Perspectives on the Balanced Scorecard©
Arthur M. Schneiderman
I have several working hypothesis on the balanced scorecard:
Analog Devices scorecard implementation
(1987-1992) is still a best practice. It contained all of the popular
elements identified by today's balanced scorecard promoters including:
ownership of the processes for creation and management of the balanced
a complete set (the vital few)
of rigorously defined metrics that characterize progress toward its
a clear and compelling story
linking these metrics to Analog's Corporate Objective and business
a rigorous process for setting
aggressive long-term, intermediate and short-term goals (the half-life
method) consistent with organizational capacity and resource
deployment of scorecard goals
to individual action agents and their knowledge based personal ownership
and commitment to achievement of these goals,
a state-of-the-art improvement
process for achieving the highest possible rates or improvement on
a formal process for its
See the detailed history of
Analog's development, deployment and refinement of the First
Balanced Scorecard and test my conclusions.
The much sought-after linkage between performance measurement and strategy is
poor in practice, partly as a result of the forced classification into the categories of financial, customer,
internal processes, and learning and growth.
There is no formal process employed for creating the linkage
between performance measurement and strategy. Current practice is ad
hoc and the resulting linkages are not compelling. Tell me what an
organization is measuring, and I should be able to deduce its strategy.
I'm in the process of collecting data to test these hypothesis.
Watch for more on the last two in my Art
of Process Management section.