You are on page 1of 13

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Balanced_scorecard
alanced scorecard
Part of a series on Strategy
Strategy
Definition---------The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a strategy performance
management tool - a semi-standard structured report, supported by design
methods and automation tools, that can be used by managers to keep track of
the execution of activities by the staff within their control and to monitor the
consequences arising from these actions
!"#
The critical characteristics that define a $alanced %corecard are
!&#
its focus on the strategic agenda of the organisation concerned
the selection of a small number of data items to monitor
a mix of financial and non-financial data items
Balanced Scorecard is an example of a closed-loop controller or cybernetic
control applied to the management of the implementation of a strategy.
[3]
Closed-loop or cybernetic control is where actual performance is measured,
the measured value is compared to an expected value and based on the
difference between the two corrective interventions are made as required.
Such control requires three things to be effective - a choice of data to measure,
the setting of an expected value for the data, and the ability to make a
corrective intervention.
[3]
'ithin the strategy management context, all three of these characteristic closed-
loop control elements need to be derived from the organisation(s strategy and
also need to reflect the ability of the observer to both monitor performance and
subsequently intervene - both of which may be constrained
!)#
Two of the ideas that underpin modern $alanced %corecard designs concern
facilitating the creation of such a control - through making it easier to select which
data to observe, and ensuring that the choice of data is consistent with the ability
of the observer to intervene
!*#
History[edit]
+rgani,ations have used systems consisting of a mix of financial and non-
financial measures to track progress for quite some time
!-#
+ne such system was
created by .rt %chneiderman in "/01 at .nalog Devices, a mid-si,ed semi-
conductor company2 the .nalog Devices $alanced %corecard
!1#
%chneiderman(s
design was similar to what is now recognised as a 34irst 5eneration3 $alanced
%corecard design
!*#
6n "//7 .rt %chneiderman participated in an unrelated research study in "//7 led
by Dr 8obert % 9aplan in con:unction with ;% management consultancy <olan-
<orton, and during this study described his work on performance measurement
!1#
%ubsequently, 9aplan and David = <orton included anonymous details of this
balanced scorecard design in a "//& article
!0#
9aplan and <orton(s article wasn(t
the only paper on the topic published in early "//&
!/#
but the "//& 9aplan and
<orton paper was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in
"//>
!"7#
6n "//-, the two authors published a book The Balanced Scorecard
!""#
These articles and the first book spread knowledge of the concept of balanced
scorecard widely, and has led to 9aplan and <orton being seen as the creators
of the concept
'hile the 3balanced scorecard3 terminology was coined by .rt %chneiderman,
the roots of performance management as an activity run deep in management
literature and practice ?anagement historians such as .lfred @handler suggest
the origins of performance management can be seen in the emergence of the
complex organisation - most notably during the "/th @entury in the ;%.
!"&#
?ore
recent influences may include the pioneering work of 5eneral Alectric on
performance measurement reporting in the "/*7s and the work of 4rench
process engineers (who created the tableau de bord B literally, a 3dashboard3 of
performance measures) in the early part of the &7th century
!-#
The tool also
draws strongly on the ideas of the (resource based view of the firm(
!">#
proposed
by Adith =enrose Cowever it should be noted that none of these influences is
explicitly linked to original descriptions of balanced scorecard by %chneiderman,
?aisel, or 9aplan D <orton
9aplan and <orton(s first book
!""#
remains their most popular The book reflects
the earliest incarnations of balanced scorecards - effectively restating the
concept as described in the second Carvard $usiness 8eview article
!"7#
Their
second book, The Strategy Focused Organization,
!")#
echoed work by others
(particularly a book published the year before by +lve et al in %candinavia
!"*#
) on
the value of visually documenting the links between measures by proposing the
3%trategic Einkage ?odel3 or strategy map
.s the title of 9aplan and <orton(s second book
!")#
highlights, even by &777 the
focus of attention among thought-leaders was moving from the design of
$alanced %corecards themselves, towards the use of $alanced %corecard as a
focal point within a more comprehensive strategic management system
%ubsequent writing on $alanced %corecard by 9aplan D <orton has focused on
uses of $alanced %corecard rather than its design (eg 3The Axecution
=remium3 in &770
!"-#
), however many others have continued to refine the device
itself (eg .bernethy et al
!"1#
Characteristics[edit]
The characteristics of the balanced scorecard and its derivatives is the
presentation of a mixture of financial and non-financial measures each compared
to a (target( value within a single concise report The report is not meant to be a
replacement for traditional financial or operational reports but a succinct
summary that captures the information most relevant to those reading it 6t is the
method by which this (most relevant( information is determined (ie, the design
processes used to select the content) that most differentiates the various
versions of the tool in circulation The balanced scorecard indirectly also provides
a useful insight into an organisation(s strategy - by requiring general strategic
statements (eg mission, vision) to be precipitated into more specific F tangible
forms
!"0#
The first versions of balanced scorecard asserted that relevance should derive
from the corporate strategy, and proposed design methods that focused on
choosing measures and targets associated with the main activities required to
implement the strategy .s the initial audience for this were the readers of
the Carvard $usiness 8eview, the proposal was translated into a form that made
sense to a typical reader of that :ournal - managers of ;% commercial
businesses .ccordingly, initial designs were encouraged to measure three
categories of non-financial measure in addition to financial outputs - those of
3customer,3 3internal business processes3 and 3learning and growth3 These
categories were not so relevant to non-profits or units within complex
organi,ations (which might have high degrees of internal speciali,ation), and
much of the early literature on balanced scorecard focused on suggestions of
alternative (perspectives( that might have more relevance to these groups
?odern balanced scorecards have evolved since the initial ideas proposed in the
late "/07s and early "//7s, and the modern performance management tools
including $alanced %corecard are significantly improved - being more flexible (to
suit a wider range of organisational types) and more effective (as design
methods have evolved to make them easier to design, and use)
!"/#
Design[edit]
Design of a balanced scorecard is about the identification of a small number of
financial and non-financial measures and attaching targets to them, so that when
they are reviewed it is possible to determine whether current performance (meets
expectations( $y alerting managers to areas where performance deviates from
expectations, they can be encouraged to focus their attention on these areas,
and hopefully as a result trigger improved performance within the part of the
organi,ation they lead
!>#
The original thinking behind a balanced scorecard was for it to be focused on
information relating to the implementation of a strategy, and over time there has
been a blurring of the boundaries between conventional strategic planning and
control activities and those required to design a $alanced %corecard This is
illustrated well by the four steps required to design a balanced scorecard
included in 9aplan D <orton(s writing on the sub:ect in the late "//7sG
" Translating the vision into operational goals2
& @ommunicating the vision and link it to individual performance2
> $usiness planning2 index setting
) 4eedback and learning, and ad:usting the strategy accordingly
These steps go far beyond the simple task of identifying a small number of
financial and non-financial measures, but illustrate the requirement for whatever
design process is used to fit within broader thinking about how the resulting
$alanced %corecard will integrate with the wider business management process
.lthough it helps focus managers( attention on strategic issues and the
management of the implementation of strategy, it is important to remember that
the $alanced %corecard itself has no role in the formation of strategy
!*#
6n fact,
balanced scorecards can co-exist with strategic planning systems and other
tools
!-#
First Generation Balanced Scorecard[edit]
The first generation of $alanced %corecard designs used a 3) perspective3
approach to identify what measures to use to track the implementation of
strategy HThe original four 3perspectives3 proposed
!0#
wereG

FinancialG encourages the identification of a few relevant high-level


financial measures 6n particular, designers were encouraged to choose
measures that helped inform the answer to the question 3Cow do we look to
shareholdersI3 AxamplesG cash flow, sales growth, operating income, return
on equity
!&7#

CustomerG encourages the identification of measures that answer the


question 3Cow do customers see usI3 AxamplesG percent of sales from new
products, on time delivery, share of important customersJ purchases, ranking
by important customers

Internal business processesG encourages the identification of measures


that answer the question 3'hat must we excel atI3 AxamplesG cycle time, unit
cost, yield, new product introductions

Learning and growtG encourages the identification of measures that


answer the question 3Cow can we continue to improve, create value
and innovateI3 AxamplesG time to develop new generation of products, life
cycle to product maturity, time to market versus competition
The idea was that managers used these perspective headings to prompt the
selection of a small number of measures that informed on that aspect of the
organisation(s strategic performance
!0#
The perspective headings show that
9aplan and <orton were thinking about the needs of non-divisional commercial
organisations in their initial design These headings are not very helpful to other
kinds of organisations (eg multi-divisional or multi-national commercial
organisations, governmental organisations, non-profits, non-governmental
organisations, government agencies etc), and much of what has been written on
balanced scorecard since has, in one way or another, focused on the
identification of alternative headings more suited to a broader range of
organisations, and also suggested using either additional or fewer perspectives
(eg $utler et al ("//1),
!&"#
.hn (&77"),
!&&#
Alefalke (&77"),
!&>#
$rignall (&77&),
!&)#
6rwin (&77&),
!&*#
8adnor et al (&77>)
!&-#
)
These suggestions were notably triggered by a recognition that different but
equivalent headings would yield alternative sets of measures, and this represents
the ma:or design challenge faced with this type of balanced scorecard designG
:ustifying the choice of measures made 3+f all the measures you could have
chosen, why did you choose theseI3 These issues contribute to dis-satisfaction
with early $alanced %corecard designs, since if users are not confident that the
measures within the $alanced %corecard are well chosen, they will have less
confidence in the information it provides
!&1#
.lthough less common, these early-style balanced scorecards are still designed
and used today
!"#
6n short, first generation balanced scorecards are hard to design in a way that
builds confidence that they are well designed $ecause of this, many are
abandoned soon after completion
!-#
Second Generation Balanced Scorecard[edit]
6n the mid-"//7s, an improved design method emerged
!"*#
6n the new method,
measures are selected based on a set of 3strategic ob:ectives3 plotted on a
3strategic linkage model3 or 3strategy map3 'ith this modified approach, the
strategic ob:ectives are distributed across the four measurement perspectives, so
as to 3connect the dots3 to form a visual presentation of strategy and measures
!&0#
6n this modified version of balanced scorecard design, managers select a few
strategic ob:ectives within each of the perspectives, and then define the cause-
effect chain among these ob:ectives by drawing links between them to create a
3strategic linkage model3 . balanced scorecard of strategic performance
measures is then derived directly by selecting one or two measures for each
strategic ob:ectives
!*#
This type of approach provides greater contextual
:ustification for the measures chosen, and is generally easier for managers to
work through This style of balanced scorecard has been commonly used since
"//- or soG it is significantly different in approach to the methods originally
proposed, and so can be thought of as representing the 3&nd generation3 of
design approach adopted for balanced scorecard since its introduction
!ird Generation Balanced Scorecard[edit]
6n the late "//7s, the design approach had evolved yet again +ne problem with
the 3&nd generation3 design approach described above was that the plotting of
causal links amongst twenty or so medium-term strategic goals was still a
relatively abstract activity 6n practice it ignored the fact that opportunities to
intervene, to influence strategic goals are, and need to be, anchored in the
3now23 in current and real management activity %econdly, the need to 3roll
forward3 and test the impact of these goals necessitated the creation of an
additional design instrument2 the Kision or Destination %tatement This device
was a statement of what 3strategic success,3 or the 3strategic end-state3 looked
like 6t was quickly reali,ed, that if a Destination %tatement was created at the
beginning of the design process then it was easier to select strategic activity and
outcome ob:ectives to respond to it ?easures and targets could then be selected
to track the achievement of these ob:ectives Design methods that incorporate a
3destination statement3 or equivalent (eg the results based
management method proposed by the ;< in &77&) represent a tangibly different
design approach to those that went before, and have been proposed as
representing a 3>rd generation3 design method for balanced scorecard
!*#
Design methods for balanced scorecards continue to evolve and adapt to reflect
the deficiencies in the currently used methods, and the particular needs of
communities of interest (eg <5+(s and government departments have found
the >rd generation methods embedded in results based management more
useful than "st or &nd generation design methods)
!&/#
This generation refined the second generation of the balanced scorecard to give
the strategic ob:ectives more relevance and functionality The ma:or difference is
the incorporation of (destination statements( +ther key components consist of
strategic ob:ectives, strategic linkage model and perspectives, and measures and
initiatives
!*#
Popularity[edit]
6n "//1, 9urt,man
!>7#
found that -) percent of the companies questioned were
measuring performance from a number of perspectives in a similar way to the
balanced scorecard $alanced scorecards have been implemented by
government agencies, military units, business units and corporations as a whole,
non-profit organi,ations, and schools
$alanced %corecard has been widely adopted, and has been found to be the
most popular performance management framework in a recent survey
!>"#
?any examples of balanced scorecards can be found via web searches
Cowever, adapting one organi,ation(s balanced scorecard to another is generally
not advised by theorists, who believe that much of the benefit of the balanced
scorecard comes from the design process itself
!-#
6ndeed, it could be argued that
many failures in the early days of balanced scorecard could be attributed to this
problem, in that early balanced scorecards were often designed remotely by
consultants
!>&#!>>#
?anagers did not trust, and so failed to engage with and use,
these measure suites created by people lacking knowledge of the organi,ation
and management responsibility
!"/#
Variants[edit]
%ince the balanced scorecard was populari,ed in the early "//7s, a large
number of alternatives to the original (four box( balanced scorecard promoted by
9aplan and <orton in their various articles and books have emerged ?ost have
very limited application, and are typically proposed either by academics as
vehicles for promoting other agendas (such as green issues) - eg $rignall
(&77&)
!&)#
or consultants as an attempt at differentiation to promote sales of books
and F or consultancy (eg $ourne (&77&)2
!>)#
<iven (&77&)
!>*#
)
?any of the structural variations proposed are broadly similar, and a research
paper published in &77)
!*#
attempted to identify a pattern in these variations -
noting three distinct types of variation The variations appeared to be part of an
evolution of the $alanced %corecard concept, and so the paper refers to these
distinct types as 3generations3 $roadly, the original (measures in boxes( type
design (as proposed by 9aplan D <orton) constitutes the "st generation
balanced scorecard design2 balanced scorecard designs that include a (strategy
map( or (strategic linkage model( (eg the =erformance =rism,
!>-#
later 9aplan D
<orton designs
!"-#
the =erformance Driver model of +lve, 8oy D 'etter (Anglish
translation "///,
!"*#
"st published in %wedish "//1)) constitute the &nd
5eneration of $alanced %corecard design2 and designs that augment the
strategy map F strategic linkage model with a separate document describing the
long-term outcomes sought from the strategy (the 3destination statement3 idea)
comprise the >rd generation balanced scorecard design
Kariants that feature adaptations of the structure of $alanced %corecard to suit
better a particular viewpoint or agenda are numerous Axamples of the focus of
such adaptations include green issues,
!&)#
decision support,
!>1#
public sector
management,
!>0#
and health care management
!>/#
The performance management
elements of the ;<(s 8esults $ased ?anagement system have strong design
and structural similarities to those used in the >rd 5eneration $alanced
%corecard design approach
!&/#
$alanced %corecard is also often linked to quality management tools and
activities
!)7#
.lthough there are clear areas of cross-over and association, the two
sets of tools are complementary rather than duplicative
!)"#
. common use of balanced scorecard is to support the payments of incentives to
individuals, even though it was not designed for this purpose and is not
particularly suited to it
!&#!)&#
Criticism[edit]
The balanced scorecard has attracted criticism from a variety of sources ?ost
has come from the academic community, who dislike the empirical nature of the
frameworkG 9aplan and <orton notoriously failed to include any citation of prior
art in their initial papers on the topic %ome of this criticism focuses on technical
flaws in the methods and design of the original $alanced %corecard proposed by
9aplan and <orton,
!"/#!>&#!)>#
+ther academics have simply focused on the lack of
citation support
!))#
. second kind of criticism is that the balanced scorecard does not provide a
bottom line score or a unified view with clear recommendationsG it is simply a list
of metrics (eg Lensen &77"
!)*#
) These critics usually include in their criticism
suggestions about how the (unanswered( question postulated could be answered,
but typically the unanswered question relate to things outside the scope of
balanced scorecard itself (such as developing strategies) (eg $rignall
!&)#
)
. third kind of criticism is that the model fails to fully reflect the needs of
stakeholders - putting bias on financial stakeholders over others Aarly forms of
$alanced %corecard proposed by 9aplan D <orton focused on the needs of
commercial organisations in the ;%. - where this focus on investment return was
appropriate
!"7#
This focus was maintained through subsequent revisions
!)-#
Aven
now over &7 years after they were first proposed, the four most common
perspectives in $alanced %corecard designs mirror the four proposed in the
original 9aplan D <orton paper
!"#
Cowever, as noted earlier in this wiki page,
there have been many studies that suggest other perspectives might better
reflect the priorities of organisations - particularly but not exclusively relating to
the needs of organisations in the public and <on 5overnmental sectors
!)1#
?ore
modern design approaches such as >rd 5eneration $alanced %corecard and the
;<(s 8esults $ased ?anagement methods explicitly consider the interests of
wider stakeholder groups, and perhaps address this issue in its entirety
!&/#
There are few empirical studies linking the use of balanced scorecards to better
decision making or improved financial performance of companies, but some work
has been done in these areas Cowever, broadcast surveys of usage have
difficulties in this respect, due to the wide variations in definition of (what a
balanced scorecard is( noted above (making it hard to work out in a survey if you
are comparing like with like) %ingle organi,ation case studies suffer from the
(lack of a control( issue common to any study of organi,ational change - you don(t
know what the organi,ation would have achieved if the change had not been
made, so it is difficult to attribute changes observed over time to a single
intervention (such as introducing a balanced scorecard) Cowever, such studies
as have been done have typically found balanced scorecard to be useful
!-#!"/#
Software tools[edit]
6t is important to recogni,e that the balanced scorecard by definition is not a
complex thing - typically no more than about &7 measures spread across a mix of
financial and non-financial topics, and easily reported manually (on paper, or
using simple office software)
!)-#
The processes of collecting, reporting, and distributing balanced scorecard
information can be labor-intensive and prone to procedural problems (for
example, getting all relevant people to return the information required by the
required date) The simplest mechanism to use is to delegate these activities to
an individual, and many $alanced %corecards are reported via ad-hoc methods
based around email, phone calls and office software
6n more complex organi,ations, where there are multiple balanced scorecards to
report andFor a need for co-ordination of results between balanced scorecards
(for example, if one level of reports relies on information collected and reported at
a lower level) the use of individual reporters is problematic 'here these
conditions apply, organi,ations use balanced scorecard reporting software to
automate the production and distribution of these reports
8ecent surveys
!"#!)0#
have consistently found that roughly one third of
organi,ations used office software to report their balanced scorecard, one third
used software developed specifically for their own use, and one third used one of
the many commercial packages available
,
Kirginia, httpGFFwwwvirginiaeduFcioFgoalsMmetricshtml
(systematic example)
Balanced Scorecard: Goals and Metrics FY 2013-
2014
Goals & Metrics by Perspective

Customer Perspective

Internal Perspective

Financial Perspective

Learning & Growth Perspective


!sto"er Perspective
How can we fulfill user/customer/University expectations and needs?
G#$%S &'()* #B+,)(-,S.S)/$),G(,S0:

Improve user experience (including ease of use, availability, accessibility and


usability within the context of security and compliance)
o Measure and meet Service Levels (including establishing baselines, targets, costs,
etc! that meet customer needs
o Improve pro"ect management (including usabilit# testing, solid timelines,
communications, training, holding pro"ect managers accountable $or pro"ect
management standards, etc!
o Implement Service Management Improvements (In$ormation %echnolog#
In$rastructure Librar#& I%IL'Lite!
o (nsure broad representation on pro"ect and service deliver# teams
o (ducate and train to ensure services are used and use$ul
o Simpli$# services and access to services

Improve communication, transparency and outreach


o )evelop channels to highlight operational services (including SL*s! and products
o Improve pro"ect deliver# (communications and training!
o (nsure two'wa# communication between our organi+ation and sta,eholders
o (stablish strong communication with -niversit# strategic initiatives (through *.P
$or I% Initiatives!
o Maintain and e/pand issue and solution documentation $or services

Advance the University's strategic mission by establishing priorities in support of


that mission
o (stablish new governance0advising structures (ma/imi+e e$$ectiveness in advising
our organi+ation on pro"ects and services!
o (stablish port$olio management and pro"ect prioriti+ation policies and procedures
o (nsure the CI1 2alanced Scorecard is aligned with the -niversit#3s Mission

Be a strategic resource and trusted partner within the University community


o -nderstand customer perspective and environment
o Collaborate with sta,eholders on their strategic planning ($rom -niversit# level
down!
o Partner with the librar# (including digital preservation, big data, etc!
o Participate in -niversit#'wide enterprise ris, management ((4M!, polic#
development, and compliance initiatives

Be a champion for emerging technologies


o Participation in creation o$ new national higher education standards and services
o Monitor the national environment $or opportunities
o (nsure the -niversit# is positioned to ta,e advantage o$ national higher education
standards and services (including InCommon, 5et6, etc!
o )evelop channels across the -niversit# to promote new technologies and
discovering emerging needs
M,)/(S:
7 8ow man# SL*s were measurable and met9
7 Percentage o$ services with SL*s
: S#stem availabilit# and up'time percentages
; 5umber and duration o$ planned and unplanned downtimes
< Mean time'to'resolution $or incidents (P7 and P:!
= 4esponse time to 7st communication $or incidents (P7 and P:!
> 8elp )es, I% re$errals time'to'resolution and response time
: 5umber o$ new services0strategicall# retired services0technologies
; 8elp )es, tic,ets per select pro"ect rollout0service upgrade0service as a whole
< 5umber o$ services monitored and to what level
(nternal Perspective
How should we execute internal processes most efficiently/effectively to meet
user/customer/University needs and expectations?
G#$%S &'()* #B+,)(-,S.S)/$),G(,S0:

Improve operational efficiency and effectiveness


o Mature pro"ect management and implement port$olio management
o Improve recruiting, hiring, onboarding and retaining sta$$ and succession planning
o *dvance asset, media, and access management
o Improve )isaster 4ecover# plans, ensuring inclusion o$ ,e# sta,eholders
o (ncourage ideas $or improvements $rom sta$$ and sta,eholders
o (liminate redundanc# o$ tools, processes, services (e/amples are bac,up s#stems,
billing s#stems!
o Strengthen vendor management (bul, bu#ing, service escalation, strategic
alignment, etc!
o (stablish technolog# design standards ($rom router standards to service standards!
o (nhance service monitoring and management with automation

Improve coordination of services and proects


o Implement Service Management Improvements (In$ormation %echnolog#
In$rastructure Librar#& I%IL'Lite!
o (nsure transition to new services and retirement o$ old services is as smooth as
possible (planned and coordinated!
o Identi$# pro"ect and service teams and dependencies
o Identi$# roles and responsibilities $or pro"ects and services including establishing
1perating Level *greements (1L*s!
o Streamline and $ormali+e organi+ational processes $or service deliver#0changes
o (nsure strong communication within pro"ect and service teams
o (stablish port$olio management and pro"ect prioriti+ation policies and procedures
o Improve sharing o$ standards, policies and guidelines across CI1 areas
o Improve and coordinate service deliver# s#stems
o (ncourage stronger communication and transparenc# across CI1 areas

!everage governance to improve internal efficiency and effectiveness


o Increase oversight & guidance $or pro"ects & services
o (valuate e/isting and identi$# new governance groups? optimi+e governance
structure

"nsure that we are operating in a safe and compliant manner


o Improve sharing o$ standards, policies and guidelines across CI1'areas
M,)/(S:
7 S#stem availabilit# and up'time percentages
: 5umber and duration o$ planned and unplanned downtimes
; Mean time'to'resolution $or incidents (P7 and P:!
< First contact resolution (@ o$ cases resolved at the 8elp )es,!
= Mean time $or 8elp )es, and other service re$erral resolution A I% onl#
> Sta$$ turnover
B Cross'training matri/ with metrics
C 5umber o$ documented processes, policies and standards
D *reas where redundanc# has been eliminated
Financial Perspective
How can we be good stewards of University resources?
G#$%S &'()* #B+,)(-,S.S)/$),G(,S0:

Understand and manage service and proect finances, serving as good stewards of
University resources
o )evelop CI1 budget structure to support Cost o$ Services (CoS!
o )evelop0revise0communicate rate structures $or new or e/isting services
o (nsure continual anal#sis o$ CoS annuall# and comparison across #ears
o .alidate Cost o$ Services data0de$initions within CI1 areas (and with peers where
applicable!
o Improve pro"ect management o Improve resource planning
o (valuate resources $or pro"ects0services underta,en and ensure bene$it reali+ation
o Promote sustainabilit# practices
o (nsure sustainable $unding structure $or services and pro"ects
o Participate in organi+ational e/cellence planning and implementation
o -se port$olio management to evaluate pro"ects and services underta,en and retired
o See, opportunities $or new revenue streams
o Improve internal processes and enhance productivit#

Identify and evaluate opportunities to strategically source services


o %a,e advantage o$ economies o$ scale, new services o$$ered in the mar,etplace,
and commoditi+ation, and source services accordingl#

"nsure #I$ budget model supports operations, goals and obectives


o )evelop and Implement multi'#ear budget planning (='7E #ear plan!
o 4e$ine budget accounting structure and reporting
M,)/(S
7 Costs compared to peers (Compare costs and capabilities o$ services!
: Manage to approved budget
; Captured0recovered costs0budget savings ($or re'deplo#ment!
< Cost avoidance resulting $rom vendor negotiation $or ,e# pro"ects
= Costs savings where redundanc# has been eliminated
%earnin1 & Gro2t3 Perspective
How can we ensure current and future capability of our workforce?
G#$%S &'()* #B+,)(-,S.S)/$),G(,S0:

%evelop wor&force to gain needed s&ills (both hard and soft s&ills)
o Cross'train (incorporating identi$ication o$ critical s,illsets!
o )evelop and maintain deep current and $uture technical s,ills
o )evelop presentation and communication s,ills
o )evelop customer services s,ills o (nsure new and e/isting emplo#ees are provided
with mentors as appropriate
o Promote ownership, empowerment, and appropriate ris,'ta,ing
o )evelop internal sta$$'led training around speci$ic topics and con$erences (Flunch
and learnG!
o (/plore0)esign CI1'area orientation $or new and e/isting emplo#ees
o 1n the "ob e/perience to gain and use so$t s,ills (leadership, culture, people s,ills!
o Identi$# critical certi$ications and number o$ people who certi$#

'rovide opportunities for further development of proect management s&ills


o (stablish $ormal and in$ormal training

'rovide opportunities for further development of I( )ervice *anagement+I(I!


&nowledge and s&ills

"ngage staff in their own professional development


o Incorporate $eedbac, $rom peer evaluations into pro$essional development planning
o Provide coaching as needed
o Promote leadership development

,ocus on succession and organi-ational planning


o Promote leadership development
o Hor, with -niversit# 8uman 4esources to develop succession planning structure
o Provide opportunities $or e/ploration o$ and in$ormation sharing about other
roles0$unctions internal to the CI1 area
M,)/(S:
7 5umber o$ training sessions given and attended (@ o$ people trained!
: 5umber o$ certi$ications obtained b# sta$$
; 5umber o$ people that attended con$erences and0or training
< Percentage o$ sta$$ accomplishing pro$essional development goals
= 8igh Iualit# and relevant training sessions (as rated0measured b# participants!
> Cross'training matri/ with metrics
B )ecrease in human resource single points o$ $ailure
%e/t .ersion J Print .ersion