More with less 1st chapter marr

Proof

About the Authors viii

About the API x

List of Figures and Tables xi

Acknowledgements xiii

Foreword xiv

1 Both Efficient and Effective: The New Public Sector 1Performance Agenda

2 Balanced Scorecards: The Journey from Measurement to 14Strategic Performance Management

3 Using Lean Thinking to Improve Strategic Performance 42

4 Designing Strategy Maps to Agree Strategic Priorities 63

5 Agreeing High Level Strategic Outcome Targets and 90Key Performance Indicators

6 Selecting Strategic Initiatives 112

7 Aligning Financial Management with Strategic Goals 134

8 Keeping Your Eyes on the Ball: Reporting and Reviewing 157Performance

9 Building a Culture Focused on Strategic Performance 182Management

10 Conclusion and Key Strategic Performance Questions 212

Notes 230

Index 240

vii

CONTENTS

Proof

1

1BOTH EFF IC IENT AND EFFECTIVE :

THE NEW PUBL IC SECTORPERFORMANCE AGENDA

We can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we knowthere are new and more efficient ways of getting the job done.

Barack Obama

INTRODUCTION

It is fair to say that the collapse of the financial markets in 2007/2008was an epoch making event. As well as popularizing the then obscureterm “credit crunch,” commentators watched in disbelief as long-established and venerable companies such as Lehman Brothers wentout of business and other household names such as Citibank in the US and the Royal Bank of Scotland in the UK were saved from extinc-tion only through massive financial interventions from their nationalGovernments.

Few industries and sectors were unscathed by the global economicrecession that was triggered by the collapse of the financial markets.From construction to publishing, from property to computing, organ-izations were forced to hurriedly batten down the hatches and waitwhile the recessionary hurricane passed by. Although we have avoided the deep “depression” that was widely predicted at the turn of 2009, the recession can still be seen as a massive economic cata-strophe and it is safe to claim that the road to full recovery will be long and treacherous and many more well known organizations maywell die en route.

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Financing the recovery will place enormous demands on public pursesthat, due to demographic and other influences, have already been stretchedin recent years. Perhaps the most powerful measure of the cost of recoverycan be gleaned by considering the price tag on The American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Largely based on proposals made byPresident Barack Obama, the Act introduced measures intended to stim-ulate the US economy that together will cost about US$787 billion. Therange of measures include federal tax cuts, expansion of unemploymentbenefits and other social welfare provisions as well as domestic spending oneducation, healthcare and infrastructure projects. And bear in mind thatARRA spending is on top of significant amounts of money that have alreadybeen pumped into the US economy by the Government (and that wasreplicated in other nations such as the UK) to shore up the banking sectoras well as the cost of other recession-busting and depression-avoiding interventions.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

When looked at strictly from a performance management perspectiveARRA is nothing short of groundbreaking. For many years, those of usworking to improve performance management within the Governmentand public sectors (which, for ease of reading, together we will refer toas the public sector) have been actively promoting the establishment ofmechanisms that substantially improve performance accountabilityand transparency, which we have long argued must be at least on parwith that expected in the commercial sector.

Therefore it is heartwarming to note that an ARRA provision calledfor “a website on the internet to be named Recovery.gov, to foster greateraccountability and transparency (authors’ italics) in the use of funds madeavailable in this Act.”1 Recovery.gov is operated by the Recovery Trans-parency and Accountability Board, which was also created by the Act.

Unprecedented in the levels of performance transparency andaccountability (indeed the words “Track the Money” are emblazonedacross every webpage) the website tracks areas such as:

– Are the public benefits from the use of the Recovery funds beingreported clearly, accurately and in a timely manner?

– Are Recovery projects avoiding unnecessary delays and cost overruns?– Do Recovery programs meet specified goals and targets?

M O R E W I T H L E S S

2

Proof

FEDERAL DIRECTOR OF PERFORMANCE

Although the ACCA can be viewed as a short-term response to a des-perate situation (even though some of the funding is earmarked forlonger-term economic developments) the Act should be understoodwithin a broader performance improving agenda that beats at the heartof the Obama administration. For example, in June 2009 the Presidentappointed Jeffrey D. Zients (an American CEO, management consultantand entrepreneur) as the United States Chief Performance Officer. Zientsis also Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Managementand Budget in the federal government of the United States. According toPresident Obama, Zients’ assignment is to help “streamline processes, cutcosts, and find best practices throughout the US government.”2

Zients replaced Nancy Killefer who withdrew from her nominationto this position in February 2009 to avoid controversy about her personal income taxes.

On announcing the new position of Chief Performance Officer,Obama made a statement that accurately describes the need for reformin public sector performance management across the globe, “We canno longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there arenew and more efficient ways of getting the job done,” he said, add-ing that, “Even in good times, Washington can’t afford to continuethese bad practices. In bad times, it’s absolutely imperative thatWashington stop them and restores confidence that our Governmentis on the side of taxpayers and everyday Americans.”

Although the two just-cited examples relate to the USA, throughoutthe world we are witnessing a radical refocusing of how the publicsector is spending its money, with words such as transparency, account-ability, efficiency and effectiveness peppering the uncountable perfor-mance dialogs that are taking place from the UK to New Zealand, fromCanada to Singapore.

A PUBLIC SECTOR HISTORY OF PERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENT

Although the discussions have become heightened, the quest to radi-cally improve performance is hardly a new concept in the public sector.Over the preceding two decades there have been repeated attempts toremove waste, bureaucracies and the inward foci from public sectoragencies. For instance in 1993 the then US President Bill Clinton intro-duced the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), which set out

B O T H E F F I C I E N T A N D E F F E C T I V E

3

Proof

to improve agency program performance and accountability, thusimproving the public’s confidence in Federal Agencies. Key programgoals included:

– Initiate program performance reforms with a series of pilot projectsin setting program goals, measuring program performance againstthose goals, and reporting publicly on their progress.

– Improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountabilityby promoting a new focus on results, service quality and customersatisfaction.

As the result of this Act, the head of each Government agency has tosubmit to the US congress a strategic plan detailing the strategic aimsand performance indicators. The key performance results are thenaggregated into an executive branch management scorecard, whichis published for everybody to see.

Note the use of terms such as measurement, goals, reporting andaccountability, which all feature strongly in the words that have beencoming out of ARRA and the importance of transparency.

Switching our attention to the UK, a catalog of programs and init-iatives has been launched in recent years with the clear goal of improv-ing public sector performance. For example the “best value” schemethat requires local authorities to deliver service to clear standards by the most economic, efficient and effective means available was firstlaunched in 1999 and has evolved since. Other UK-based Governmentinitiatives that have been in place for some time include the use ofnational league tables for National Health Services trust and primaryand secondary schools. Although controversial (critics claim that localfactors are not taken into account and that the emphasis should be oncelebrating and sharing best practice rather than naming and shamingpoor performers) league tables have delivered some benefits in thatthey have catapulted performance issues onto the agendas of healthtrusts and school managers as well as raising public awareness of thedistance that separates the best from the worst performers.

THE EFFICIENCY PRIORITY

But although we have witnessed concerted attempts to improve publicsector performance through the last decade of the last century and thefirst of this, as we enter the second decade of the 21st century there isno doubt that there is a new performance imperative to contend with.


4

Proof

The fact is, as a result of the recession that followed the credit crunchpublic sector leaders have to do a lot more than ever before but withmuch smaller public purses. In essence, public sector bodies have littleoption but to focus squarely onto cost savings and efficiency gains.

Scottish example

As just one indication of the scale of the challenge that is facingpublic sectors leaders throughout the world, Audit Scotland (which isa case study in this book) released a report in November 2009 thatpainted a worrying picture of Scotland’s future public sector finances.The report noted that although it was commendable that ScottishMinisters had committed to a 2% annual efficiency saving to 2011(Audit Scotland itself has internally embraced this target) that thiswould be insufficient to fill the shortfall that will see the Scottishbudget fall between 7% and 13% in real terms by 2013–2024. Thisshortcoming, it commented, was caused primarily by falling govern-ment revenues, rising unemployment, ever-increasing demands forimproved public services and an aging population.

To contend with this shortfall, the Scottish Auditor General RobertBlack noted that difficult decisions would be needed to find other ways to reduce public spending. Black highlighted an “urgent need” to improve the efficiency and productivity of public services in Scot-land, alongside better information linking spending with actual servicedelivery, costs and performance. Put in stark terms, the Audit Scotlandreport warned that “severe spending constraint is on the way.”3

Of course Scotland is not the only nation facing spending con-straints, the same holds true for public sector funding in just aboutevery other developed nation. Without significant efficiency gains,public sector bodies will simply not be able to properly deliver theirservices in the next decade.

A DELAY IN IMPACT

As a result, the need to become efficient has become perhaps the keyperformance imperative for public sector bodies. What’s more as thereis a delay from the time commercial organizations emerge from reces-sion and public funds recovering, the aftermath of the current recessionwill continue to hurt the public sector long after the present downturnends.


5

Proof

Basically, while most private businesses can just get on with the jobafter money starts flowing more freely, governments have to deal withthe huge debt burdens, they still own major stakes in banks that needto be restructured and they have to cope with the reduced tax income.While budgets are often set for three or five years, the next budgetround will mean reduced budgets for most government organizations – be it central government departments, agencies, education insti-tutions, schools, NHS organizations, police forces, fire and emergencyservices, justice organizations, local authorities, etc. All of those will beforced to cut costs and become leaner and more efficient, which is atrend that is likely to continue for many years until the massive debtsare repaid and public purses look more healthy again. The fact is overthe coming years public sector bodies are facing harsh economic real-ities, the likes of which has not been seen since the end of World War 2.

IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS

But note. Although there will be massive pressure on public sector bodiesto deliver quantifiable and significant cost savings in the coming yearsthere is a wider and more complex performance challenge facing publicsector leaders. They will have to achieve the potentially large-scale costreductions without negatively impacting citizen-facing performance.Indeed as the public gets more demanding of performance, public sectorbodies might be expected to improve service outputs with the same or fewer resources. While this might be achievable in some large andinefficient departments, it’s a lot harder for some organizations that arealready lean. Basically efficiency savings are on a logarithmus scale andwill become exponentially more difficult.

So here’s the rub. Public sector bodies are being asked to becomeboth more effective as well as more efficient (not therefore becomingefficient at the expense of being more effective). Often seen as inter-changeable words, we can define efficiency as “doing things right,”and effectiveness as “doing the right things.”

In essence, from an effectiveness perspective the general public ofdeveloped nations are demanding that their public sector agencies per-form to the same level of customer-centricity that they now expect fromtheir commercial sector suppliers. Indeed over the last 20 years or so(perhaps measurable from the early 1980s when total quality manage-ment principles were first introduced into Western organizations withtheir focus on increased efficiencies through tight process managementas well as the inculcation of greater customer focus – see Chapter 3) as


6

Proof

the performance of private sector companies improved, consumersbegan to use the standards of the best companies as the benchmark for all of their service providers – commercial or public. The perfor-mance of the public sector was generally found wanting which led to an interesting cycle: private citizens vented their frustrations regard-ing public sector performance on elected officials. These officials then passed this anger straight back to public sector managers, with the non-negotiable order to demonstrate substantial service perfor-mance improvement. Fast forward to today, this means that as publicsector bodies look to (and are forced to) cut costs they will not beallowed to trade this with any measurable and sustained degradation of service. However unfair it might seem to beleaguered public sectorleaders, the general public will not stand for poorer performance from public sector bodies and therefore neither will their electedofficials.

EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS: AUDIT SCOTLANDCASE EXAMPLE

In short, the expectation of public sector leaders is that they deliver“more value for less money.” As a best practice example of this pro-mise consider our case organization: Audit Scotland. Its vision is that:“On behalf of the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, we will provide assurance to the people of Scotland that their money is spent appropriately and we will help public sector organizations in Scotland to improve and perform better.” This vision speaks directly to the efficiency (value for money) and effectiveness (perfor-mance improvement) strands of Audit Scotland’s responsibilities. DianeMcGiffen, Audit Scotland’s Director of Corporate Services notes that,“The vision we have now captures the essence of the priorities that our stakeholders and clients have identified for the next five years,”therefore stressing the fact that their customers anticipate improve-ments to both efficiency and effectiveness performance strands – notone or the other.

As well as an external performance improvement focus, Audit Scotland pays equal attention to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of its own performance. To help achieve both its external and internal goals and bring these together in one docu-ment, Audit Scotland, as with all of the other case organizations in this book, uses a Balanced Scorecard as it core management framework.


7

Proof

A BALANCED SCORECARD

Described in detail in Chapter 2, a Balanced Scorecard is essentially astrategic management framework that comprises both financial andnon-financial performance perspectives. First popularized in the early1990s by Harvard Business Professor Dr Robert Kaplan and manage-ment consultant Dr David Norton, a “classic” Balanced Scorecard (thatis as defined by Kaplan and Norton) comprises learning and growth,internal process and customer perspectives in addition to the financialperspective. These perspectives are collocated within a Strategy Mapand an accompanying scorecard of indicators, targets and initiatives.

A number of variations to the Balanced Scorecard have evolved sincethe Kaplan/Norton framework was first introduced. Indeed the termBalanced Scorecard today most accurately relates to a broad range ofperformance management systems or frameworks that comprise finan-cial and non-financial performance dimensions.

VALUE CREATION MAP

Alongside the “classic” Balanced Scorecard, this book also outlines howorganizations have amended and changed the Balanced Scorecardconcept to make it work for their organization. Bob Kaplan and DaveNorton make it very clear that organizations shouldn’t see the “classic”scorecard template as a straight jacket and encourage organizations tochange the standard templates to better reflect their unique strategies.One such evolution is the Value Creation Map that is used by AuditScotland and many of the other case studies that we profile. The ValueCreation Map is also described in detail within the next chapter. But as aquick description, a Value Creation Map describes the strategic objectives,initiatives and supporting key performance questions and key perfor-mance indicators that an organization must master in order to deliver toits vision or mission. Figure 1.1 provides a diagrammatic overview of aStrategy Map of a “classic” Balanced Scorecard and a Value Creation Map(which throughout this book we will also refer to as a Strategy Map). Theprocess of strategy mapping (the most important phase in any BalancedScorecard creation) is described fully in Chapter 4.

PERFORMANCE PRIORITIZATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Although the original Kaplan/Norton Balanced Scorecard was designedfor deployment within commercial organizations (and indeed emerged


8

Proof

from a 1990 study involving 12 large listed organizations that werelooking at better ways to measure performance than could then beachieved through reliance on financial metrics alone4) Balanced Score-cards have perhaps become even more popular and enduring in publicsector organizations. A key reason for this popularity is that a BalancedScorecard enables public sector leaders to successfully contend with achallenge that is normally far tougher for them than their private sectorcounterparts – prioritizing where to spend money (which of course has today taken on a significantly more important focus than has previously been the case).

Simply put, whereas commercial organizations can boil every-thing down to some form of shareholder value focus (be that as a publicly traded or family owned enterprise) for public sector bodiesthere’s a requirement to deliver equal value to a range of stakeholders:funders, consumers and partners, as examples. This can confuse thepublic sector leaders as to where they should prioritize attention and resources. Peter Ryan, Manager, Planning and Performance at our case study organization Christchurch City Council puts it well:“The leaders of public sector bodies have a great deal of difficulty in knowing what they’re there to produce in terms of outcomes and


9

Proof

Strategy Map

Financial Perspective

Customer Perspective

Internal Processes Perspective

Value Creation Map

Outcomes/Stakeholder ValueProposition/Output Deliverables

Core Activity Core Activity

HumanResources

FinancialResources

PhysicalResources

RelationalResources

StructuralResources

Information Capital

Human Capital Organizational Capital

Figure 1.1 Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map and a Value Creation Map

what they need to support that,” he says. “So their greatest short-coming is that they lack a real sense of what their business is.”

Ryan continues that, “It’s not like a private company where you’re justpitching it at a profit measure which is a nice, simple thing to have as aprime directive. Public sector organizations have so many things thatthey’re seeking to deliver that they end up not knowing what they’re supposed to do.”

He asks: “How can they set realistic and useful performance objec-tives and targets and prioritize performance when they’re not surewhat they’re supposed to do in the first place?”

Ryan, along with other practitioners and thought leaders that weinterviewed for this book states that a Balanced Scorecard is an idealtool for those public sector leaders that want to properly understandwhat they should be doing and where to prioritize their spending. Andusefully, given that public sector organizations are not subjected to thecommercial sensitivities that exist in the private sector, they have beenmuch more willing over the years to share the content of their BalancedScorecards with other organizations. As a consequence, a substantialbody of best practices and learning has emerged and been made freelyavailable, which has been much less evident in the commercial sector.The best of these practices and learnings are reported in this book.

LEAN METHODOLOGIES

Throughout this book we also provide best practices in learnings as tohow public sector organizations have used “Lean” methodologies to drivesignificant efficiency gains. Essentially Lean is a collection of methodo-logies and approaches (of which Six Sigma is perhaps the most popular)that are used to systematically identify and drive waste out of organ-izational activities and processes. Long-established and proven within thecommercial sector, leaders within the public sector are waking up to thecost-saving potential of Lean within their own setting. As we explainthroughout this book, Lean methodologies work extremely well whendeployed as part of a Balanced Scorecard implementation. When Lean isused as part of a scorecard effort, organizations can ensure that they iden-tify the most impactful organization-wide efficiency opportunities whilemaking sure that the effectiveness performance dimension is not com-promised. It also ensures that efficiency programs are tied to the organ-ization’s longer-term strategic agenda. Although the role of Lean within ascorecard implementation is described in many parts of the book, wedescribe Lean in detail within Chapter 3 and explain its key role in theidentification of strategic initiatives in Chapter 6.


10

Proof

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explained that as a result of the economic downturnpublic sector organizations are under intense pressure to become muchmore efficient in their usage of scarce financial and other resources. But we also explained that they will be under huge pressure to remaineffective; that is continuing to deliver (and improve upon) the requiredstandards of service to an ever-demanding and increasingly unforgivingcitizen-base: that is delivering “more value for less money.”

The remainder of this book explains how public sector leaders canproperly deliver these efficiency/effectiveness requirements. This beginswith building a Balanced Scorecard, which as we describe in the nextchapter is much more than simply choosing a bunch of financial andnon-financial performance metrics (as we also explain, too many publicsector bodies have become “obsessed” with measurement in recent times,largely as a consequence of externally mandated target-setting). Rather itis about public sector bodies using Balanced Scorecard principles andmethodologies to place a robust strategic performance managementframework, which includes a measurement component. In essence, thisis about identifying what matters, measuring this and then managing it soto improve the effectiveness, efficiency and overall performance of anorganization. Such an approach beats at the heart of the new publicsector performance agenda.


11

Proof

SIDEBAR

Global study of performance management in the public sector

Recently the Advanced Performance Institute (API) conducted theresearch project, Strategic Performance Management in Government andPublic Sector Organizations – a Global Survey, which, with more than1100 responses is the largest and most comprehensive global study ofGovernment and public sector Performance Management to date.5

These findings, alongside an extensive review of academic andpractitioner literature on performance measurement and perfor-mance management, and from a consultation with a panel of leadingacademics and practitioners in this field – enabled the identified bestpractices and from this tested ten principles of good performancemanagement for government and public sector organizations.


12

Proof

We questioned public sector respondents about their Perfor-mance Management practices in this light, tested the impact of these principles on organizational success using the latest statistical tools, determined how widespread these approaches are, and how effective they are when used. We found that organ-izations which have these principles in place are able to:

1. Create clarity and agreement about the strategic aims.2. Collect meaningful and relevant performance indicators.3. Use these indicators to extract relevant insights.4. Create a positive culture of learning from performance

information.5. Gain cross-organizational buy-in.6. Align other organizational activities with the strategic aims

outlined in the Performance Management system.7. Keep the strategic objectives and performance indicators fresh

and up-to-date.8. Report and communicate performance information well.9. Use the appropriate IT infrastructure to support their Perfor-

mance Management activities.10. Give people enough time and resources to manage performance

strategically.

Learning

BetterDecisionMaking

ImprovedOrganizationalPerformance

Str

engt

h of

impa

ct

(1) Achieve Strategic Clarity

(2) Collect Meaningful Performance Indicators

(3) Apply Performance Management Analytics

(4) Create a Positive Learning Culture

(5) Gain Cross-Organizational Buy-in

(6) Ensure Organizational Alignment

(7) Keep the System Fresh

(8) Report and Communicate Performance Well

(9) Implement Appropriate Software

(10) Dedicate Resources and Time

Figure 1.2 10 Principles of Good Performance Management


13

Proof

The principles with the strongest individual impact on perfor-mance improvement were confirmed to be: (1) creating clarityabout the strategy with agreement on intended outcomes, out-puts and necessary enablers, and (4) creating a positive culture oflearning and improvement (see Figure 1.2).

Both (1) and (4) are prerequisites for succeeding with a BalancedScorecard. That said, where all ten principles were found to be inplace, the improvement was particularly substantial, confirming thatthe combined effect is far greater than the sum of the parts. It isnotable that most of the case studies within this book would scorehighly for the deployment of all ten principles. Throughout thisbook we report the key findings from this study.

Proof

240

accountability, 2of initiative selection, 119, 121–6

Advanced Performance Institute (API)Audit Scotland and, 37–8Creating and Implementing a

Balanced Scorecard: The Case ofthe Ministry of Works, Bahrain,75

four performance meetings, 177New Directions for Government:

Five Principles for sustainableRecovery, 80

Reporting and CommunicatingPerformance InformationAppropriately, 161, 168

Strategic Performance Managementin Government and Public SectorOrganizations – a GlobalSurvey, 11–13, 12f, 15, 18, 64,92, 103–4, 112, 152, 161,191, 213

“Use the appropriate IT infrastructure to support performance managementactivities,” 161

Using Performance Management toTransform a FailingOrganization, 134

alignment, 31–2checkpoints, 32with performance management,

113f

Alignment: Using the BalancedScorecard to Create CorporateSynergies, 31

American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (ARRA), 2

Apple Computer, 23Armstrong, Charles, 185–6Audit Scotland

Advanced Performance Instituteand, 37–8

cascading the strategy map, 81effectiveness, 7efficiency, 7efficiency priority, 5financial management with

strategic goals, 135–6key performance questions, 94–5lower level map circulation, 74metrics for learning and

improvement, 195performance report, 172senior management interviews, 70,

71stakeholder-facing improvement,

39strategy map of, 36–9, 37f, 66–7

Australian Business Excellence Model, 24

automation, benefits of, 160–7API findings, 161–2, 162fpackaged versus custom built

solutions, 162–6

INDEX

Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” denote figures and tables, respectively.

Christchurch City Council caseexample, 163–6, 164f, 165f

Ministry of Works, Bahrain caseexample, 163

purchase of a packaged solution,advising, 166

scorecard solution, guidelines for,166–7

Baillie, John, 70Balanced Scorecard, 8, 14, 22–31

aligning Lean to strategic goalsthrough, 46–8

classic, 22, 23financial perspective, 135–74 box model, 25fimplementation

failure in, 188–9overcoming challenges of,

189–90is not software conversation, 158–9performance enabler, 160software conversation, 158solution integrating with software,

159–60strategy-focused organization,

principles of, 29–31, 30fstrategy maps, 25–9, 26f, 29ftranslating strategy into action,

23–5vendor failings, 159

Balanced Scorecard: TranslatingStrategy into Action, The, 23

Balanced Six Sigma, 55–6, 58see also Six Sigma

Barberg, Bill, 76, 87, 108–9, 127,159, 166, 167

Belfast City Council, 145, 172cascading the strategy map, 81–3,

82fdata collection, 73element definitions and narrative

creation, 73finance perspective, relegating, 78

metrics for learning and improvement, 194–5

overcoming challenges of scorecard implementation, 190

resource allocation for initiativeselection, 118–19, 120f

scoping, 73strategic objectives/enablers,

number of, 78Strategic Performance

Improvement Meetings, 176value creation map of, 39–41, 40f,

72–3, 72fVCM creation, 73

Bell, Sheldon, 139best practice report, creating, 168–72

show the key performance question, 170

show the strategy map, 170use headlines, 171use meaningful graphs and

charts, 170–1use performance narratives, 172see also best practice report

Beyond Budgeting Roundtable(BBRT), 138, 140

Big Dig project, 119Black, Robert, 5Black Belts, 57–8break down barriers, 46, 61Brisbane City Council, 26, 28

strategic and operational measures, 103

strategy map of, 103Brown & Root, 25budget, 137–48

abandoning, 138Belfast City Council case

example, 145budget-free, 139–40Christchurch City Council

case example, 143cost of, 140–1

I N D E X

241

Proof

budget – continuedMinistry of Works, Bahrain case

example, 142public sector finance professionals,

upskilling, 143–5Purolator case example, 138–9,

141–2Scottish Enterprise case example,

145–8with strategy, aligning, 137–8transformation advice, 141–3

budget-free approach, 139–40budget transformation advice, 141–3Budiarso, Adi, 210Bush, Patricia, 79, 209business intelligence, 215

CAPEX (capital expenditure), 151see also Strategic Expenditure

cascading the strategy map, 80–7cause-and-effect maps, 64–5cease dependence on mass

inspection, 60Champions, 56–7charts, 170–1Chief Strategy Officer, 204Christchurch City Council, New

Zealand, 9, 24, 140“better financial reporting”

program, 143custom built solutions of, 163–6,

164f, 165fFinance Function: Achieving Superior

Performance in a GlobalEconomy, 144

financial management with strategic goals, 135, 143, 144f

incentive compensation, 199Lean methodologies, use of, 48Long-term Council Community

Plan, 143outputs-focused perspective,

19–22, 20f, 21f

strategy map of“Balanced Scorecard,” the term,

avoiding, 70cascading the strategy map,

83–5, 84f, 85fCigna Property & Casualty, 23,

25Citibank, 1City of Brisbane strategy map, 26–7,

26fsee also strategy map

City of Charlotte strategy map, 27–9,29f

see also strategy mapCivil Service College, Singapore

incentive compensation, 201Clinton, Bill

Government Performance ResultsAct and, 3–4

color coding reporting, 108–10communicating performance

information, 168community outcomes, 19–22, 20f,

21f, 143constancy of purpose, 45, 60consumption, targets for

internal/external, 107–8cost cutting, by doing nothing,

116–17Creelman, James, 139, 142, 159

Driving Corporate Culture forBusiness Success, 184

cultural challenge, 183culture, 182–211

API research findings, 191–4defined, 184employees implement strategy,

186incentives and rewards, 198incentive compensation, 198–203influence of, 184metrics for learning and

improvement, 194–5objective on strategy map, 186–9

I N D E X

242

Proof

scorecard failure in implementation, 188–9

survey results, 187–8, 188tas organization, 185–6, 185fovercoming challenges of scorecard

implementation, 189–90performance-driven, 185, 202values and, 196–8winning, 184–5

customer and stakeholder, distinction between, 79–80

data manipulation, 191–2delay in impact, 5delivery of strategy map, 80Deming, W. Edwards, 44, 45

principles of good management,60–2

diagnostic control, 193drive out fear, 45, 61Drucker, Peter F., 112

Edwards, Charles, 134effectiveness, 144

communication, 169fimproving, 6–7

efficiency, 6, 7, 144cause and effect, 136–7priority, 4–5

EFQM Business Excellence model, 24, 24f

eliminate arbitrary numerical targets, 61

eliminate exhortations, 61employees

behavior, guiding, 193–4implement strategy, 186

encourage education, 62end lowest tender contracts, 60execution premium management

system, 32–5, 33falign the organization, 34develop the strategy, 33monitor and learn, 35

plan operations, 34–5test and adapt, 35translate the strategy, 33–4

executive leadership, 45, 56see also leadership

Executive Strategy Management(ESM) Balanced Scorecard software solution, 163

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),United States, 79

Office of Strategy Management,209

Federal Director, of performance, 3finance perspective, relegating, 78–80financial management with strategic

goals, aligning, 134–56Audit Scotland, 135–6budget, 137–48

aligning management with leadership actions, 156

Belfast City Council caseexample, 145

Christchurch City Council caseexample, 143, 144f

cost of, 140–1leadership actions, 155Ministry of Works, Bahrain case

example, 142public sector finance professionals,

upskilling, 143–5Scottish Enterprise case

example, 145–8, 149ftransformation advice, 141–3

Christchurch City Council caseexample, 135

efficiency cause and effect, 136–7performance management

systems, aligning, 152–4failure to integrate risk

management with performance, 153–4, 154f

rolling forecast, 148, 150–1Friedman, Mark, 103

I N D E X

243

Proof

Gibbon, Edward, 157good management, principles of,

60–2Google

Key Performance Questions, 93–4government

outputs-focused perspective, 18Government Performance Results

Act (GPRA), 3–4graphs, 170–1Green Belts, 58

Hackett Groupbudget-free approach, 139–40“Linked, Light and Late,” 141–2Performance Metrics and Practices

of World-Class FinanceOrganizations, 142

Planning for Economic Sustainability:Linking Strategy to Action, 141

headlines, 171heat maps, 87–9, 88f, 129Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust, 131–3,

133tHertfordshire Fire and Rescue

Service UKinitiative selection process, 124–5

Hewlett Packard, 23high level strategic outcome targets,

agreeing, 90–111focus on increased measurement,

91meaningful and relevant indicators,

collecting, 92Key Performance Questions, 93–9

Audit Scotland, 94–5defined, 93Google, 93–4International Baccalaureate, 98–9Scottish Intellectual Assets

Centre, 95–8, 96f, 97tstrategy map, creating, 91–210–step guide to creating KPQs,

99–102

target-settingcolor coding reporting,

108–10for external and internal

consumption, 107–8guidance, 110–11

HMRC IMS (HM Revenues andCustoms Information ServicesManagement)

Lean methodologies, use of, 48Office of Strategy Management,

210–11overcoming challenges of

scorecard implementation,189–90

performance management systems, aligning, 153

performance meetings, 176–7Horizon, 164–6, 164f, 165fhuman energy waste, 50

see also waste

improve every process, 45, 60incentive compensation, 198–203incentives, 198information waste, 49

see also wasteinitiative selection, 112–33

accountability of, 119, 121–6cross-cutting, 126–7importance of, 114International Baccalaureate case

example, 115Lean thinking and, 127–33Ministry of Works, Bahrain case

example, 115–16prioritization of, 117–18resource allocation for, 118–19,

120frole of, 113–14templates, 116–17

institute leadership, 45, 61see also leadership

institute training on the job, 61

I N D E X

244

Proof

interesting times, curse of living in,212–13

International Baccalaureate (IB), strategy map of, 65–6, 66f, 68–9, 98–9

“balanced scorecard,” the term,avoiding, 70

finance perspective, relegating, 78initiative selection, 115key performance indicators, 98–9key performance questions, 98–9senior management interviews, 71strategic objectives/enablers,

number of, 78

Al-Jowder, Fahmi Bin Ali, 77, 115,174, 210

Juran, Josef, 44

kaizen, 44Kaplan, Robert, 8, 22, 45, 64, 75, 90,

138, 163, 183, 204performance meetings and,

172–81StartEx and, 151–2

key performance indicators (KPIs), 36, 38, 136, 91, 94–5

actionable, 107collecting, 92common definitions, 106danger of repackaging, 106design template, 102–3, 102fexternally imposed, 92extracting insights from metrics,

103–4International Baccalaureate, 98–9ownership, 106–7qualitative, 105–6quantitative, 105–6reviewing metrics, 104–5, 105fScottish Intellectual Assets

Centre, 97t, 98strategic and operational

measures, 103

key performance questions (KPQs),36, 38, 64, 93–9, 135–6, 170,217–28

Audit Scotland, 94–5defined, 93Google, 93–4International Baccalaureate, 98–9Scottish Intellectual Assets

Centre, 95–8, 96f, 97t10–step guide to creating, 99–102

Killefer, Nancy, 3Kmiecic, Eva, 72

leadershipactions, 155

aligning management with, 156executive, 45, 56institute, 45, 61

Lean Enterprise Institute, 43initiative selection process,

127–33Lean thinking and initiative selection,

127–33Lean thinking and strategic

performance, 42–62defined, 43kaizen, 44poke-yoke, 44Six Sigma

capability of, 53challenges of, 58–9DMAIC principles of, 54–5in-house competencies,

building, 56–8levels of performance, 54,

54fpopularity, 55–6

to strategic goals through balanced scorecard, aligning, 46–8

Toyota Production System, 44break down barriers, 46constancy of purpose, 45drive out fear, 45

I N D E X

245

Proof

Lean thinking and strategic performance – continuedimprove every process, 45institute leadership, 45Total Quality Management, 44–6

usage in public sector, 42–3, 48–59

value stream mapping, 43–4Lehman Brothers, 1Linkage Models, 26Long-Term Council Community Plan

(LTCCP), 21–2, 143lower level map circulation, 74–8

Malcolm Baldrige Framework andAward, 24, 48

managing poor performance, 203see also performance

Marr, Bernard, 35, 91, 158Selecting Balanced Scorecard

Software Solutions, 166Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 36Master Black Belts, 57McCusker, Michelle, 74, 204McGiffen, Diane, 7, 37, 66–7, 74,

81, 94McNeil, Kay, 190, 204, 210–11meetings, 172–81

four performance, 177operational review, 173treview, the term, avoiding, 177strategy review, 173t, 194strategy testing and adapting,

173tmetrics see key performance

indicatorsMichelangelo, 90Ministry of Finance, Indonesia

Office of Strategy Management,209–10

Ministry of Works, Bahrain (MoW)cascading the strategy map, 85–6,

86f, 87f

color coding reporting, 109–10cultural objectives on strategy

map, 187ESM Balanced Scorecard software

solution and, 163financial management with

strategic goals, 142initiative selection process, 115–16,

121–4Lean methodologies, use of, 48lower level map circulation, 74–5objectives and initiatives, difference

between, 122–4Office of Strategy Management,

210ownership of metrics, 107StartEx, 152strategy map of, 67, 68f, 107,

109–10strategy review meeting, 174–5

Mobil Oil, 25

National Health Services, 4New Directions for Government:

Five Principles for sustainableRecovery, 80

new philosophy, the, 60non-incentive rewards, 201–3

see also rewardsNordea Bank, 139North East Lincolnshire Council

financial crisis of, 134–5Northumbria Healthcare heat map,

87–9, 88fsee also heat maps

North West CollaborativeCommercial Agency (NWCCA)

“balanced scorecard,” the term,avoiding, 70

heat maps, 89lower level map circulation, 74–5strategic objectives/enablers,

number of, 78strategy map of, 69, 69f

I N D E X

246

Proof

values charter, 196–8, 197tvision/mission statement,

distilling, 69–70Norton, David, 8, 22, 31, 32, 45, 64,

65, 90, 138, 183, 204Palladium and, 79, 91, 163performance meetings and,

172–81StartEx and, 151–2

Obama, Barack, 1, 216American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 and, 2

Jeffrey D. Zients and, 3Office of Government Commerce

(United Kingdom), 49Office of Strategy Management

(OSM), 30, 203–11role and responsibilities

architect, 205integrator, 207–9process owner, 205–7

team, 209operational dashboards and

strategic scorecards, distinctionbetween, 167

operational measures of performance, 103

see also key performance indicatorsoperational performance

improvement meetings, 180attendees, 178tfrequency, 178tinformation requirements, 178tpurpose, 178ttime horizon, 178tsee also meetings

operational review meetingsattendees, 173tcaution against aligning, 175–6focus, 173tfrequency, 173tgoal, 173t

information requirements, 173tand strategy review meeting,

advising against combining,175

see also meetingsOPEX (opening expenditure), 151

see also Strategic Expenditureorganization, culture as, 185–6, 185foutcome-based perspective, 15–17,

16f, 17foutputs-focused perspective, 15–22,

16f, 17freasons for, 17

ownership, 106–7

packaged solutionsadvising the purchase of, 166packaged versus custom built

solutions, 162–6Christchurch City Council case

example, 163–6, 164f, 165fMinistry of Works, Bahrain case

example, 163Palladium Group, 79, 91

Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame,91, 109, 163

ESM Balanced Scorecard softwaresolution, 163

pay-for-performance, 198see also performance

Payne, Ed, 150performance

enabler, 160improvement, public sector history

of, 3–4indicators see key performance

indicatorsinformation

communicating, 168reporting, 168

league, 18managing poor, 203meetings see meetingsnarratives, 172

I N D E X

247

Proof

performance – continuedpay-for-performance, 198prioritization, in public sector,

8–10reporting and reviewing, 157–81

performance-driven culture, 185, 202

see also culturePerformance Excellence Study

Award (PESA), 24performance management,

defined, xivperformance management systems,

aligning, 152–4HMRC IMS case example, 153failure to integrate risk

management with performance, 153–4, 154f

permit pride of workmanship, 62personal performance improvement

meetings, 180–1attendees, 178tfrequency, 178tinformation requirements, 178tpurpose, 178ttime horizon, 178tsee also meetings

poke-yoke, 44prioritization, of initiative selection,

117–18process waste, 49

human energy waste, 50information waste, 49tangible outcomes, 51–3, 52fwork waste, 50see also waste

public sectorhistory, of performance

improvement, 3–4Lean usage in, 42–3, 48–59performance prioritization in,

8–10public sector finance professionals,

upskilling, 143–5

public sector performance agenda,1–13

accountability, 2American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009, 2balanced scorecard, 8delay in impact, 5effectiveness, improving, 6–7efficiency priority, 4–5Federal Director of performance, 3performance prioritization, in

public sector, 8–10public sector history, of

performance improvement,3–4

transparency, 2value creation map, 8

public-private partnership (PPP), 75,77

Purolator, 141–2The Finance Function: Achieving

Superior Performance in aGlobal Economy, 138–9

qualitative indicators of performance, 105–6

see also key performance indicators

quantitative indicators of performance, 105–6


recovery, 213–16more integration and alignment,

215–16more intelligent indictors, 215more partnership and synergies,

214–15more serious appointments, 216more strategic clarity, 214

Recovery.gov, 2Recovery Transparency and

Accountability Board, 2

I N D E X

248

Proof

repackaging of measures, 106reporting and reviewing

performance, 157–81see also best practice report,

creatingresource allocation, for initiative

selection, 118–19review, the term, avoiding, 177Review of Public Administration

(RPA), 40rewards, 198

non-incentive, 201–3Risher, Howard, 182, 185rolling forecast, 148, 150–1Royal Bank of Scotland, 1Royal Canadian Mounted Police

(RCMP), 72rule of thumb, 151Ryan, Peter, 9–10, 26, 90, 91, 103,

136–7, 143, 144–5, 160, 163–5,188, 199, 304

Ryder, Richard, 153, 177, 189, 204

Saint-Onge, Hubert, 185Schein, Edgar

culture, definition of, 184Schmidt, Eric, 93–4Schumacher, Lisa, 28, 29scorecard solution, guidelines for,

166–7Scottish Enterprise

“a framework for managing thebusiness,” 147

corporate management team strategy map, 148, 149f

financial management with strategic goals, 145–8

initiative selection process, 125–6Reinventing Planning and Budgeting

for the Adaptive Enterprise, 146rolling forecast, 148, 150

Scottish Intellectual Assets Centrecultural objectives on strategy

map, 187

strategy map ofkey performance indicators, 97t,

98key performance questions,

95–8, 96f, 97tScottish public sector

Lean usage in, 50–1see also public sector, Lean usage in

senior management interviews, 70–1senior management workshops, 71–3

senior management involvement,Importance of, 71–2

strategic assumptions, challenging, 72

Shingo, Shigeo, 42Singapore Business Excellence

Model, 24Six Sigma, 50–9

aligning Balanced Scorecard with, 130f

Balanced, 55–6, 58capability of, 53challenges of, 58–9DMAIC principles of, 54–5in-house competencies, building

Black Belts, 57–8Champions, 56–7executive leadership, 56Green Belts, 58Master Black Belts, 57

levels of performance, 54, 54fpopularity, 55–6voice of employees/associates/

stakeholders, 129voice of the business, 129voice of the customer, 129–30voice of the process, 129, 130

Smith, Andrea, 65, 66, 69–72, 115Smith, Kent, 200soccer goalkeeper analogy, 53software, solution integrating with,

159–60software conversation, 158

balanced scorecard and, 158–9

I N D E X

249

Proof

Sreedharan, Elattuvalapil, 119stakeholder

defining, 79–80distinguished from customer,

79–80stakeholder-facing improvement, 39State of Washington, USA,

Department of Revenueinitiative selection process, 124

StatoilHydro, 139Stein, Ben, 63strategic aims, clarity of, 15strategic communication, 65–7Strategic Expenditure (StratEx), 126,

138, 151–2capital (CAPEX), 152opening (OPEX), 151

Strategic measures of performance,103


strategic performance improvementmeetings (SPIMS), 176, 179–80,194

attendees, 178tfrequency, 178tinformation requirements, 178tpurpose, 178ttime horizon, 178tsee also meetings

strategic scorecards and operationaldashboards, distinction between, 167

Strategy Aligned Management(SAM), 76

strategy-focused organization, 138principles of, 29–31, 30f

strategy maps, 8, 9f, 25–9, 63–90“balanced scorecard,” the term,

avoiding, 70benefits of, 63–4cascading, 80–7cause-and-effect maps, use

of, 65

creating, 67–8, 91–2cultural objectives on, 186–9

scorecard failure in implementation, 188–9

survey results, 187–8, 188tdelivery of, 80finance perspective, relegating,

78–80heat maps, 87–9, 88fimportance of, 64–5lower level map circulation,

74–8senior management interviews,

70–1senior management workshops,

71–3strategic objectives/enablers,

number of, 783–D, 87vision/mission statement,

distilling, 69–70see also individual entries

strategy review meetings, 174–5,177–9

attendees, 173t, 178tcaution against aligning, 175–6focus, 173tfrequency, 173t, 178tgoal, 173tinformation requirements, 173tand operational review meeting,

advising against combining,175

purpose, 178ttime horizon, 178tsee also meetings

strategy testing and adapting meetings

attendees, 173tfocus, 173tfrequency, 173tgoal, 173tinformation requirements, 173tsee also meetings

I N D E X

250

Proof

target-settingcolor coding reporting, 108–10for external and internal

consumption, 107–8guidance, 110–11

Taylor, Julian, 125, 146, 148Theme Teams, 1273–D strategy maps, 87

see also strategy mapsTomkins, 139top management commitment and

action, 62Total Quality Management (TQM),

24, 44–6break down barriers, 46constancy of purpose, 45drive out fear, 45improve every process, 45institute leadership, 45

Toyota Production System, 44, 48transparency, 2

US Postal Serviceincentive compensation, 199–200,

200fNational Performance Assessment

Program, 200

value creation map, 8, 9f, 22, 35–41Belfast City Council, 72–3, 72fNorth West Collaborative

Commercial Agency, 69, 69fvalue narrative, 39–41value stream mapping, 43–4vendor failings, 159

Warwick Business School, UKEvaluation of the Lean Approach to

Business Management and itsuse in the Public Sector, 50

waste, 48–50human energy, 50information, 49process, 49work, 50

Wells Fargo Online Banking, 116Wileman, Andrew, 203winning culture, 184–5

see also culturework waste, 50

see also waste

Al Zayani, Raja, 76–8, 109–10, 123,142, 160, 163, 174, 175

Zients, Jeffrey D., 3

I N D E X

251

Proof

More with less 1st chapter marr

News & Politics

Transcript of More with less 1st chapter marr