1. 1. Executive SummaryFinancial Performance Implementation of a balanced scorecard enabled the South Division (SD) to achieve a17.4% improvement in financial results over the North Division (ND). Within the SD,differences in the quality of implementation affected the degree of success of each branch.Implementation Differences Higher Performing Branches Lower Performing Branches clear and thorough regarding the inadequate in explaining why Communication was… purpose and use of the scorecard the scorecard was important Scorecard development management in collaboration with management only was done by… employees unrealistically difficult or far reasonably attainable and fair for Goals set were… too easy to attain and not equal all employees for all employees both group and individual, and not clearly defined or Incentives were… included monetary and non- nonexistent monetary rewardsRecommendations • Communication – clearly explain the purpose of the scorecard and help employees understand how to achieve their goals. • Scorecard development – allow employees to work with management to identify and set the measures and goals used in the scorecard. • Attainability/Equality of Goals – make sure goals are realistic and reachable for all employees in the branch. • Incentives – reward the group for the collective success of meeting branch goals as well as individual recognition for high performing employees.
2. 2. 03 May 2012 Case 2 Team 2 Case 2 - Balanced Scorecard Case B (Team 2: Rima LeBlanc, Kelly Austin, Alan Bucciero, Steve Gotshall, & Kevin O’Neil)Financial PerformanceAfter one fiscal year of implementing a Balanced Score Card (BSC), the financial results for Tri-Cities Bank support the use of a scorecard at all branches. Figure 1 shows a high-levelcomparison of the financial performance changes between the North and South Divisions from2000 to 2001 – a difference of 17.4%. It is clear from this summary graph that the SouthDivision had a much larger improvement in financial performance in 2001. Noting that the onlyoperational difference between the two divisions was the implementation of the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) management tool throughout the South Division, it is easy to see the benefit the BSChad on the average financial performance. Figure 1. Tri-Cities Bank Division comparison.Figure 2 breaks the data in Figure 1 down to show the performance increases of each branchwithin Tri-Cities Bank. The dotted line running down the middle of the graph divides thebranches by division. With the exception of branch E, this figure clearly shows the benefit thebranches in the south division received as a result of implementing the BSC. Although the northdivision produced consistently positive returns across all branches, the potential for much largergains with the use of a BSC is evident in the results of branches A, C, and B.
3. 3. 03 May 2012 Case 2 Team 2 Figure 2. Tri-Cities Bank Branch comparison.Figure 3 focuses on a comparison of the large performance increases each branch within thesouth division accomplished using the BSC in 2001. It can be seen that branch A achieved thelargest percentage increase in financial performance, while branch E showed the smallestincrease in financial performance. While all branches did show an increase in performance from2000 to 2001, the results varied greatly. These differences can be correlated to the methods usedby management to implement and execute the BSC, and to how the program was received by thebranch employees. The implementation section discusses the lessons learned on BSCimplementation strategies Figure 3. South Division branch comparison.
4. 4. 03 May 2012 Case 2 Team 2ImplementationAfter reviewing the financial performance results, the average benefit of using the BSC is clear.However, the results of the BSC vary greatly depending on the method by which the system isimplemented and managed within an organization. The following sections discuss lessonslearned on four major