Analog Devices: 1986-1991The First Balanced Scorecard©by Arthur M. Schneiderman |
|
|
Phase 1: 1986/1987 - The Gestation Period |
|
| Four months after arriving at Analog, I
made my first presentation to Ray and Jerry of a preliminary plan for the deployment
of QIP (see October 1986
QIP Strategic Plan Proposal). The objective of this
presentation was to start a consensus building process that would lead to a
long term plan for integrating TQM into Analog's culture and identify specific
next steps (who was to do what by when?). They accepted the plan with
three stipulations on its positioning : the plan was to represent the next phase of the QIP
efforts that Ray started in 1985 (rather than a completely new
"program"), it should accommodate differences between Analog's various
business units, and that it represent a "strawman" proposal, rather
than an edict from above. In other words, I'd have to sell my approach to
the organization.
Two of the slides in that 1986 presentation represented the starting point in Analog's eventual development of its scorecard (c. 10/28/86, 10/27/86): (NOTE: To view any of the following slides full screen, just left-click on them and than use your browsers "back" button to return here.)
We all knew that that our most dissatisfied stakeholder was our customers and that to achieve our business objectives (which would benefit all stakeholders) we needed to win their loyalty on the competitive battlefield. So the right external perspective was pretty evident. We also had a feeling that elimination of internal waste was the key to our noble goal of providing the highest total value to customers. What was also clear was that there was not only waste in manufacturing and design, but also in all of the support services. Keep in mind my QIP deployment strategy and you can see why I wanted to link all business processes to our strategic goal. Over the next several months, I gave this presentation at all of our management meetings and in one-on-one meetings with key executives and other leaders who could impact (positively or negatively) widespread acceptance of the plan. One of the slides that I used in these presentations is worth noting here since it became the template for our subsequent display of most performance metrics (8/7/86):
Data presented in this format allowed quick comparison of comparable metrics across different business units and packed a lot of information into a concise visual display. It also provided a focal point for some healthy inter-divisional competition. |
|
ã |
ã |
|||