John Gunkler writes, replying to Vana Prewitt in LO20958...
>Vana Prewitt makes an excellent case for use of something like the
>Balanced Scorecard for evaluating schools. I, too, am a fan of this
>methodology.
I'm not a fan of the Balanced Scorecard, especially not for schools,
although that might not be as disagreeable as it sounds at first
utterance. John points out that slavish adherence to prescription is not
what he is recommending. Instead, what he finds "very powerful is "the
general idea that there are more things of importance to measure and
evaluate than just financial outcomes..." Me, too. Kaplan & Norton, too.
Make no mistake; I'm not an enemy of the Balanced Scorecard. Indeed, it's
probably a dandy tool for a lot of situations, especially those for which
it is now being touted, namely, as a tool for driving top management
strategy down throughout an organization. I just happen to think there's
a better high-level measurement system for many organizations,
particularly those not driven by the bottom line or the CEO's strategy.
A better measurement system is called the "Accountability Scorecard" and,
like the Balanced Scorecard, it attempt to do what John finds commendable,
that is, offset undue emphasis on financial measures of performance. More
important, it attempts to do so by way of a stakeholder-based approach to
determining what those offsetting or balancing measures should be.
Those interested in reading more about the Accountability Scorecard will
find an article on the subject at my web site:
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm -- once there, look for the
article titled "Accountability Scorecard."
Lest you think this is a commercial or an infomercial, it's not. I have a
very satisfactory "day job" as some call it, so I'm not looking to run
around and peddle Accountability Scorecards. But, to be honest, I am
trying to sell the idea, which I can set forth in a few lines:
It is useful to view any organization, especially
one serving social purposes, as a "nexus of contracts."
This "nexus of contracts" consists of the contributions
-inducements relationships that exist between the
organization and its stakeholders (e.g., employers,
suppliers, investors, and customers, to name a few).
The ultimate measure of how well an organization is
performing is the extent to which it is able to reconcile
and integrate the often conflicting needs and requirements
of its various stakeholder groups. Over the long haul,
survival depends on doing this satisfactorily, and prosperity
depends on doing it better than one's competitors.
So, what an organization's scorecard ought to measure is
how well it is doing in relation to the transactions it
carries out with its various stakeholders.
These transactions are not under the unilateral control of
the organization or any one of its stakeholder groups. They
are instead a matter of MUTUAL (yes, I know I'm shouting)
responsibility and accountability, hence the notion of an
Accountability Scorecard.
The relevant literature, for those academically inclined, is mainly as
follows:
Barnard, Functions of the Executive
Cyert & March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
March & Simon, Organizations
Kaplan & Norton, The Balanced Scorecard
And, of course, Peter Drucker's notion of
an "executive dashboard."
Again, if you want to know more about the notion of an Accountability
Scorecard, click on or go to the link above and, if you have questions
later, feel free to send me an email.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>