Нина Пусенкова - Английский язык. Практический курс для решения бизнес-задач

Что могут и чего не могут управленческие модели (продолжение урока 9)

И, наконец, наиболее существенный риск – использование моделей в качестве дани существующей моде. Порой отдельный труд авторитетного эксперта способен вызвать массовый ажиотаж в умах руководителей компаний самых разнообразных отраслей экономики. Наглядный пример – диверсификация. По мере ее популяризации компании в массовом порядке принялись усиленно расширять свое присутствие как в соседних, так и в отдаленных отраслях экономики с целью диверсифицировать свои риски и приумножить свою прибыль за счет возникающей синергии. Ряд таких компаний превратился в громоздкие неповоротливые структуры, неспособные оперативно реагировать на текущие экономические реалии. В итоге на смену принципу распыления внимания на все и всех пришла мода на противоположную теорию «ключевых компетенций». Руководствуясь новыми принципами, все филиалы и подразделения, не задействованные в ключевом направлении бизнеса, спускались с молотка либо ликвидировались. Отдельные компании сократили свою деятельность до уровня головной организации, отдав на аутсорсинг все прочие направления, несмотря на то что многие из них являлись ключевыми в свете развития основного вида бизнеса. Лишь позже, по прошествии определенного периода времени, было обнаружено, что управление аутсорсинговыми процессами не в пример сложнее управления теми же процессами, происходящими внутри одной компании.

Вывод: нет универсальных моделей, подходящих всем и в любой ситуации.

Пока только одни недостатки. А как насчет сильных сторон управленческих моделей? Несмотря на перечисленные выше недостатки, в современном быстро изменяющемся деловом мире управленческие модели способны стать неоценимым подспорьем для менеджмента в плане организации процесса систематического анализа информационных потоков. Единственное, что следует помнить, – управленческие модели не в состоянии самостоятельно принимать решения: они лишь обеспечивают аналитическую базу, способствующую принятию обоснованных решений.

Время от времени имеет смысл пересматривать набор моделей, используемых в рамках анализа деятельности компании или отрасли. Такую инвентаризацию целесообразно осуществлять посредством «мозгового штурма», позволяющего свести воедино различные точки зрения руководителей раздельных отделов или подразделений компании. При этом следует помнить, что, если вдруг оказывается, что какая-либо модель не вполне приемлема для описания некой конкретной ситуации (например, модель пяти сил Портера для анализа темпов роста отрасли в экономике), это вовсе не означает, что данная модель неприемлема для организации в принципе. Комбинация различных моделей позволяет компенсировать недостатки одних за счет достоинств других. Например, PEST-анализ может дополнить модель БКГ, указав, какие события могут произойти в будущем и тем или иным образом повлиять на деятельность компании.

Общий вывод:

Инструменты управления могут помочь лучше понять специфические аспекты деятельности организации и окружающую ее деловую среду. Для следующего шага – интерпретации результатов работы модели – моделей не существует. Модели управления эффективны только тогда, когда тот, кто их использует, глубоко понимает суть модели, область ее применения и ограничения и на основании этого делает соответствующие выводы.

Источник: www.franklin-grant.ru

Lesson 11

Strategic Management Tools

Read and translate the text and learn terms from the Essential Vocabulary.

The Balanced Scorecard

In the industrial age, most of the assets of a firm were in property, plant and equipment, and the financial accounting system performed an adequate job of valuing these assets. In the information age, when much of the firm’s value is embedded in innovative processes, customer relationships, and human resources, the financial accounting system is not enough.

A new approach to strategic management was developed in the early 1990s by Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton. They named this system the ‘balanced scorecard’. The BSC approach provides a clear prescription as to what companies should measure in order to ‘balance’ the financial perspective.

The BSC is a measurement and management system that enables organizations to clarify their vision and strategy and translate them into action. It provides feedback around both the internal business processes and external outcomes in order to continuously improve strategic performance and results.

The BSC methodology builds on some key concepts of previous management ideas such as Total Quality Management (TQM), including customer-defined quality, continuous improvement, employee empowerment, and – primarily – measurement-based management and feedback.

The balanced scorecard views the organization from four perspectives:

 – The Learning and Growth Perspective – includes measures such as employee satisfaction, employee retention, skill sets, etc.;

 – The Business Process Perspective – includes measures such as cost, throughput and quality. These are for business processes such as procurement, production, and order fulfilment;

 – The Customer Perspective – includes measures such as customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share in target segments;

 – The Financial Perspective – includes measures such as operating income, return on capital employed, and economic value added.

There is a logical connection between these four perspectives – learning and growth lead to better business processes, which in turn lead to increased value to the customer, which finally leads to improved financial performance. Each perspective of the balanced scorecard includes objectives, measures of those objectives, target values of those measures, and initiatives that are aimed at meeting the objectives.

Double-Loop Feedback

In traditional industrial activity, «quality control» and «zero defects» were the watchwords. In order to shield the customer from receiving poor quality products, aggressive efforts were focused on inspection and testing at the end of the production line. The problem with this approach is that the true causes of defects are never identified, and there are always inefficiencies due to the rejection of defects. Variation is created at every step in a production process, and the causes of variation need to be identified and fixed. If this can be done, then there is a way to reduce the defects and improve product quality indefinitely. To establish such a process all business processes should be part of a system with feedback loops. The feedback data should be examined by managers to determine the causes of variation, what are the processes with significant problems, and then they can focus on fixing that subset of processes.

The BSC incorporates feedback around internal business process outputs, as in TQM, but also adds a feedback loop around the outcomes of business strategies. This creates a «double-loop feedback» process in the balanced scorecard.

Why Do Executives Love Balanced Scorecard?

The BSC does its magic by focusing the organization on the issues which the leadership team decides are key to its success. It does this through the process of implementing the scorecard – so a human element is the key.

There are other benefits – stronger communication (through the cascading and measurement tracking processes), warning of opportunities ahead (from watching key performance indicators), less «information overload» (from focusing on the most important measures), and greater alignment (from agreement on key objectives).

A sheet of paper with numbers on it can be created by one person and implemented by sheer force of authority. However, the point of a BSC is to:

– Align all members of an organization around common goals and strategies

– Link initiatives to the strategy, making prioritization easier

– Provide feedback to people on key issues – areas where they can have an impact

– Be an essential decision-making tool for everyone in the organization

The best process is to first create a clear business model, and then to select measurements based on that model. This increases commitment, brings more agreement on the direction of the organization, builds accountability to company goals, and increases the speed of change. The first part of the process is creating a model for the scorecard. First, review and clarify strategies. The next step is agreeing on what capabilities are needed within the company to actually pursue the strategy. The final part is creating the actual model. This is where you set up a simple diagram that reflects how you think the business works.

Larger organizations usually adopt a top-down approach: a balanced scorecard is first installed at the top, where commitment is most vital to success. It is then cascaded throughout the organization, to align departments’ goals with the overall company goals. For single stores or small companies, this step might be unnecessary.

The final step is getting people to use the scorecard as a routine matter – making it part of the culture. This is where most management initiatives go wrong, leading to this sage advice: If you want something to be a useful tool, make it the only initiative you try this quarter, give it your full attention, and don’t take any shortcuts. Otherwise, an initiative becomes a fad and eventually appears in the Dilbert cartoons.

Once created, the scorecard should become a part of your business’ daily life; it should be embedded into a company’s operations as a standard decision-making tool. The BSC leverages common sense into a substantial competitive advantage.

Source: www.quickmba.com, www.balancedscorecard.org, Paul Arveson, 1998

Happy customers are good, but profitable customers are much better.

The Balanced Scorecard introduced customer metrics into performance management systems. Scorecards feature all manner of wonderful objectives relating to the customer value proposition and customer outcome metrics – for example, market share, account share, acquisition, satisfaction, and retention.

Yet amid all these measures of customer success, some companies lose sight of the ultimate objective: to make a profit from selling products and services. In their zeal to delight customers, these companies actually lose money with them. They become customer-obsessed rather than customer-focused. When the customer says «jump,» they ask «how high?» They offer additional product features and services, but fail to receive prices that cover the costs for these additional features and services.

How can companies avoid this situation? By adding a metric that summarizes customer profitability.

Consider the situation faced in the 1990s by one of the nation’s largest distributors of medical and surgical supplies. In five years, sales had more than tripled to nearly $3 billion, yet selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, thought by many to be a fixed cost, had increased even faster than sales; margins had declined by one percentage point and the company had just incurred its first loss in decades.

The experience of this company is hardly unique. Companies often capture additional business by offering more services. The list is wide-ranging: product or service customization; small order quantities; special packaging; expedited and JIT delivery; substantial pre-sales support, etc. While all of these services create value and loyalty among customers, none of them come for free. For a differentiated customer intimacy strategy to succeed, the value created by the differentiation has to exceed the cost of creating and delivering customized features and services.

Unfortunately, many companies cannot accurately decompose their aggregate marketing, technical, service, and administrative costs into the cost of serving individual customers. Either they treat all such costs as fixed-period costs and don’t drive them to the customer level, or they use inaccurate methods, such as allocating a flat percentage of sales revenue to each customer to cover indirect «below-the-line» expenses.

The remedy to this situation is to apply activity-based costing (ABC) to accurately assign an organization’s indirect expenses to customers. Many companies, however, have tried ABC at some time during the past twenty years and abandoned it because it did not capture the complexity of their operations, took too long to implement, and was too expensive to build and maintain. Fortunately, a new approach is now available that is far simpler and much more powerful than traditional ABC.