Ted - I think you raise an interesting question which I think is ultimately going to impact the sustainability of any scorecard program. That is where does the performance information come from and how is it accessed (systematically, by individuals, or some combination).
A couple of thoughts come to mind for companies to consider:
Automate where possible since it lessens the workload on individuals on gathering the information and lets them focus on the value adding analysis. However, don't presume that just because something is automated that it is better - there are tons of stories we each could quote where something was measured largely because it was available versus being a critical piece of performance information.
If you are assigning someone to get a piece of information, it helps if they know why the information is important and allow them the latitude to determine how best to get it as well as to suggest if there might be a better piece of information to serve the desired purpose. This builds engagement and creates ownership and ultimately leads to better measures. It also bridges the disconnect between those who gather data and those whose job is to interpret this information.
A central group can work as long as the objective owners ultimately it is their job to review and further interpret the analysis from the measure analysts. Most often measure analysts are not looking at the big picture which is was the owners are expected to do. They can provide context that is important to help drive decisions.
Large dispersed groups tend to dilute and weaken the overall effort - at least initially. Once a program is up and running then a larger group may work once the strategy management processes are embedded in the organization.
More to follow in the future...
answered
Jun 04 '10 at 18:53
Jay R. Weiser
61●2●2
