Improve Your Performance News

Strategy Management Group

Improve Your Performance “News”
Introduction
My parents still read the newspaper every day. They seem suspicious of
the fact that I haven’t continued this daily ritual, and wonder aloud about
the unfortunate decline in newspaper sales in the headlines these days.
While they don’t say so, they seem to think that because I don’t read the
Web 2.0 and
newspaper, I must be shamefully unaware of critical current events. I
have explained to them that, in addition to the avalanche of information
the Automated
coming from various levels of television news, NPR, etc., I am
constantly updated on current events from various online sources. My
Balanced
side of the debate usually ends at the same place that always ends this
21st century generational debate: the news that they are reading with
Scorecard
their coffee in the morning happened yesterday!

A newspaper is the prototypical 20th century communications tool and By David Wilsey
demonstrates two of the many fundamental differences between the old Vice President of Technology, the
versus new styles of information flow: first, the filtering process and Balanced Scorecard Institute
second, the lag of information. For newspapers, filtering is the job of
writers and editors – i.e. an authority. Those authorities place stories that
they think are most important on the front page and bury stories that
they feel are less important on page 15 in section B, under a department store advertisement. If you have a particular
interest in, say, women’s college basketball, you have no choice but to sort through the men’s college basketball section, the
professional basketball section, preseason baseball box scores and other content you don’t care about before getting to
your section, if it appears at all.

The filter for online news sources is mostly reader-based. News or information might be gathered or organized by news
authorities, but that is simply a vehicle for users to navigate quickly to the information that they want. Tools like Google
News automatically filter stories that are read the most to the top and will place competing versions of the story next to each
other under the same heading, so the reader can quickly see various perspectives on the story. Search engines make even
the most obscure topics only a few clicks away.

The time lag between when the news occurs and when it is available to readers is the other major difference. On the
internet, the story appears almost immediately after the event happens. Almost as importantly, the original news story is
only the first step in the process, as readers write their own comments, blogs, twitters, etc. about the news. Ultimately, this
process is evolving from one where an authority dictates and a reader receives long after the fact, to one of continual
community dialog.

Web 2.0
Using technology in this continual dialog fashion is often referred to as Web 2.0, which Wikipedia defines as a “perceived
second generation of web development and design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing,
interoperability, and collaboration… which has led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted
services, and applications; such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.” Wikipedia

975 Walnut Street, Suite 360 . Cary, North Carolina 27511 USA . Phone: 919.460.8180 Fax: 919.460.0867 . www.balancedscorecard.org

Improve Your Performance News continued Page 2 of 5

is, in and of itself, the prototypical Web 2.0 tool: an update of the 20th century
encyclopedia. In this analogy, web 1.0 moved information from the written
encyclopedia to the internet. This made the information more easily available,
but was just as static, potentially outdated and authority filtered. Wikipedia
takes the Web 1.0 model and evolves it one step further, with content being
created and updated by the community of users. The good news here is that no
trend is too new to appear in Wikipedia. The bad news is that the entry might
have been written by a corporate marketer trying to sell a product or someone
that simply doesn’t have the facts straight. This idea makes my parents nervous
– how can I trust that this is accurate if Joe Nobody wrote it? An editor might
say the same thing about my Web 2.0 definition quote above. While this is one The News process is
of the legitimate problems with Web 2.0 and a topic of much debate, those that
have grown accustomed to using this technology have already come to the evolving from one where
realization that the information written by genuine authorities can be just as
subjective and that incorporating a natural skepticism, or to put it less cynically,
an authority dictates to
critical thinking skills, into your regular reading habits is never a bad thing. And one of continuing
even critics of the Web 2.0 movement tend to begrudgingly admit that the
network effect created by a well designed community-contribution framework dialog.
tends to result in a more comprehensive product that no single authority could
possibly create because of limited point of view and personal biases.

Balanced Scorecard Automation
So what does all of this have to do with balanced scorecard automation? The answer is that business intelligence and
performance management software tools, the vehicles through which balanced scorecards are implemented in many
organizations, are nothing if not “news” sharing vehicles. The news in this case just happens to answer key questions
about your organization, such as those regarding how the organization is performing against strategic priorities and/or
what evidence could leaders and managers use to make better decisions.

In the 20th century, business data was gathered, reported and analyzed by teams of analysts and financial “bean counters”:
i.e. authorities. Most of us remember, or have heard stories about, how everyone in an organization received a 150-page
report from the finance department every Monday morning. Of course, no one had time to read that, and so a second
summary report was produced, which was then subsequently ignored. The data was ignored not only because it was
overwhelming, but because it was old: the financial analysts were often the last ones to know about certain problems. Until
a problem started influencing financial results, it didn’t show up in their reports.

This problem was compounded by the fact that before the balanced scorecard, most organizations relied solely on lagging
financial data to report on their progress towards strategic goals. The balanced scorecard added strategic non-financial
performance measures to traditional financial measures to give managers and executives a more “balanced” view of
organizational performance. Managers needed to know not just how the organization did last quarter financially, but also
how they might do in the future based on predictive leading indicators. In other words, I don’t want to simply tell my boss a
story about how we underperformed financially. I want to be able to make an argument that next quarter we will improve,
and base that argument on evidence based on leading indicators. For example, if our costs last quarter were too high, I might
argue that next quarter those costs will be lower because our cycle time metrics today are improving thanks to our Lean Six
Sigma initiatives.

Adding leading indicators to the mix was only the first step in the balanced scorecard revolution. The true power of the
balanced scorecard today comes from communicating strategic intent, connecting the dots between strategy and the work
people do on a day-to-day basis, and using this improved communication and alignment as a comprehensive vehicle for
strategic planning, strategy execution, and overall organizational management. This, more holistic, approach means that a
balanced scorecard isn’t just a dashboard displaying all of the organization’s operational measurements, but is also a fully
integrated strategic planning and management system.



The best automation tools simply make the communication,
connection and understanding enabled by a good balanced
scorecard system a practical reality. And as in the news world, the
best way to improve understanding is not through more static
reporting from authorities to staff, but through interactive dialog.

This community dialog is enabled by automation tools that
provide an intuitive interface that sorts data so that users see a
customized view of what he or she needs to see and
communicates performance for employees and leadership alike.
If I am an executive for an organization, it is a waste of my time to
login to my system and be overwhelmed with operation data. I
expect to see summary data that reflects the results of our
organizational performance relative to our strategy. If I need The best way to improve
more detail, I should be able to immediately drill down into that
data. Similarly, if I am a training officer, it is not much help to only understanding is not through more
see the executive’s summary report. I need a practical system to
track the success of my training efforts. I also need to see in an static reporting from authorities to
easy, graphical way how my work connects to that overall staff, but through interactive dialog.
corporate strategy by navigating my way up our organization’s
strategy map.

Of course, life is always more complicated than any set of metrics, no matter how well designed. For that reason, the tool needs
to be more than just a vehicle for static reporting. The tool needs to enable Web 2.0-type communication around the
organization’s strategy and the related objectives, metrics, and initiatives. Imagine a dialog alongside a procurement cost metric
that has recently trended “red”, meaning the organization is now underperforming. As the owner of the metric, I comment
about my understanding of the procurement aspect of the trend and how we recently had a process breakdown that might have
contributed to the rising number. Someone from finance notes that an unexpected rise in fuel costs might have contributed to
higher underlying prices for several of our metrics. A process improvement expert following the dialog suggests a new Lean
Six Sigma project to fix the broken process. The operations leadership team, which had been contemplating layoffs due to
rising costs, reads and discusses the ramifications of these posts on their difficult decision. And the strategic planning team
plans a meeting to discuss whether or not cost cutting is the ideal business strategy if external economic conditions continue to
disrupt their plans.

The example above is an exaggeration of the meaning that can be derived from one metric, of course, but it illustrates the larger
point. Decision making is strongest not when it is made based on static information given to you by an ultimate authority, but
rather when it is based on the improved understanding you can build on the constantly evolving dialog between various,
imperfect points of view. It also displays how the right Web 2.0-inspired
performance management or business intelligence tool can enable that
understanding.

So the answer must be to totally remove authority from your balanced scorecard
automation picture, right? Well, not so fast. It is not a coincidence that some Web
2.0 endeavors are wildly successful and many others fall by the wayside. In the Web
2.0 world, there is one area in which the effective insertion of authority is essential,
and that is in the design of the basic framework and the navigation system (i.e. the
“rules”). Organizations that have haphazardly implemented a web portal or other
internal Intranet type knowledge-sharing tool (such as Microsoft SharePoint®)
know what I mean. These portal tools, designed to allow people, teams and Successful Web 2.0
expertise to connect and collaborate, have great potential for enabling the kind of endeavors have logical
communications I am encouraging. Unfortunately, what often happens is that
there is no management of the way the product is implemented or used. If my idea and consistent rules



of file sharing, organization and navigation is different than a colleague, communication can quickly break down. Say my
area of the site has a file naming and cataloging system that rivals the Library of Congress, while my colleague has a single
folder with 2,322 files of varying topics and types in it. A third employee searching for information on our pages will find it
quite confusing and difficult, because there is no common framework. Multiply that by 300 employees and you quickly
reach the point in which a mention of our web portal elicits groans from employees.

Successful Web 2.0 endeavors have logical and consistent rules. The photos on my Facebook page are in the same place that
everyone’s photos are. The images that I choose to post might be distinctively different than those someone else chooses to
post, but no one will ever be confused by the location of my postings, or my use of the framework. Every page in Facebook
is both exactly the same (the basic underlying structure) and totally unique (the content posted).

So what does intuitive navigation look like in the balanced scorecard world? The purpose of the balanced scorecard is to
focus attention on what matters most: the key strategic outcomes that we as an organization are trying to achieve. Not only
that, but there must be a logic to the underlying framework that connects all of the things we do on a day-to-day basis with
those outcomes. We recommend using a strategically top-down approach to organizing not only the thought process used
to develop your scorecard, but the way you display your data. A common mistake that we see many organizations make is the
creation of a strategic plan that revolves around initiatives and is then managed like a to-do list. There is a big difference
between completing a task and achieving a strategic objective. You can successfully place advertising billboards up on time
and under budget, but those metrics are only valuable in a project management sense. They are almost meaningless in a
strategic sense, because what you really want to know is the effectiveness of your overall strategy, of which one tactic was to
put up billboards. Maybe the overall strategic objective was to improve communications of a key public service message or
to improve brand image. The key focus of your strategic planning, and thus the heart of the navigation system, should be
around these higher level strategic objectives.

Like the Facebook example above, the consistency of the underlying structure is also essential to good balanced scorecard
automation. The key here is consistent use and visualization of the balanced scorecard framework terminology. I have seen
organizations as different as an entertainment company, a non-profit, a government agency and a fortune 500 corporation
all use the same framework effectively. The use of the framework in each case was exactly the same, i.e. the objectives for all
are high level outcomes and the measurements are all countable indicators of strategic success. The content, i.e. what the
organization defined and articulated as its strategic plan, was different.

One test of this consistency is the way employees use the terminology. If in describing our “really important stuff ”,
different people in the organization are using the phrases strategic objective, strategic result, strategic goal, performance target, wildly
important goal and/or strategic imperative to mean roughly the same thing, confusion will abound. Similarly, if I use the phrase
strategic objective to describe the item Cure World Hunger (strategically higher than
even the vision level) and another person uses the same phrase to describe his
objective of produce 100 sandwiches per day (more of a performance target), a
different type of communication breakdown will occur. Only through training
and appropriate implementation guidance from an authority, usually
spearheaded by the scorecard champion or strategy management office, can
these differences be ironed out.

Designing the scorecard with the right focus on strategy and then getting
everyone using terminology in the same manner are only the first steps. Some
organizations work very hard to create a strategically focused management
system, only to have that focus be fractured when the software implementation If in describing our really
begins. How does that happen? Sometimes strategic planning teams determine important stuff different
that no one metric tells a complete story of performance, and so they create an
index of several measures. The software vendors love to show off the fact that people are using different
they can slice and dice the data in as many different ways as possible, and will phrases, confusion will
often quickly toggle from the strategic view of the data to various organizational
views of the data. So at the click of a button, employees can be viewing data that abound.
shows raw counts sorted by organizational unit. So instead of looking at a ratio



of scrap per $ of revenue, for example, the organization is now
looking at total scrap. If production volume doubles, raw
scrap numbers will inevitably go up, but that doesn’t
necessarily mean that performance has gotten worse, and so
the organization might be making incorrect assumptions.

Conclusion
So the effectiveness of your scorecard automation tool and, by
extension, your balanced scorecard itself, is ultimately
dependent on the same issues with which the newspaper world
struggles. In a world where people increasingly expect their
information to be delivered as an intuitively navigated dialog
built around a consistently designed and implemented
framework, a static report simply isn’t meaningful or current
enough to maintain anyone’s attention.

Employees love Twitter, can’t seem to close Facebook even
during work hours, and get immediate “breaking news” email
alerts. So on a given Monday morning at 10:00 am they are
aware of the fact that five minutes ago a vague acquaintance
from high school just ate corn flakes for breakfast and the
stock market crashed, but they have absolutely no idea how
their own organization is performing towards its strategic
goals. The reason is that either because of a badly designed
scorecard or poor software implementation, that employee is
still opening up their dashboard software each morning, coffee
in hand, only to find a static, lagging, authority-written news
report of what happened yesterday.

©2009 Balanced Scorecard Institute. All rights reserved. Reproduction
without written permission is strictly prohibited.

About the Author
David Wilsey is a Balanced Scorecard
Institute Senior Associate and Vice
President of Marketing and
Technology. He provides consulting,
facilitation, training, and research &
analysis services for client balanced
scorecard development projects. He has worked with Blue Man
Group, Constellation Energy, Northwest Fire District, Wake
County Community Services, Dalton Public Schools, SOCAN,
Fort Bragg Army Garrison, Veolia Water, Greenville Utilities
Commission, the US Department of Commerce and many
others. He teaches public workshops, works with clients on
automation solutions, manages the Institute website and is
spearheading the Institute's new E-learning programs. He can
be reached at: dwilsey@balancedscorecard.org. The Institute’s
Web site, www.balancedscorecard.org, is the number one
balanced scorecard site on the Internet, and contains a wealth of
information on balanced scorecard development and
implementation.


Improve Your Performance News

More Related Content

Improve Your Performance News