We accept

Challenge of Implementing of Effective Performance Measures

Neely et al. (1997) claims that, 'usually performance measures have been regarded as a method of quantifying the efficiency and success of action. '

Business professionals usually use different types of performance methods to judge the development levels, demand, operating efficiency and results in order to determine how well their business is functioning and whether anything must be increased.

In this article I have already been asked to, discuss the problems of designing and putting into action effective performance options and support my discussion with research-based facts, referring to a number of organisations or types of my choice.

When it comes to measuring something the first notion that comes to mind is the fact things that are methods should be tangible. But how do you go about measuring something that is intangible, such as organisations. Organisations are assessed by examining how well they may be performing.

However, you are unable to just say an organisations performance is doing well, or some part of operations is of low quality, in order to regulate how well an operation in an company is doing, they have to use some sort of methods which may have been used before to show that it's doing well.

One detailed solution that an organisation can use is the well-balanced scorecard method. That is a performance dimension framework that contributes proper non-financial performance actions to traditional financial metrics to give managers and executives a more healthy view of organisational performance.

To take the healthy scorecard road, an organisation must know their mission statement, the proper plans and vision, the financial position of the company, how the organisation is currently organized and operating, the amount of expertise of their workers and the client satisfaction level.

Once an organisation has analysed the specific and quantifiable results, the well balanced scorecard approach can be used to enhance the areas where they can be deficient.

One company that got the balanced report card procedure was, Rockwater, a global engineering and development company who are an internationally head in underwater engineering and building. In the overdue 1980's the industry started out changing and Rockwater was required to respond to this. Many leading olive oil companies wished to develop long-term partnerships using their suppliers rather than choose suppliers based on their low-price competition.

The mature management team decided to develop a vision, 'as their customers preferred service provider, they will be the industry leader in providing the highest standards of safety and quality to their clients. '

With this eyesight in addition they created a technique which they altered into the well balanced scorecard's four models of performance actions, which can be seen below.

For short term financial results Rockwater wished to implement come back on capital utilized and cashflow, while profit forecast reliability demonstrated the desire to lessen the historical doubt caused by unexpected variants in performance. Project profitability will provide focus on the task as the basic unit for planning and control, while sales backlog helps reduce doubt of performance.

The company's strategy on customer satisfaction was to stress value-based business. An unbiased organisation conducted an twelve-monthly survey to list customers' perceptions of Rockwater's services compared to its competitors. Furthermore, tier 1 customers, such as engine oil companies, were asked to supply regular satisfaction and performance evaluations. Executives believed that having these rankings gave them a primary tie with their customers and a level of market feedback unsurpassed generally in most industries.

The inner business methods emphasized a big transfer in Rockwater's thinking. The brand new focus was based on measures that built in key business processes. The development of a comprehensive and well-timed index of job performance performance was seen as a key core competency for the business, as well as security which was also a major competitive factor.

Rockwater's improvements originated from product and service technology that could create new resources of earnings and market growth, as well as from constant improvement in internal work processes. (HBR 1993)

The well-balanced scorecard has helped high light a process view of functions, motivate its personnel and integrate consumer feedback into its operations. It created an contract on the need of creating partnerships with important clients, the importance of security within the business and the necessity for improved management at every level of long projects. Rockwater's senior management team see the well balanced scorecard as a essential tool to help achieve its perspective.

The well balanced scorecard tool sometimes appears as an efficient way to gauge the performance of the organisation if the execution is done appropriately and executives recognise that it's a long term commitment.

However, when organisations use the well balanced scorecard as a quick fix many things can fail and organisations will get disappointing results. Some issues that can result in a well-balanced scorecard to fail include, poorly identified metrics. When making balanced scorecard metrics have to be clear and relevant and have to be gathered when decision making is being done and they have to be applied across the organisation consistently.

The well-balanced scorecard encourages an internal focus. This can affect just how organisations put this into practice. To avoid this from becoming a problem, organisations should put external centers first. (bpminstitute 2015)

I assume that even though the well-balanced scorecard can be considered a extremely effective tool if used properly by organisations, however, this is merely a framework that is developed to assist organisations in measuring their performance which is not a panacea, so must not be a go to way for companies.

Likierman (2009) remarks to acquire found the five most popular traps in calculating performance. The five traps are; calculating against yourself. To assess how well you're doing, you need information about the bench marks that subject most.

Looking backward, beating last year's quantities is not the point, a performance measurement system must tell you if the decisions you're making now will help you in the coming months.

Putting your trust in figures, metrics in your performance diagnosis program all comes as volumes. The web that number-driven managers often conclude producing reams of low-quality data.

Gaming your metrics, you can't prevent people from gaming statistics, no matter how spectacular your organisation. As soon as you decide to manage by way of a metric you request your managers to manipulate it. Someone who has learned how to optimise a metric without actually having to perform will often do that. To create a highly effective performance dimension, you have to utilize that fact alternatively than deny it.

Sticking to your volumes too much time, in the initial stages, performance is all about success, cash resources and development. Evaluations are to last week, previous month and this past year. But as the business enterprise matures, the concentration has to proceed to income and the comparisons to competitors. You have to be very precise in what you want to asses, be explicit about what metrics are examining it and ensure that many people are clear about both.

To enough time first trap, companies need to learn the info externally, such as from customers and not internally, where they look at statistics from the last quarter.

One company who does this where, Rockwater, they applied doing customer research into their strategy and hired an independent company to conduct gross annual surveys to get ranking customers' perceptions of the business. That is one efficient way of avowing dropping into the to begin Likierman's traps. Yet another way of steering clear of this snare is to visit pros outside your organisation and get them to judge the progress of your enterprise. (HBR 1993)

Anticipating changes in the market and then responding positively to the changes can be considered a good way to avoiding the second snare. As the years go by and new products and services are being created, the marketplaces are always changing, so adapting to the change and offering a much better goods and services than your rivals will provide you with an advantage. Because markets are changing, looking back at previous performances over the previous years would be pointless. Rockwater are also an example of how they responded to change in the building and executive market. They realised that their industry was changing and developed a whole new eye-sight and strategy to deal with this change and stay a top rival within that industry, rather than analysing their prior performances and seeking to broaden on that. (HBR 1993)

Rather than focusing on maximising profits and gains, organisations also have to focus on customer satisfaction to avoid the third trap. That is reported to be the biggest factor in making more income, the better client satisfaction you have the more likely you are to make more revenue and more income. By focusing on customers, you're providing them with what they need and meeting their requirements, therefore you are not only keeping the same customers but at exactly the same time attracting clients from your opponents who aren't offering them exactly like you and aren't achieving their requirements. Rockwater realised this when it arrived to adapting to the changes in their industry. They set out a eye-sight of providing the best basic safety and quality services with their clients. Out of this perspective they hoped to become the industry head, because they understood that clients would like them because of their eye-sight to provide client satisfaction to the fullest level. (HBR 1993)

In order to avoid the fourth snare, you have to diversify your metrics because it's a great deal harder to game many of them at once. Clifford Chance, an attorney, replaced its solitary metric of billable time with seven standards on which to base bonus deals; admiration and mentoring, quality of work, quality in consumer service, integrity, contribution to the city, commitment to diversity and contribution to the company as an establishment. Which means that in order for staff to gain bonuses, they have to meet each criteria. If they don't they don't get their bonus offer. That is effective since it clearly suggests what each employee must do in order to get their bonus offer and also its measured fairly and clearly, so no employees can complain they don't really really know what the requirements is. (Likierman 2009)

An organisation must really know what their client's requirements are and also what they indicate. This cannot be determined by the amount of revenue or revenue that is made by the organisation previously. Customer satisfaction should be the number one priority for an organisation, because without customers they won't be able to function. Addleshaw Goddard, an attorney, discovered from a survey that their clients appreciated responsiveness most, followed by pro-activeness. For most organisations responsiveness means getting back as quick as is possible, but the mangers dug deeper and found out the response time varies for different clients, some clients like reactions in ten minutes and some in 2 hours. This shows that sometimes a small amount of research is insufficient and you have to move that extra mile for the clients to learn what they really want. (Likierman 2009)

In conclusion, when it comes to creating and implementing an effective performance dimension plan, there are lots of approaches you can take and there are several things to consider. Organisations have to be wary of the mistakes that may be made when seeking to evaluate performance, such as Likierman's traps. They need to constantly be on the feet when working with these problems. Organisations have to bring together professionals from all areas to be able to take advantage of the ideas that can be produced from each director.

The healthy scorecard tool is also a good strategy to use when it comes to a corporation succeeding and there are many benefits and drawbacks to the tool. Organisation have to realise that it can't be used as an instant fix and must prepare yourself to have the correct metrics to be able to handle this permanent strategy.


Neely, A. Huw, R. Mills, J. Platts, K. Bourne, M. (1997). Making Performance Actions: A Structured Methodology. MCB UP Ltd

Likierman. A. (2009). The Five Traps of Performance Dimension. Harvard Business Review

Kaplan, R. Norton, D. (1993). Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Retrieved from: https://hbr. org/1993/09/putting-the-balanced-scorecard-to-work

BPM Institute. (2015). Problems Utilizing a well-balanced Scorecard. Retrieved from: https://bpminstitute. org/resources/articles/problems-implementing-balanced-scorecard

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment