Management System by Kaplan and Norton that Focuses on Financial and Operational Measures

The use of a balanced scorecard when gauging the performance of executives at Paradigm Toys is useful because it measures several key areas that measure past and real time performance that directly affects the company. A balance scorecard can contain both financial and nonfinancial measures as well as both quantitative and qualitative performance measures. Additionally because a balance scorecard can be tailored to the business’s specific targets it can measure the substance of performance better that basic financial indicators that are usually considered the basis of performance ratings. It is important to use more than just financial indicators, because other factors, those qualitative in nature, measure how an employee does their job and gives a larger picture of how well an employee performs. For example, in the case of sales concerning installation of home improvement products one might be measured by repeat buyers or customer satisfaction of how well the salesman followed up with their sale and installation. This kind of non-financial factor can be used to measure the company’s goal of repeat buyer and customer satisfaction which can translate into future sales and growth. Financial indicators are used in similar ways, but are more quantitative in nature. The main reason to use financial indicators is because they can provide a clear picture

“The balanced scorecard should translate a business unit’s mission and strategy into tangible objectives and measures. The measures represent a balance between external measures for shareholders and customers and internal measures of critical business processes, innovation and learning and growth. The measures are balance between outcome measures, the results of past efforts, and the measures that drive future performance. And the scorecard is balanced between objective, easily quantified outcome measures and subjective, somewhat judgmental, performance…”

Henri, Jean-Francois. (2010). The Periodic Review of Performance Indicators: An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamism of Performance Measurement Systems. European Accounting Review, 19(1), 73-96. Retrieved from https://ehis-ebscohost-com.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7872c1c7-369c-4f36-9a1c-81cea4558aa7%40sessionmgr11&vid=8&hid=1

A balanced scorecard is a tool to provide management a way to bridge the gap between the organization’s strategy and vision and the operational processes used to do business. It enables the company to look at more than just the financial targets, but to include nonfinancial measures such as customer service, internal business processes and more. These intangible measures provide better focus on the organization’s long-term strategies. This paper is an attempt to analyze Frieda Fizz decision to utilize a balanced scorecard as they expand into new geographic areas. The strengths and weaknesses of each perspective are discussed along with the pros and cons of using

Introduction- To be competitive, organizations must be both strategic and tactical to the nth degree, must be proactive rather than reactive, and must find a way to measure this easily and accurately. One way to accomplish this is through a Balanced Scorecard approach; a tool often viewed as one of the best tools that helps organizations translate strategy into performance. In general the BSA (Balanced Scorecard Approach) allows for a clear strategic and tactical directions for the organization, retains financial measurements in a summation along with their links to performance, and highlights an important and robust measurement system that links and integrates customers, stakeholders, processes, resources, and performance into single measurement strategy.

The balanced scorecard now plays an important role in organization management. It has been further identified and used as an important tool in today 's business processes. According to Eric W. Noreen et al. (2002), "a balanced scorecard consists of an integrated set of performance measures that are derived from and support a company’s strategy. A strategy is essentially a theory about how to achieve the organization’s goals" (p. 551). Previously, management had been overwhelmed with data for a long

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996, January-February). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85. ESBCO Host.

In the modern business and organizational environment, particularly as a result of globalization, competition equates performance. To be competitive, organizations must be both strategic and tactical to the nth degree, must be proactive rather than reactive, and must find a way to measure this easily and accurately. One way to accomplish this is through a Balanced Scorecard approach; a tool often viewed as one of the best tools that helps organizations translate strategy into performance. In general the BSA (Balanced Scorecard Approach) allows for a clear strategic and tactical directions for the organization, retains financial measurements in a summation along with their links to performance, and highlights an important and robust measurement system that links and integrates customers, stakeholders, processes, resources, and performance into single measurement strategy. This tool also provides the organization with a tool that takes vision and moves it to strategy, and the conversely, strategy into tactics. BSA supports planning and unites the organization into a more singular vision and common goal. It also allows for both internal and external feedback so that performances and results continue to evolve and improve.

The Cambridge Performance Measurement Design Process proposed by Neely (1996), serves as tool to improve the design of performance measurement systems. This model aims to develop a coherent and balanced system that utilizes financial and non-financial indicators and considers both, internal and external measures. Balancing performance measurements depends on to the huge extent on the successful identification of conflicting or counter-productive performance measures and their elimination.

These new systems will introduce innovations ranging from non-financial indicators of “intangible assets” and “intellectual capital” to “balanced scorecards” of integrated financial and non-financial measures. There are four advantages to using non-financial measures of performance over measurement systems that use financial data alone. The first advantage is linked to long term organizational strategy. Most financial evaluation systems focus on annual or short-term performance against an accounting yardstick, but fail to take into account customer requirements, competitors, and other non-financial objectives that may be just as crucial to “achieving profitability, competitive strength, and longer strategic goals.”

The term ‘performance' is a familiar term used in many aspects of everyday life. Most dictionaries define it as the manner or quality of functioning and it is appropriate to apply it to organizations, with regard to monitoring and quantifying their operating capabilities. Performance measurement system will be those traditional, financially-based performance measures which periodically summarize the organization's performance for the benefit of shareholders, lenders, creditors and statutory authorities.

In the past annual reports only focused on financial measures. Financial measures can be easily manipulated, are historical and short term. Because of this and due to organizational and environmental changes, it has been accepted that financial performance indicators could not function reliably on their own and therefore, non-financial performance metrics were established to reflect the performance of entities from a different point of view.

“Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work,” Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1993, pg 134-147.

Management accounting researchers (Otley, 1999; Norreklit, 2000) have criticized depending exclusively on financial measures. As referred by Cumby and Conrod (2001), sustainable shareholder value and competitiveness advantages are actually driven by non-financial factors such as employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, internal processes and innovation. As a result, companies started to include non-financial measurements within their PAMs to gain better knowledge about the overall company situation (Ittner and Larcker, 2001; Speckbacher et al, 2003).

It has never been more important to accurately measure business and managerial performance. Since the post-War renaissance, companies' prospects of obtaining a competitive advantage have solely depended on a combination of the expertise, knowledge and skills of its staff. There is, however, no single measure of performance in any situation. A large proportion of performance measures are qualitative not quantitative, and therefore value judgements can only be calculated with