Balanced Scorecard Designer

As Balanced Scorecard is gaining popularity, there appear increasingly more issues and questions related to use and maintenance of this popular business performance measurement tool.  These days, we can see more publications in mass media devoted to Balanced Scorecard, problems associated with this system, most common mistakes, stories of failures and success.

Balanced Scorecard is evolving together with the business environment.  More and more companies occupied in various business and non business spheres choose to use Balanced Scorecard which helps companies reach strategic goals and measure performance.  As said above, Balanced Scorecard is being used by various businesses in various parts of the world.

It needs saying that Balanced Scorecard is becoming increasingly popular in government and nonprofit organizations.  If large companies have one major goal of making more profits, increasing value of the company and competitive advantage in the market, nongovernment organizations have limited funds, and so they need to make sure that the money is spent wisely.

The company strategy should be formulated in financial terms/indicators.  Of course, most businesses have financial goals, and this is normal.  But if the company owners and management do not have strategic vision it will be very difficult to reach these goals even using Balanced Scorecard system.  Companies that view their mission as obtaining a certain position in the market or in the society can make a very effective use of Balanced Scorecard.

You may ask “Why are so many companies interested in Balanced Scorecard?” It seems like there is the dozen (or even more) other alternative business management systems.  As a rule owners and managers of top companies want to use Balanced Scorecard with just one question: “How can I optimize performance of my company to increase its value?” To answer this question, experience of top companies needs to be analyzed.  Such companies as UPS, Mobil, AT&T Canada showed great growth largely due to successful implementation of strategy based management. That’s why managers often view Balanced Scorecard as a tool that can improve performance of the company.  However, one should be careful when analyzing successful experience of different companies, since every company is individual, and thus requires different measures, approaches, response actions, and strategic goals.  Do not forget that this is somebody else’s experience.

It is also important to realize when the company needs implementation of Balanced Scorecard.  There are 4 major signs indicating that the company requires Balanced Scorecard.

1. The company has both strategy and mission, but for some reason top management is not involved in strategic planning.  About 85% of managers spend less than an hour a week for strategic planning, or have a very vague idea of strategic management.
2. Company’s personnel does not understand strategic goals of the company and thus fails to participate in implementation of these goals.  Balanced Scorecard, when implemented properly, serves as a great learning tool for employees.  It is very important that every employee understands his contribution to implementation of strategic goals.  It is imperative that everything employees do is aimed at reaching strategic goals.  Discrepancies between operational and strategic management may have negative consequences to the company performance.
3. Use of Balanced Scorecard system is highly recommended for holding of companies with no common strategic goal.  If every company pursues own goals, or some companies may not even have any, overall performance of the holding may not be satisfactory.  BSC implementation solves the problem of communication between companies belonging to one holding through development of a comprehensive strategic management scheme.
4. There is no operational control on implementation of strategic goals.  Strategic management is a continuous process which includes setting of the goals, implementation of the goals, control and response actions.  If a company is unable to control implementation of the set goals it would be fair to think that it will never reach them.

Major mistakes in implementation on BSC

Of course, even the most successful companies faced problems when implementing Balanced Scorecard.  Moreover, these mistakes are typical and as a rule do not depend on the country of the company or the market it operates in.  They can be classified as follows:

1. Balanced Scorecard is implemented in the company that has no clear and comprehensive strategy.  A company with no strategy will never be able to make an effective use of Balanced Scorecard.
2. A company has a clear strategy but the Balanced Scorecard is implemented without clear budgeting, human resource management and compensation systems. About 60% of companies cannot combine Balanced Scorecard with budgeting systems.  If personnel is not properly motivated, for example with system of bonuses and rewards, Balanced Scorecard is unlikely to bring some positive results.
3. It often happens that the company implements Balanced Scorecard, but its personnel is not ready or doesn’t want to use BSC in the everyday routine work.  If a management doesn’t need Balanced Scorecard there is no reason to implement it in the first place.  As a rule, if the company management is reluctant to use Balanced Scorecard, implementation of the system fails even before the initial stage.

Balanced Scorecard: future prospects

It seems like Balanced Scorecard is not going to have tough competition in the nearest future. These days, there are many strategic development tools. However, it is only BSC that can combine strategic vision with everyday routine work of the company (operational level).

Of course, the system will further develop and improv to effectively use such modules as investment planning, budgeting, human resource management etc.

Does your company need BSC?

bsc_ideas Articles, Balanced Scorecard Theory balanced scorecard, bsc designer, key performance indicator, kpi evaluation, metrics, strategy map

eTraining: Test and update Balanced Scorecard

In the part of the training will explain how to test your Balanced Scorecard system. The duration of the training part: 58 min. Coaching part includes 1 exercise.

• Buy eTraining Now

In this part of the training we will discuss problems associated with testing current balanced scorecard and finding some problems inside, as well as regular update of your scorecard:

• Why we actually need to test and to update our Balanced Scorecard regularly;
• What are simple questions that you can ask your employees to test your Balanced Scorecard implementation quality;
• We summarize all main ideas about testing and updating the scorecard into the checklists;

Play Example: checking the number of financial indicators in your KPI.

In the coaching part of the training we discuss:

• What if Balanced Scorecard is used by top management only?
• What if your employees work only to improve the values of indicators and not to achieve business goals?
• What if you have too many indicators?
• What communication channels should exists in the company for Balanced Scorecard;
• How to check if the scorecard is actually linked to your strategic goals;
• How to test Balanced Scorecard cascading and strategy maps in your company;

admin Training and Coaching balanced scorecard, BSC, coaching, kpi, metrics, testing, Training and Coaching, updating

How can we design winning indicator or metric? Why designing Key Performance indicators in important?

• If you need to design Balanced Scorecard you need to learn how to create KPIs
• Indicators in your dashboard should represent and measure your business;
• Strategy maps that you create should include high-level indicators too;

So, the purpose of the coaching is to explain how to create winning indicators for Balanced Scorecard or for Strategic Map and so on.

• We train how to address business problems with indicators;
• Our coaching includes information on how to implement KPI into your business system;
• With Balanced Scorecard practical training and coaching you will learn how to test indicators that you already have;

Learn more about eTraining Practical Balanced Scorecard and KPI

admin Training and Coaching balanced scorecard, coaching, indicators, kpi, metrics, Training and Coaching

Strategic planning is vital for any business.  Recent financial crisis has wiped out many companies from the world business map, while hundreds of businesses appeared to be unable to respond to challenges of economic meltdown.  Any company should have comprehensive goals and measures to reach them.  In this sense balanced scorecard system is one of the most popular but at the same time controversial business performance measurement tool created in 1993 and used all over the world ever since.  As any revolutionary invention in the field of business management and strategic planning balanced scorecard system has its supporters and those who doubt efficiency of this tool.  As a result, there appeared numerous myths and misconceptions about Balanced Scorecard System (BSC).

There are several reasons why managers have certain misconceptions about Balanced Scorecard System.  One of the reasons is an aggressive advertising campaign which sometimes presents Balanced Scorecard System as a treatment for all “illnesses” which boosts company performance and immediately increases revenue.  Lots of managers view balanced scorecard system as a robot that runs business.  Who doesn’t want to control company performance and reach strategic goals by monitoring several figures on the dashboard?

Sure, Balanced Scorecard System has received its portion of criticism, and no one claims this is a perfect solution of all business problems.  At the same time, balanced scorecard system proved to be quite effective if applied properly.

So what is the truth about Balanced Scorecard System?  As they say the truth is the golden mean – you don’t have to believe in the extreme criticism, but at the same time it is unwise to view balanced scorecard system as a magic tool.  Inefficient use of balanced scorecard system may cost companies big money.  That’s why it is imperative to dispel myths about this performance evaluation tool.

1. Balanced scorecard system helps create effective corporate strategy.

BSC works from the top

Well, Balanced Scorecard System is the tool which implements goals and links strategic and operational management based on key performance indicators and relations between them.  Balanced scorecard system is built from the top which means that strategic goals are formulated into individual elements that become goals of the linear management.  So, it is easy to guess that if wrong strategic goals are set this will result in mistakes in the work of individual employees and goals/key performance indicators of individual departments.  Eventually the strategy will remain just a theory, no matter what measures of personnel motivation were taken.  This is not something business owners would want to happen to their companies.  It is also important to keep goals realistic.  Imagine that you set a goal of wiping out all competitors in one year, while your current market share equals 2%.  Obviously all measures to reach such goals will fail and balanced scorecard system will turn out to be helpless. We need to take into account human factor.  Goals are formulated by people.  It seems like no software and no IT solution can change such course of things.

2. Balanced scorecard system is effective for all organization and needs no other additional tools of business management

This is the way many managers tend to think – balanced scorecard system is a major tool or a treatment for all “business illnesses” which needs very little time to turn a small company into an international corporation. NBA slogan “Where amazing happens” does not work here.  There is no magic in business.  If a company has a very complex structure in which there is no fruitful cooperation between departments and there is no strategic planning, Balanced Scorecard System will not be helpful and will remain just a pile of useless documents with figures and graphs.  Successful implementation of the Balanced Scorecard System does not force company management to give up traditional planning and budgeting methods, although they undergo certain changes.

One should be very careful when implementing Balanced Scorecard System in the developing markets. As known such market are volatile.  It would be quite problematic to introduce changes in BSC if market conditions drastically change every three months.  Stability is one of the preconditions for successful implementation of Balanced Scorecard System.

3. The more key performance indicators, the better.

Top managers do not need to control a large number of KPI

This misconception is based on a manager’s desire to control operational part of business activity. Such managers mistakenly think that if they control more indicators, employees would work better.  However, the more does not always mean better.  It is very difficult to process such huge amount of information.  Moreover, there is no need to do that.  A top manager would lose much time if he attempts to control such KPI as expendables per employee, or daily reject item rate per employee.  Balanced scorecard system is a tool to reach STRATEGIC goals.

To the contrary, there is a misconception that the less KPIs are measured, the more effectively Balanced Scorecard System works.  A top manager is convinced that he needs one or two KPI that will make it possible to evaluate business performance and control its development.  Well, it is possible theoretically, but in such a case a top manager looks like a business owner who doesn’t take part in strategic planning and operations, pain he’s attention only to net revenue.  Under such circumstances neither Balanced Scorecard System nor other tools will help.

A manager’s dashboard should include only those KPIs which directly influence reaching strategic goals, not more not less.  As a rule a number of KPIs in the traditional set varies from 15 to 25.  Only in such a case Balanced Scorecard System can really work and live up to the expectations of business managers and owners.

4. It is impossible to use balanced scorecard system without ERP solutions.

Many top managers do not want to use complex Corporate Information Systems to work in combination with Balanced Scorecard System. “Well, my employees can make some mistakes, and as a result I will get the wrong data in the form of weird columns full of figures.  It is better to have a look and diagrams with comments and instructions,” many managers would say.

In fact Balanced Scorecard System automation is a must only often it has been successfully implemented and tested.  There is a big risk to distort information.  Employees may not feel confident in operating the program while the software itself is not easy to use.  As a result it produces pressure on management system.  Besides, in 40% of cases Balanced Scorecard System undergoes changes during the first half year of implementation, and changes in software solutions require additional investments.

There are some examples of companies that first used simple ways to implement Balanced Scorecard System.  For instance, MS Excel was first used to automate the process.  This program is known by most office employees, and only sometime later sophisticated automation tools are introduced.  As you can see the company management gives employees opportunity to test the system and see how it works (learn its mechanics) before using ERP systems.

5. It is easy to develop and implement Balanced Scorecard System without professional assistance.

Implementation of BSC System is not as easy as it may seem

This is the most common myth about Balanced Scorecard System.  Such statement is articulated by top managers who start developing the system.  They do not only lack experience in this field, but also have no idea about under water rocks and obstacles in the way of “manual” implementation of Balanced Scorecard System.  There are no qualified employees who are ready to take this serious job, no necessary tools for personnel, and what is more important there is no time to do the job.  As a result chances of successful implementation of Balanced Scorecard System equal to zero.

Norton and Kaplan (creators of BSC) often say that only 27% of top managers are satisfied with independently implemented Balanced Scorecard System, while this figure increases to 93% if Balanced Scorecard System is developed and implemented by qualified specialists. But as they say, a man is the king in his house. It is up to the top manager to make a final decision.

5 most common myths about BSC system

bsc_ideas Articles, Balanced Scorecard Theory balanced scorecard, bsc designer, kpi evaluation, kpi management, management logic, metrics, strategy map

Balanced Scorecard in the traditional execution allows us to measure the most crucial but also the most painful variable. This variable is management team’s development:  learning and growth. After all, given enough time, the right management with the right skill sets can fix anything, or even build the whole organizations from scratch. They would find a way to locate and meaningfully organize the resources necessary to produce the desired outcomes. No organization can go above and beyond their management talent and in most organizations, the entire business is nothing more than magnified picture of the eccentricities of the executive team.

However, the Balanced Scorecard does not hold the spotlight to the management’s learning and growth too tightly, allowing the leeway to pick the the Key Performance Indicators that either don’t really monitor their performance in a meaningful ways, or worse yet, apply to only lower echelon of workers in the organization.

Two thousand years ago,  James, brother of Jesus, made a statement that I think is highly applicable to managers today. Just substitute the word teacher for the word manager and you will get the point:

“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.”

I believe that the description he has for the tongue and for teaching readily applies to the management of the organizations, as well. It is a lot easier to manage millions of dollars than it is to manage oneself and our own tongue.  One management decision can influence the fate of many resources, entire organizations. A failure by the manager is by far more devastating than that of an entry level employee. So, managerial development is essential for the organizational growth and development. It is crucial for organization’s health and survival that there is a significant emphasis on the development of the organization’s management team, or the organization is gambling with that which is the foundation of all else.

In most organizations you see precisely the opposite:  a lot more effort is spent on measuring and managing the performance of lower level employees than on those of the executive team. Nobody wants the spotlight pointing toward them. Yet, who has the most impact on the organizational performance? Is it the person who is capable of sending a shipment to the wrong location, or is it a person who can hire and fire that person, or a person who can institute policies and processes that eliminate the opportunities for these kinds of mistakes?

With that said, what are some good Key Performance Indicators that would help an organization insure that there is a culture of learning and growth that permeates its executive ranks? Well, the output variables are pretty easy to track: Engagement of the workforce, a clear result of great management can most easily be tracked by the number of improvements that are recommended by the workers and are implemented per employee.  Unlike good attendance or other such measures that can be forced by just paying or punishing for them, it cannot be achieved without a good working relationship between the managers and the workers. But while this is a valuable Key Performance Indicator, it looks at the output not the input.

Another variable that might serve as KPI for good managers, is dollars or Return on Investment generated by the new initiatives of the management team, but this variable takes years to materialize and can be affected by a bunch of factors that have nothing to do with the talents of the management team.

In all reality every KPI on the scorecard is a reflection on the management, but they are mostly all outputs.  In the next article I will discuss some inputs of good management.

—

Oleg Tumarkin is an Adjunct Professor of Business at Lakeland College and Concordia University of Wisconsin. His firm, FutureWorks, in partnership with AKS-Labs provides business coaching and Balanced Scorecard implementations.  His life’s passion is the development of a universal business measurement and management system that would cause management in to the realm of a repeatable, replicable, yet humane and flexible science.

oleg_tumarkin Balanced Scorecard Theory balanced scorecard, dashboard, kpi, management, management logic, measuring what's important, metrics, scorecard, strategy map

Test results of Balanced Scorecard implementation

Title: Testing Balanced Scorecard Results

Summary: This part of the Balanced Scorecard Toolkit is a guide on how to measure and evaluate results of Balanced Scorecard design and implementation.

• Buy full version as a part of  Balanced Scorecard Toolkit

Slides number: 28. Formats: PPT (MS PowerPoint), Adobe PDF

• Testing the results of Balanced Scorecard Implementation. Introduction.
• Steps included in the Phase of Testing the Results of BSC Implementation
• Preparations prior to initiating the testing phase. Determining the results of parameters of Balanced Scorecard. Updating the core elements of Balanced Scorecard.
• FAQ and Case Study

Buy full version as a part of  Balanced Scorecard Toolkit

Sample slides

Slide 8. Structuring hypotheses for testing

Slide 22. Why update balanced scorecard? Reasons scheme.

Presentation Content

1. Testing Balanced Scorecard Results
2. Testing the results of Balanced Scorecard Implementation. Introduction.
3. Steps included in the Phase of Testing the Results of BSC Implementation
4. Preparations prior to initiating the testing phase. Introduction.
5. Objectives of pre-testing phase
6. Using relationships from the strategy map
7. Balanced Scorecard Testing Benchmarks
8. Structuring hypotheses for testing
9. What have an influence on performance measures
10. Pre-testing phase checklist
11. Determining the actual values for parameters of BSC. Introduction.
12. Objectives of Balanced Scorecard parameters checking
13. Checking Balanced Scorecard values
14. Collaborative parameters overview
15. Analyzing indicators and categories
16. Balanced Scorecard analysis checklist
17. Updating the Core Elements of Balanced Scorecard – Objectives, Measures and Targets. Introduction.
18. Objectives for core elements updating
19. Objectives for Balanced Scorecard updating
20. Modifying key elements of Balanced Scorecard
21. Factors of Balanced Scorecard Update
22. Why update balanced scorecard? Reasons scheme
23. Getting feedback for Balanced Scorecard update
24. Scorecard update checklist
25. Testing Balanced Scorecard. FAQs.
26. Determining results of Balanced Scorecard. FAQs.
27. Case Study. Testing the results of parameters of BSC.
28. Case Study. Checking Scorecard Values.

admin BSC Toolkit balanced scorecard test, bsc test, implementation, kpi, metrics, testing

In many fields of discipline the world has experienced a transition from a period where the knowledge appeared to be magic and practitioners were regarded more as wise shamans than doctors. Chemistry has largely grown out of the Alchemy. Slowly but surely in the various aspects of human life we have experienced a move from imprecise guesses and hunches of the few expert practitioners who gained much of their knowledge by happenstance and experience, or some innate talent, to a world where everyone who graduates high school understands such basic principles as gravity, which just a few hundred years ago were shrouded in mystery and could only be guessed at by the experts.

I am not convinced that we have experienced such a transition in the world of business. Much about management is shrouded by mystery that seems to say that it is an art that can only be mastered by the talented few. Not that I am denying that there is an aspect of the unpredictable in management or for that matter anything that deals with human relationships, but as society develops and we all have to become more and more managers of, if nothing else, our own destinies, management has to transition from an art form to a repeatable, predictable discipline that can be learned systematically.

Balanced Scorecard is one of the steps in the transition from the world where truly talented managers could outperform mediocre ones by purely relying on their intuition, often by having an internal equivalent of the Balanced Scorecard in their head, to a world where management tools are going to finally become sophisticated enough where it will not take the same level of genius to just make the day to day decisions. In the world where there is a degree of precision to the decision making the truly talented managers will finally be able to focus on solving new problems, developing new markets, creating new products, engaging in new relationships instead of just doing the same worn out things that can now be put on autopilot.

Balanced Scorecard tools not only allow for the truly talented managers to focus on the new and exciting, but they help develop internal talent pool of the younger generation, since now, equipped with the tools and for the first time understanding the logic of the interrelationships of organizational objectives, even people who historically were not in a position to make business decisions have an opportunity to participate in working together to manage the organization to the benefit of everyone involved.

While the Balanced Scorecard does not quite get us to the world I am describing, it has set the foundation and provided a framework that will aid in the development of the more advanced models that are capable of achieving the promise of simplified, more consistent, straightforward management that is based on explicit principles, rather than on management that is based on a strictly unaided intuition, or worse yet, in many cases management based on strictly financial view of the business world.

In the engineering community community Genrich Altshuller brought about similar revolution by introducing the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Even though his first major publications became available in the late sixties, most engineers and inventors have never heard of him and his ideas, however, many who do are considered the elite in their field, and are usually employed by the invention powerhouses like Intel and Siemens.

The dynamic that is happening in that field is quite common in that for example, it took nearly a century for many people to adopt Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of Elements in spite of its clear superiority. Before periodic table we had craft of alchemy, after we have the science of chemistry, but the adoption rate was still painfully slow.

It is so also in business. The effective measurement systems that have to be developed around the framework of a Balanced Scorecard are not yet. Even the Scorecard may have to become more than four dimensional to truly represent the variables that are significant for business management. But the organizations that place themselves at the forefront with this new technology – technology of thought – can, if they use it wisely gain a tremendous edge on their competition.

—

Oleg Tumarkin is an Adjunct Professor of Business at Lakeland College and Concordia University of Wisconsin. His firm, FutureWorks, in partnership with AKS-Labs provides business coaching and Balanced Scorecard implementations.  His life’s passion is the development of a universal business measurement and management system that would cause management in to the realm of a repeatable, replicable, yet humane and flexible science.

oleg_tumarkin Balanced Scorecard Theory analysis, balanced scorecard, Inventive Problem Solving, management logic, Measurement, metrics, theory, TRIZ

When I ask my MBA students about the purpose of corporations, the typical answer that I hear is that it is to make a profit, to make money.  But if they are right, why should we focus on managing a company by any non-financial metric? After all,  the company either makes a profit, or it does not.

There are two major problems with this kind of thinking.

First one is occasionally picked up by my students when they start to speak in terms of  maximizing shareholder value. When they do that, often a debate ensues that results in the class realizing that risks, as well as returns are crucial to long term success of the company. No amount of short term profit can justify fraud that will lend everyone in jail, for example. And even though risk is a very pesky, hard to measure concept, on the intuitive level most people seem to get that it is worth keeping in mind.  While Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard does not directly address risk, it at least gives us room to include those variables in the final equation, which is a lot more than what we can say for the traditional, strictly financial view of business.

Second problem is not apparent to most MBA students, unless they have had Six Sigma training, or they work in a role and for a company that really emphasizes non-financial performance. The problem is that financial variables by a vast majority are dependent output variables. Which means that they cannot be effectively changed directly. For example, Revenues cannot increase unless we do something to boost our actual sales and we cannot increase our sales without either changing our process, or improving our people, or forcing it by squeezing the juice out our employees. The last one being what typically happens in the companies with a strictly financial view.

Perhaps more importantly, the financial variables, by the time we find them out can no longer be changed, they are in our past. Thus, unless we are content chasing our own tail, it becomes essential to identify and monitor the input variables that feed in to these outputs. For example by focusing on Human Development, an organization is typically impacting its financial performance three to five years down the road. The bigger the organization, the longer is the delay. Yet, in a short run such a focus looks like an added expense, with no immediate value. Intuitively, we all get that it is important, but the financial statements tell us to cut out any human development and if our only focus is the financial objective, there is a good chance that we will.

Just as human development is the real bedrock of growth in an organization, so we also have to value the process and customer as an investment in our medium term future. For example, any investment in process improvement will likely require six months to three years to really recoup itself. The investment in marketing and customer relationships has the quickest payback and is easiest to measure for a non-financial objective, thus it gets almost as much lip service as financial perspective. But even the customer relationship issues, which can often pay for themselves in three to six months are often neglected because they are not as precisely measured and monitored and because many of those issues are really just outcomes of good human development and effective processes within the organization.

Thus, the organization which employees a balanced scorecard where human development and innovation are the only true input variable, the process and the customer view, which build on each other, all are there to support the financial view, the output variable that everyone wants to focus on has a much stronger path to long term success than an organization that simply ignores all non-financial variables.

If you want your company to do great this quarter, and be as it may six months from now, avoid balanced scorecard implementation at all costs. However, if you are in for the long haul, a meaningful deliberate participatory implementation of the balanced scorecard is essential to your continued long term survival and growth.

But my challenge to you is to not stop there. Don’t just settle for concepts that were first introduced close to 50 years ago with the total house of quality and Toyota’s view of People, Process, Product, Profit, which has an eerie resemblance to the Balanced Scorecard’s:

• Financial;
• Customer;
• Internal Business;
• Innovation and Learning.

Don’t get me wrong, it is a great place to start. Even Andrew Carnegie’s 19th century assertion in his Gospel of Wealth that to be successful a business must focus on People as well as profits will get you ahead of many companies that stubbornly only look to their accounting books.  But don’t stop there, I have already mentioned Risk Management as a dimension that trumps even the Financial dimension and can be integrated in to your implementations of the balanced scorecard. In the near future I will be discussing a few other dimensions and a comprehensive system of management that I have been working on by broadening or occasionally focusing the balanced scorecard implementations with many of my clients.

—

Oleg Tumarkin is an Adjunct Professor of Business at Lakeland College, an Adjunct Instructor of Business at Concordia University Wisconsin and Adjunct Instructor of Business and IT at ITT TECH Institute. He is the owner of FutureWorks Business Expert, which in partnership with AKS-Labs provides business coaching and Balanced Scorecard implementations.  Mr. Tumarkin  is a graduate of Milwaukee School Of Engineering, received his Masters of Business Administration from Concordia University of Wisconsin and is currently pursuing a Doctorate from William Howard Taft University. His life’s passion is the development of a universal business measurement and management system that would move the world of management out of the realm of alchemy and in to the realm of a repeatable, replicable, yet humane and flexible science.

oleg_tumarkin Balanced Scorecard Theory Andrew Carnegie, balanced scorecard, BSC, management logic, metrics, risk management, theory

Check latest news and blog discussions about Balanced Scorecard, Metrics, KPIs – in Balanced Scorecard News section.

admin News balanced scorecard, kpi, metrics, News

If you are looking for a consulting service, fill in contact form below and we will be able to provide you with wide range of consulting services in business performance management areas.

We and our partners can provide you with the following services:

Consulting request form

admin Official balanced scorecard, consulting, kpi, metrics, partners, request