Building Sustainability Into Your Performance Management Program

Like some of you, I always enjoy watching the final round of a good golf tournament on a Sunday afternoon, particularly if it’s a close race to the finish, or if there is someone I like to follow in the final few pairings with a decent chance to win. But I think the most enjoyable tournaments I’ve ever watched involved a good “comeback story”- whether it is the overwhelming underdog about to claim their first real victory, or the encore of an otherwise “past legend” of the game.

Such was the case this weekend watching the Northern Trust PGA stop at “Riviera” outside of Los Angeles. Normally, this past Sunday’s finish would have been one of those I viewed in the background , since most of the golfers I normally follow had already worked themselves out of the tournament by Friday afternoon.

Usually by Saturday evening, you know who is likely to be in contention, as those who are either struggling, or have taken steps in the wrong direction have moved themselves too far down the leaderboard to have a legitimate chance. Needless to say, as I approach that magical age of 50, having someone that I like to follow on the top of the leaderboard is becoming a rarity these days unless I’m watching the Senior Tour.

But this Sunday was different. For the first time in a while, two of the “older farts” that I like to follow were actually making a run at it. Those were  VJ Singh (47) and, none other than, Fred Couples (51)- the latter of whom I grew up watching as a kid. When I was in high school, I can remember watching “Freddy” come on the scene and, within a only few years, begin to contend with all the golf “Masters” of that era (literally).

In sports, “over 40″ is considered “old” and “over 50″ is usually considered “time for the senior tour”. Except for the “honorary” roles at a few of the Major events, it is very rare to see someone over 50 in contention on Sundays. And when they do, it is most notable. When these players beat the odds and simply  compete well (even if they don’t win)- Tom Watson at the recent British Open for example-it is a special moment. But when they win, it is literally something to behold- something reserved for true legends. In fact, a win from Fred this week would have made him one of only three golfers (alongside Snead and Floyd) to win in four different decades, a true measure of “sustainability”.

As it turns out, Fred didn’t win this week, due in large measure to a bad performance on a single hole which essentially took him out of contention, ultimately falling to the young Ausie, Aaron Baddeley.

One hole… that’s all it took to create a 3 stroke swing that killed most of the momentum built over 4 days and 65 holes of solid golf. Sad? A little. Here’s a guy over 50, riddled with a chronic back injuries, who routinely wins or “places” on the Senior Tour, and who was actually in contention with 6 holes to play alongside a guy half his age. Impressive any way you look at it.

And that is what got me thinking about SUSTAINABILITY. What is it that differentiates certain athletes to be able to sustain performance over literally decades? And how can we apply these lessons to business success, and perhaps our lives in general?

Interestingly, those athletes who sustain performance over many years, are sometimes those that never reach that elusive “#1 ranking” in there sport. They may have been #2 or #5 or even lower, but they were consistent in their performance over much longer durations, usually “hanging around” long after the #1’s had fallen or left the sport. Same with Businesses. Companies who may never achieve #1, can be just as successful by being in the “top few” (even the top decile or quartile) if they can perform at that level in a sustained and measured way.

So what is it that makes that difference? Here are five factors that I submit as key answers to that question.

  • Build “Around The Core”– Over the course of an athlete’s career, or a company’s history, the likelihood of going through multiple periods of change is almost certain, as is the probability that more than a few of those changes will be of large magnitude. But despite this, those who sustain their performance usually have a “core” that they develop and build around. For an athlete, this is usually referred to as a playing “style”- a golfer’s unique swing, a quarterback’s throwing motion, etc. And while that “style” can be tweaked or refined from time to time, the core elements of it usually transcend different periods of a career. For good businesses, this usually shows up in the form of vision and values. While specific missions, goals, KPI’s and strategies will no doubt change over time, the core vision and values, generally don’t.
  • Strategic Flexibility and Adaptability– Some may view this a little contradictory to the above point, but here is the distinction: While the core tends to remain stable, the strategies and tactics can, and should be somewhat fluid over time. Golfers and other athletes always “tinker” with different parts of their game and often solicit advice from coaches on what may be failing them at any particular point in time. They “adapt” their style to what may be needed to make themselves better. But rarely does this change the “core” of what defines them in terms of their long terms success. And when they do change something, its usually “off the course”. That is, they generally don’t change a fundamental strategy during the round, but rather do it on the range or in a practice round. When they “hit the course”, it’s generally all about execution. Businesses too, need to adapt to changing market conditions, buying patterns, economic climates, and numerous other factors; but at the same time protecting the core of what distinguishes their excellence.
  • Broaden the “Perspective”- My view of athletes who maintain sustainable success is that they do in fact modify their goals over time. I originally wrote this as their “openness and willingness to modify a target”, but that conveyed  more “weakness” than I really intended. It’s not that they change the target because they’re getting further into the lifecycle of their career, as much as it is changing the ultimate “perspective” and “horizon” around which they measure success. First time winners of the Superbowl start thinking in terms of career goals versus simply seasonal goals. Golfers start thinking about world rankings and career wins versus weekly tournament successes. No doubt, every one of these athletes wants to win week in and week out, but I suspect most would sacrifice a short term gain if doing so jeopardized a longer term aspiration.
  • Keeping the Team “Healthy”– It would be hard to talk about sports or business “dynasties” without talking about the importance of keeping the team in tact and healthy. For athletes, this means literally. Many an athlete has ended a career early because of injury. Stops and starts because of chronic injury is something that prevents sustainability. Sustainability requires a vigilance to keeping the body and mind healthy which usually takes an ultra-strong commitment to training on the field and off.  In business, the “healthy” team means doing your part as leaders to not only acquire the right talent, but to create an environment of nurturing ad development that supports retention and peak performance. It also means keeping “unhealthy” influences, behaviors and practices far away from the human capital you’ve invested so much to develop.
  • A Culture of Learning– As trite as it may sound, this may in fact be the most important common denominator of sustainable performers. Almost every “hall of fame” athlete we know appears to have that “hard wired” sense of learning built into them. It’s a hunger for learning that seems to disappear quickly after the initial successes of “one hit wonders”. But for sustainable leaders, that hunger for learning is almost obsessive. And the same is true of long term business success. It’s evident when you walk in the doors of these companies. Everything from the charts you see on the walls, to the type of conversation and dialog you witness, speaks of learning.

As always, these represent only a subset of what I believe are the most powerful differentiators of long term sustainable success.  I welcome your additions, comments and thoughts as well.

There are no doubt places in our performance management programs where we can apply these principles. Start with the core and build from there. Do you have that “solid core” of vision and values? Or is this something you constantly change from year to year. Are you flexible and adaptable with respect to your annual goals, objectives and KPI’s? Or have your operating objectives, measures, targets and strategies remained the same for years or even decades? As ironic and paradoxical as this is, many companies have this backwards. They constantly mess with the vision and values, yet they have objectives, measures and targets that rarely get challenged or updated over many years. That’s always an alarm bell for me.

But it shouldn’t stop there. For example, have you built the right perspectives and timeframes into your performance program? Do you have more than just short term goals for achievement? Do you also have longer term sustainability measures to complement that dimension of your scorecard? Have you used your performance management program as a tool to develop, nurture and retain your human capital? And have you really started down that road of continuous learning?

As I mentioned in a previous post, a good performance management program is not just about measures and metric reporting. It is about a holistic and integrated platform for building sustainable business success.

-b

PS- As for Freddy, best of luck at Augusta. I know he’ll be back. The decade is still young.

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Dashboards Versus Scorecards- Its all about the decisions it facilitates…

The one thing that most everyday drivers fear is that infamous “check engine light”. Unless its during the first few seconds of startup (the point at which every indicator on the dashboard lights up for a few seconds), a “check engine” alert is one of the few that signals that indicate big problems are imminent unless something changes fast…as in, stop the car soon and diagnose, or run the risk of being abandoned on the highway with a very costly repair. If you are someone who doesn’t take your vehicle’s indicator lights seriously, trust me (from experience), this is not one you want to ignore.

Dashboards, Indicators, and Alerts…

There are many indicators around us that alert us to changes in status of a process, and deviation from what may be considered to be a “normal operating condition”. And the place where most of these indicators are visible is on our dashboards. Whether it’s the dashboard of your vehicle, the cockpit display on an aircraft, the bridge on a ship, or a control room in a power plant; it’s the one central place where status is monitored and response strategies are determined, most often by the operator of the asset.

Of course, these deviations from the norm that show up on our  “dashboards” occur in varying degrees, and can signal very different things. A “service soon” indicator light your car dashboard is more “suggestive”, and usually means its time for an oil change or tune up. But you’ve generally got some time before it becomes a bigger issue. A “low fuel” indicator on the other hand, is a bit more significant, and usually means you’ve got a finite quantity of miles left before you are what we might call “SOL” (although I’ve tested this threshold on occasion and can attest to the fact that there is some (albeit small) “cushion” past 0 to rely upon). And then there is the “check engine” light that most often means PULL OVER ASAP ( as soon as safe and practical -but SOON).

I’m not sure about you, but I view the “check engine” light as analogous to to an “airspeed alert” that a pilot might get right before a stall condition, or a traffic alert he gets when another aircraft is within the allowed separation tolerance. You might not yet be “past the point of no return”, but you’re pretty darn close.

Dashboards and Scorecards: Is there a difference?

In the Performance Management discipline, we often hear people refer to the terms “Dashboard” and “Scorecard” rather indiscriminately, with little if any conscious distinction as to what they each connote. I’ve often avoided getting too “wound up” about this, because getting caught up in corporate “buzz phrases” and semantics can cause us to miss the bigger issues at play. But after reflecting on this a bit, I think the differences here are in fact worthy of some discussion. Not because the words themselves are super important, but because it is critical that both components (whatever you call them) need to be part of your EPM solution.

So here are is my take on the critical distinctions between the two:

  • Purpose: Dashboards are about helping you navigate the journey. Scorecards are about how successful the journey was.
  • Type of indicators included: Scorecards generally contain outcome results, Dashboards are usually comprised of leading or predictive indicators
  • Timeframe: Scorecards are periodic and longer term (weekly, monthly, annual trends) in the review horizon, while Dashboards are shorter term and can even be real time
  • Reaction– Scorecards should provoke next steps that involve introspection and analysis (drill downs, mining insights, etc.) where dashboards usually are designed to “signal” or “provoke” immediate actions or course corrections
  • Targets– Scorecards usually report against a target, threshold or benchmark as a percentage gap and trend. Dashboards generally report metrics within or against tolerance ranges, outside of which signal a required change

As with anything, these are not hard and fast rules, but they should give you a sense of where I personally see the distinctions.

Sure, there are some grey areas here. Outcomes for some, may only be a part of a journey for others. There are also cases where an an outcome indicator might be so important that it is worth tracking in both places- on the dashboard AND the scorecard. For example, some car dashboards have an indicator that tells you what MPG you are getting out of your fuel consumption in real time. But while MPG would normally be an “outcome” metric (i.e.scorecard material), it may also be useful to some of us in watching the degradation or improvement to MPG as we change driving patterns (rapid “gunning” and braking, versus more constant speeds, for example).

Examples for the Fairway

A conventional golf scorecard

A few days ago someone posted about this same topic, using golf as their main analogy. And while I agreed with most of what he said, some of his examples created pause as I though of my time on the golf course.

We both agreed for example that the “stroke count versus par” was what you would always find on a conventional golf scorecard (hard to argue with that!). However, I would also say that stats like # of greens in regulation, puts per green, club distances, etc. should also be part of your scorecard, although maybe at a level or two down the chain. After all, these are things that need to be analyzed and challenged OFF the course (although I have been known to peak at them from time to time during the round). In fact, it is not uncommon for many golfers to track these very stats on their scorecard right underneath or beside their actual stroke count.

But if you put all of that on the scorecard, then what does the dashboard look like? We’ll if we think about it in terms of the 5 criteria I provide above, it would likely  be things like yardages to the hole (what i need in order to make my club selection), wind direction (what I need to shape my shot), # stokes ahead or behind the lead (what I need to manage my strategy), speed of the green (necessary in determining the line and speed of your putt), and the myriad of other factors that are utilized by professional golfers before and during a round. And while many of us may manage the above by “feel”, just take a look at a professional’s yardage book and caddy’s notes and you’ll see what looks strikingly similar to a dashboard (albeit manually illustrated with stray marks and notes). And if you want to spend the money, you can always buy some pretty cool dashboards for your iphone or blackberry.

Some Final Thoughts…

I think some of the confusion between dashboards and scorecards is because metrics are often combined in the same visualization, regardless of whether it is called a scorecard or dashboard. Even automobile dashboards have a place for total accumulated miles. Golf GPS devices enable you to enter score count. As I said before, the distinction is sometimes burry, and often not even that critical.

What’s much more important is whether or not you have the full compliment of indicators you need to manage the business. When most executives ask their teams to develop “a dashboard”, the content of what they are really asking for is unclear. Are they hungry for better tracking of results? Or are they asking for better metrics- those that will enable better decisions and more responsiveness? Or are they simply looking for better analysis of the results?

Unless you understand that, it will be hard to deliver on any of these requests or mandates, regardless of what you end up naming it. In the end, Scorecards and Dashboards are merely visualization tools. What';s more important is that you embed and align the right content into these tools that will enable a clear line of sight between vision, objectives, KPI’s, metrics, and initiatives that tells the complete story and enables those who are in execution roles to be successful.

The bottom line is that you are the designer and architect of the info that is displayed, and so all these distinctions- whether it is between scorecard and dashboard, long term versus short term, leading versus lagging, etc.— are really only important in terms of their usefulness in helping YOU design a system that is relevant and useful within your organization. What you call these things is not near as important as whether the system produces the right outcomes.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Making Your Targets Achievable…Its about Progress not Perfection!

As I was relaxing over the weekend watching the ATT Pro-Am, where more than a few players (and celebs) entered the final day well within contention. There are many golfers that are entering 2011 in good form for so early in the year, and while there was only one winner, there were at least a dozen players (from the 40-somethings like Phil and VJ to the cadre of “young guns” that appear to have come out of nowhere and are now taking center stage) within striking distance when the day started on Sunday.

As it turned out, the winning team was in fact one of those young guns(D.A. Points), who ironically stood beside his celebrity playing partner- not other than the “old fart” we all remember from caddy shack, Mr Bill Murray himself. And what a finish it was.

But what was interesting about this day was that there were so many guys playing great golf, and who had clearly taken there game to the next level. It was kind of odd listening to the Mickelson (after mucking up a few key holes that likely cost him a come from behind win), describe the tournament as “really fun” and his play as “much improved”. Sure, anyone making tens of millions a year could probably maintain that attitudeafter “letting one slip away”. But I actually watched that interview thinking the guy was genuine. In my view, good athletes get where are not only through hard work and unwavering commitment, but also by recognizing and reinforcing the principle of improvement as much as they do the actual win.

As you read the below post, I encourage you to think about how you can apply this principle to your periodic goal setting process, whether its setting new goals or negotiating mid course corrections. I hope you enjoy what I believe is some pretty timeless advice.

—————————

From my previous post “PROGRESS, NOT PERFECTION”…

Good performance managers can separate the “aspiration” from the “journey” toward it. Notice I said “toward it”, and not “to it”. Performance Management is a process, not and end game. It’s a journey “toward” a state of perfection, knowing that you may never fully achieve it. It’s working damn hard at something knowing that you never really graduate or declare a perfect ending. There’s always something else to aspire to. Our job as performance managers is to manage the process or the journey, using the “end game” only as a beacon that you navigate toward.

To some of you, this may contradict one of my earlier writings on ‘not accepting mediocrity’. In fact, there is a contradiction, and it’s by design. Goal setting is an art, always trying to find the balance between being too ambitious, but at the same time, not accepting mediocrity. Good goal setting will stretch the capabilities of the individual without demoralizing them with repeated failure. For example, an organization may aspire to six sigma performance standards, but manage the process in a way that reinforces and rewards milestones along the way. And when you’re at six sigma, there’s still something to aspire to.

Think about the game of golf. Hogan once said that man will never play a perfect round of golf, because of the nature of the game. Think about it. A perfect score of 18 is beyond human reach in the game as we know it (a hole in one on every hole). Hogan also said that when he plays a round of golf, he can expect only a handful of shots to go exactly as he planned them. Wow! Now that’s amazing. Here’s a world class golfer at his peak saying that out of 65-75 strokes, only 4 or 5 will pass his test of perfection.

But despite the fact that we’ll never achieve that perfect end state, the game of golf does challenge us with goals of par (what should a good golfer shoot), birdies, eagles, double eagles, and those rare but attainable hole in ones. The game’s scoring is also adjusted for a player’s handicap, which changes as his skill improves. There are not many sports that encourage and motivate players ‘toward’ a level of perfection, without ever fully achieving it, than the game of golf does.

So sticking with this analogy, how do golfers motivate themselves in a world where they’ll never fully achieve “perfection”? Most good golfers play each stroke, one at a time, putting a lot more focus on # of fairways hit, GIR’s (# greens hit in regulation), # of sand saves, # of up and downs, and average # of putts per green. That’s how they do it. They set meaningful and achievable milestones for the journey, knowing that if they achieve those, the final score will take care of itself. Turn on the TV every Sunday afternoon, and you’ll see it in action. Even if you don’t like golf, you can’t help but being impressed by how these guys and women manage their game (their journey).

If you like the above analogies and can relate to them, there are some great writings on the subject that will illustrate this point better than I ever could. Three that I recommend are “Golf is not a game of perfect”, “Life is not a game of perfect”, and “The golf of your dreams”, all written by Dr. Bob Rotella, a noted sports psychologist. While these may play more to the golfers among us, his style of writing lends itself to wide applications of these principles, from the workplace to life in general.

So as you set goals, and manage your people toward achieving them, remember to not only focus on the ‘end game’ or ultimate aspiration of perfection, but to also place an equal if not greater focus on the journey and the milestones we must achieve along the way.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

First things First- PROCESS before technology…

Here is is post I wrote a few years back. I was reminded of it while on a call today on Sales Enablement and Automation. Not surprising that it always comes back to “doing the RIGHT things RIGHT”.  BTW- an update on the below article- 3 years later, the process at EWR is STILL THE SAME!!!!                                          ———————————

Here’s a brief story I encountered while leaving Newark International Airport following a recent business trip. Hard to believe, but true.

After a long flight home from the West Coast, I took a short train ride to the long term parking facility, located my car (which is becoming more difficult with age it seems), and proceeded to the parking exit. Note that it’s been a while since I’ve used the long term parking facility, as I normally use a car or taxi service, so I was largely unfamiliar with their new “high tech” customer solutions.

As I pulled up to the pay station (expecting the attendant to inform me of my charge), she immediately looked at me with the gaze of a very frustrated woman who’s obviously done this before. In a short tone, she barked out an instruction suggesting that I had passed an automated ticket booth, from which I should have inserted my ticket and noted the charge. I complied with the instruction, quietly wondering why this woman was in the booth at all, given the fact that the machine and I pretty much had this thing licked. I concluded of course that she must be there to collect the money, so I proceeded to pay her. Not a good assumption as she pointed me back to the machine to insert my payment. OK, I get it, I interact with the machine for this too…no problem, thinking that this is a pretty good solution. I wait for the machine to give me my receipt, an obvious assumption given how the first two steps went. Nope…wrong again. This time she wants me to drive to her and pick up my receipt, at which point she presses a button, lifts the gate, and I’m on my merry way.

I can’t help thinking about all the time and money went into implementing this slick new solution, that probably cost an arm and a leg, had little to no impact on cost savings, destroyed customer satisfaction, and obviously put the employee in a perpetual stae of ‘grumpy’. No…what this was, is yet another example of “technology for technology’s sake”.

When I work with organizations on business impovement, one of the most important themes I try to drill home is PROCESS FIRST, then technology. You don’t implement technology on top of a broken process. Nor do you attempt to fix a broken brocess with technology only.

The right path is to measure the effectiveness of the process before you begin. Establish a baseline. Understand how the process works today (‘As Is’ State). Look for places to improve the process. Define changes. Examine the effect of each potential change on overall performance. Then, and only then, define the technology, systems, skills, and organization needed to support the new process. Develop cost benefits and business cases. Re-examine the degree to which performance will be improved over baseline. And then your almost ready for implementation.

It’s a simple principle, but one that often get overlooked. Try to pay some attention to this in your everyday life and you’ll probably see many similar examples. Then, use these as lessons learned, and start living by the mantra- “First Things First”- process first, technology later.

 

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

 

D-M-A-I-C Revisited…

As a follow up to my post yesterday, and my recent attempts to expand our thinking on what Enterprise Performance Management really is, I’ll focus a little bit on another integral part of the collective whole- the “analytic and problem solving” side of the equation.

My thinking on this was triggered largely by a twitter post I received yesterday which read “Why is Performance Management focused on measurement & control – it should release performance rather than trying to contain it”. I believe the tweet was actually zeroing in on the “contain and control” element of some of today’s more popular business improvement frameworks, viewing their thinking as somehow contradictory to actually building value …kind of suggesting an “either/ or” mindset. But the more I reflected on it, I realized that, for me, this was more of an “and/both” issue. Let me explain…

There are many problem solving frameworks out there when it c

omes to business improvement, but one of the most common approaches is built upon the Lean and Six Sigma disciplines- a collection of problem solving and analysis tools and practices which have emerged in many organizations across the globe in the past decade as the business improvement philosophy of choice.

One of the many tools applied by the Lean community when approaching a business problem is what they call D-M-A-I-C (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control). You can also find this principle within many other business improvement frameworks, but its roots reside in some of the very early thinking in the development of the Lean, Six Sigma and related improvement/ quali

ty methodologies. I’ve kind of always viewed DMAIC as an extension of the old Plan-Do-Check-Adjust model, but I’m sure some of the Lean purists would probably take issue with that, and I certainly can’t debate that. What I can tell you is that these kind of tools and mental models do work, and help greatly in demystifying and putting a problem into a bigger and more relevant context.

But in my view, it does fail to capture two critical dimensions:

  • The importance of alignment- I’ve discussed this at length in some of my previous posts (securing alignment), but suffice it to say, it is one of the main reasons that strategies fail, and that KPI’s that are viewed as critical by management, often get ignored. Simply defining the business objective or problem statement and jumping straight to the measurement aspect seems to miss the importance of the alignment that is required before the problem can be attacked head on with maximum commitment from the team.
  • The importance of Value Capture (or what I often refer to as value RELEASE)- There is some good thinking that is emerging in this area, and I encourage you to explore it. But the key implication us that if we don’t put a high degree of emphasis on capturing the value (“ringing the cash register” in some way), then all we have really engaged in is a philosophical or analytic exercise. Whenever I see pockets of an organization deploying Lean based tools, without significant involvement from the CFO and budgeting functions (which is the primary control mechanism to capture, contain, and ensure value is released), I get concerned. See my EOY review of EPM trends (bullet #3) for a discussion of this)

I am certainly not proposing another itteration of DMAIC or PDCA, as these models have served us well over the years. And since philosophies like  Lean, Six Sigma,and the older ones like TQM  are the closest we’ve gotten to the kind of holistic approaches to EPM I recommend in yesterday’s post, we cant be too quick to dismiss some of their core tenets.

But I do submit that these two missing components – alignment and value capture– are too critical to be left out of the discussion, and simply embedded into the broader methodology. Like I suggested yesterday, our thinking often gets limited because of the nature of the disciplines and practitioners involved, and in this case we may be seeing the same thing. Lean thinking is highly analytical and problem solving oriented, and hence, some of its practitioners tend to place less emphasis on other complementary disciplines needed here: the human side of aligning leadership teams and employees, and the financial realism of actually releasing value on the back end of the cycle. And when that occurs, we can be left with the coolest mathematical equations, graphs and control charts, with little hope that value will actually accrue on the back end.

I’d like to hear your thoughts.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com