The processes of organizational change, in the last two decades, have led to the entrenchment of paradigms in the organizational imaginary that arise from the urgency of staying current in increasingly turbulent markets. We have seen how organizations with innovative solutions arise and disappear with the same speed that are quickly cannibalized by other products that do not have the vocation of permanence but that challenge the imagination of those who develop new experiences every day for real and potential customers.
Some of these paradigms have to do with the importance of incorporating environmental aspects into management systems, turning the issue into a trend that suggests but does not oblige, motivates but does not compromise, in such a way that everything that is dressed in green or use the terms BIO or ECO can be a shield to improve and increase the commercialization of the products but it does not necessarily make environmental responsibility a competence in those who work for the organization.
Another paradigm consists in believing that technology is the panacea that solves all the problems that we are not able to control in our daily management, which has made our ability to create solutions to the various situations of the company point only to the solutions of Software forgetting about the other dimensions that support the managerial work in the organization.
One of the most popular phrases in organizational culture, and that constitutes another paradigm, is the one that says "We must build a culture of change", perhaps what it is about is a "change of culture", sometimes the discourse on the change becomes a justification that does not mean much in the daily life of the management and, on the contrary, allows to strengthen the traditions that have governed the way of doing things for many years. The corporate culture expresses what is really important for the people who take the reins of corporate results, for this reason it is common to find the dichotomy of a discourse that supports teamwork but that rewards individual efforts and results.
In these brief reflections I want to dwell on one of these classic paradigms in administration and that undoubtedly contribute significantly in relation to the measurement and control of both the operation and the results, these are the indicators that allow us to recognize if the The route that is being traveled will take us to the ends that the company management has proposed.
The consolidation of a comprehensive measurement model in the organization will allow us to search for organizational harmony and recognition of those who with their silent work allow the client to applaud for a product or service that adds value. Operational efficiency is one of the highways that processes must go through to achieve the goals that lead to products and services that add value for customers.
The transition to a measurement system that allows both managers, administrators and those who carry out daily operations to recognize whether what they do is in line with the expected results, requires the commitment of senior management and the participation of all, in such a way that the day-to-day tasks contribute to the fulfillment of the objectives of the areas and these in turn meet the goals that will feed the overall results of the company.
Kaplan and Norton warn us that today "organizations need a new type of management system, one explicitly designed to manage strategy, not tactics" (1), which means that we cannot disconnect what happens in everyday life from management with the expectations of management, it is about integrating a thinking model that is capable of recognizing that organizational dynamics arises from the strategies that are formulated in response to the reality in which the company moves. It has to do with the reaction capacity of the company to modify its way of acting when threats appear that could put the company's permanence in the market at risk. In this sense, "the vision and strategy with essential complements" (2),There can be no contradiction between the WHAT and the HOW, but on the contrary, the route that will be followed to achieve the proposed result must be clearly represented and therefore the strategy allows to recognize clearly and explicitly the path, not without difficulties, that will lead us to organizational goals.
The model of the THREE boards is a proposal that arises from the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) theory proposed by Kaplan and Norton, which allows integrating the strategic, the tactical and the operational in a single glance, it is the recognition of the relationship cause-effect that circulates permanently through the organization, which leads to the creation of systemic management designs, but which at the same time recognizes that articulating this model may be disconcerting for some and threatening for others. It is about building a system that recognizes each of its components as its own and understands that if the chain breaks the flow is interrupted and the expected final result is affected.
It is about creating, with the three dashboards, an organizational synergy that allows a holistic understanding of the organization's being, that values the contribution of those who every day feed the possibility of obtaining the proposed results with their task. Being able to formulate and manage the three boards represents the ability to recognize that people in the organization go beyond a position and represent a cross-cutting effect with their management, that is, the consequences of what happens at one point in the organization have a wave effect (3) that affect all areas and processes, and as proposed by Peter Senge, it is about interpreting the organization as being more biological than mechanical (4).
If a company has been in the market for many years and already has indicators for both management, administrators and operational areas, what is the point of putting together the three dashboards? The answer is that there is already an input that it will help to understand the causal relationship required between what happens in the company's day-to-day and its results.
Building a culture oriented to the measurement of management implies recognizing the model that will be used, in this case the BSC and forces us to think of ways where the resulting challenge for organizations will be how to involve the minds and hearts of all their employees (5) in order to bring the declaration of intentions from the power point to reality. All team members need to be convinced that measurement is a responsible learning exercise and not a secret threat to their permanence in the organization. Indicators must be properly formulated and measure important aspects for management, that is, not everything that CAN be measured MUST be measured.
The four perspectives proposed by Kaplan and Norton are not, and they themselves say, a straitjacket, they are a suggestion of the dimensions on which a strategy map can be built that includes the objectives that show the path in which the actions are developed. strategies that will achieve the vision of the company. The decision to implement a dashboard for the organization is also born from the need to find a tool that allows us to clearly visualize the results obtained and at the same time that allows us to correct or adjust the course with enough time for these definitions to impact. positively on the expected results.
For his part, Peter Senge, in the 11 Laws of Systemic Thought, states that “Today's problems are derived from yesterday's 'solutions'” (6); Perhaps the statement sounds a bit restrictive, however it is a conclusion that can be evidenced in the reality experienced by organizations that build “comfort zones” by believing that their products will remain valid for a long time and are puzzled when verifying that the competition was not precisely sleeping but finding alternatives capable of making them regain leadership in sales and recall. Having the dashboards at the three levels of the organization does not guarantee that the company remains the first or the best,but it will surely allow operational efficiency to lead to less reprocessing and to maintain productivity levels that will lead it to continue in the game proposed by the market.
Below I propose some brief reflections on each of the dashboards in such a way that we can identify that the strategic ones lead to impact results, the tactical ones to achievement results and the operational ones to performance results:
1. Strategic Dashboard:
The formulation of the strategic platform allows company executives, on the one hand, to visualize the challenges and challenges offered by the context in which they carry out their work, and on the other, to identify the strengths they have, in such a way so that its vision, as a projection of a possible goal to be achieved, must also be born from recognizing in the mission the reason for its action, the essence that mobilizes and energizes business management; However, daily life must reflect a judgment in their way of doing things since business behavior is mediated by the values that allow to indicate the route that it expresses and that contains the strategy that will allow visualizing the route that leads to the purpose formulated by the Company address.
The strategic board is born from the objectives contained in the strategic map which expresses and marks the future of the company in its intention to remain competitive in increasingly turbulent markets and willing to generate innovative, flexible and changing scenarios simultaneously. The four perspectives proposed by Kaplan and Norton guide the emphasis on management and results, it is that, in my opinion, the reason why the strategy board is read from the top down but is built from the bottom up; It is the recognition that people and their talent streamline the company's own processes to offer products and services to customers who want to repeat the shopping experience and consequently the economic income is strengthened that ensures the financial sustainability required by the company.
This first dashboard will have metrics that are the general results of the company, they are impact indicators that arise as a consequence of the management carried out, it is the evidence for the management team of its success, or not, in the decisions they made in the period being measured. The strategic board should not remain in the formulation of objectives that are only a desideratum of good wishes and intentions for the company, it is necessary to identify, formulate, assign and measure the indicators that materialize the results obtained by the company.
2. Tactical Board:
The second board will always have the strategic board as a reference, that is, it must be aligned in a cause-effect relationship and therefore its origin is primarily in the proper formulation of the initiatives associated with the strategic objectives, which are also a way practice of linking collaborators in the construction of the strategic platform of the company. Methodologically, experience shows, over and over again, that before pontificating about the route that the company will follow, it is convenient to make the strategy map known to the rest of the company and request the initiatives that derive from each of the strategic objectives formulated.
Now, the identification of the contributions and achievements of the areas are also part of the tactical board since they are the instance in which the strategy defined by the senior management begins to operationalize, the formulation of the indicators answers the question how Do we know what the results of the area are and its success factors? The resulting indicators must have the ability to link those who work in the area, in them we can recognize that management leads to the achievement of the objectives set for the area.
3. Operating Board:
The daily management of the collaborators in the different areas must also be measured, it is a matter of recognizing that the activities carried out have a meaning within the framework of business action, the operation implies recognizing that people are the driving force behind the management, Their tasks, however simple they may seem, add to the global nature of what the day-to-day life of the area in which they carry out their contractual commitments means. Individual contributions are also part of the business measurement system, they deliver the performance results that add to the achievement results and contribute to the impact results.
The operating board becomes a benchmark of the functions for which the person is hired, it is the clarity that the job description offers to its occupants and that guides the priorities on which the management they carry out must concentrate. Each collaborator in the organization recognizes that their contribution has communication with the strategic results, they are identical as a manager of business results and not only as a supporting actor whose contribution could be ignored.
Finally, it is important to affirm that the QMS (Quality Management System) cannot be absent from this reflection, on the contrary, it becomes the protagonist that articulates the THREE boards, recognizes the causal flow of the indicators and identifies the aspects required to align and adjust the indicators, both management and results.
An organization that manages to make the qualitative leap between formulation and action will be making progress in consolidating the conditions required to ensure sustainability that will make the company an attractive place to buy, work and invest (7)
Bibliographic references
- How to use the K and N balanced scorecard. Management 2000 Page 9Ibid. 22Dave Marcum, The business think, The wave effect Peter Senge in “The dance of change” How to use the K and N balanced scorecard. Management 2000 p. 232 How to use the K and N balanced scorecard. Management 2000 p. 246
