BSC的实施英文版.pdf

《BSC的实施英文版.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《BSC的实施英文版.pdf（11页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、1M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LYS P R I N G 2 0 0 2,V O L.3,N O.3Companies using the balanced scorecard haveachieved mixed success.We believe the dif-ficulty lies with the process of choosing met-rics and using them appropriately.To solvethe dilemmas of how to systematically

2、choose appropriate metrics and how to compare divi-sions with differing metrics,we suggest using a toolcalled the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP).The AHP is a unique method that provides a meansof choosing appropriate metrics in virtually any context.It uses a hierarchical approach to organize data

3、for prop-er decision making.The method is easy to implement,simple to understand,and able to satisfy every require-ment of metric choice and scorecard construction.Theprocess can neatly capture the consensus of a potential-ly divergent group of managers and can be quickly andeasily updated as desire

4、d.The AHP is a powerful yetsimple tool that provides great promise toward imple-menting the balanced scorecard for practical use.BALANCEDSCORECARDCONCEPTIn the September 1997 issue of Management Accounting(now Strategic Finance),B.Douglas Clinton and KoCheng Hsu illustrated the importance of the bal

5、ancedscorecard concept developed by Robert Kaplan andDavid Norton.1Since the publication of Kaplan andNortons 1992 Harvard Business Review article,compa-nies have implemented the balanced scorecard withmixed results.2They seem to have a difficult timechoosing the proper metrics and then using themap

6、propriately.“The point to using the balanced scorecard as a man-agement tool is not to adopt a specific set of metrics bycloning them from a particular list,”wrote Clinton andHsu.3“The idea is to analyze each of these components(relationships and management perspectives)and con-sider how they link t

7、o strategy and link together to sup-port a meaningful continuous improvement andassessment effort.”The balanced scorecard concept is the balanced pur-suit of objectives in four key areas:customers,financial,inter-nal business processes,and innovation and learning.Thebalanced scorecard provides summa

8、ry-level dataemphasizing the metrics most critical to the company ineach of the four areas only.Kaplan and Norton arequick to point out that success in using the balancedImplementing theBalanced ScorecardUsing the AnalyticHierarchy ProcessSpring2002VOL.3 NO.3Spring2002THOMASSAATYS INNOVATIVE TECHNIQ

9、UE PROVIDES A SYSTEMATIC PROCESSFOR CHOOSING METRICS.BYB.DO U G L A SCL I N T O N,PH.D.,C PA;SA L LYA.WE B B E R,PH.D.,C PA;A N DJO H NM.HA S S E L L,PH.D.,C PA2M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LYS P R I N G 2 0 0 2,V O L.3,N O.3scorecard is highly contingent on the ability of t

10、he cho-sen metrics to encourage action and appropriate changefor the company.In Kaplan and Nortons second balanced scorecardarticle,they emphasized the importance of tying themetrics to strategy.4In their discussion,they presenteda typical project profile for building a balanced score-card,but they

11、showed that the ways in which particularcompanies use the balanced scorecard often differ con-siderably,as do the benefits derived from the differentapproaches.In more recent years,the balanced scorecard hasgrown into a tool used as a basis for developing a strate-gic management system.By observing

12、how companiesapplied the balanced scorecard,Kaplan and Norton rec-ognized how useful the approach can be in couplingstrategy development with strategy implementation.Different methods of employing the balanced scorecardare used to clarify and update strategy,to communicateintentions,to align organiz

13、ation and individual goals,and to learn about and improve strategy.It is this verydiversity in choosing metrics,however,that providesthe central focus of problems in implementing andusing the balanced scorecard.Unfortunately,no onereally knows the best way to choose the metrics.SYSTEMATICALLYCHOOSIN

14、GMETRICSHow should a company choose the metrics to use ineach of the four categories?This question is made moredifficult because it is almost certain that different met-rics are appropriate for different divisions within a com-pany.Although a useful goal is“balance,”when,if ever,does one of the four

15、 areas become more importantthan another?If one of the four areas is treated as moreimportant than another,how will the relative impor-tance of the four areas be determined and communicat-ed?How should top management go aboutmeaningfully comparing divisions that are using differ-ent metrics and weig

16、ht the relative importance of thefour areas?Will managers earning performance-basedcompensation tied to their individualized balancedscorecard perceive they are being treated fairly whencompared to managers of other divisions?With eachdivision using different metrics for bonus calculations,how can a

17、 company simplify the compensation processand provide important motivational incentives yetensure the process is equitable and congruent with theoverall goals of the company as a whole?To solve the dilemma of implementing the balancedscorecard based on a method of systematically choosingmetrics,seve

18、ral important issues need to be addressedand satisfied.For example,the scope of the methodmust include the following requirements:Handle subjective,qualitative judgments as well asquantitative data simultaneously;Be used with any metricfinancial as well as non-financial,historical as well as future

19、orientedandallow comparison between categories;Be accurately descriptive in capturing what metricsusers believe are critically important yet not dictateto them what should be important;Be easy enough for anyone involved in choosingmetrics to use;Handle direct resource allocation issues,conductcost/b

20、enefit analysis,and be used in designing andoptimizing the strategic management system;Remain simple yet effective as a procedure,even ingroup decision making where diverse expertise andpreferences must be considered;Be applicable in negotiation and conflict resolutionby focusing on the relationship

21、s between relativebenefits and costs for each of the parties involved;Be relevant and applicable to a dynamic,constantlychanging organization;Be used for guiding and evaluating strategy,and forestablishing a basis for performance evaluation andincentive-based compensation;Be mathematically rigorous

22、enough to satisfy strictacademicians and mathematically oriented practition-ers and compensation specialists.The tool that can satisfy all of these requirements isthe Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP).In fact,the issueslisted above were adapted from the seminal book writ-ten by the creator of the AHP,

23、Thomas L.Saaty,explaining what AHP can do.5PROBLEMSCHOOSINGMETRICSPerhaps the most candid discussion of the successesand failures of the balanced scorecard was presented in3M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LYS P R I N G 2 0 0 2,V O L.3,N O.31999 by Arthur M.Schneiderman,former v

24、ice presidentof quality and productivity at Analog Devices,Inc.Hewas responsible for the development in 1987 of the firstbalanced scorecard that the company used,and heoffers advice from his 12 years of experience as a“bal-anced scorecard process owner.”6He states that“a goodscorecard can be the sin

25、gle most important manage-ment tool in Western organizations,”but“the vastmajority of so-called balanced scorecards fail over timeto meet the expectations of their creators.”7Schneiderman lists six reasons why most balancedscorecard implementations fail(see Table 1).First onthe list is the incorrect

26、 choice of variables as drivers ofstakeholder satisfaction.In addressing this issue,Schneiderman states:The difficulty in identifying scorecard metricsis compounded by the emerging requirementsof nonowner stakeholders:employees,cus-tomers,suppliers,communities,and evenfuture generations.8Schneiderma

27、n mentions how difficult it is for organi-zations to clearly identify social responsibilities.At leastpart of the problem is the subjectivity involved.Thesubjectivity issue is also likely to create difficulties indefining the metrics.Even so,Schneiderman appears torecognize that value creation takes

28、 place at the activitylevel and recommends pushing metrics downward tolower organization levels.He argues that:There is great value in even subjective agree-ment that if all of the goals of subordinatescorecards are achieved,then a higher-levelgoal will also be achieved,almost withcertainty.9Schneid

29、erman is not the only balanced scorecardadvisor to lament the difficulty with metric choice andthe problems that result.About the same time,MarkFrigo and Kip Krumwiede published a study that ratedperformance metrics in the balanced scorecard frame-work.After examining survey data,they concluded that

30、scorecard users rated about a third of customer andinternal process area metrics as between“less than ade-quate”and“poor.”In addition,“Only 16.8%rated cus-tomer metrics as very good to excellent,and only12.3%said their internal process metrics were verygood to excellent.”10Like Schneiderman,Frigo an

31、d Krumwiede did notconclude that the balanced scorecard was a poormethod or an inadequate tool.In fact,they concludedthat firms using a balanced scorecard for performancemeasurement rated their performance measurementsystems much higher on average than other compa-nies.11Thus we see even more eviden

32、ce that choosingand properly defining metrics is a difficult task.More-over,the vast majority of companies that have perfor-mance management systems are dissatisfied with theirmetricsincluding those companies that employ thebalanced scorecard.Clearly,a systematic process isneeded to help companies c

33、hoose metrics that mea-sure results appropriately.This is where the AHP can help.Table 1.Why Most BalancedScorecards Fail1.The independent(i.e.,nonfinancial)variables onthe scorecard are incorrectly identified as the pri-mary drivers of future stakeholder satisfaction.2.The metrics are poorly define

34、d.3.Improvement goals are negotiated rather thanbased on stakeholder requirements,fundamentalprocess limits,and improvement processcapabilities.4.There is no deployment system that breaks high-level goals down to the subprocess level whereactual improvement activities reside.5.A state-of-the-art imp

35、rovement system is not used.6.There is not,and cannot be,a quantitative linkagebetween nonfinancial and expected financialresults.Source:A.M.Schneiderman,“Why Balanced Scorecards Fail,”Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement,January 1999.4M A N A G E M E N T A C C O U N T I N G Q U A R T E R LY

36、S P R I N G 2 0 0 2,V O L.3,N O.3THEAHP METHODAccording to Saaty,the AHP is“a framework of logicand problem solving”that organizes data into a hierar-chy of forces that influence decision results.12Themethod is mathematically rigorous yet easy to under-stand because it focuses on making a series of

37、simplepaired comparisons.These comparisons are used tocompute the relative importance of items in a hierarchy.Accordingly,the AHP can help decision makers under-stand which metrics are more important by indicatingwhich metrics weigh more heavily on a decision thanothers.Managers typically will not u

38、se a method that theydo not understand,and if they are forced to use such amethod,they will likely not be happy about it.Unfortu-nately,the best methods(e.g.,most accurate or useful)are often the most complex as well.In contrast,theAHP is simple,adaptable to groups and individuals,natural to intuiti

39、on and general thinking,encouragescompromise and consensus building,and does notrequire a great deal of specialized knowledge to master.The AHP is able to deal with the subjectivity involvedwith attempting to define vague,judgmentally basedmetrics such as those associated with social responsibili-ty

40、.When a large number of metrics are possible,theAHP is able to help decision makers simplify the num-ber of possible metrics.Here is a general description of the AHP pertainingspecifically to choosing balanced scorecard metrics.13The AHP uses a series of paired comparisons inwhich users provide judg

41、ments about the relative domi-nance of two items.The term“dominance”here is agreater-than type of measure for a given attribute orquality.Dominance can be expressed in terms of impor-tance,preference,equity,or some other criterion thatcauses the individual to believe that one item is betteror more a

42、ppropriate than another.This criterion neednot be specified or readily definable to use the method;that is,the dominance decision could be based on expe-rience,intuition,or some subjective judgment that per-haps the user cannot articulate.The AHP assumes hierarchical relationships withoutcompromisin

43、g the relative balance that the balancedscorecard intrinsically encourages.In a balanced score-card task,the first level of the hierarchy contains thefour balanced scorecard categories.The second level ofthe hierarchy contains the metrics that are used to mea-sure performance for each of the four ca

44、tegories.The AHP can be used in two ways to implement abalanced scorecard:(1)at the beginning of the process,to help choose metrics,and(2)after the metrics arechosen,to help understand their relative importance toa firms managers and employees.We illustrate both inthe following sections.AHP ANDMETRI

45、CSELECTIONDetermining which metrics to use in a balanced score-card requires selecting the set of metrics for each of thefour areas mentioned earlier:customers,financial,inter-nal business processes,and innovation and learning.The first decision is to choose who will be involved inselecting the metr

46、ics.It is likely that different person-nel should be used in the metric identification processfor each separate area.The participant selection processalso requires deciding which levels in the organizationwill be used to select the metrics(e.g.,plant level,divi-sion level,corporate level,or all thre

47、e).The number ofparticipants should be large enough to ensure that a suf-ficient number of potentially appropriate metrics areidentified but small enough that the metric selectionprocess does not become unwieldy.The metric selec-tion process in each of the four areas can proceed eithersimultaneously

48、 or one area at a time.Participants initially should be encouraged to brain-storm and use their experiences and expertise to identi-fy all possible metrics in each area.After they identifythe set of possible metrics,the next step is to reducethe list to a smaller number of metrics.If possible,allpar

49、ticipants should meet in person or via conferencecall to discuss which metrics are most important.After the list has been whittled down,the AHP facili-tator uses the reduced set of metrics and has partici-pants respond to the AHP task.Each participant isasked to compare all possible pairs of metrics

50、 in each ofthe four areas as to their relative importance using awritten survey.From the participants responses,theAHP facilitator computes a decision model for each par-ticipant that reflects the relative importance of eachmetric(the decision weights sum to 100%).14After theAHP decision models are