Balanced Scorecard
The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a strategic planning and management system. Organizations use BSCs to:
The name “balanced scorecard” comes from the idea of looking at strategic measures in addition to traditional financial measures to get a more “balanced” view of performance. The concept of balanced scorecard has evolved beyond the simple use of perspectives and it is now a holistic system for managing strategy. A key benefit of using a disciplined framework is that it gives organizations a way to “connect the dots” between the various components of strategic planning and management, meaning that there will be a visible connection between the projects and programs that people are working on, the measurements being used to track success (KPIs), the strategic objectives the organization is trying to accomplish, and the mission, vision, and strategy of the organization.
BSCs are used extensively in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide. More than half of major companies in the US, Europe, and Asia are using the BSC, with use growing in those areas as well as in the Middle East and Africa. A recent global study by Bain & Co listed balanced scorecard fifth on its top ten most widely used management tools around the world. BSC has also been selected by the editors of Harvard Business Review as one of the most influential business ideas of the past 75 years.
BSCs are used extensively in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide. More than half of major companies in the US, Europe, and Asia are using the BSC, with use growing in those areas as well as in the Middle East and Africa. A recent global study by Bain & Co listed balanced scorecard fifth on its top ten most widely used management tools around the world. BSC has also been selected by the editors of Harvard Business Review as one of the most influential business ideas of the past 75 years.
The BSC suggests that we examine an organization from four different perspectives to help develop objectives, measures (KPIs), targets, and initiatives relative to those views.
One of the signature features of the balanced scorecard is that it looks at organizational performance from various Perspectives. Perspectives are the performance dimensions, or lenses, that put strategy in context. It takes several perspectives—usually four—to understand an organization as a system made up of elements that work together, like the gears in a clock or fine watch. Together, these elements create value, leading to customer and stakeholder satisfaction and good financial performance.
Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton found in their initial work together that too many organizations were measuring their success only from a financial point of view and that a broader, more strategic set of dimensions was needed. The success of few strategies can be measured from only one point of view. The basic four perspectives enables the organization to use a strategy map to articulate to employees how value is created by the organization.
The four perspectives of a traditional balanced scorecard are Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning and Growth. In the Nine Steps to Success™, the original Balanced Scorecard “learning and growth” perspective has been changed to “organizational capacity”, to reflect the internal capacity building needed to improve internal processes. The four components included in the organizational capacity perspective are human capital, tools and technology, infrastructure, and governance. Learning and growth takes place throughout the whole organization and during the execution of strategy, not just in one perspective. The image below shows the value creation story through the perspectives for business / commercial sector organizations.
Civilian government, defense and not-for-profit organizations are mission driven. These organizations use different value-creation logic than business and industry (profit driven) organizations. In The Institute Way, mission-driven scorecard systems reflect the unique nature and value proposition of mission-driven organizations. Perspective nomenclature needs to reflect this difference. For example, governments are not in the business of making a profit, so a “financial” perspective can be a misleading way of identifying this perspective to stakeholders. “Financial stewardship” might be more appropriate, as stewardship connotes a message of wise use of (‘taxpayers’ or ‘funders’) money and fiduciary responsibility, rather than improved profitability and shareholder value. In military organizations, other government organizations and not-for-profits, terms like “resource effectiveness” or “budget effectiveness” are commonly used. For not-for-profits, financial stewardship imparts the concept of using resources cost-effectively, something donors and funders would no doubt like to see. The image below shows the high-level value-creation story through perspectives for mission-driven organizations.
Likewise, for the customer/stakeholder perspective in the Nine Steps Methodology (as detailed in The Institute Way), words like client, member, solider and citizen are used because they emotionally tie the management system to the people or groups served by the programs and services of these mission-oriented organizations. For business and industry scorecards, the word “customers” is traditionally used to describe this perspective.
In The Institute Way, the placement of perspectives on government and not-for-profit scorecards is differentiated. Financial should not be the top perspective for a mission-driven organization’s scorecard because financial stewardship is not the end of the value chain for that type of organization—stakeholder satisfaction is the end of the value chain. For these organizations, the value chain ends not with improved business financial results (although that’s a good thing!) but with satisfied members, citizens or other stakeholders. Putting the financial (stewardship) perspective in the second position from the top is more appropriate, as stakeholder satisfaction is derived in large part by the delivery of programs and services that are cost-effective and are judged necessary and sufficient. One client used a hybrid scorecard matrix putting the financial and customer perspectives on the top row to reinforce that both financial success and customer experience were equally important results. The Nine Steps to Success™ framework is very flexible to accommodate modifications like these and still keep scorecarding principles intact.
The perspective names can change to fit the culture of the organization, although the underlying focus typically does not. In other words, while a public sector organization might prefer the “Stewardship” label, the focus of the perspective should remain on financial performance. Choose labels that resonate with the organization’s strategy and clearly communicate internally and externally. For example, one organization might use “People and Tools” instead of “Organizational Capacity” (or “Learning and Growth”), and another might aptly describe this perspective as “People, Knowledge and Technology”.
A strategy map is a simple graphic that shows a logical, cause-and-effect connection between strategic objectives (shown as ovals on the map). It is one of the most powerful elements in the balanced scorecard methodology, as it is used to quickly communicate how value is created by the organization.
Strategy mapping can vastly improve any strategy communication effort. Most people are visual learners and so a picture of your strategy will be understood by many more employees than a written narrative. Plus the process of developing a strategy map forces the team to agree on what they are trying to accomplish in simple, easy-to-understand terms. With a well-designed strategy map, every employee can see how they contribute to the achievement of the organization’s objectives.
The example below demonstrates how a business might organize their strategic objectives across the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard. Arrows are used to illustrate the cause-and-effect relationship between the objectives. By following the path of the arrows, you can see how the objectives in the lower perspectives drive the success of the higher ones. These causal relationships are central to the idea of strategic planning and management with a balanced scorecard. If you Improve Knowledge and Skills and Improve Tools and Technology (in the Organizational Capacity perspective), you will more easily Increase Process Efficiency and Lower Cycle Time (in the Internal Process Perspective). If you do those things, you will more easily Lower Wait Time, and so on.
This example is a simple teaching example, but a real map will look the same. A typical strategy map will have four perspectives and between 12 and 18 strategic objectives. Like the example above, most for-profit companies put the financial perspective on top because their end goal is to make more money. For public sector organizations, however, finances are more of a means to an end. Since a government or nonprofit’s final goal is to provide the best services it can, it is common for them to switch the top perspectives so that Customer/Stakeholder is on top. Their funding and cost effectiveness (Financial Stewardship) allows them to drive mission-driven success.
Strategy Map development happens during Step Four of the Nine Steps to Success™. At this point, the organization should have completed a full strategy assessment and developed high level strategy elements like Mission, Vision and Themes/Goals. The organization’s business model will help them choose the right perspective names and order. The mapping process begins when the organization identifies continuous improvement objectives needed to achieve its vision and goals. We recommend objectives that are simple, easy to understand, and that imply continuous improvement. Objectives are identified for all four perspectives and then cause-effect arrows are drawn to indicate the flow of value creation.
We highly recommend that cross-functional teams develop all elements of strategy, especially the strategy map. Inclusion in the development process expands the set of viewpoints informing strategy formulation and encourages buy in by the team members that will be responsible for executing the strategy.
Cascading a balanced scorecard means to translate the corporate-wide scorecard (referred to as Tier 1) down to first business units, support units or departments (Tier 2) and then teams or individuals (Tier 3).
Cascading strategy focuses the entire organization on strategy and creating line-of-sight between the work people do and high level desired results. As the management system is cascaded down through the organization, objectives become more operational and tactical, as do the performance measures. Accountability follows the objectives and measures, as ownership is defined at each level. This alignment step is critical to becoming a strategy-focused organization.
The Balanced Scorecard was originally developed by Dr. Robert Kaplan of Harvard University and Dr. David Norton as a framework for measuring organizational performance using a more balanced set of performance measures. Traditionally companies used only short-term financial performance as the measure of success. The “balanced scorecard” added additional non-financial strategic measures to the mix in order to better focus on long-term success. The system has evolved over the years and is now considered a fully integrated strategic management system.
This new approach to strategic management was first detailed in a series of articles and books by Drs. Kaplan and Norton and built on work by Art Schneiderman at Analog Devices. Recognizing some of the weaknesses and vagueness of previous management approaches, the balanced scorecard approach provides a clear prescription as to what companies should measure in order to ‘balance’ the financial perspective.
Kaplan and Norton describe the innovation of the balanced scorecard as follows:
“The balanced scorecard retains traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the story of past events, an adequate story for industrial age companies for which investments in long-term capabilities and customer relationships were not critical for success. These financial measures are inadequate, however, for guiding and evaluating the journey that information age companies must make to create future value through investment in customers, suppliers, employees, processes, technology, and innovation.”
5800-09 Flamingo Villas, Ajman Media City, Ajman, UAE
Powered By: AHQ Soft | Copyright © 2023
Schedule a Demo of Spider Impact by Spider Strategies
There’s no better way to get to know Spider Impact by Spider Strategies than with a live demonstration of its capabilities. Submit the form below to schedule a private demo.
Take Spider Impact by Spider Strategies for a Test Drive
Simply submit the form to experience Spider Impact in a test environment. Don’t worry—we’ll provide the road map!