Cascading Balanced Scorecards: Using Strategic Maps to make Performance Relevant to RAF Stations
May 26, 2008
Cascading Balanced Scorecards: Using Strategic Maps to make
Performance Relevant to RAF Stations (www.ap-institute.com)
Follow up to this. Expanding the PM system to be relevant to station staffs – current system did not provide relevant info and was a collection exercise. Split between data collectors and users. Potential disconnect between local and high-level goals.
Use of Key Performance Questions to determine what data is required – what do managers need? What is the purpose of the unit? Threat of KPI ‘bloat’ – need to challenge the value of each indicator.
Local flexibility in use of info e.g. exception review vs. regular discussion.
Measuring and Managing Performance in the Royal Air Force (www.ap-institute.com)
Why measure?
Accountable management – Measure performance objectively and hold individuals to account
Procurement management – RAF has long procurement lead times so need to be on top of current force readiness as quickly as possible.
Response – When the RAF is required to respond, it needs to know what resources it had to act with.
Reporting
Scorecard approach, with top line indicators for commanders, but allowing drill down to the raw data. Four perspectives: Outputs, Resources, Processes and Future Capabilities. Outputs were analysed along pre-existing Defence Lines of Delivery. Indicators arranged in a hierarchy, feeding up to the top level. Rules agreed for consolidation based on user requirements e.g. best case, worst cased etc.
Originally used Powerpoint/Word for reporting, but moved to an automated database backed application, integrating Performance Management with Risk Management, Supplier Management. Resource management will be added in the future.
Indicators
Originally focussed on subjective judgements, but this made investigation very difficult. Moved to more objective measures over time, retaining subjective measures where appropriate e.g. morale, fighting spirit. Present automatically calculated picture alongside an alternate view taking into account local commanders’ views to get a comprehensive picture.
Implementation
Large number of dispersed users resulted in significant training requirements. A computer-based training course was developed and the courses were supported by a web site and briefings to keep people up to date.
A dedicated implementation team was set up. They owned the long-term vision of the project, managed development, provided help-desk and training and maintained momentum.
Overcoming scepticism was an issue as the military have cultural reluctance to embrace the science of management, considering it inappropriate in their special circumstances. Support from the Commander in Chief helped mitigate this, as did focus on the benefits of the system. Staff movement made things difficult – people would be persuaded, then move on and their replacement would need persuaded.
Areas to address
Making sure everyone benefits from the data, especially stations which at present provide a lot of data but receive little.
Integration and alignment of performance and resource management. Matching cost data to performance.
Performance anxiety, by Bernard Marr
May 11, 2008
Performance anxiety, by Bernard Marr (PF 18/4/08)
Article on general use of performance measures in management systems. E.g. RAF who have linked the performance management system to risk management and use Key Performance Questions to ensure indicators are strategically useful.
E.g. Belfast City Council, who articulate all their strategic goals, enabling activities, outcomes and outputs on a single sheet of paper.
Eg. MOD have dedicated analyst teams to extract insights from the data.
More detailed articles and case studies at http://www.ap-institute.com/resources_academic.asp
