Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art Dr Bassil Yaghi and Professor Andy Neely Cranfield School of Management Centre for Business Performance Professor J. Richard Dietrich Fisher College of Business - Center for Business Performance Management Nigel Youell Oracle

2 Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art About the Authors Dr. Bassil Yaghi is a lecturer at Cranfield School of Management. Bassil Yaghi is researching, teaching, and consulting in strategic management with an emphasis on strategy development and balanced scorecards. His research and academic and executive teaching is grounded in his extensive practical experience in the industry as practitioner and consultant.. Professor Andy Neely is Director of Research at Cranfield School of Management, Deputy Director of AIM Research, the U.K. s research initiative on management, and Chair of the Performance Measurement Association. He has authored more than 1 books and articles on performance measurement and management and is widely recognised as one of the world s leading authorities on the subject. Professor Dietrich is a professor of accounting and management information systems, chairman of the Department of Accounting and Management Information Systems, and academic director of the Center for Business Performance Management in the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. He has served as academic fellow at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of the Chief Accountant and he currently serves as a member of the Standing Advisory Group of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Dr. Dietrich s research has been published in leading journals and he consults frequently with leading organizations on accounting and MIS matters. Nigel Youell is Director, Global Integrated Marketing for Performance Management at Oracle Corporation. He has over 25 years of experience in IT covering a wide range of senior management roles. Organisations that Nigel has worked for include Hyperion Corp, Comshare Corp, The Strathclyde Institute, Morgan Crucible plc and Marconi plc. Nigel has spoken internationally and authored a number of articles on Performance Management. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support and contributions made to this work by Amanda Brahier and Jeff Rodek of the Center for Business Performance Management Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, USA and Mark Conway of Oracle.

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art 3 Executive Summary As companies try to cope with the downturn in the USA economy and the increasing competitive globalization pressures especially from Indian and Chinese companies, some economists cast a doubt on the ability of the USA to maintain the productivity increases it gained in the late 199s that were fueled primarily by managerial and technological innovations. Indeed, there is strong evidence suggesting that the productivity increases are declining which is in turn impacting economic growth. American companies more than ever need to create greater value to cope with these competitive pressures. Enterprise performance management systems when properly designed, implemented and used have the potential to help companies create greater value. When it comes to the use of enterprise performance management in the United States, we know very little. To overcome this lack of knowledge Oracle joined forces with Cranfield School of Management to conduct the first global study of enterprise performance management. We have collected data from executives in five different countries - the UK, the USA, Australia, Japan and China. This report, one a series of country reports which summarizes the USA data which were gathered by the Center for Business Performance Management at Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. Using the evidence-based management framework [see Figure 1] to structure this report, the main conclusions of the report are: Knowledge to Insights Enterprise performance management software and information helps companies gain better insights. Enterprise performance management systems help companies gain better understanding of the intangible drivers of business performance. Insights to Value Reflecting the tactical and operational use of enterprise performance management systems, respondents report the greatest benefits are gained in better operational decisions followed by improved performance of KPIs. Enterprise performance management systems help companies make better strategic decisions. Many companies report that enterprise performance management systems helped them achieve better overall performance and to a lesser extent better relative performance. Fig.1: Evidence based management Data to Information Although USA companies made significant investments in building enterprise performance management systems, there is still a large room for improvement. Despite its severe limitations, Microsoft Excel is still the dominant technology tool to analyse, report and manage enterprise performance. Despite many companies adopting a Balanced Scorecard approach, most of the measures are still financial and few companies create strategy maps. Despite widespread acceptance of the virtue of aligning enterprise performance management systems with other operational systems, many companies are lagging behind. Potential Value Creation Data Information Knowledge Insights Window of Opportunity to Translate Information Knowledge & Insights into Value The time to get from data to value is limited Time Learning/Experience Information to Knowledge Most companies are using enterprise performance management systems operationally or tactically. One of the consequences of this operational and tactical use of measurement, with its excessive focus on assessing output and controlling input, is that employees do not buy in to enterprise performance management.

4 Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art Fig.2: Financial measures still dominate 1 9 % reporting use 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fig.3: Balanced Scorecard is the most used approach 6 5 4 3 2 1 Balanced scorecard Six sigma Fig.4: The majority of companies benchmark 5 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 No benchmarking Internal benchmarking External benchmarking EFQM Internal & external benchmarking Data to Information Are we measuring the right things? Do we have high data quality? Are our enterprise performance management systems aligned with other management systems? What do companies measure? Despite widespread calls for a balanced approach to assessing organizational performance, financial measures still dominate. According to the data collected in USA, the most common indicators are financial [91.1 percent], customer [74. percent], internal process [56.1 percent], and people [57.7 percent], while the least common are environment [16.3 percent], supplier [25.2 percent], learning and growth [27.6 percent], and regulator [28.5 percent] [see Figure 2]. The dominance of financial measures is even more starkly illustrated when one considers that 62.4 percent of the respondents report that financial measures represent more than 5 percent of their performance measures. How do companies structure their measures? Organizations are increasingly realizing the limitations of piecemeal approaches to performance measurement and adopting performance measurement frameworks because: 1. They emphasize the different dimensions of performance that can be measured given that earlier performance measurement systems incorporated only financial measures. 2. They emphasize the different dimensions of performance that are important. 3. They provide structure for performance measures. This is important given the limited number of measures managers can remember. Thus by creating categories more measures can be incorporated. Performance categories also allow linkages to be made between them. Reflecting the popularity of the balanced scorecard as a framework for guiding the design of enterprise performance management systems, 48.8 percent of respondents claim to have one in place followed by Six Sigma [4.7 percent] [see Figure 3]. Do companies benchmark their measures? Reflecting the wide adoption of total quality management techniques in the 199s and the emphasis on operational efficiency, the majority of companies benchmark their performance [87.7 percent]. 26.3 percent of companies use internal benchmarks only. 13.2 percent only use external benchmarks, comparing performance with other companies e.g. competitors or best practice. 48.2 percent report using both internal and external benchmarks [see Figure 4].

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art 5 Fig.6: Majority of respondents report that their KPIs reflect their business 5 45 4 Do companies have too many measures? The respondents were almost evenly split when it came to reporting on whether they use too many measures. The respondents who reported that they do not have too many measures were 36.1 percent and those who reported they have too many measures were 33.3 percent [see Figure 5]. Do KPIs reflect the business? The majority of the respondents [63.5 percent] report that their KPIs clearly and accurately measure their business [see Figure 6]. However, a significant number of respondents [36.5 percent] either d with or were neutral on whether their KPIs clearly and accurately measure their business. 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Disagree Neither agree nor Agree agree Fig.7: Majority of respondents report that their KPIs are based on quality data 5 45 4 Are the KPIs based on quality data? The majority of the respondents [65.4 percent] report that their KPIs are based on quality data [see Figure 7]. However, a significant number of respondents [34.6 percent] either d with or were neutral on whether their KPIs are based on quality data. Do performance indicators reflect the strategy? Only 68.7 percent of respondents report that their performance indicators reflect their strategy [see Figure 8]. A significant number of respondents [31.3 percent] either d with or were neutral on whether their performance indicators reflect their strategy. This may not come as a surprise given that only 5.7 percent of the respondents report using strategy maps to structure their indicators [see Figure 9]. Fig.5: Respondents are split on whether they have too many measures 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Disagree Neither agree nor Agree agree 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Disagree Neither agree nor Agree agree Fig.8: Majority of respondents report that their performance indicators reflect their strategy 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Disagree Neither agree nor Agree agree Fig.9: Majority of respondents do not develop strategy maps 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cause effect diagrams (strategy maps) Indicators not structured Indicators structured Indicators linked to strategic objectives

6 Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art Fig.1: Majority of companies do not visualize their measures 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Do companies visualize their strategies? Despite the abundant literature on mapping strategies, the majority of the respondents [62 percent] do not visualize their strategies. Of the respondents who reported that they visualize their strategies only 1.2 percent reported that they visualize measures between strategic objectives and 6.5 percent between performance measures [see Figure 1]. None Between perspectives Between strategic objectives Fig.11: Few organizations managed to integrate EPM with other systems 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Between performance measures Management reporting Planning & budgeting Financial reporting Forecasting Reward systems Risk management CRM Project management Fig.12: Spreadsheets are the dominant EPM technology No software BPM CustomBPM ERP Spreadsheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 How well do companies align their enterprise performance management systems with other management systems? Despite widespread calls for the virtue of aligning management systems and recent legislation (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley), many companies are lagging behind. The four management systems most aligned with enterprise performance management systems are management reporting [87.7 percent], planning and budgeting [81.8 percent], financial reporting [78.5 percent], and forecasting [63.2 percent], while the least aligned are reward systems [53.3 percent], risk management [5.6 percent], customer relationship management [5.3 percent], and project management [43.9 percent] [see Figure 11]. What technologies do companies use to automate their enterprise performance management systems? Although the enterprise performance management software is a multibillion dollar industry and the major players are based in the USA, it is surprising that the most-popular enterprise performance management software tool remains the spreadsheet, with 6.2 percent of respondents using this, compared to 35.7 percent using an off-the-shelf or customized enterprise performance management system [see Figure 12]. Related to this approach is the fact that the majority of organizations [74.6 percent] have taken an in-house approach to developing their enterprise performance management systems [see Figure 13]. Fig.13: Most companies develop EPM internally Collaboratively Consultant led In house

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art 7 Fig.14: Most companies use EPM tactically Information to Knowledge What is the purpose of enterprise performance management systems? Investigating the purpose of enterprise performance management systems in the USA reveals that companies are mostly using them operationally or tactically. The three strategic purposes, strategic decision making, strategic planning, and validating strategies, are the least used [see Figure 14]. The most common reasons for using enterprise performance management systems are to assess performance [74.8 percent], align employee behavior [71.6 percent], measure operational efficiency [66.7 percent], and set compensation/rewards [65.1 percent]. Reflecting further the use of enterprise performance management for operational and tactical reasons, management s focus on using KPI information emphasised the control of inputs over other dimensions of performance [64.5 percent] [see Figure 15]. Thus performance appears to be assessed from a managerial mindset focused on the level of organisational inputs (people, premises/infrastructure, economic, etc.) and how these are deployed across the business. Who advocates and uses enterprise performance management systems? One of the consequences of this operational and tactical use of measurement, with its excessive focus on assessing output and controlling input, is that employees do not buy in to enterprise performance management. Figure 16 shows the proportion of people, at different organisational levels, who are advocates of enterprise performance management. It is striking that while 65.7 percent of CEOs are said to be advocates of enterprise performance management, this figure drops to 18.5 percent of middle managers and 11.1 percent of employees. Those who measure appear to be more convinced of the value of measurement than those who are measured. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Primary reason for measurement Fig.15: Most companies use EPM to control inputs 6 5 4 3 2 1 Output control Input control Behavioural control Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Fig.16: Less people buy-into EPM moving down the organization 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CEO Top executive team Senior managers Middle managers Employees agree Assessing Performance Aligning Employees Behaviours Operational Efficiency Compensation/Rewarding Financial Control External Reporting Strategic Decision Making Strategic Planning Validating Strategy Avocate of EPM

8 Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art Fig.17: Better insights from EPM 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Understand Intangible Drivers Better Insights from EPM Software Better Insights from EPM Fig.18: majority of companies do not validate strategies Knowledge to Insights Do enterprise performance management systems enable companies to gain insights? Respondents report that information from their enterprise performance management systems enables them to gain better insights [78.3 percent]. They also report that enterprise performance management software enables them to gain better insights [74.8 percent]. Moreover, they report that their enterprise performance management systems allowed them to gain a better understanding of the intangible drivers of their business performance [62.1 percent] [see Figure 17]. 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Disagree Neither agree nor Agree Fig.19: Strategy validation results in insight agree Do companies attempt to validate their strategies using information from their enterprise performance management system? The majority of the respondents report that they do not validate their strategies. Only 42.6 percent of the respondents report validating their strategies [see Figure 18]. But does validating business strategies make a difference? Using regression analysis, we tested the relationship between strategy validation and better insights and we found a positive and statistically significant relationship between the two. For every 1 percent increase in attempts to validate cause and effect we see a.5 percent increase in the quality of insight [see Figure 19]. Better insight Fig.2: Most companies are reaping benefits from EPM Relative Performance Validating cause and effect Insights to Value What is the impact of enterprise performance management systems on performance? Reflecting the tactical and operational use of enterprise performance management systems, respondents report the greatest benefits are gained in better operational decisions [78.4 percent] followed by improved performance of KPIs [74.9 percent] [see Figure 2]. However, making better strategic decisions was not far behind at 67.9 percent. A significant number of respondents report improved overall business performance [66.9 percent]. However, fewer respondents report better performance relative to their competitors. This may not come as a surprise if we consider that a significant number of the respondents in the sample are internally focused [see Figure 4]. Improved Performance Strategic Decisions Improved KPI Operational Decisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art 9 What to Do? Data to Information In translating data into information, companies should ask these questions: 1. Are we measuring the rights things? 2. Are we measuring the right things right? 3. Do we have the right technology to ensure reliable and timely information is delivered to the right decision makers? 4. Do we have integrated systems to ensure consistency? In answering the first question, companies may consider the 1. Adopting performance management framework such as Balanced Scorecard, Performance Prism, etc. 2. Creating strategy maps reflecting their theory of competing (strategy). Strategy maps are visual representations of strategies consisting of hypothesized causal relationships between strategic objectives. In answering the second question, companies may consider the 1. Using two to three measures to evaluate each strategic objective. This will ensure better validity of the measures. 2. Ensuring that the measures are reliable. This will ensure consistency of measures. In answering the third and fourth questions, companies may consider the 1. Using technology solutions that enable them to automate the data collection, storage, coding, presentation, and communication. 2. Using technology solutions that are scalable. 3. Using technology solutions that allow them to integrate their enterprise performance management system with their operational systems, such as CRM, ERP, etc.

1 Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art Information to Knowledge In translating information into knowledge, companies should ask these questions: 1. Are we measuring to control, learn or both? 2. Are we engaging all levels of the organization? In answering the first question, companies may consider the 1. Using enterprise performance management systems not only to control the implementation of business strategies but to evaluate and formulate new business strategies. 2. Engaging all levels of the company not only as users but also as advocates. This could be only done by building a performance and support culture. Knowledge to Insights In translating knowledge into insights, companies should ask these questions: 1. Are we validating our business strategies? 2. Are we validating our strategic assumptions? In answering the first question, companies may consider the 1. Generating business insights by building analytical capabilities. Strategies are the company s theory of competition that should be validated. In answering the second question, companies may consider the 1. Building competitive intelligence capabilities to constantly scan the environment for signals that might render their business strategies obsolete. All strategies are based on strategic assumptions that should be validated.

Enterprise Performance Management: The U.S.A. State of the Art 11 Fig.21: From hindsight to insight Insights to Value In translating insights into value, companies should ask these questions: 1. How are we defining success? 2. Do we measure success? In answering the first question, companies may consider the 1. Defining success clearly. Companies should balance short and long term business performance. In answering the second question, companies may consider the 1. Quantifying success. At a high abstract level, companies should be able to benchmark their measures of success with others. In translating data into value using enterprise performance management systems, companies should strive to minimize the time to do so because they risk losing the window of opportunity to act which results in translating data into hindsight [see Figure 21]. Potential Value Creation Knowledge Information Data Window of Opportunity to Translate Information Knowledge & Insights into Value Fig.22: Respondents by sector Utilities Manufacturing Health Telecoms Financial services Wholesale/retail Other Hindsight Time Learning/Experience About the Research We selected a sampling frame that contains private companies located in the United States of America. A sample of 15 companies was selected. After piloting the survey with academics and practitioners, we administered the web-based survey to members of top management teams in the sampled companies. We received 155 responses. The usable survey responses were 123, resulting in a response rate of 8.2 percent. The respondents were from all sectors of the USA economy [see Figure 22]. Manufacturing companies accounted for 6 percent of the respondents and 53 percent of the companies were publicly held. About 62 percent of the respondents reported that their revenues were between 1M and 25M [see Figure 23]. All participants were assured that their responses would be kept confidential. The survey stated that only aggregates would be used for the research and that no individual company would be linked to specific responses. 5 1 15 2 25 3 Fig.23: Respondents by revenue Up to 1M 1M - 25M 25M - 5M 5M - 1B 1B - 5B Over 5B

Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 AL UK T: +44 ()1234 751122 F: +44 ()1234 75186 www.som.cranfield.ac.uk To contact Andy Neely, email: a.neely@cranfield.ac.uk To contact Bassil Yaghi, email: bassil.yaghi@cranfield.ac.uk Oracle Corporation UK Ltd., Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park (TVP), Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1RA. UK T: 118 924 F: 118 924 3 www.oracle.com To contact Nigel Youell, email: nigel.youell@oracle.com Center for Business Performance Management - Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, USA T: (614) 292-282 F: (614) 292-2118 www.fisher.osu.edu To contact Professor J. Richard Dietrich, email: dietrich@fisher.osu.edu