OCM, the Balanced Scorecard, and Fostering Collaboration

Question

Many organizations try to implement a management methodology, like the Balanced Scorecard, in order to improve performance and meet the shifting needs of the marketplace.
When developing a scorecard, the organization identifies what it believes are the key performance indicators that are driving the business. And while it is easy enough to formulate a plan with shared goals and teamwork, realizing and executing on that plan can be more challenging.
During every step of this process, from communicating the goals, to identifying KPIs, to executing on the strategy, requires attention to change management.
How does an organization move toward a unified set of objectives when that means getting collaboration between departments and functions that typically compete for attention, turf, and resources?
Do you have any examples of how Organizational Change Management was effectively used to better the cooperation and interaction between departments? Were there any good lessons learned?
Bob

Answer 1

Hi Bob,
We have used the "Portfolio" approach effectively to address the competing needs of various departmernts,functions.
A portfolio of the plans / initiatives under progress with the details in terms of money,Time etc is drawn and discussed in the workshop of the stake holders.The dependencies are also identified and discussed in detail.This is signed-off.
Based on the above it is easy to draw a heat map in terms of sensitivity and significance.This largely helps in bringing under control the competing departments etc.
If still the problem exists or in case of a tie,we can apply other constraints like money-cost of capital-,pay back period,skill set requirement, higher ROI relevant to a particular plan etc.
If we apply the yard stick logically in terms of the "value creation",the job of change management  is half done.
In practice i have seen the delayed execution of the plans,the quality problems,the delayed collection of cash,bad relationship with the client really upset our plan.There should be a good governance in these areas.In a portfolio of "Resource constrained projects" the above will have a telling effect.
Lesson learned:
The Managers who fight for priority on logical reasoning in fact do good to the firm.They bring in the scenarios -often real time-and potray the effect.On the other hand the pliable Managers accept to every thing resulting in to missed oppurtunities, abnormal idleness in terms of idle time,idle resources,thus allow changes to happen at a very high price.In the process they inflict an irreversible damage.
Often the "good will" considerations prevail,meaning,even if the project is ranked last in the portfolio,if the customer is powerful or is potentially important from a future point of view,then these low ranked projects pierce thro' the filter at the cost of the  "good ones" to the detriment of the organization.The significant side effect is,the performing departments get demoralized,frustrated with the poor allocation of the resources,delay etc.This sets a domino,which may threaten the very "business continuity".Resource buffering is essential to counter these.
In Change Management "For every Prize,there is a Price".This has to be examined from the value perspective.otherwise we are lost.
My 0.1%.
Reagrds.
Ramesh
Edited by: Ramesh Ramaswamy on Jul 28, 2008 1:49 PM