Robert S. Kaplan

David P. Norton

<article-ideainbrief class="article-ideainbrief">
 <h4 class="ideainbrief-title">The Idea in Brief</h4>
 <div class="ideainbrief-contents">
  <p>Why do budgets often bear little direct relation to a company’s long-term strategic objectives? Because they don’t take enough into consideration. A balanced scorecard augments traditional financial measures with benchmarks for performance in three key nonfinancial areas:</p>
  <ul>
   <li>a company’s relationship with its customers</li>
  </ul>
  <ul>
   <li>its key internal processes</li>
  </ul>
  <ul>
   <li>its learning and growth.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>When performance measures for these areas are added to the financial metrics, the result is not only a broader perspective on the company’s health and activities, it’s also a powerful organizing framework. A sophisticated instrument panel for coordinating and fine-tuning a company’s operations and businesses so that all activities are aligned with its strategy.</p>
  <p>The Idea in Practice</p>
  <p>The balanced scorecard relies on four processes to bind short-term activities to long-term objectives:</p>
  <h2>1. Translating the vision.</h2>
  <p>By relying on measurement, the scorecard forces managers to come to agreement on the metrics they will use to operationalize their lofty visions. <span style="idea-in-practice-example"><span style="idea-in-practice-example-header">Example:&nbsp;</span> </span></p>
  <p>A bank had articulated its strategy as providing “superior service to targeted customers.” But the process of choosing operational measures for the four areas of the scorecard made executives realize that they first needed to reconcile divergent views of who the targeted customers were and what constituted superior service. </p>
  <h2>2. Communicating and linking.</h2>
  <p>When a scorecard is disseminated up and down the organizational chart, strategy becomes a tool available to everyone. As the high-level scorecard cascades down to individual business units, overarching strategic objectives and measures are translated into objectives and measures appropriate to each particular group. Tying these targets to individual performance and compensation systems yields “personal scorecards.” Thus, individual employees understand how their own productivity supports the overall strategy.</p>
  <h2>3. Business planning.</h2>
  <p>Most companies have separate procedures (and sometimes units) for strategic planning and budgeting. Little wonder, then, that typical long-term planning is, in the words of one executive, where “the rubber meets the sky.” The discipline of creating a balanced scorecard forces companies to integrate the two functions, thereby ensuring that financial budgets do indeed support strategic goals. After agreeing on performance measures for the four scorecard perspectives, companies identify the most influential “drivers” of the desired outcomes and then set milestones for gauging the progress they make with these drivers.</p>
  <h2>4. Feedback and learning.</h2>
  <p>By supplying a mechanism for strategic feedback and review, the balanced scorecard helps an organization foster a kind of learning often missing in companies: the ability to reflect on inferences and adjust theories about cause-and-effect relationships.</p>
  <p>Feedback about products and services. New learning about key internal processes. Technological discoveries. All this information can be fed into the scorecard, enabling strategic refinements to be made continually. Thus, at any point in the implementation, managers can know whether the strategy is working—and if not, why.</p>
 </div>
</article-ideainbrief><p>As companies around the world transform themselves for competition that is based on information, their ability to exploit intangible assets has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. Several years ago, in recognition of this change, we introduced a concept we called the <em>balanced scorecard</em>. The balanced scorecard supplemented traditional financial measures with criteria that measured performance from three additional perspectives—those of customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth. (See the exhibit “Translating Vision and Strategy: Four Perspectives.”) It therefore enabled companies to track financial results while simultaneously monitoring progress in building the capabilities and acquiring the intangible assets they would need for future growth. The scorecard wasn’t a replacement for financial measures; it was their complement.</p>

lv1CNNq8CzDUNk8Vt5dUDmUv/1noXz1KyCY8InWb+FlPD7rZY0p+vXvOImzcHlC9tMuQ23z2V8dpATJMclXWrOumktw50htLlo1isTD+JBfXAGEOt+UElsyYYZLopxq00Zs3bnMJfzZbDsTpJXRYV4z1vldSYSTudJvlKjERNX8=

<p>The <em>balanced scorecard</em> revolutionized conventional thinking about performance metrics. When Kaplan and Norton first introduced the concept, in 1992, companies were busy transforming themselves to compete in the world of information; their ability to exploit intangible assets was becoming more decisive than their ability to manage physical assets. The scorecard allowed companies to track financial results while monitoring progress in building the capabilities needed for growth. The tool was not intended to be a replacement for financial measures but rather a complement&#8212;and that&#8217;s just how most companies treated it.</p>
<p>Some companies went a step further, however, and discovered the scorecard&#8217;s value as the cornerstone of a new strategic management system. In this article from 1996, the authors describe how the balanced scorecard can address a serious deficiency in traditional management systems: the inability to link a company&#8217;s long-term strategy with its short-term financial goals. The scorecard lets managers introduce four new processes that help companies make that important link.</p>
<p>The first process&#8212;<em>translating the vision</em>&#8212;helps managers build a consensus concerning a company&#8217;s strategy and express it in terms that can guide action at the local level. The second&#8212;<em>communicating and linking</em>&#8212;calls for communicating a strategy at all levels of the organization and linking it with unit and individual goals. The third&#8212;<em>business planning</em>&#8212;enables companies to integrate their business plans with their financial plans. The fourth&#8212;<em>feedback and learning</em>&#8212;gives companies the capacity for strategic learning, which consists of gathering feedback, testing the hypotheses on which a strategy is based, and making necessary adjustments.<br />
[hbr_brightcove id=&#8221;3633937148001&#8243;]</p>

Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System

The balanced scorecard revolutionized conventional thinking about performance metrics. When Kaplan and Norton first introduced the concept, in 1992, companies were busy transforming themselves to compete in the world of information; their ability to exploit intangible assets was becoming more decisive than their ability to manage physical assets. The scorecard allowed companies to track financial results while monitoring progress in building the capabilities needed for growth. The tool was not intended to be a replacement for financial measures but rather a complement—and that’s just how most companies treated it. Some companies went a step further, however, and discovered the scorecard’s value as the cornerstone of a new strategic management system. In this article from 1996, the authors describe how the balanced scorecard can address a serious deficiency in traditional management systems: the inability to link a company’s long-term strategy with its short-term financial goals. The scorecard lets managers introduce four new processes that help companies make that important link. The first process— translating the vision —helps managers build a consensus concerning a company’s strategy and express it in terms that can guide action at the local level. The second— communicating and linking —calls for communicating a strategy at all levels of the organization and linking it with unit and individual goals. The third— business planning —enables companies to integrate their business plans with their financial plans. The fourth— feedback and learning —gives companies the capacity for strategic learning, which consists of gathering feedback, testing the hypotheses on which a strategy is based, and making necessary adjustments. [hbr_brightcove id=”3633937148001″]

将平衡计分卡作为战略管理系统使用

摘要.

合作伙伴中心