in black and white
Main menu
Home About us Share a book
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics

The strategy gap lavaraging thechnology to execute winning strategies - Goveney M.

Goveney M. The strategy gap lavaraging thechnology to execute winning strategies - Wiley & sons , 2003. - 242 p.
ISBN 0-471-21450-7
Download (direct link): thestrategygapleveraging2003.pdf
Previous << 1 .. 30 31 32 33 34 35 < 36 > 37 38 39 40 41 42 .. 86 >> Next

In addition to success maps, the Performance Prism promotes the use of “failure maps.” A failure map is essentially a success map that asks, How can we reduce the risk of failure? For example, what sorts of strategies, processes, and capabilities would be needed to ensure that an organization’s financial investors, customers, suppliers, or partners do not defect? Like a success map, a failure map starts at the bottom with capabilities that are linked to various processes and then links them to various strategies that can mitigate the risks and potential for failure.
Reengineering a performance measurement system takes time and money. As with most reengineering projects, there is a tendency to put it off until tomorrow because the benefits are not readily apparent. While many of the benefits are longer term, data reported by Mark Graham Brown suggest that many benefits are more immediate and tangible.33 Some of the benefits he has observed over the years include:
• As much as an 80 percent reduction in the volume of monthly reports generated by the finance function
• Over a 50 percent reduction in the amount of time senior managers spend in monthly meetings
• Up to a 60 percent reduction in the pounds of performance reports printed each day
• Elimination of up to an hour’s worth of work spent each day by managers reviewing and interpreting performance reports
• Better balance between the focus on both short-term and longterm success of the organization
The Strategy Gap
• Better balance in meeting the needs of all organizational stakeholders
• Better understanding among employees of the vision and values of the organization and better tracking of the achievement of the vision and values
1. Jim Harris, Blindsided (Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd., 2002), 140.
2. Ibid., 12.
3. James Cope, “ ‘Virtual Close’ Fails to Work for Cisco,” Computerworld, February 19, 2001.
4. Andre A. de Waal, Quest for Balance (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), 24-25.
5. William A. Schiemann and John H. Lingle, BULLSEYE! Hitting Your Strategic Targets Through High-Impact Measurement (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 10.
6. Ibid., 12.
7. Robert Simons, Performance Measurement & Control Systems for Implementing Strategy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000), 7.
8. George Odiorne, Management by Objectives: A System of Managerial Objectives (New York: Pitman Publishers, 1965).
9. Hackett Best Practices, 2002 Book of Numbers: Strategic Decision-Making (2002), 6.
10. Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Inc., Balanced Scorecard Functional Standards™Release 1.0a, May 5, 2000, 2.
11. Hackett Best Practices, 2002 Book of Numbers: Strategic Decision-Making (2002), 11.
12. Schiemann and Lingle, BULLSEYE!, 40, 47.
13. Harris, Blindsided, 78-79.
14. Richard Winters, VLDB Survey, 2001, 2001_VLDB_Survey/winners/table1.html.
15. Michael Hammer, The Agenda (New York: Crown Business, 2001), 106.
16. Andy Neely, Chris Adams, and Mike Kennerley, The Performance Prism (London: Pearson Education Limited, 2002), 32-33.
17. Ibid., 35.
18. Jerry L. Harbour, The Basics of Performance Measurement (Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 1997), 39.
19. Neely, Adams, and Kennerley, The Performance Prism, 45.
20. Will Kaydos, Operational Performance Measurement (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999), 159-160.
Measurement and Methodologies
21. Michael Cowley and Ellen Domb, Beyond Strategic Vision (Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997), 17.
22. Becker Associates, Strategic Planning Using Hoshin Kanri, 2001, www., 2001.
23. Becker Associates,, 2001.
24. Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Balanced Scorecard Functional Standards™ Release 1.0a, 5.
25. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001).
26. Neely, Adams, and Kennerley, The Performance Prism, 159.
27. Ibid., 167.
28. Ibid., 166.
29. Ibid., 160.
30. Ibid., 161.
31. Ibid., 171.
32. Ibid., 173.
33. Mark Graham Brown, Keeping Score (Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 1996), 13.
Corporate Performance Management Systems
So far this book has explored key corporate performance management (CPM) methodologies, metrics, and processes. This chapter reviews the final CPM component: technology systems.
Technology systems—and their impact on the finance function and performance management—have changed dramatically over the last half century. Extensively developed for military use during World War II, computers only really became available for commercial applications in the 1950s. IBM, probably the most influential manufacturer in those early years, developed machines specifically to support business applications such as billing, payroll, and inventory control, which at that time were manually intensive processes that restricted organizational growth.
Previous << 1 .. 30 31 32 33 34 35 < 36 > 37 38 39 40 41 42 .. 86 >> Next