A Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame™ Profile
U.S. Army
HARVARD BUSINESS
SCHOOL PUBLISHING
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State University - Global Campus, from October 2017 to April 2018.
What is the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame?
The Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for Executing Strategy™, administered by Balanced
Scorecard Collaborative, recognizes organizations that have achieved breakthrough
performance largely as a result of applying one or more of the five principles of the
Strategy-Focused Organization. These principles, formulated by Balanced Scorecard
creators Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, are described in detail in their book
The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the
New Business Environment (Harvard Business School Press, 2001). BSC Hall of Fame
members are personally selected by Drs. Kaplan and Norton.
To learn more about Hall of Fame selection criteria and Hall of Fame members,
visit bscol.com.
The Five Principles of the Strategy-Focused Organization
Each of the five principles of the Strategy-Focused Organization include specific
management best practices that contribute to the achievement of breakthrough
results. These best practices—validated through ongoing research with Hall of Fame
organizations and hundreds of other users of the Balanced Scorecard around the world—
must be embedded in any organization that wants to make strategy execution a core
competency.
Principle #1. Mobilize Change Through Executive Leadership
Executive leadership, driven by a need for change, supports the drive to
establish a new way of managing based on a performance-oriented culture.
Principle #2. Translate the Strategy into Operational Terms
The Balanced Scorecard is used to translate the strategy into a language
that everyone understands.
Principle #3. Align the Organization to the Strategy
The scorecard is used to cascade the strategy to all parts of the
organization and align resources needed to accomplish the strategy.
Principle #4. Motivate to Make Strategy Everyone’s Job
The reward and recognition system is used to align
individual behavior with performance objectives called for
by the strategy.
Principle #5. Govern to Make Strategy a Continual Process
Strategy execution is linked to the budget, and a reporting system
based on scorecard measures is used to provide feedback on
strategic performance.
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State University - Global Campus, from October 2017 to April 2018.
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
Table of Contents
Profile ..................................................................................1
Key Results, Takeaways ................................................8
SFO Spotlight (best practices)....................................9
Strategy Map..................................................................10
To Learn More ................................................................11
Transforming an organization of 1.2 million people
scattered throughout the globe is no minor feat. But in
what perhaps constitutes the world’s largest Balanced
Scorecard implementation, the U.S. Army is doing just
that. Thanks to an immense, carefully orchestrated
scorecard rollout, the Army is working to create the
ideal force of tomorrow while also sustaining its
readiness to respond to the demands of today.
ABOUT U.S. Army
Industry: Government
A vast organization whose origins predate the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Army has a focused
mission: to serve the American people, protect
enduring national interests, and fulfill national
military responsibilities.
One of the United States’ three military departments
(along with the Navy and the Air Force) reporting
to the U.S. Department of Defense, the Army is led
by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff,
U.S. Army. Like the other military departments, this
immense organization has two components: active
and reserve. Its operational missions are supported
by its institutional organizations, which train, equip,
and deploy personnel, and manage the additional
activities that enable operational personnel to do
their job. Operational personnel are organized into
local armies, corps, divisions, brigades, and battalions.
An oft-cited Army motto is, “Without the institutional
Army, the operational Army cannot function. Without
the operational Army, the institutional Army has
no purpose.”
The U.S. Army has 11 major commands: Europe; Pacific;
the Eighth U.S. Army, Korea; Forces Command; Special
Operations Command; Space and Missile Defense
Command; the Corps of Engineers; Materiel Command;
Medical Command; Military Traffic Management Command; and Training and Doctrine Command. Each
major command has assigned units and facilities.
Today the Army is engaged in battling terrorism
and providing peace and stability in many regions
throughout the world.
Personnel: More than 1.2 million
Budget: $93.9 billion (plus wartime supplemental
allocations)
Inducted into the Balanced Scorecard
Hall of Fame: 2003
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New
York and Washington, along with the ensuing global
war on terrorism, confirmed what the nation’s military
leaders already knew: the U.S. Army needed to
transform itself into a leaner, more nimble, and
technologically advanced fighting force that could
respond quickly and decisively across a full spectrum
of operations. Only then could it fulfill its demanding
mission: serving the American people, protecting
enduring national interests, and fulfilling national
military responsibilities.
The Army had already taken steps to improve its
current combat-readiness reporting system, in use
since 1963. In 1999, the National Defense Authorization
Act directed the U.S. Secretary of Defense to develop
a readiness reporting system for the armed services
that would provide more accurate, timely, and objective
readiness information to Congress. An Army War
College1 study presented to the Army’s Chief of Staff
in January 2000 confirmed that the existing readiness
reporting system did not provide senior Army leadership with information adequate to manage the total
force’s readiness.
Though useful in many respects, the reporting system
relied heavily on lagging indicators to provide a
snapshot of fighting units’ capacity to perform their
wartime missions. With such an incomplete picture,
Army leaders could not proactively assess the operating
forces’ readiness. Nor could they easily link readiness
to their resource-allocation decisions. Equally frustrating,
the information the older system relied on was often
outdated.
The War College study recommended that the Army
reengineer and expand its existing reporting system
so leaders could focus more sharply on the Army’s
mission, better evaluate strategic readiness, leverage
Web-based automation, and improve the Army’s
capability to perform future missions. The desired
outcomes? Better cross-functional coordination and
accelerated decision-making ability, as well as a clearer
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
1
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
articulation of the Army’s mission, a sharper focus
on stakeholders, and the more strategic allocation
of resources.
In response to the study, the Army launched a
complex, long-term effort in 2000 to transform its
operational forces and institutional base into the ideal
“future force”—one that could leverage technological
advances and organizational flexibility to radically
improve the Army’s ability to address future conflicts.
But by 2001, the global war on terrorism had intro-
But General Peake showed people
throughout the Army Medical
Department how the scorecard would
actually help them address their thorniest
problems. The scorecard, he told them,
would enable them to make a compelling
business case for important initiatives.
This argument caught their attention.
duced a new kind of conflict—one that requires
deployment of a broad range of active, reserve, and
national guard forces; integration with joint forces;
and collaboration with coalition partners.
The events of 2001 and their fallout further intensified the Army’s desire to better assess its ability to
fulfill both current and future performance requirements in a changing world—a delicate balance that
all large organizations must strike. Army leaders
acknowledged that combat readiness reporting alone
was no longer enough. The force also had to examine
its strategic readiness. For example, in addition to
tracking resource measures such as equipment
availability, it needed to a way to assess its strategic
status: to answer such questions as, “Are we recruiting
and organizing in a way that will enable us to
succeed in multiple theaters of war simultaneously?”
Moreover, the Army needed to create a tool for
measuring and reporting its strategic readiness
throughout the organization
Drawing Inspiration from the Army
Medical Department
In selecting the Balanced Scorecard as its framework
for implementing its strategic-readiness management
system, the Army looked to its own Medical Department (AMEDD) for inspiration and education. Since
2000, AMEDD had been using the BSC to sharpen
and communicate strategy.
The Medical Department adopted the BSC in 2000
when the then-new surgeon general, Lt. Gen. James
Peake, took command. Concerned about the department’s rising costs and convinced of its need to provide outstanding medical service in order to ensure
sufficient recruitment and retention, General Peake
recommended the scorecard. He was familiar with
the BSC methodology from his previous command,
and believed in its power to link long-term strategy
to near-term action.
AMEDD developed a high-level scorecard and cascaded
it down to the department’s major subordinate commands (generally regions, such as the North Atlantic
Regional Medical Command). The scorecard was then
cascaded to lower-level elements, such as hospitals
and clinics in a given locale. Not surprisingly, the
department’s scorecard implementation team encountered some resistance early in these efforts. Medical
personnel, already working long days, complained
that they wouldn’t have time to master and use a
new performance-management system.
But General Peake showed people throughout the
organization how the scorecard would actually help
them address their thorniest problems—such as
obtaining funding. The scorecard, he told them,
would enable them to make a compelling business
case for important initiatives. This argument caught
their attention; people recognized and valued the
opportunity to compete more successfully for funding
against certain hospitals that they believed had
unfairly captured the lion’s share of limited resources.
AMEDD further “marketed” the BSC through a comprehensive communications plan. The communications
team used two key tactics to convince people of the
scorecard’s value. It ensured that every communication
about the scorecard answered the question, “What’s
in it for me?” and synchronized phases of the communications program with steps in the scorecard
cascading process.
General Peake’s commitment to laying out the
advantages of the scorecard and the communication
team’s ingenuity soon paid dividends. By 2002,
health concerns had dropped to third place behind
concerns about housing and military police staffing
in the Army. What explains these gains? AMEDD
personnel had boosted their daily performance on
the job: They were answering phones 10% faster than
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
2
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
before, getting patients to the right physicians more
quickly, and making additional improvements to
remove the “hassle” associated with receiving quality
medical care.
Experimenting with Prototypes
According to Maj. Gen. Patrick D. Sculley, AMEDD’s
former deputy surgeon general, “AMEDD’s BSC was
the driving force in the Army’s own BSC adoption.”
Intrigued by AMEDD’s experience, the Army decided
to ease into the scorecard effort by initiating a
prototyping process.
From October 2000 to March 2001, the Army developed prototypical performance measures, identified
links to local data sources, experimented with
aggregation of local performance data to higherlevel scorecards, and developed a prototypical Army
scorecard. Personnel in Fort Campbell (Kentucky),
Fort Benning (Georgia), and Rock Island Arsenal
(in the Mississippi River between Iowa and Illinois)
participated in these efforts. Fort Riley (Kansas) and
Fort Drum (New York) conducted parallel experiments.
When it became evident that the methodology
used was inappropriate, the Army sought help from
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative in November 2001,
once the state of urgency created by the September 11
attacks subsided.
Formalizing the Strategic Readiness System
In November 2001, with a new approach in hand,
the Army launched an enterprise-wide strategy
execution initiative that it dubbed the Strategic
Readiness System (SRS)—the Army’s name for
the BSC methodology. A scorecard team consisting
of individuals from the Army’s G-3 organization
(operations)—including a project manager from
G-3’s readiness division and a core team manager—
defined a whirlwind set of deadlines for making
SRS real. The implementation would unfold in the
following phases:
staff, and major commands, and align them to
the Level 0 scorecard.
Also in this phase: Establish an SRS Automated
Reporting Environment. Publish strategy maps
and strategic performance data in an online
environment. Automate data collection and make
drill-down data available.
• Phase 3: October 2002 to April 2003—
Cascade the Scorecard to Level 2. Further train,
deploy, and automate the BSC to the subordinate
organizations.
• Phase 4: Ongoing Since April 2003—Integrate
SRS with Other Army Management Systems.
For example, have the General Officer Steering
Committee begin meeting regularly to review
performance against the Level 0 scorecard. Because
of the scope and complexity of systems integration,
this phase is still under way.
The scorecard team then customized the generic
public-sector strategy map to reflect the Army’s
strong mission orientation. Like many government
and nonprofit organizations, the Army decided
to state its mission on its high-level strategy map
and position its stakeholder (customer) perspective
at the top of the map. The resources (financial)
perspective was placed at the bottom of the map,
to demonstrate that resources enable attainment of
the organization’s mission and are not the supreme
goal of the organization.
The strategic themes in the Level 0 strategy map
reflected the Army’s strategic priorities. They included:
• Core Competencies—capabilities the Army
needs to fulfill its responsibilities
• Readiness—essential for meeting the immediate
needs of the national defense strategy
• Transformation—the metamorphosis required to
secure the Army’s preeminence in a changing world
• Phase 1: November 2001 to March 2002—
Develop Level 0 (Enterprise) Scorecard.
Finalize the high-level scorecard and align the
Army’s leadership team around it. Provide strategic
guidance for subordinate commands. In March
2002, the working version of the Level 0 scorecard
was approved by the Army’s Chief of Staff.
• Sound Business Practices—the optimal use
of resources in all processes
• Phase 2: March 2002 to October 2002—
Cascade Level 0 Scorecard to Level 1. Train
local core teams on BSC basics. Create scorecards
for 36 of the Army’s department-level, headquarters
Creating the enterprisewide strategy map raised
questions about how the Army should balance
current and future priorities. Namely, would a transformation campaign focused on future readiness
compromise the force’s current readiness? Reflecting
• People—the cornerstone of the force
• Secure Resources—the acquisition and use
of resources required to execute all of the above
priorities
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
from
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing and
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
3
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
its need for tradeoffs, the Army depicted the themes
of Readiness and Transformation as interlocking ovals
on its Level 0 strategy map.
Cascading at a Blistering Pace
The Army’s scorecard effort quickly gained the
kind of momentum that any observer would deem
remarkable for an organization of such heft, reach,
“At the same time [that we were implementing the SRS], we were an army at
war. It was critical to have a strategic
performance management system up
and running quickly so that we could
maintain focus on the long-term strategy
of our transformation, even as we were
supporting combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.”
Robert Carrington
Chief of the Strategic Management Division
implementing the scorecard according to the
SRS Operations Center timeline.
All told, the Army developed more than 300 scorecards for Level 1 and 2 Army organizations around
the world—each of them linked in a hierarchical
manner to the Level 0 Army strategy map. The Army
continues to further cascade the scorecard to Level 3
and 4 organizations such as divisions and separate
brigades, each of which consists of between 2,000
and 20,000 soldiers.
The aggressive pace of the cascading process was
intentional; it enabled the scorecard team to build
momentum in this massive and far-flung organization.
Notes Robert Carrington, Chief of the Strategic
Management Division, “At the same time [that we
were implementing the SRS], we were an army at
war. It was critical to have a strategic performance
management system up and running quickly so that
we could maintain focus on the long-term strategy
of our transformation, even as we were supporting
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” He
continues, “As the Secretary of the Army says, ‘We
are fighting today while simultaneously preparing
for tomorrow.’”
Taking Advantage of Technology
and complexity. In just six months, the Army finalized its Level 0 strategy map and scorecard. It then
cascaded the scorecard to 36 Level 1 organizations.
Within the following six months, it cascaded the
scorecard to 250 subordinate organizations.
Scorecards were approved through the following
chain of command, in a strict but swift process:
1. The Council of Colonels (CoC) received scorecards
and reviewed them with scorecard creators to
discuss issues of concern.
2. The CoC then forwarded approved scorecards
to the Director, Operations, Readiness, and
Mobilization (OD).
3. The OD Director forwarded approved scorecards
to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.
4. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 reviewed the
scorecards and forwarded approved versions to
the Army Chief of Staff.
5. The Chief of Staff, Army, sent memoranda to
organizations informing them that their scorecard
had been approved and directing them to begin
The Army’s size and geographic dispersion posed
serious challenges for the BSC rollout. For example,
how would the organization manage the logistics
of so many different efforts spread so far apart?
How would it create a central repository of BSC
information? And how would it maintain knowledge
of the BSC as leaders rotated into new positions?
As the SRS project gathered steam, leaders obtained
assistance from the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
to create the SRS Operations Center—an internal consulting function. The Center would provide guidance,
ensure quality control, drive training, and offer technology support. The BSC experts who staffed the
Center worked to educate additional internal Army
personnel, training them to drive the initiative.
A “product review” checklist helped guide scorecard
developers in creating strategy maps, identifying
appropriate strategic themes, objectives, and measures,
and keeping them to a reasonable number. For
example, the checklist contains such criteria as “the
linkages in the strategy map between perspectives
have been tested and validated,” and “each objective
on the scorecard currently has a measure”—to which
the developing team would check “yes” or “no.”
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
4
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
Using support tools such as multimedia resources,
scorecard templates, and project-management tools
(including timelines and team workspaces)—all of
which were now available in one place—Level 1
organizations constructed their scorecards to align
to the Level 0 map. In addition to these essential
resources, the Army used technology extensively in
facilitating SRS. After the Level 0 and Level 1 scorecards were built, the Army installed BSC reporting
software. At the same time, the team began creating
links between the software and its existing databases
for scorecard measures (a process still under way due
to the extent of the Army’s existing measures).
They augmented that information with data they
had never tracked before—such as the new leading
strategic measures defined on their scorecards. The
logistics branch, for example, developed measures
to track the overall availability of key spare parts
and the funding for equipment maintenance, and
combined both sets of data into a single metric.
The SRS software interface provides a single,
centralized location where officers can quickly learn
the status of equipment availability, staffing, and
other key metrics. The system thus enables the
real-time readiness snapshot that largely motivated
the Army’s BSC adoption in the first place. There is
total visibility across the organization: any authorized
BSC user can see any other similarly authorized
user’s scorecard. However, care is taken to segregate
classified and unclassified information to different
servers, depending on the sensitivity of the data.
1. Deliver a consistent message about SRS.
To ensure ease of access to the reporting software,
the SRS team created a link to it from Army Knowledge
Online (AKO), the Army’s knowledge management
system. By logging on to AKO, authorized scorecard
or measure owners can access scorecards online
with a single sign-on, at any time and from anywhere.
AKO also features an SRS portal with educational
materials on the BSC and the SRS project.
The communications team also defined a primary
audience of Army leaders from many different
command levels, as well as future leaders being
educated at the U.S. Army War College and the
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.2
Secondary audiences included officials of the
Department of Defense as well as congressional
leaders and policymakers.
Automating the scorecard early generated huge
benefits. While preparing reports for their superiors,
officers could now view one another’s scorecards
online rather than having to visit the commands
themselves to gather performance information.
According to Col. Robert Cox, then division chief,
Army Readiness Division, “The BSC enables each
team to evaluate recent unit performance in a way
that cuts across organizational silos (e.g., logistics,
operations, medical, training, and other staff areas).
People from different organizations within the Army
have easy access to scorecard data, and can align
quickly around issues that connect various organizations. Put simply, the scorecard enables the Army to
‘get the right people in the room’ when issues crop up.”
The team pitched the scorecard’s overarching
message: “The Strategic Readiness System (SRS) is
designed to enable the Army to effectively support
the national military strategy and direct resources to
influence readiness across the enterprise. The SRS is
a strategic tool that enables the Army to maintain its
focus on key strategic objectives and proactively
achieve its mission.”
With the technical functions running smoothly,
commanders began populating their scorecards with
data they had already maintained rigorously, such as
the quantity of ammunition in a particular location.
Getting the Word Out
In addition to technology, communication has played
a large role in the success of the Army’s BSC initiative.
The SRS team developed an aggressive, comprehensive strategic communications plan that had six goals:
2. Minimize the unknown for recipients of
the message.
3. Keep Army personnel informed and motivated.
4. Help people understand and manage the
changes taking place.
5. Enable people to share knowledge.
6. Gather feedback on the progress of the
SRS implementation.
The vehicles for communicating these points to primary
audiences ranged from stories in Army newspapers
and defense-related periodicals (such as Defense
News and National Defense magazine), the SRS
homepage on AKO, and videos, to e-mails, printed
brochures, and coffee mugs bearing the SRS logo.
The Army also launched a bimonthly newsletter—SRS
Update—devoted to all things scorecard. Published
by the SRS Operations Center, the newsletter offers
articles on topics ranging from the practical (“What
Is a Scorecard Owner?” “How Do You Change Your
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
from
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing and
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
5
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
Scorecard?”) to the engaging and informative (“SRS
Meets the British Army,” a piece on the U.K. Ministry
of Defence’s scorecard implementation).
To get the word out to secondary audiences, the
communications team developed informational
memos for members of Congress and conducted
briefings for congressional staff members. It also
issued press releases targeting regional and technical
publications and the Wall Street Journal and conducted
roundtable discussions with media. In addition, the
team began participating in Army trade shows.
Making Education a Priority
In the Army’s view, communication and education
go hand in hand. Putting this into action for the
SRS meant training about 1,200 people in dozens of
classrooms around the globe on the scorecard during
the initiative’s early phases. The Army then extended
training to the Web and other channels. For example,
it has developed a series of online, self-paced learning
Because Army leaders are required
to regularly rotate to new positions,
training is particularly essential to
preserve organizational memory and
promote an understanding of the
SRS. For this reason, the Army began
providing continuous training for
leaders in 2003.
modules covering such topics as defining measures
and setting targets, achieving horizontal and vertical
alignment, presenting performance analyses, creating
team and individual scorecards, and refreshing strategy.
Because Army leaders are required to regularly
rotate to new positions, training is particularly essential
to preserve organizational memory and promote
an understanding of the SRS. For this reason, the
Army began providing continuous training for leaders
in 2003.
The Army also initiated efforts to institutionalize
BSC methodology and SRS education by including
them in the Army curricula required for all future
leaders. (As of December 2004, these efforts were
still under way.) In addition, it included guidance
on the SRS in The Army Plan, the central guidance
document for the Army’s strategy.
The Army also knew that people throughout the
organization could learn a lot from one another.
Thus it asked Level 1 and 2 scorecard owners to
be the ones to train people in Levels 3 and 4 on
SRS methodology. It also established monthly
teleconferences to enable officers to explore questions
about topics such as SRS reports, software upgrades,
and user roles. In addition, staff officers leading the
BSC effort can complete monthly BSC methodology
and application learning modules that enable them
to access SRS in the classroom, work through issues
with system experts, and participate in system
demonstrations.
Face-to-face learning experiences have also proved
important to the Army’s SRS program. In September
2004, the organization held its first annual SRS
Conference. This gathering brought together more
than 100 personnel with SRS responsibilities to discuss
SRS and learn from each other’s experiences. The
conference also featured speakers from various outside organizations who shared their BSC experiences
and gave participants ideas they could implement in
their own organizations.
Finally, in keeping with the Army’s emphasis on
learning from feedback, the SRS Operations Center
began gathering feedback on its own performance.
Through a User Evaluation Survey, Center staff members invite Army personnel to share their suggestions
for improving management of the SRS program.
Keeping a Finger on the Pulse of Strategy
The Army knew that the ongoing review of strategic
performance would be crucial to the SRS’s success.
To that end, many Army units began reviewing their
scorecards monthly—acknowledging progress toward
targets, addressing challenges, and defining or refining
action plans. Rather than focusing on data during
these review sessions, participants analyzed causeand-effect relationships between their scorecard
objectives and the strategic outcomes their units
were generating.
In the Army, change is a constant, so strategy must
be frequently evaluated with an eye toward possible
modification. The SRS team recommended updating
scorecards once a year to reflect changes in strategy
and objectives and to constantly improve subordinate
scorecards’ links to the Level 0 scorecard. To support
this effort, the Army began holding annual SRS
Strategy Review meetings, at which officers explored
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
6
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
questions such as, “Is this strategy moving us closer
to achieving our organization’s mission and vision?”
“Are there any missing objectives that we need to
add to and measure on our scorecard?” “Do we have
the right set of initiatives to drive our strategy?”
At the first SRS Strategy Review meeting, held in June
2003, participants brainstormed and discussed ways
to cascade training throughout Level 1 organizations,
leverage technology, and encourage ongoing learning
about strategy management. Attendees also shared
best practices.
With the Army at war these past few years, change—
and shifts in strategy—have been inevitable. The
Army’s strategy map has evolved since its earliest
iteration, and will continue to do so as strategies
and priorities change.
Reaping the Rewards
The Army has achieved significant high-level gains
thanks to the SRS. As Gen. John M. Keane, Vice Chief
of Staff during the initial stages of implementation
(from 1999 to 2003), explained, “The Army’s Strategic
Readiness System…provides Army leadership with
accurate, objective, predictive, and actionable readiness
information to dramatically enhance strategic resource
management. For the first time, we have an Army
enterprise management system that integrates readiness
information from both the Active and Reserve components—enabling the Army to improve support to
combatant commanders, invest in soldiers and their
families, identify and adopt sound business practices,
and transform the Army to the desired future force.”
According to General Keane, the SRS has also
enabled the Army to manage its strategy more
proactively. “This reporting system,” he notes,
“markedly improves how we measure readiness by
gathering timely information with precision and
expands the scope of the data considered. We are
further developing this system to leverage leading
indicators and predict trends—avoiding issues that
affect readiness before they become problems.”
Thomas E. White, former Secretary of the Army,
cited ease of use of the BSC as an important factor
in achieving such gains: “The great thing about this
system is that it places no additional burdens on
soldiers. We’re leveraging existing systems so that
leaders can get a better picture of readiness as we
continue to achieve the Army vision.”
Interestingly, in 2004, the Department of Defense
began requiring all defense agencies and military
services to adopt a Balanced Scorecard. If the Army’s
Balanced Scorecard wasn’t an inspiration for this
requirement, perhaps its implementation will serve
as a role model to these organizations.
The Army’s savvy rollout of the SRS has also enabled
individual commands to achieve improvements in their
performance. For example:
• Special Operations Command has twice used
its BSC to tell the story of how it has too few
resources to achieve its mission—and has won
significant additional funding as a result.
• Medical Command has adopted a 100% leadindicator scorecard in addition to a lag-indicator
scorecard to focus on predictive measures. This
command also led the way in populating measures
with historical data such as immunization records,
which were crucial for reporting. Medical
Command saw health concerns drop to number
three behind housing and military police staffing.
• The U.S. Army Reserve has used the BSC to
gain a clear view of where resources are being
devoted. This view has enabled leaders to
better manage spending.
Other top-level leaders have praised additional
aspects of the SRS. “The SRS changes the way
we evaluate readiness,” explained Gen. Eric K.
Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army until August
2003. “It is a new construct that holistically considers
and reports every aspect of the Army that contributes
to readiness, many that we didn’t formally consider
before.” General Shinseki added: “Transformation
is about much more than platforms and equipment,
and readiness is about much more as well. The
new SRS responds to this more encompassing and
accurate notion of readiness.”
1
The mission of the Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania–based
U.S. Army War College is “to prepare selected military, civilian,
and international leaders for the responsibilities of strategic
leadership; educate current and future leaders on the development and employment of land power in a joint, interagency,
intergovernmental, and multinational environment; research
and publish on national security and military strategy; and
engage in activities that support the Army’s strategic communication efforts.”
2
The Army Command and General Staff College, based in
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is dedicated to “develop[ing]
leaders prepared to execute full spectrum joint, interagency,
intergovernmental, multinational operations; advanc[ing]
the profession of military art and science; and support[ing]
operational requirements.”
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
from
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing and
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
7
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
KEY RESULTS
• Top leaders have a 360-degree view of strategic readiness and the wide range of factors that
contribute to it.
• For the first time, the Army has an enterprise management system that integrates readiness
information for both its Active and Reserve components.
• The BSC has helped the Army balance its key 21st century goal of creating the ideal force of
the future while sustaining its ability to respond to the needs of today. The Army’s rapid
scorecard rollout has occurred during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• Decision making has accelerated, as leaders from across Army organizations have begun
reviewing strategic performance systematically and now have access to strategy maps and data
through the Web.
• New commanders now quickly gain a sense of ownership of their units’ respective strategies
and are able to easily communicate the strategies to others.
• The BSC has been integrated into budgetary operations, enabling units to make a clearer case
for needed resources.
• The Army has established a formal process and venues for reviewing and updating strategy
and scorecards, as well as for addressing performance challenges.
TAKEAWAYS
• Cascade rapidly to capture momentum throughout the enterprise.
• Early automation and visibility accelerate buy in.
• Defining strategic measures requires cross-functional coordination.
• To avoid resistance, explain how the scorecard will benefit the people who use it.
• Relate the scorecard to current struggles your people are dealing with. And relate it to what
your people already know about their business.
• Recognize that people generally resist giving up control of their data.
• Communicating once is not enough.
• BSC processes should be “institutionalized” to ensure irreversible momentum.
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
from
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing and
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
8
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
SFO SPOTLIGHT
All Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame organizations exemplify the five principles of the Strategy
Focused Organization. The U.S. Army is especially noteworthy as an exemplar of the following
SFO best practices:
• Case for change clearly articulated: A study by the Army War College Study found
that the Army’s readiness reporting system was inadequate, spurring the transformation effort.
Leaders’ conviction about the need to upgrade readiness reporting was solidified following
the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, which definitively showed the need
to balance the long-term goal of building a nimble, technologically advanced future force
with meeting current military requirements. The Army Medical Department’s successful
scorecard experience also provided a powerful case for enterprisewide adoption. [Principle #1:
Mobilize Change Through Executive Leadership]
• New way of managing understood: The Army created an entire infrastructure around
the Strategic Readiness System—its name for the BSC-supported strategic transformation
effort—with an internal consulting function (SRS Operations Center) and a battery of tools
and resources to support the BSC implementation. The Army has institutionalized BSC
development and training, communications, and strategy review in ways that connect leaders
worldwide and support the strategy. [Mobilize]
• Corporate–SBUs aligned: The SRS team defined a rigorous rollout program and a fivestep chain of command to review scorecards and ensure the alignment of Level 1 and 2
BSCs to the Level 0 (corporate) scorecard. A standardized methodology and training have
further supported alignment. Thus far, the scorecard has been cascaded down to 275 Level 2
(subordinate command) units. [Principle #3: Align the Organization to the Strategy]
• Strategic awareness created: An aggressive, ongoing communications program cultivates
awareness of the high-level strategy throughout the organization. The Army developed a
worldwide classroom training program and online modules and has begun incorporating
BSC and SRS education into curricula for future Army leaders. The SRS Update, a bimonthly
newsletter, is dedicated to all things scorecard. The Army also holds SRS conferences and
monthly teleconferences, enabling Level 1 officers to explore questions about SRS reporting
and software and learn from one another’s experiences. It uses a wide array of vehicles to
further raise strategic awareness among stakeholders, including articles in defense publications,
memos to Congress, even trade show participation. [Principle #4: Motivate to Make Strategy Everyone’s Job]
• BSC reporting system established: Besides implementing reporting software early on,
the Army began linking the software to its measures databases. Its knowledge management
portal, Army Knowledge Online, has a link to the software, and also features an SRS portal
with education materials on the BSC and SRS. BSC users and owners have scorecard access
organization-wide, enabling the readiness snapshot the Army sought from the start.
[Principle #5: Govern to Make Strategy a Continual Process]
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
from
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing and
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
9
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
THE U.S. ARMY STRATEGY MAP
Provide necessary forces and capabilities to the combatant commanders
in support of the national security and defense strategies
Mission
CORE COMPETENCIES
Provide relevant
and ready land power capability
to the combatant commanders
and the joint team
Train and
equip soldiers and
grow leaders
Stakeholder
Perspective
ESSENTIAL AND ENDURING CAPABILITIES
Support global operations
Shape
security
environment
Execute
prompt
response
Mobilize
the
Army
Sustain
land
dominance
Conduct
forcible
entry
Support
civil
authorities
Adapt/improve total army capabilities
Internal
Process
Perspective
Ready force
for today and
tomorrow
Adjust
global footprint
Provide
infrastructure
Develop
joint,
interdependent
logistics structure
Optimize
reserve component
contributions
Train
the Army
Communicate
across the
Army
Equip
the Army
Sustain
the Army
Improve
business
practices
Build the
future force
Organize
the Army
Man
the Army
Leverage
technologies into
key processes and
equip the Army
Improve
acquisition with
industries
Optimize delivery
of noncore
competencies
Adapt the institutional army
Learning
& Growth
Perspective
PEOPLE
Resources
Perspective
SECURE RESOURCES
Opportunity
for service
Sustain the right all-volunteer force
Competitive
standard of
living
Pride and
sense of
belonging
Personal
enrichment
Leader training
and development
Secure resources (people, dollars, infrastructure,
installations, institutions, and time)
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
10
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profile: U.S. Army
TO LEARN MORE
Editorial Advisers
To learn more about the U.S. Army and its Balanced
Scorecard program, see:
Robert S. Kaplan
Professor, Harvard Business School
• Balanced Scorecard Report articles:
David P. Norton
President, Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
“It’s in the Army Now: The U.S. Army’s ScorecardBased Transformation,” by Laura M. Downing,
Senior Vice President, Balanced Scorecard
Collaborative, and Lauren Keller Johnson,
Contributing Writer, BSR September–October 2003
(Reprint #B0309B).
Edward D. Crowley
Executive Director–HBR Specialty Publications
“Mobilizing for Well-Being: The Army Medical
Department’s BSC Transformation,” by Avery
Hunt, Contributing Writer, BSR May–June 2003
(Reprint #B0305C).
Randall H. Russell
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
“How and Why to Build an Internal Marketing
Campaign,” by Patricia Bush, Principal, and
Diane Koziel, Consultant, BSR May–June 2002
(Reprint #B0205C).
Writer
• Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Report 2004,
which features a brief profile on the U.S. Army
and the 12 other Hall of Fame inductees from
2003 (Product #5828).
• The BSC library: BSC portal members with
access to the library can search the keyword
“U.S. Army” for a complete list of resources,
including conference presentations and executive
video interviews. (For information on becoming
a BSC Portal member, go to www.bscol.com.)
• www.army.mil
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
• For more information on the StrategyFocused Organization (SFO) principles,
visit BSC Online. Membership is free. Go
to www.bscol.com/bsc_online.
• For additional guidance on the SFO principles,
and to learn about best practices in use at other
organizations that have successfully executed
strategy, go to www.bscol.com/toolkits. Here,
you’ll find many resources available for purchase,
including Strategy Execution Toolkits.
• For access to the largest compilation of
published materials on the Balanced Scorecard
and the Strategy-Focused Organization, visit
www.sfo.harvardbusinessonline.org.
Publisher
Robert L. Howie Jr.
SVP, Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
Director of Research
Editor
Janice Koch
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
Lauren Keller Johnson
Design
Robert B. Levers
About Balanced Scorecard Collaborative
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative (BSCol), a Palladium
company, is a global family of professional service firms
that helps clients use the Balanced Scorecard to successfully
execute strategy. BSCol offers a wide range of services,
including education (conferences, publications, research),
training (public seminars, in-house, online), consulting
(strategy, performance, change), and technology (“BSC
Portal™,” “BSC First Report™,” toolkits). To learn more,
visit www.bscol.com, or call 781.259.3737.
About Harvard Business School Publishing
Harvard Business School Publishing is a not-for-profit, wholly
owned subsidiary of Harvard University. The mission of
Harvard Business School Publishing is to improve the
practice of management and its impact on a changing
world. We collaborate to create products and services in
the media that best serve our customers—individuals and
organizations that believe in the power of ideas.
Ordering Information
To order additional copies of this profile (in print or by
download), call HBSP at 1-800-668-6705 (617-783-7474
outside the U.S.) and request product #1371 or visit
www.sfo.harvardbusinessonline.org and insert the product
number into the search field, or type in “Hall of Fame.”
Here you’ll find a list of all available Hall of Fame profiles
and other products for the Strategy-Focused Organization.
© 2005 by Harvard Business School Publishing and Balanced Scorecard
Collaborative, a Palladium company. Quotation is not permitted. Material
may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form whatsoever
without permission from the publisher. Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame
for Executing Strategy™ and Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Profiles™
are trademarks of Balanced Scorecard Collaborative. The trademarks
referenced in this publication are the property of their respective owners.
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State
University
- Global
October
to April
2018.
© 2005
by Harvard Business
SchoolCampus,
Publishing andfrom
Balanced
Scorecard 2017
Collaborative,
a Palladium
company
11
TRANSLATE STRATEGY
INTO ACTION WITH THE
BALANCED SCORECARD REPORT
The ability to execute strategy is the most important
capability an organization needs to quickly adapt and
thrive in today’s global economy. But implementing
strategy may be the single most difficult task you face.
For twelve years, Strategy-Focused Organizations like Motorola, Hilton Hotels,
Equifax, Thomson Financial, Siemens, and literally thousands of others have
been using the Balanced Scorecard to transform strategy into action.
Now you too can benefit from an invaluable tool that’s helping companies
around the world get the most from their Balanced Scorecards—the
Balanced Scorecard Report newsletter. Every issue is packed with the
latest thinking of BSC founders Robert Kaplan and David Norton and
their five principles of the Strategy-Focused Organization—principles
that can help you translate ideas into action—
MOBILIZE change through executive leadership
TRANSLATE the strategy into operational terms
ALIGN the organization to the strategy
MOTIVATE to make strategy everyone’s job
GOVERN to make strategy a continual process
Each bimonthly issue of
Balanced Scorecard Report
takes you behind the scenes
through case studies of actual
BSC implementations. These
case studies showcase organizations that have achieved
tremendous results with the
BSC and will help speed
your own BSC program.
The Balanced Scorecard Report
is a resource you’ll return to again
and again—subscribe today.
1-800-668-6705
bsr.harvardbusinessonline.org
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State University - Global Campus, from October 2017 to April 2018.
The Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame™ Profile Series
Learn how each of these Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame organizations
became strategy-focused. Each individual profile provides a source of
information on how to “do it right”, including a profile narrative, StrategyFocused Organization spotlight best practices, key results and takeaways.
Chrysler Group
Crown Castle International
The City of Charlotte
Economic Development Administration
(U.S. Department of Commerce)
E-Land
Hilton Hotels
Media General
Mellon Europe
Mobistar
Motorola’s Government and Enterprise Mobility Solutions
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Tennessee Valley Authority
Unibanco
To learn more visit: www.sfo.harvardbusinessonline.org
or call 1-800-668-6705 (617-783-7474 outside U.S.)
Product Number 1371
This document is authorized for use only in Kris Michaelson's MGT481-FA17C course at Colorado State University - Global Campus, from October 2017 to April 2018.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment