What’s the Score?
Have you ever balanced a scorecard? What did you do? How did you decide what balanced meant? What did you do with the scorecard? Did you win? Was it a competitive win or was it a within the scorecard win? Would an outsider evaluate you as a winner without seeing your scorecard?
The balanced scorecard has been a source of lots of debate and consulting armies going about guiding organizations on keeping score. My observation has been that too often the exercise has amounted to filling data into a predetermined template from what data is available and accessible with follow on work to “interpret” what the scoreboard means. What continues to nag me is the distractions that some predetermined “balanced” views may precipitate.
First, no two categories are ever equal. But if you try to make them equal on a scorecard, you will get unintended consequences. The more something is claimed in a slogan, the less likely it is true in measurable practices.
“Employees are our greatest asset” is a statement of value, not a measure of opinions that are captured in an employee satisfaction survey score. What does the scorecard really measure? I would argue that, if asset quality matters, maybe it should measure how quickly we acquire good assets, secure the most out of the earning capacity, and then how quickly we dispose of bad assets. However, political correctness and actually treating people as assets is challenging and likely look bad on surveys. A scorecard would be sensitive to what the game is and how people are to be utilized at what stage of the game. The categories are dynamic as well as the numbers. Take a hard look at what tracking “training hours” does within very large organizations. You will find some interesting compliance systems that actually govern the speed of learning (check the on-line stuff) so that the scorecard hours are achieved. Yes, we are willing to slow down the quick studies and reduce their productive time for the sake of the “score.”
Financial strategy is even more dynamic and much more complex. What we desire to emphasize on the balance sheet or the income statement is very different for industries, organizations, health, global economy, volatility, growth, risks, competitors, asset mix, exposure … to name a few. So, the scorecard categories and weights are dynamic, not static, so the scorecard structure is not structural, but fluid. A structured scorecard in a dynamic environment will always lag the signals and thereby trigger responses inappropriately. Does it enable or constrain the best decisions? And, we can’t use the scorecard to score itself.
Customer satisfaction is a fascinating score to evaluate, if it leads to better decisions in time to make a difference, where it needs to make a difference. How often have we observed what appears to be poor business decision making in order to appease a “customer tyrant” for fear of low satisfaction scores? We all have. So again, the complexities of a dynamic world require sufficient agility in the relationship between what matters virtually so that the “score” leads to proper action. Again, what does balance in the score really mean and what does it really drive in behaviors? Does the statistical “dulling” effect hide the scary customer stuff happening on the fringes where risks are born and changes are incubating?
Now, for those that feel this is going in the direction of winging it and data anarchy, not so. Score is important, but balance cannot always be predetermined or should be hard-wired in dynamic environments. If life is quiet and stable and predictable, this may be an irritating and irrelevant sounding blog posting. I don’t know anybody like that anymore.
The questions that we should be vigilant about measurement and scorekeeping must be configured around decision making only. Data is useful for what I am about to decide. That’s it. The scorecard, scoreboard, or dashboard must fit the game we are playing and where and when we are playing it. Balance can be a dynamic challenge for multinational entities in a multi-polar world.
This should be exciting, if we agree. It is exciting because technology today enables transparency at the speed of light. Our interconnectivity and networked interconnections have the capacity to render a view to enable dynamic balance. Balance is a consequence of judgment and agility. Both require virtual transparency that grabs new and relevant lenses to look at what is happening when the decisions can alter the future most effectively.
Thoughts?
