Critical Reflection on Strategy Stimulation: The Balanced Scorecard

This article is a critical reflection on the Balanced Scorecard strategy stimulation exercise. It covers the challenges and strategies, analysis of results, adopting changes, and more. The author presents their analysis of the four perspectives and a solution with the help of the Balanced Scorecard. The article also includes a comparative analysis with competitors. The subject is strategy stimulation and the course code is not mentioned. The college/university is not mentioned.

Page1
CRITICAL REFLECTION:
STRATEGY STIMULATION
The Learning Process
Strategy Simulation: The Balanced Scorecard was a great learning experience for
whole of my group. I learnt that Simulation actually means imitating the operations of a
realistic process or system over a given period of time. This exercise of simulation
taught me that I must first acquire a model and then develop it as per my requirements,
as per Kaplan & Norton, (2006). The model should be developed so that it represents
those behaviours, key characteristics and the functions of the system as per the selected
physical or abstract process. In fact, the model should be in a position to represent the
system itself, and the simulation represents the actual operations of the system over the
period of time selected, as per Keyes, (2010).
1. Challenges and Strategies
The Balanced Scorecard acts as a performance metric which can be used in the
process of strategic management. Its purpose is to first identify and then propose ways
of improving the different internal functions of Delta/Signal Corp.(Delta) and suggest,
in a realistic way the resultant external outcomes, assert Kaplan & Norton, (2001). It
can also be used as a measure for providing a practical feedback for Delta’s
management. Another useful purpose which the Balanced Scorecard serves is to
demonstrate the value for those multiple stakeholders of Delta, such as Investors,
employees and customers.
2. Analysing the Results
1. Financial Perspective
Financial Perspective, the first perspective was used by me in the Balanced Scorecard
for analysing the financial goals of Delta and for this I used different types

Page2
of financial metrics. The organisation has strong financial roots, which are spread
worldwide. The financial aspect is lacking in Right Perspective and Vision for the
Future, as per Phillips, Bothell & Snead, (2012). My analysis shows that the right
direction, when chosen at the right time and for the right location will prove to be the
turning point for Delta. Delta has the vision, the will and the strength, it only needs to
channelize them effectively, asserts Kliem, (2007).
2. Customer Perspective
Delta has loyal customers who are willing to go along with the management,
irrespective of the costs. The only difficulty which the customers are facing is timely
disposal of their orders. Quality is not the concern, as Delta has always been a pioneer
of quality products. Product classifications are not a problem either as Delta has a strong
R & D base. Range of delivery is also not a problem for Delta, as it has production
centers all over the developed world. My analysis clearly show that Delta needs to focus
on concentrating its production capabilities for timely deliveries, as per Kaplan &
Norton, (2006).
3. Internal-Business-Process Perspective
Through my analysis, I could perceive that Delta was able to create its Values
through the internal business processes of the organisation. In my opinion, it was
this internal processes which created and delivered value propositions for its
customers. This perspectives in my strategy map highlights the internal process
perspective and describes how Delta can accomplish again its effective and value-
driven organizational strategy, support Kaplan & Norton, (2001).
4. The Learning and Growth Perspective
I am convinced that the objectives of the Learning and Growth Perspective can be
achieved with the support from the other three perspectives – Financial, Customer and
Internal Business Processes, as per Kaplan & Norton, (2001). Basically, the
management must take an introspective look at the three areas –
(i) Employee Capabilities;
(ii) Information System Capabilities; and
(iii) Motivation and Strategy Awareness.

Page3
In all likelihood, Delta’s own reflections about the business will be able to show its
own learning and growth objectives.
3. Adopting Changes
The organization had an innovative founder, who proved to be a visionary, and over a
span of constructive time period, was able to evolve the organization into a multi-
faceted, multi-product and multi-national production center which pioneered the
marketing strategy through its innovative R & D ways, as per Phillips, Bothell & Snead,
(2012). But after the death of this pioneer-promoter, the management could not keep the
organization as a cohesive unit and started losing its share of international markets. In
my study of Delta’s long journey, I have assessed that Delta needs to Adopt Changes,
as recommended above by me, on the basis of the four perspectives/challenges which,
in my opinion, can prove to be the cause of its regeneration, says Pritchard, (2013).
4. Conclusion
I have tried to resolve the challenges through my focus on the Financial, Customer,
Internal and Learning & Growth perspectives in the Balanced Scorecard. I have
presented my analysis of the four perspectives and a solution with the help of the
Balanced Scorecard. These innovative strategical aspects of the Balanced Scorecard
were evaluated and implemented by me while conducting a simulative analysis of the
policies and processes of Delta. The comparative results with the closest competitors
also suggest that Delta has strong financial roots but lacks in areas of effective financial
management. In most of the parameters, Delta still remains at the top of this analysis
(See Annexure-A). Hence, the management has to plan a strategy for an effective
management in areas where Delta is scoring low compared to the competitors.

Page4
The Balanced Scorecard for Delta/Signal Corp.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES OBJECTIVES MEASURES TARGETS INITIATIVES
FINANCIALS
What do the
Stakeholders look for
in our financial
success?
SURVIVE:
Our control over
our R & D
expenditure.
SUCCEED:
Improvement in
our Sales when
new products
are introduced.
PROSPER:
Increase in our
market share
because of
enhanced R & D.
SUSTAIN:
Maintaining our
current level of
R & D initiatives.
CUSTOMER
What do our
Customers look for
when we achieve our
desired Vision?
SATISFACTION:
We aim to achieve
the highest score in
customer
satisfaction.
NEEDS:
We anticipate
the needs of our
external and
internal
customers for
scoring higher
on the customer
satisfaction
metric.
DESIGNS:
We maintain high
level of
innovation by
increased hours
on engineering
and
troubleshooting.
R & D HIT RATE:
We maintain a low
percentage of
Projects which
need to be shelved
before they are
implemented.
NTERNAL BUSINESS
PROCESS How should we
manage our Business
Process for the
satisfaction of our
Customers and
Stakeholders?
PRODUCTIVITY:
We measure this by
the percentage of
Hours we spend on
Project completion
to the hours we
spend on R & D.
MARKETING
SPEED:
We measure this
by the
percentage
between the
duration of our
Revised Project
to a Planned
Project.
DESIGN REUSE:
We avoid this at
all costs. Our
target is to
achieve high
innovation
standards.
OUTPUT
QUALITY:
We measure this
metric by the
number of times we
work on reworking
of a project.
LEARNING AND
GROWTH
How should we change
our ability to improve
to Achieve our Vision?
TECHNOLOGY
LEADERSHIP:
We measure this by
comparing the
Number of
Patentable Designs
with Dollars we
spend on R & D.
LONG TERM
FOCUS:
We measure this
by the
percentage of
budget allotted
for Basic to the
Applied
Research.
ABSORPTION
CAPACITY:
We measure this
by comparing our
R & D on in-
house projects
with that of
externally
developed
projects.
LEARNING
ORGANIZATION:
We measure this by
comparing the
effort put on project
evaluation to effort
put on new
projects.

Page5
LIST OF REFERENCES
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. 2001, The Strategy-focused Organization: How
Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard
Business Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. 2006, Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to
Create Corporate Synergies. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Keyes, J. 2010, Implementing the Project Management Balanced Scorecard. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kliem, R. L. 2007, Effective Communications for Project Management. CRC Press,
New York.
Phillips, J.J., Bothell, T.W. and Snead, G.L. 2012, The Project Management Scorecard.
Routledge, New York.
Pritchard, C. 2013, The Project Management Communications Toolkit. (2nd ed.) Artech
House, Boston, MA.

Page6
ANNEXURE – A: Comparative Analysis with Competitors
Particulars Delta Odawa Vulferam Shagimaw REMARKS
(All Amounts are in AUD$)
2012 Key
Numbers Annual Sales (millions) 960.00 7,173.00 4,700.00 5,973
No. of Employees 8,727 52,080 18,800 21,200
Per Employee Sale $0.11m $0.14m $0.25m $0.28m Delta scores the lowest
Market Cap (millions) 400.00 1,151.00 1,706.00 3,959.00
2012 Profitability Gross Profit Margin 20.00% 8.68% 17.51% 7.17% Delta is on top
Pre-Tax Profit Margin 3.15% 1.46% 3.03% 14.09% Delta is number two
Net Profit Margin 2.05% 1.11% 2.27% 11.04% Delta is number three
Return on Equity 2.93% N / A 5.78% N / A Delta is number two
Return on Assets 1.95% 2.73% 3.33% 1.26% Delta scores the lowest
2012
Valuation Price / Earnings Ration 20.35 14.43 15.99 19.50 Delta is on top
Price / Book Value
Ration
0.60 N / A 2.23 N / A Delta scores the lowest
2012
Operations Asset Turnover 0.95 2.45 1.47 0.33 Delta is number three
Effective Tax Rates 35.00% 24.00% 25.00% 33.00% Delta has the highest
tax rate
2012
Financials Total Debt / Equity 0.50 N / A 3.63 N / A Delta is on top
Interest Coverage 2.50 1.73 1.85 5.56 Delta is number two
2012 Per
Share Data Revenue Per Share $96.00 $154.30 $137.17 $37.68 Delta is number three
Dividend Per Share NIL NIL NIL NIL
Book Value Per Share $67.20 N / A $85.56 N / A Delta is number two
Total Assets Per Share $100.80 $62.97 $93.63 $101.96 Delta is number two
2012
Growth 12-month Revenue
Growth
33.84% 22.74% 36.83% 11.68% Delta is number two
36-month Revenue
Growth
-12.55% -9.25% 7.69% -12.82% Delta is number three