular department or division, there may be more global measures that can be impacted at all levels. For example, some leading metrics that would be relevant across any organization include leadership, corporate culture and StressCosts. These are directly under the control of the leader of any division (70% of the culture is shaped by the leadership), and they predict future performance. Such metrics can be applied to any and all leaders across any organization.
Once all the various parts of the organization have their own balanced scorecard, these measures need to be harmonized to ensure they are all in alignment with each other as well as the overall corporate strategy (you don’t want two parts of an organization at odds).
Then each part of the organization needs to be held accountable for keeping these measures on track. You can build a ‘dashboard’ that shows any department (or individual) those measures that it/he/she is responsible for. Just like a driver of a car has a dashboard to help drive the car (as opposed to driving with the rear-view mirror only), this dashboard helps the department or person keep on track.
In this way, the overall corporate strategy and scorecard becomes relevant to the each
From India, Pune
101Hope this article helps you.
Cheerio
Rajat
Why the balanced scorecard
Financial numbers, which were the scorecard of success for the industrial age, are woefully inadequate to measure the health and viability of organizations in the information age.
Financials measure what has already happened – the past. That worked fine in the industrial age, when things didn’t change very quickly. Today, with the accelerating pace of change of the information age, running a company solely on financial data is as foolish as driving down the highway at top speed using the rear-view mirror.
There have been many changes in organizations over the past few decades. Functional silo management of departments such as sales, production, finance and so on is grudgingly giving way to process-based understanding of businesses that is unearthing long-hidden cross-functional dependencies and inefficiencies. Total quality management (TQM) has driven this, showing that organizational process flows weave through the different silos. TQM also started to shift the balance of power, allowing people at the front line to identify ways to improve the business, not just executives.
In the old industrial age, it was believed that efficiencies came from developing large batches – the economic order quantity (EOQ) suggested an efficiency gained from manufacturing many thousands or millions of identical widgets before re-tooling the machinery (Henry Ford epitomized this when he said that ‘you can have any colour you want, as long as it’s black’). Today, with market segmentation and niche marketing, companies and governments that produce both products and services are moving to an economic order quantity of one. Customized products and services for every customer – something that was considered impossible a few years ago. Add to this the fact that economies of scale is, for the most part, an accounting illusion that rarely works in practice, as detailed in a previous article.
In addition to adapting to fast-changing customer niches, the pace of change overall is accelerating. Product life-cycles are getting shorter and shorter. Companies like Sony have four teams working to create new generations of products before the latest one has been released – they’re working to make their own products obsolete before they’ve hit the shelves.
At the turn of the last century (1900), the average worker in North America only had a few years of grade school education. It was believed that they couldn’t make decisions on their own, and so bureaucracies were changed to eliminate risk and create uniformity. Today workers have on average at least a couple of years of post-secondary education, and the pace of change is accelerating every day. Success comes from taking measured risks, not from eliminating risks, and bureaucracy simply hampers competitiveness.
In this day and age measuring success on financial measures simply doesn’t work, because those financial measures relate to a world that no longer exists. Today, intangible assets such as quality, motivation, and customer loyalty are often more critical than physical assets. And yet, traditional financial accounting only considers physical assets, for the most part. Already, Ernst & Young has shown that as much as 40% of professional investors’ valuations of companies are based on non-financial factors.
If you hold a manager solely accountable for financial measures, you’re probably going to hurt the company (or the government department) in the long run. Part of the reason is that the focus is so short-term – on quarterly dividends or annual budgets. In order to meet these constraints, someone may lay off people or cut research or cut advertising, all of which impair the long-term success of the company. For example, research has been shown that companies that cut advertising expenses during a recession generally had a difficult recovery – or didn’t recover at all – from the recession, while those companies that maintained those expenditures did recover.
Lagging indicators that measure the past, like financial measures, are important – you need to measure what you have done. However, you also need leading indicators, which predict future performance. You need them all.
And that’s where the Balanced Scorecard comes in. Kaplan and Norton, who introduced the Balanced Scorecard concept, set out four basic types of measures that you need in a Balanced Scorecard approach:
financial measures
customer measures
internal business process measures
learning and growth measures
The financial measures are the traditional measures that most people are familiar with. Customer measures include factors such as market share, customer retention, customer satisfaction, customer profitability, and even measuring things such as the customer value proposition, your image, and your reputation. Internal business-process measures can include quality and other operational measures, innovation, and post-sale service. Kaplan and Norton group factors such as employee satisfaction, retention and productivity with IT systems and capabilities, and motivation and empowerment under learning and growth.
These four types of measures are Kaplan and Norton’s initial template, and are not intended as a hard and fast rule. You have to decide what types of measures you need to use. In particular, the last factor, ‘learning and growth’ is one that can be difficult, in practice to understand and use. Many organizations, in using a balanced scorecard, separate the human aspects from IT.
financial measures
customer measures
people measures
business process measures
infrastructure
Infrastructure can include actual physical infrastructure, IT, and other resources. People measures include factors such as employee satisfaction, learning and productivity. It also includes leadership measures. There is a great deal of talk about leadership, but if you don’t measure it (with 360-degree surveys) and hold managers accountable, it usually won’t improve. In developing the StressCosts Formula™, I integrated research to show that leadership style is the root cause of workplace stress and lost productivity. However, if you don’t measure it, hold managers accountable, and support them in improving, productivity won’t improve. This is the essence of the Balanced Scorecard approach – to measure the leading indicators so you can change what is going to happen, not just look in the mirror at what has happened.
For government and associations the different types of measures will of course change as there are different priorities. However, the essence of the Balanced Scorecard approach is that you use a balanced set of lagging and leading indicators to measure performance.
creating a strategy map
Once you have your strategic plan developed, a strategy map is a simple and powerful way to lay it out and communicate it to others. A strategy map shows how your organization creates value for each key stakeholder by showing clear cause-and-effect relationships between strategic objectives. It takes what can be a complex and hard-to-understand strategic plan and shows everyone in the organization how they contribute to the success of the organization as a whole.
To develop a strategy map, first identify the 4-5 different perspectives that are most relevant for your organization. As mentioned in the previous article, Kaplan and Norton’s original four perspectives were financial, customer, internal and learning and growth, and these feed into the strategy map.
From these perspectives you need to identify which perspective is dominant. A for-profit organization, for example, will likely have the financial perspective as the topmost element of its strategy map, with the other elements feeding into it, because its ultimate purpose is to deliver value to its shareholders. That’s the bottom line – both literally and figuratively.
A professional organization, in contrast, would likely have a different category called ‘member perspective’ at the top of the strategy map hierarchy, because it exists to create value for its members. There would certainly be a financial perspective, but this is not the end-purpose of an association. A government body also would likely have the value it provides to its citizens or constituents as the most important area of focus, with other factors such as financial, internal and learning and growth elements feeding into that ultimate measure of value.
Once you have identified the perspectives that you will be addressing, you then look at your strategic initiatives and categorized them according to these perspectives. For example, a new plant or a new computer system could fall under ‘infrastructure’ or ‘learning and growth’, depending on the model you used. Leadership development and wellness programs may go into ‘people’ or ‘learning and growth’, and growing revenues or increasing profitability would fall under ‘financial’.
southwest airlines
Southwest Airlines is the only airline to be consistently profitable for two and a half decades. If we look at a simplified model of their strategy as an example, their shareholder value comes from maximizing profits and RONA (Return on Net Assets). This, in turn comes from growing revenues and using the smallest number of planes possible. All of these fall into the financial arena.
In order to grow revenues, Southwest has to attract and retain more customers. This comes from their positioning as the low-cost, no-frills provider and from being consistently on-time. All of these would fall into the ‘customer’ perspective.
Minimizing the number of planes comes from Southwest’s legendary turnaround time, where they unload a plane, fuel and equip it and reload it safely and quickly. Quicker turnaround means you need fewer planes to fly the same number of routes. Turnaround time, which relates to Southwest’s internal processes, also contributes to its on-time service and low prices.
In order to provide the quick turnaround, Southwest, which is highly unionized, has to have the full buy-in of its employees, particularly the ground crew. They did this by encouraging employee stock purchases. In that way, as the ground crew worked more efficiently, Southwest was able to turn their planes around more quickly, keep prices low, provide on-time service, and attract and retain more customers. Bottom line – profits and RONA go up, which increases shareholder value. Since the ground crewmembers are mostly shareholders, they won. Southwest aligned goals, as explained in an earlier article.
These strategies can be mapped visually, as shown below:
Once you’ve placed all your strategies onto the map, you connect the related strategies. For example, as outlined above, the revenue growth contributes to profits and RONA, so you can draw a line from revenue growth to profits and RONA. Ground Crew Commitment is essential for the fast turnaround, so a line is dawn there, and so on, as illustrated below.
This one diagram, very clearly, shows how each aspect of the organization contributes to the success of the whole. What took half a page of text to describe at the beginning of this section on Southwest is shown in the same space in a way that allows everyone to understand it clearly. It also identifies the critical paths and critical drivers, and shows that the foundation of sustainable success is not in the financial and marketing strategies, but rather in learning and growth, which encompasses human capital, information capital, and organization capital.
building your balanced scorecard
Once you have your strategy map, you can then identify which areas you want and need to measure, and these measures build your balanced scorecard. Some of these measures, like financial measures, are lagging measures, showing what’s already happened. Other measures, such as ground crew commitment and fast turnaround are leading indicators, foreshadowing future performance (customer, financial, etc.).
You don’t want to measure everything. Even if that was possible, you’d need to invest far more resources than was worthwhile. You need to identify what needs to be measured, how, and what would be an appropriate measure.
Southwest, for example, measures turnaround time by measuring on-ground time and on-time departures. It measures ground crew commitment by the percentage of the ground crew that own company stock.
At first, this may take some experimentation. You may need to measure a number of things and then, over a year or two, decide if they are useful and valid measures, or not. This is not a quick fix. It can take time to develop a valid and reliable balanced scorecard.
Once you have reliable measures in your balanced scorecard, you can set specific targets, and then launch initiatives to attain these targets. This is often where year-to-year operational plans are developed.
creating a balanced scorecard
Once you’ve developed your strategy, mapped it, and built your balanced scorecard, you need to make it relevant to each part of your organization.
You do need to communicate your strategy to the overall organization so they understand where you’re going and why. Your strategy map can be a powerful tool for this because it succinctly lays out your strategies and shows how they contribute to your ultimate objectives.
However, not all strategies will be relevant or controllable by all areas in the organization, so you can’t hold everyone in the organization accountable for your entire balanced scorecard. You can only hold them accountable for those areas that they can influence or control. The measures for different areas or departments in your organization don’t have to be identical, just aligned, with each other and with the corporate scorecard.
Unfortunately, in most organizations departmental scorecards are at odds with the corporate strategy. Shareholders in private sector firms hold them accountable for short term gains and dividends, which can impair long-term financial viability. In the public sector, which is held accountable for fiscal responsibility, each department is punished if they are fiscally responsible. If they don’t spend all the money in their budget by year end, they lose it the next year, which encourages waste. Public servants don’t want to do it, but they are punished if they don’t and so the system continues ad infinitum.
You have to make sure that each part of your organization has a scorecard that includes both lagging and leading indicators – ones that show what has happened and that predict future results, respectively.
For each department or sub-unit in your organization, you need to identify which of your strategies are influenced by or controlled by that particular group. You can break down their activities (because at its most basic a strategy is an activity or a series of activities) and link them to the overall corporate strategies. Then you can identify which ones should be or need to be measured.
Let’s look, for example, at the piece of the strategy map for Southwest Airlines that we discussed .
If you are looking at the ground crew division, there’s not much point in holding the manager of these services directly responsible for the RONA or for low prices. However, as was discussed in part 2 of this series, Southwest does measure lagging indicators such as on-ground time and on-time departures, and leading indicators such as the percentage of the ground crew that own company stock. These are the things that they control, and by keeping these in line, this part of the organization can impact the profits and RONA of the organization.
In addition to the activities and strategies directly impacted by a particular department or division, there may be more global measures that can be impacted at all levels. For example, some leading metrics that would be relevant across any organization include leadership, corporate culture and StressCosts. These are directly under the control of the leader of any division (70% of the culture is shaped by the leadership), and they predict future performance. Such metrics can be applied to any and all leaders across any organization.
Once all the various parts of the organization have their own balanced scorecard, these measures need to be harmonized to ensure they are all in alignment with each other as well as the overall corporate strategy (you don’t want two parts of an organization at odds).
Then each part of the organization needs to be held accountable for keeping these measures on track. You can build a ‘dashboard’ that shows any department (or individual) those measures that it/he/she is responsible for. Just like a driver of a car has a dashboard to help drive the car (as opposed to driving with the rear-view mirror only), this dashboard helps the department or person keep on track.
In this way, the overall corporate strategy and scorecard becomes relevant to the each
From India, Pune
Hi Rajat
The article is very interesting. I also have the article you had sent earlier on Balance Scorecard. But I still feel I need some guidance on how does one actually implement this and maintain it meticulously.
Can u suggest some training or course etc where I could probably learn the implementation and clarify doubts on the spot? That way I can actually implement this faster and effectively because we already have metrics calculated for different deptts. How does one synchronize them together and link them to Six Sigma.
Cheers
Pooja
From India, Delhi
The article is very interesting. I also have the article you had sent earlier on Balance Scorecard. But I still feel I need some guidance on how does one actually implement this and maintain it meticulously.
Can u suggest some training or course etc where I could probably learn the implementation and clarify doubts on the spot? That way I can actually implement this faster and effectively because we already have metrics calculated for different deptts. How does one synchronize them together and link them to Six Sigma.
Cheers
Pooja
From India, Delhi
Hi Ashit
The balanced scorecard evaluates performance in 4 dimensions:-
1. Financial
2. Customer Satisfaction
3. Internal operational efficiency
4. Learning & innovation
If you want any more descriptions or links related to this topic, send a mail.
Lets keep up the good work.
Reena
From India, Mumbai
The balanced scorecard evaluates performance in 4 dimensions:-
1. Financial
2. Customer Satisfaction
3. Internal operational efficiency
4. Learning & innovation
If you want any more descriptions or links related to this topic, send a mail.
Lets keep up the good work.
Reena
From India, Mumbai
u can also go through the book " mapping stretagic maps" by robert kaplann. u will get lots of idea from this book.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Hi Reena & Pooja
Its good to see that so many people are interested in balance score card....
Rajat has already given all than could be given on the board...
For further understanding try the link below
They the appropriate guidelines for implementing the Balance Score Card...
By the way it is not so easy to implement... So Best of Luck to you both
Ajmal Mirza
From India, Ahmadabad
Its good to see that so many people are interested in balance score card....
Rajat has already given all than could be given on the board...
For further understanding try the link below
They the appropriate guidelines for implementing the Balance Score Card...
By the way it is not so easy to implement... So Best of Luck to you both
Ajmal Mirza
From India, Ahmadabad
hi
thanks a ton for the help. it is indeed very useful. Going through it made me realise the complexity of the entire process - and to treat it as a separate project altogether.
I will try to implement this as smoothly as possible. Hope I can get back to you incase further practical help on issues etc is required.
Cheers
Pooja
From India, Delhi
thanks a ton for the help. it is indeed very useful. Going through it made me realise the complexity of the entire process - and to treat it as a separate project altogether.
I will try to implement this as smoothly as possible. Hope I can get back to you incase further practical help on issues etc is required.
Cheers
Pooja
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Balanced Score Card.pdf
Principles of BALANCED SCORE CARD (BSC)_MH.pptx