Balanced Scorecard in Non Profits

¶ … balanced scorecard approach is quite pervasively used by organizations of all stripes when it comes to their strategic decision making and their long-term plans. It is especially associated with for-profit businesses in terms of what they will focus on, what they will not focus on, what resources/people will be allocated to the initiatives that are chosen and so forth.

While the balanced scorecard and for-profit businesses are quite commonly talked about in the same sentences, a lot of (but not all) the priorities and such associated with the practice can be used just as effectively with non-profit businesses. The focus of this report will be a non-profit agency known as the Cattaraugus County Rehabilitation Center (CCRC). While some of the results of balanced scorecard use by the CCRC were mixed, they did a good job overall when it comes to the use of the tool.

Analysis The article explains that there are commonly four phases of planning when it comes to the balance scorecard. Those four phases are basic financial planning, forecast-based planning, externally oriented planning and strategic management. All four of those phases can easily be applied to non-profits like the CCRC. Further, the fact that he agency is extremely multi-faceted and complex in nature means that strategic planning would be all the more necessary prudent. The use of the balanced scorecard is not new for CCRC.

Indeed, Martello and his colleagues note in their report that the balance scorecard has been in use for a number of years already. A number of consultants have been brought in over the years as there has indeed been a nagging issue. Indeed, it is noted that there is a notable gap between the strategic plans of the CCRC and the day-to-day operations for the same (Martello, Watson & Fischer, 2008).

The balance scorecard process and utilization actually began nearly a decade ago when a new Director of Strategic Planning was brought in. The fact that a director-level position was created and filled specifically for strategic planning would seem to prove that the organization is serious about having their strategy lined up and ready to implement even if they have had some struggles along the way.

As would be expected, the overarching goal would be to have each area and dimension of the CCRC be in line with the overall strategic plan of the wider organization. While there would obviously be some variations and differences here and there, all of the sub-units of the CCRC should generally be following the same strategic path and mode of normal daily operations. It is clear from the summary of the prior attempts that buy-in from the associates was sorely lacking.

Indeed, it would seem that there has been a massive amount of skepticism about the staying power and prudence of what was being called for and implemented (Martello, Watson & Fischer, 2008). The linchpin of the change that was being attempted was the four perspectives. Those perspectives were consumer, financial, operational and learning. For each perspective, the concerns and goals relating to each are listed and the associated objectives are given.

This is prescient as the four perspectives relate to the four main areas that the organization should seek to have ingrained into their daily operations and organizational culture. There has to be a consumer focus, a focus on the dollars and cents, a focus on how things get done every day and a focus on developing and improving the knowledge base and adeptness of the people at the center.

Focusing on any less than all four of those at once will undermine results in the other areas and then some (Martello, Watson & Fischer, 2008). A significant outcome that is mentioned during CCRC's story was that equal emphasis was given to the money behind the operation and the people being served.

When it comes to any sort of medical center, such a focus is key because while keep things no worse than even when it comes to in-flows and out-flows of money is imperative, it is still unconscionable to choose money over the success, health and happiness of patients. This is just one reason why having the four perspectives and treating them with equity rather than favoring one (e.g. money) over another (e.g. consumer) should be avoided at all costs.

Further, it is clear that the benefits and progress instilled by the balanced scorecard is taking effect because the management of the CCRC has apparently bought into the method and the process. This is an absolute must when it comes to the balance scorecard (Martello, Watson & Fischer, 2008). It is also a must when speaking about any sort of change management (French-Bravo & Crow, 2015). There is indeed one major hitch mentioned at the conclusion of the Martello treatise and that is that outcomes are not easily measurable and detectable.

Any inclination to abandon the process because of this, however, is less than wise. Just because a given metric is elusive when it comes to measurement does not mean the change in question is not a good one and it also does not mean the strategy is not working. There just has to be a striving to measure what is eluding them and truly verify whether things are coming along as they should.

Even with that challenge, the end results of these tireless efforts is a continuous improvement process that will improve the outcomes and performance of the agency in perpetuity (Martello, Watson & Fischer, 2008). Gaining managerial and employee feedback should be a never-stopping part of that process.