What is the correct balance of measures across perspectives

A recent forum posting asked "What is the correct balanced of measures across the four perspectives of a balanced scorecard?" They wanted to see if any academics had researched whether it should be 25% each or some other ratio.

This is a massively mistaken question which goes straight to the heart of why many balanced scorecards fail and it is easy to end up with many measures that are not relevant to driving performance.

The purpose of balanced scorecards is not balance.

I'll say that again. The purpose of a balanced scorecard is not "balance". Rather, "balance" is a consequence of getting the thinking right.

The purpose of the thinking underpinning a balanced scorecard is to define causality and drive performance (and resulting balance of measures across the perspectives is a consequence).

So for example you would say that improving this skills and knowledge improves the process which gets better results for our customers and therefore better money for us. If you only measures the consequences, and not the drivers, you won’t be balanced.

Therefore an academic would look at an organisation that was measuring those drivers of change (in the learning and growth perspective) and be asking
a) Are they drivers of performance
b) Are they the right ones
c) Did they help bring about change.

The fact that you end up with a balanced set of measures is a side effect. So a sensible academic would not investigate this issue. Yes having 25% in the L&G perspective is more balanced but are they the right 25%? That is the real question. And so they drive performance so that there are changes to the higher perspectives?

Don’t confuse “the balance of a scorecard” with the causality it contains and the purpose of the measures . You are trying to get better at identifying (and measuring) what drives good performance and then influencing it. It is not about having a balance. Its about cause and effect which shows up as balance.

It is this sort of mistaken thinking that causes people to rush around trying to “Balance” the lower perspective by finding a few more learning and growth (usually people) measures to fill it up. Of course when the criteria is, “Are they in the perspective” rather than, “Are they useful in influencing performance” you end up in a mess and don’t actually improve performance.

So please don't fall into this trap.

If you need it, have a look at this article for an explanation of how cause and effect works.

http://www.excitant.co.uk/pages/bsc_balanced_history.html

Phil

Principles of Effective Balanced Scorecards Part 3

Like many organisations, this FTSE 100 Company's executive team had a vast amount of data at their fingertips. Their monthly report contained around 120 measures. The Chief Executive could drill down to individual retail outlets, and look at Saturday's product sales for all their categories, first thing Monday morning.

We had been brought in for a relatively common problem. As the Chief Executive put it, "They don't get the strategy". So we read through their strategy documents and interviewed the executive team to understand the strategy. At the first workshop it became clear that what was in the paperwork was not what they considered important. Like many organisations there were vast reams of documentation and thinking in some parts (retail offering in this case) yet very little about the store positioning (having the right offer in the right place).

Why they didn't get it is a story for another newsletter. By the time we had finished the Executive team were down to 26 measures to manage the strategy for their business. But here is the interesting bit: Only 12 of those measures were amongst the 120 in their monthly management report. The other 110 in their management report were useful diagnostics and detail, but they were not part of changing behaviour and driving the organisation forward. Performance measures vs managers of performance. Moreover the 14 missing measures were spread between

• Those concerned with the culture, skills and behaviours that would help to change the organisation and move it forward
• Measures of what the customers actually thought.

Aspects of the strategy that were not represented in the management report. In particular this covered the vital new product & service development pipeline and store portfolio management.
In other words they were now starting to measure what was important and what they wanted to change, rather than what they could measure. So principle 4 is

4 "Measure what you want to manage, (not manage what you can measure)"

Yet this behaviour is so common, so it is important to understand why. Why do organisations end up having so many measures that they cannot see the wood for the trees? Why do they tend to measure what they can measure, rather than standing back and thinking what should we measure.

Well there is a simple reason for this. They are doing it because it makes sense. Imagine for a moment you have just taken over a new role. It's a department, unit, organisation, product you do not know. So what will you do? You'll dig around, walk about, talk to people and gather as much information as you can. It makes sense when, as a manager, you are in a diagnostic and fact finding mode. You are trying to find out what is going on with a unit, department, product or process. You gather as much information as you can to piece together a picture and diagnose the underlying problems and causes. You put in place ways to measure what is going on.

But this is completely different to motivating someone. If you want to influence a person's, team's or organisation's behaviour how many measures would you use? 120? 100? 50? Of course you wouldn't. You would use maybe 3 or 4 or perhaps 6 at most. Any more and that would confuse the issue, wouldn't it. So this leads us to principle number 5:

5 "Be absolutely clear what you are using your scorecard for"

There are plenty of examples of this in the private sector but an interesting (but not amusing) example comes from the public sector. In the health service some measures are generated by parliamentary questions. An Member of Parliament asks a question and a measure is set up to answer the issue that is raised. All the hospitals in the land are not responding to the Department of Health's requirement to provide more information. So a measure is created. But what stops it being measures. The MP get their question answered and moves on. Yet now all these administrators are collecting this information, which is no longer required. They get added to. They do not get removed. When I was first told this story it included a room in Leeds where the printouts are piled up and locked away and no-one ever looks at them. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. Most organisations have done similar things in the past.

So a useful test of any scorecard or strategy map is, "What am I trying to achieve?" "What purpose is this serving and what effect will it have on the organisation?"

You will appreciate that this is why we spend time with clients working on what the information is used for and helping them move from continual diagnosis to influencing behaviour and checking that it happens. You will of course recognise that as performance management.

As you think about how your organisation does these and what diagnosis would help you can think also about the workshops we can customise to suit your particular circumstances and needs. When you want more information on these take a look at
http://www.excitant.co.uk/Seminars_workshops.htm

By paying attention to just why you ar e measuring, you will start to improve the value of your balanced scorecard in your business. Of course, you realise, there are other key principles that will make a difference. In your next few newsletters we will look at how strategy, people, focus and ownership affect things. In subsequent newsletters we will also set out

"Ten top tips for successful implementation and operation".

Of course if you are impatient, we can do on-site seminars and workshops to help your organisation make sure your investment in performance management and its strategy make a real difference.

More soon

Phil Jones
http://www.excitant.co.uk/

Principles of Effective Balanced Scorecards

Part 1

Have you noticed how you notice what you are paying attention to? Are you paying attention to the letter t in this newsletter? I doubt you were, but you are now, and you can stop if you want. Likewise, when you get a new car that you thought was unique in colour and model, suddenly every other car you see seems to be the same.

The opposite is also true. You tend not to notice what you are not paying attention to, unless it catches your attention. You probably didn't think about the punctuation in the last paragraph. You just read it and it passed you by. It didn't try to attract your attention.

You have probably noticed how the same is true with performance measurement and management. Recently we were working with a City Council, which involved helping them improve their planning processes and pay more attention to the quality of their thinking about strategy. As a part of the work, we took a look at the existing strategic plans and cast them as a strategy map, with interesting results.

Two things quickly became apparent: Firstly there were plenty of measures and activities around what they did. There were also many measures of how the council would tell whether things had changed for their community. There were, of course, plenty of financial measures.

Something was missing, though. We found few statements, let alone measures, of how the council would change. How would they change? What would make the difference? This was a council that was trying to improve the way it worked. Yet evidence of what they were going to do differently was sparse. In fact we had a completely blank "Learning & Growth" perspective.

Now, no doubt, they had been thinking about how the organisation needed to develop and how this would change overall performance and make the strategy happen. Yet that thinking was not clearly nor explicitly captured. They were not paying attention to it. Guess what. It wasn't happening much either. As the Chief Executive put it, "What is happening with our change programme? We seem to have forgotten it"

As you think about your organisation, you'll start to notice what it might not be paying attention to. For this reason our starting point for the Balanced Scorecard underlying principles are:

1. It is about balance

The reason it was called the "Balanced Scorecard" is precisely because that is what it was trying to address. Its origins back around 1992 were to get organisations to focus on more than the financial measures and the processes. To redress the balance with measures of what the customers think and want. To add to this measures that reflected how the organisation was to learn, develop, change and grow.

That council is not alone. Research indicates many organisations that say they have implemented a "balanced" scorecard have measures that are predominantly financial and process. As a consequence they are measuring what they are doing, rather than measuring what is making them change. Which lead us to the second key principle.

2. It is about cause and effect

It wasn't long in the development of the scorecard, that it was realised that the old four-box model was a mistake. You have probably seen it around.


Financial

Customer

Learning & growth

Process


This model of the scorecard is all over the web from people who think of this as a scorecard. But just ask yourself, "How do you choose what to put in each box?" "How do these boxes relate to one another?"

You are all smart people so you know, like, our client, that that changing what they did should end up affecting both costs and their customers. So a better way of thinking about things would be.



Of course this is what, by 1994 had become the basis of the strategy map. Sometimes, it was called the performance driver model in its early years.

As you will have spotted, this makes a major difference to how you think about the measures. For one, you are asking the question, how do these measures change behaviour and cause the higher pieces to behave differently? For another you start to ask what are the right measures in each of these perspectives?

We'll cover more of this in the next newsletter

If you want to move your balanced scorecard on, bring it up to date and make it more effective. Whether that is to change behaviours, focus people of strategy, make management meetings more effective or just get a clearer view of performance in your organisation, in just a day, you'll find more details here.

www.excitant.co.uk/Seminars_workshops.htm
By paying attention to just these two basic pieces, you will start to improve the value of your balanced scorecard in your business. Of course, you realise, there are other key principles that will make a difference. In your next few newsletters we will look at:
If you don't know where you are going you are unlikely to get there.
It's about the strategy It's about people 1: It's about behaviour, collectively and their understanding
It's about focus
Don't manage what you can measure. Measure what you want to manage
It's not actually about measures (honestly)

In subsequent newsletters we will explore:

"Ten top tips for successful implementation and operation".

Of course if you are impatient, we can do on-site seminars and workshops to help your organisation make sure your investment in performance management and its strategy make a real difference.

More soon

Phil Jones

You can access all the other case studies via:
http://www.excitant.co.uk/pages/case_studies_access.htm

Our MD worked for the originators, Norton & Kaplan, for over 4 years. As you can imagine, not all of the underlying keys to success are explained in the books. We have helped clients improve their strategy and performance in organisations ranging from FTSE100 and international companies to dot.coms and a whole variety of public sector organisations.