|
| |
| Frage: |
Does
any one now any info about the Balances Scorecards, any websites,
recomended
books, this is totally new to me & I want to emplement it in my
department.
Please
if any one can give me any helping info don't hesitate.
|
| Antworten: |
There is plenty of help out there! Try The Balanced
Scorecard Collaborative at www.bscol.com.
The definitive book on the subject is "The Balanced Scorecard"
by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. Additionally, if you want
anything further, I have a presentation on the Balanced Scorecard that is
presented to APICS and IMA groups. |
| |
Try getting hold of Kaplan's Balanced Scorecard Book - as a
reference. Oracle has a Balanced Scorecard Module as well. |
| |
Check into the IMA Library. There have been articles in
Management Accounting Magazine over the past two to three years. Call
1-800-638-4427 and follow the prompts. |
| |
For a bibliography on the Balanced Scorecard, please visit
my webpage: www.accountancy.depaul.edu/mfrigo
(under Research/Balanced Scorecard) Also, the entire Feb/Mar
1999 issue of the Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement (Warren
Gorham & Lamont) was devoted to the Balanced Scorecard topic. |
| Frage vom 15.
Januar 2001 (!) |
I've searched the IMA archives,
but didn't find what I needed. Does anyone out there currently use a
Balanced Scorecard in their business? I've been given a list of
measurements (dozens and dozens) and asked to define each metric and
explain what it tells us. I guess we'll use whatever I come up with to
evaluate and decide what metrics to use in our balanced scorecard
initiative. I've searched a bunch of sites, and there is a lot of info on
what a balanced scorecard is, categories of metrics, why we use them, etc,
but I couldn't find a single concrete example of one that someone else is
using. If anyone uses it, would you care to share it, or at least the
things you measure on it and why? |
| Antwort 1: |
When an organization has
dozens and dozens of measurements how do employees know where to focus?
You can also be certain that many of these measurements are going to
conflict with other measurements. Then guess what happens. Do you want
balance or could it be that some areas have more need than others to make
an impact in the organization towards its goal? Here is what Debra Smith
writes in her book The Measurement Nightmare: "The balanced scorecard,
as currently being implemented, ignores the implications if a scarce
resource." "The reason the balanced scorecard will not solve our
dilemmas is because organizations do not have a model of the environment
that can predict the effect on the entire organization. They do not
understand or agree as to how to best manage and prioritize the transfer
of work and the allocation of resources between the functional areas.
Companies may know how to negotiate purchase contracts, design the product,
build the product, create a distribution network, and market the product
to our customers, but do they know how to manage their functional support
areas to best protect the leverage point inside their own function so it
can subordinate and support the leverage point of the entire organization?
What is the effect of how I manage my area on the area where the
organizational constraint resides? What is the effect of how a strategy/action
is interpreted in each function, and what are the effects on every other
function and the net effect on the organizational constraint?" So,
you must understand the organization as a whole. Picking a mix of
measurements from broad areas may miss the measurements really needed to
reach the goal. And what appears as good measurements for each local area
may conflict with measurements necessary to reach the goal. If you are
balanced you may never get the needed end of the teeter-totter up in the
air. Instead, determine what is really necessary to reach the goal? It is
better to be focused than balanced. |
| Antwort 2: |
I'm a little late weighing in
on this topic, but I have to say I don't agree with Norm. A company must
be in balance. Boeing taught (and I believe) that a world class company
maximizes itself in five areas: Delivery, Quality, Cost, Safety, and
Morale. Please note we see the need to balance multiple attributes in many
philosophies: Sun Tzu's Art of War, Stephen Covery's Seven Habits, etc.
think of it from the customer's standpoint: How long would a customer
continue to do business with a company that only satisfies Quality but is
always behind schedule (wait...that's my company :-D!). How long can
employees create high quality goods in a dangerous atmosphere? What are
the hidden costs of constant employee turnover (SJ Mercury news article
estimates 1.5 - 2.0 times employee salary). The key is that each level of
the organization focuses on metrics germaine to that level, and as you
move up the ladder the metrics focus on metrics covering more of the
organization. The fab manager should have the metrics necessary to
determine the impact on constraining resources at the factory level. To
place that burden on a shift supervisor is a mistake, they have neither
the vision nor authority to analyze implications on the organization as a
whole. An interesting aside, Cost Accounting has the visibility of the
organization as a whole and the ability to measure the impact of decisions
on the entire organization. A good cost organization will provide that
leadership. |
| Antwort 3: |
A company never is nor should
be in balance. There is always and should always be something which
constrains the company from making more money. All other areas of the
company should subordinate to that area. If each area attempts to maximize
its own area, the company will not be maximized towards its goal. Too
often when balanced scorecards are established the thinking is that all
aspects are balanced to support the overall goal of the company. Typically
what happens is that each measurement is treated independently without
recognition as to what needs to subordinate to the constraint. This is my
point, not that one should ignore these other aspects, but that they
cannot all be looked at independently or in a balanced manner. They are
not equal. Few companies actually identify the cause and effect of their
measurements. This, however, is critical to ensure that the real goal is
what is measured. In regards to the aside concerning cost accounting. If
cost accounting has the ability to measure the impact of decisions on the
entire company, then why is it called "cost" accounting? If cost
accounting only, as the name suggests, deals only with costs, then how can
it measure the impact of decisions on the entire company? Who looks at
profits? Decisions must be made by considering the impact on profits, not
on costs alone. So, if the answer is that cost accounting does look at
profits, then why is it called cost accounting? I think the answer is due
to the fallacy created that the way to make profits is by controlling
costs. We have much work to do to change years of engrained wrong thinking. |
| Antwort 4: |
Balanced scorecards are not
intended to uncover nor hide constraints. However, the idea of unlimited
resources forever removing the current constraint is unrealistic also.
Very similar to the idea of perpetual motion. TOC methodology has it's
advatages, and hopefully we can apply it to our wafer fab. But it will be
done in conjunction with the balance scorecards. Why? If we remove the
constraint restricting cycle time but increase wafer loss, we lose money.
You can argue we missed the proper constraint, but that's sophistry. All
things should be measured and balanced. |
| Antwort 5: |
You will always have a
constraint. No one said that you should forever be removing the current
constraint. Just the opposite. You should strategically determine where
the constraint should be and keep it there! You give an example of
removing the constraint restricting cycle time which may then result in
wafer loss. Hey, the constraint is not a question of time. The constraint
is what keeps you from making more money. You want to get the most
throughput, NOT save the most time. Saving time is cost world thinking.
TOC advocates basing decisions on money. No, not all things should be
balanced. A production line should not have balanced resources. If the
resources are balanced yet there are statistical fluctuations and
interdependencies, the output will not equal the sum of the capabilities
of the individual operations but be something less. One should balance the
flow, but not balance the resources. Some resources should have protective
capacity. This is similar to the problem resulting from typical balanced
scorecard approaches. They are balanced rather than some measures being
subordinate to the constraint in order to maximize the goal. |
|