Short on Performance? Take Two Scorecards and Call Me in the Morning
In 1993 Mobil rated last on profitability in its industry, with a return on capital employed of 6%. In 1995 and for the following four years it rated first in profitability within its industry, with ROCE up to 16%. Similarly, Cigna Insurance was losing $1 million a day in 1993, but within two years it was in the top quartile of profitability in its industry. In 1998 it was able to sell its Property and Casualty division for $3 billion. Another great success story is that of Saatchi & Saatchi. They increased shareholder value from $500m in 1997 to $2.5b in 2000. These companies are among a number of legendary turnaround success stories quoted by Norton and Kaplan, authors of the Balanced Scorecard.
These companies attribute at least part of their success to having implemented the Balanced Scorecard. Developed in the early 1990s by Norton and Kaplan, this valuation methodology ensures appropriate strategic focus on three value disciplines viz, customer intimacy, operational excellence and innovation & learning, through a defined set of metrics. In the Balanced Scorecard these value disciplines are presented as three perspectives: Customer, Internal, Learning & Growth. A final dimension, the Financial perspective, records the commercial outcome of the value created in the other three perspectives.
At a conceptual level, the Balanced Scorecard methodology is logical, simple and elegant. It asks the following: What skills and innovative capabilities are needed to drive operational excellence to a level that the value proposition for my customer becomes so compelling that the company meets its growth and revenue targets in a sustainable fashion?
Looking at the success stories, and considering the simplicity of the methodology, the notion “the holy grail of business management” comes to mind. However, according to Norton, the ove Read the rest of this post »
