Balanced Scorecards

[Brown and Boris]

Anybody any experience of using them, perhaps in the public sector?

I have never used them in anger before but I am thinking of using a BSC approach in an evaluation project to get some publicly funded bodies to focus on the things that matter rather than the things they want to look at and report upon, which are easier to deliver and measure , but not actually related to the programme aims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_scorecard


I don't have time to buy in consultancy on using them, but didn't want to set out on that road if they are a pain in the ar5e to get at in the real world. The fact there are specialist consultancies might suggests they are not as easy as you think to develop but these not organisation wide, they are smallish specific programmes which are addressing a particular issue.

I want to encourage them to measure and report upon meaningful things rather than how many column inches their project got in the local rag which is their usual measure, or what customer happy sheets have said.

Edited by Brown and Boris on Tuesday 5th August 14:00

[The_Sheriff]

My girlfriend used them a lot at Lloyds TSB as a branch manager.... Are there any specific questions you would like me to ask her?

[215cu]

They work like this:

IF

Employee's expertise is improved (their future orientation to the company)

THEN

this may result in a better quality of service (operational excellence)

THEN

this may meet better customer expectations (user orientation)

THEN

this many enhance the support of business processes. (business contribution)

There aren't any hard or fast rules on how to build them and you will find plenty of people that will charge a fortune to help you.

The best approach I've found that works is simple measurement, Goal, Question, Metric. Look up GQM for plenty of examples.

The best advice to building it is taking from lean engineering principles. Take what you have and slowly improve on it, you will need to win people's trust before making any dramtic changes, always guaranteed to get their back up.

Edited by 215cu on Tuesday 5th August 14:07

[V8mate]

Of course you have time for consultancy support to introduce them properly.

The biggest reason organisations fail with them is because they are poorly/partially introduced.

Shall I be at your office 9am tomorrow?

[big_rob_sydney]

Depending on exactly what you're trying to measure, you could look at Function Point Analysis, or CMMI - Capability Maturity Model Integration.

Good metrics do help, but theres generally a need for a critical mass size. How big is your organisation?

[captainzep]

The_Sheriff said:

My girlfriend used them a lot at Lloyds TSB as a branch manager.... Are there any specific questions you would like me to ask her?

Dear god yes.

So many questions.

I honestly don't know where to begin.

What is she wearing right now? etc etc etc

[Brown and Boris]

big_rob_sydney said:

Depending on exactly what you're trying to measure, you could look at Function Point Analysis, or CMMI - Capability Maturity Model Integration.

Good metrics do help, but theres generally a need for a critical mass size. How big is your organisation?

It is a group of 70 councils spending central govt money in 70 different ways, but essentially targetted at one particular problem. They are supposed to do an evaluation of how the impact of how the money was spent but I fear that will have been an after thought and what will have been done will be woolly and vague and padded with the 'lingo' of policy makers.

I wanted a structure that forces them to report meaningful things rather than anecdotal evidence about 'communities feel that blah blah blah' and few pictures of smiling kids. The BSC approach seemed to force them to address the strategic and financial questions they usually neglect or ignore in favour of public perception (media column inches, number of enforcemnet notices/prosecutions, numbers of smiling kids, crime figures they can't really claim impact upon etc) and sometimes process descriptions without any real benchmarks.

[big_rob_sydney]

Brown and Boris said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Depending on exactly what you're trying to measure, you could look at Function Point Analysis, or CMMI - Capability Maturity Model Integration.

Good metrics do help, but theres generally a need for a critical mass size. How big is your organisation?

It is a group of 70 councils spending central govt money in 70 different ways, but essentially targetted at one particular problem. They are supposed to do an evaluation of how the impact of how the money was spent but I fear that will have been an after thought and what will have been done will be woolly and vague and padded with the 'lingo' of policy makers.

I wanted a structure that forces them to report meaningful things rather than anecdotal evidence about 'communities feel that blah blah blah' and few pictures of smiling kids. The BSC approach seemed to force them to address the strategic and financial questions they usually neglect or ignore in favour of public perception (media column inches, number of enforcemnet notices/prosecutions, numbers of smiling kids, crime figures they can't really claim impact upon etc) and sometimes process descriptions without any real benchmarks.

Thats definately big enough (sample sizes tend to need to be 30 or greater).

What are the critical success factors? Have they been measured? Can they be measured?

[Brown and Boris]

big_rob_sydney said:

Brown and Boris said:

big_rob_sydney]quote said:

What are the critical success factors? Have they been measured? Can they be measured?

That is the heart of the problem.

The key measures are notoriously difficult to get at because they are looking for attitude changes, but the people they are trying to impact are both reluctant to admit they had the attitude in the first place, and don't really welcome you asking them questions. Certainly customer survey type measures would get you nowhere with these groups.