erich1200965203

I recently interviewed for a Business Analyst position with the CIO of a large multi-national software development firm. This man was in charge of the company’s worldwide IT operations, including offshore development projects, for which he was searching for qualified Business Analysts. The interview quickly became a casual conversation about current trends within the IT service sector, how the company was planning to take advantage of those trends, and, most importantly, how I could fit into those plans. It was during his evaluation of my skills that I asked how I fit and whether it was technical or business skills that were most valuable to his projects. The CIO summed up his advice about my career path with one small sentence: “Stay on the business side.”

Business skills, in this CIO’s view, were most important to his future projects and the industry as a whole. His reasoning was that he could train anyone in the technical skills he needed for a project, but finding those people with the necessary business skills to guide an IT project to success was something that could not easily be obtained. He went on to say that he found it difficult to find people who could communicate on even the most basic of levels. I asked if my background as a developer would help in getting a business analyst job, and he conceded that although it’s not a requirement, it certainly would help matters as long as I could prove that I wasn’t “too technical.”

His comments are consistent with the trend that all US-based programmers have observed since the late 1990’s: global salary competition amongst programmers, and a growing view in big business of programming as a commodity skill. It’s hard to compete with a developer in Russia or India who can work for a fraction of what I make minus benefits. The CIO managed to reaffirm the subtle, but major, shift from technical skills to business-technical skills in today’s labor market. I gave weight to his viewpoint since the people in his position are the trendsetters of the technology industry. They are the ones who set the directives for a company’s IT needs, and often, the requirements desired for the higher-paying positions.

I did a little research and found that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook predicts that computer systems analysts are expected to be among the fastest growing occupations through 2012. The Handbook describes a systems analyst as someone who may plan and develop new computer systems or devise ways to apply existing systems’ resources to additional operations. It describes a computer programmer as someone who writes programs according to the specifications determined by systems analysts. (The book does not separately list business analyst as an occupation.)

According to the Handbook, in the US systems analysts held an astounding 487,000 positions in 2004 (up from 468,000 positions in 2002) compared with 455,000 jobs in 2004 for computer programmers (down from 499,000 in 2002). The Handbook also states that employment for computer programmers is “expected to grow much more slowly than that for other computer specialists.” And recent estimates by the Economic Policy Institute have put the number of jobs being offshored at approximately 330,000 to 500,000 jobs. About 100,000 of those were full-time computer programming jobs.

The key to maintaining a good employment outlook in IT, it seems, is to move out of programming and up into more business-oriented IT positions such as systems analyst, business analyst, project manager, or systems architect. However, a computer programmer can’t just decide to become a systems analyst or project manager overnight. The journey takes time and requires the right amount of experience and learning to be successful.

Making the Shift

So you’ve seen the statistics and watched as the jobs in your market slowly disappear. You want to move more to the “business side,” but you don’t quite know how to do it. As I’ll describe next, making the shift can be done on-the-job by gaining more responsibility, polishing up your problem-solving skills, and using creativity in your work.

I began my journey into systems analysis and design by accepting more responsibilities throughout the project I was on when things proved too overwhelming for my superiors. I gradually accepted more of the project management and business analysis responsibilities when the opportunity presented itself. For example, I would walk to Suzy in accounting and work out a new enhancement with her one-on-one rather than wait for my manager to do so. Over time, as my manager’s confidence in my abilities grew, these responsibilities became a part of my job. It wasn’t long before I became the Programmer Analyst, and ultimately the Project Manager, as new positions were created to fulfill demand for our work.

When the need arises, I recommend walking to the end user yourself and working with her one-on-one. Your manager will be relieved when he discovers that you are capable of communicating with his end-users, identifying their issues, and resolving those issues before they are brought up in the weekly manager’s meeting. Even the best IT managers need a subordinate who is visible to the users who they can trust to get the job done. If a manager is slowly factoring himself away from the day-to-day workings of the project, welcome it. The higher visibility that you are obtaining can be translated into higher value—and that can result in a promotion. Over time, your increased interactions with more business-oriented people will make you more sensitive to business concerns.

A good subordinate has to be open-minded and creative. When solving problems, one has to always believe that there is a way to accomplish something, even if it’s never been done before. Sometimes, just listening to the user will produce an idea. A lot of issues may come down to the business process that the system is attempting to replicate. I have had users actually solve a business problem for me just by listening to what they had to say!

Whether you’re open-minded and creative or not, you can still work towards more business-oriented positions. After all, business systems analysts and project managers are only a small subset of the many positions opening up each year to address the issues of complexity through simplicity. If you love programming, you don’t have to necessarily give it up.

Jobs To Pursue

Senior Technical Positions

Developers will often find that they may have to work side-by-side with the users to iron out difficult bugs. It can be difficult, if not impossible, to fix these problems when both parties can’t communicate effectively. There was always a time in most of my work situations when the developer had to talk with the users or other developers directly to fix difficult issues. This is the programmer’s chance to show management that he or she is someone who can communicate and utilize analysis methodologies—otherwise known as a “programmer analyst.” A programmer analyst is also usually someone who has some years of technical experience, and a certain depth of technical knowledge.

Programmers who seek advanced technical skills without too much end-user interaction may find themselves gravitating toward the design & architecture side of the business. Although these types of positions are still relatively technical, they often involve making key decisions to address how the new system will fit into the organization’s overall IT plans. In order to be successful, the architect needs to understand and control the elements associated with the utility, cost, and risk factors of the proposed solution.

System architects must make very educated decisions about how to decompose and isolate the different components that will be required, how to fit these components into the existing infrastructure, and in what order to implement each component. It can be a disaster to implement an online ordering system that isn’t compatible with the organization’s current accounting packages. The architect must identify these types of issues and present them to non-technical management in words they can understand.

Business and Systems Analysts

My job searches have suggested that business and systems analysts with a good programming background and a high-level of “business savvy” are becoming the next hot ticket. More and more organizations are finally hiring business analysts to explore, record, and recommend systems that fit the business—as opposed to the other way around.

The business analyst must often work with project managers, systems architects, and systems analysts, all of which are growing occupations that can make the difference between success and failure. In some cases the business analyst’s responsibilities are being combined with that of the systems analyst or the project manager under the guise of “business analyst” or “business systems analyst.” A quick search on Dice.com will reveal that many business analyst jobs have hidden deep within their job descriptions requirements to develop technical specifications or to guide and manage projects. My first business analyst job required both project management and systems analyst skills. These positions are sure to become more common as organizations struggle to reduce project failure and development time.

Project Management

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Handbook, employers prefer project managers who possess advanced technical skills that have been acquired through work experience. The project manager is often responsible for hiring the staff, setting the schedule, and keeping track of the progress through every phase of development. This person is also responsible for assigning the work, dealing with everyday problems affecting that work, and making sure each analyst or programmer is carrying his own weight. The project manager can best carry out this function if he truly understands the work he is managing.

The project manager must also be a “people person” as well as a “technical person” in order to succeed. This individual must work with technical and non-technical staff at every level of the organization in order to succeed in his goals. Additionally, the project manager has to manage his team effectively to produce the desired product on time.

Management

The ultimate assignment for many IT professionals looking to move up the IT food chain is to become the manager. The Occupational Handbook explains that “employment of computer and information systems managers is expected to grow faster than the average for all occupations through the year 2014.” These job opportunities are best suited for applicants with computer-related work experience and often require an advanced degree, such as an MBA. And of course, strong communication skills are a requirement for any management job in IT.

Skills To Develop

Okay, so you’ve heard all about what’s required and where IT is going, but how can you capitalize on this new information?

My interview with the CIO and my experience in the field have shown me that companies want IT professionals who can understand what their business is and how to apply technology to make it better. Being able to follow directions is important, but being able to take some initiative and make your own judgments without handholding is equally important. The solution is to differentiate yourself from the traditional developer.

We have already discussed two ways of building up your current skills—acquiring business knowledge and advanced technical knowledge—but two other areas are important as well: communication and leadership.

Whether that CIO I interviewed with believed that communication skills could be learned or not is irrelevant. Everyone can learn to be a better communicator with practice. The difference is that communication skills take much longer to develop. Communication takes the right mix of experience and training to become effective. I have worked on this since my college days and have had great success in my career as a result.

I learned to communicate more effectively by dealing with those who couldn’t. Many software users can’t understand the technical side enough to describe any of their requirements in any type of detail regardless of their background. On the other hand, many technical people don’t understand the intricacies of the business processes they are implementing because they can’t openly communicate with the users. Learning to communicate, and having the patience to gain knowledge from the user, is an essential skill that many of my former and current coworkers don’t have.

To add to your problem solving skills, instead of asking your superior or a more experienced programmer to help with a problem, take it upon yourself to find the answer to that complex problem. Before too long, you can be the one who others consult when there is a problem to fix or a new project to complete. Gaining problem-solving experience not only improves communication, it also improves your chances of moving into analyst and management positions. Eventually, you can do as I did and get your own project to manage.

The key to moving up the ladder at any company is to let them know what you know. Answer those questions, solve those problems, accept those new projects, and don’t be too shy to share a better solution. It could mean the difference between being “just another programmer” or being the top candidate for a promotion.

Source: http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/article/programmer_career.html

A Glimpse at the Chief Knowledge Officer

In many organisations, a new position has emerged in recent years that will significantly affect the knowledge management activities in the firm. The title of this position is the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). Many of the Fortune 500 companies already have a Chief Knowledge Officer or knowledge management teams in place. The CKO has also been referred to as the Director of Competitive Learning, Chief Learning Officer, VP of Learning, Director of Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management Director, Knowledge Strategies Director, Director of Intangible Assets, Corporate Director of Intellectual Capital, and Head of Knowledge Management Development.

The CKO, according to TFPL, Inc. (an international consulting firm that conducts CKO Summits), acts in four ways [TFPL, 2002]: first, as a “cartographer” in mapping expertise and making connections; second, as a “geologist” in drilling into specific areas and applying tools; third, as a “spark plug” in igniting an awareness of the need to change; and last, as an “architect” in designing the physical and cultural environment. The typical CKO finds a means to utilise corporate knowledge to help corporate growth, understands the skills and competencies of knowledge teams, creates powerful corporate cultures that recognize common values, enables the effective flow of information, and communicates the meaning of information and knowledge.

The CKO has to win cooperation and “buy-in” from all levels of the organisation; must identify and utilise a diverse set of skills and expertise; and demonstrate the value of knowledge management (KM) to the business. In many organisations, like The World Bank in Washington, D.C., the Chairman of The World Bank has made knowledge management part of its strategic mission. As such, knowledge management activities like capturing and putting knowledge on-line as global help desks, and developing and nurturing online communities of practice (called thematic groups at The World Bank) are being conducted.

According to Tom Davenport, of Accenture and Babson College, the CKO [Davenport and Prusak, 1998]:

• Must be an advocate or evangelist for knowledge and learning;
• Is the designer, implementer, and overseer of an organisation’s knowledge infrastructure, including its libraries, knowledge bases, human resources, computer knowledge networks, research centres, and academic relationships;
• Is the primary liaison between external providers of information and knowledge;
• Provides critical input into the creation of knowledge and uses processes that already exist within the company, such as product development;
• Plays a leading role in the design and implementation of a company’s knowledge architectures;
• Has deep experience in some aspect of knowledge management, including its creation, dissemination, or application;
• Has familiarity with knowledge-oriented companies and technologies, such as libraries and groupware;
• Has the ability to set a good example by displaying a high level of “knowledge ability” and success.

The CKO assumes responsibility for knowledge and unstructured information and is in charge of managing those assets. These assets are often referred to as “intellectual capital”, “knowledge assets”, or “intangible assets”.

Robert Neilson, from the National Defence University who chairs the Role of the CKO Working Group for the US Federal CIO Council’s Subcommittee on Knowledge Management [http:www.krn.gov] believes that the following competencies make a successful CKO – communications (storyteller—avid communicator), strategic thinking, tools and technology, personal behaviour, personal knowledge and cognitive capability, and leadership and management. Specifically, he feels that a CKO must have passion, patience, persistence, sensitivity, organisational savvy, intelligence, wisdom, life long learning capabilities, depth and breadth of knowledge, and be thick skinned and an integrator. The CKO typically measures outcomes, promotes best practices and processes, creates a knowledge-sharing culture, champions communities of practice, uses incentives and rewards, provides tools and technology, champions education, creates and uses taxonomy (common language), secures resources, and provides leadership and strategy.

Michael Earl (1999) of the London Business School performed a study to examine what is a CKO. Some of his findings indicated that those CKOs who emphasised explicit knowledge tended to promote the use of technology to enable knowledge distribution and sharing. Those CKOs who emphasised tacit or implicit knowledge spent a great deal of their time enabling, facilitating, and promoting informal dialogues. Richard Herschel and Hamid Nemati (1999) at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro concurred with these findings.

Bob Guns of Probe Consulting and Price Waterhouse Coopers, studied 52 of the top CKOs in the US (Daffy, 1998) and found that CKO’s generally had a broad base of experience within a business, and most had experience in a wide range of functions. The ability to withstand a myriad of pressures was generally acknowledged as an important trait among the CKOs. This study had similar results to Earl’s work and showed that the CKOs have strong nurturing qualities and are “influencers”. David Skyrme Associates (1997) that CKOs are good at conceptual thinking, advocacy, project and people management, communications, leadership, team working, influencing, and interpersonal skills.

The CKO Summit

TFPL, Inc. has organised several CKO Summits whereby Chief Knowledge Officers are typically invited for conversations and discussions over a two day period to share their experiences of knowledge management. One of the CKO Summits was held in October 2000 in Dublin and had CKO from ABN Amro Bank (Netherlands), the Boston Consulting Group (USA), British Telecom (UK), Clarica Life Insurance (Canada), Deloitte & Touche (USA), Ericsson (Sweden), Fortune (USA), ICL (UK), Johnson and Johnson (USA), KPMG International (USA), Linklaters & Alliance (UK), Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (USA), Motorola (USA), Nestle (Switzerland), Pfizer (UK), Philips Electronics (Netherlands), and Siemens (Germany). This Summit, along with the previous CKO Summit, produced the following results [TFPL, 2000]:

• Knowledge strategies influence future business strategy direction;
• Knowledge initiatives need to be integrated into business processes and embedded into workflows;
• The central knowledge team is increasingly seen as the catalyst and facilitator;
• Core competencies required throughout the company need to be changed to reflect a knowledge sharing activity among their core areas;
• A shift from employment to employability and portfolio careers has resulted and knowledge initiatives need to support this trend;
• New drivers and justifications are emerging for knowledge strategies (e.g., to support other corporate initiatives like e-business);
• A clear recognition exists for the need to identify tools and techniques that enable people to navigate through vast repositories (i.e., content management is a significant issue);
• Synergies should exist between knowledge and learning initiatives and the two areas should benefit from each other;
• Measurement is still a major issue to further convince senior management of the benefits of knowledge management;
• Knowledge management is more about flows of knowledge rather than stocks of knowledge;
• Culture realignment is the key challenge; and
• Functional silos (such as IT, HR) present barriers to implementing KM – they need to be more integrated together.

Where should the CKO position be placed in the organisation? Some organisations have placed the CKO within the information systems or human resources departments. Others have positioned the CKO comparable to a VP position or a staff position reporting directly to the CEO. In order for knowledge management to succeed, the CKO should be placed in a position that commands authority and responsibility in the upper echelon of management. Since knowledge management is typically a “strategic” function. Of course, the overriding consideration is that the knowledge management activities put into place should blend in well with the organisation’s corporate culture.

Why is a CKO needed in an organisation? In the same manner that the University of California at Berkeley has established a Professorship of Knowledge, organisations should also realise the strategic importance of knowledge as the competitive edge for their organisation. This is happening by means of creation of CKO positions and company resources being expended towards developing knowledge management systems in the organisation. Knowledge management involves creating, securing, combining, distributing, and retrieving knowledge. Being able to develop and maintain the knowledge repositories in the organisation, as part of these knowledge management systems is a critical element, which needs to be coordinated (and possibly managed) by the CKO and his/her staff. The CKO also needs to work closely with the human resources managers to ensure that incentives and other forms of encouragement are provided to employees to stimulate their knowledge sharing.

The CKO Job Description

To help understand the role of a CKO a knowledge profile or job description for the CKO may be illuminating. Appendix 1 at the end of the paper illustrates the duties and responsibilities of CKOs in the General Services Administration and the US Navy [http://www.km.gov].

According to TFPL Inc. [2000, 2002], the CKO should lead in the development of corporate culture, processes, infrastructure and information resources to facilitate the creation and utilisation of corporate knowledge, expertise, and information to create competitive advantage and support creativity.

The CKO and the CIO: Should They Be the Same?

A number of organisations feel that their Chief Information Officer (CIO) can handle the duties of a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). This belief is probably the wrong approach for a number of reasons. First, the CIO typically has a technology-oriented focus and may develop a knowledge management strategy that concentrates mostly on technology, rather than on the people and culture aspects of knowledge management. Second, the CKO needs to possess a different skill set than the typical CIO. Michael Earl’s (1999) study of twenty CKOs in North America and Europe, found that CKOs have distinct functions that are different from those of CIOs. The CIO is typically involved with IT strategy, IT operations, and managing the IT function, and has not taken on the full range of knowledge management activities. Earl’s study of CKOs found that the CKO typically has a breadth of career experience and familiarity with the organisation, is a good influencer, highly motivated, even tempered, deals with stress well, is extroverted, and can vary his/her behaviours to meet the demands of a situation, is social, goal oriented and interested in change. Last, the CIO typically has a large staff whereas the CKO normally has small staff of 3-12 people working mainly as specialist consultants.

The CIO’s role, however, has been changing somewhat over the years. In a survey of 340 CIOs in the U.S., England, Germany, and France conducted by Korn/Ferry, The Financial Times, and the CIO Executive Research Centre, the following key trends were uncovered:

• The role of the CIO is moving from technical planning and implementation to strategic planning.
• The CIO’s ideal resume will include both technical/engineering qualifications, plus a back ground in finance, marketing, and strategic planning.
• The CIO will become increasingly involved with external as well as internal customer support.
• There needs improvement in communication between the CIO and senior policy makers in the organisation.

In some organisations, like the General Services Administration (GSA) in the US government, some CIOs have successfully transitioned into the role of CKOs. Dr. Shereen Remez, GSA’s CIO, was selected to be the agency’s first CKO. She now serves as the CKO at the American Association for Retired Persons. According to Federal Computer Week (June 14, 1999), Dr. Remez as CKO is responsible for leading the agency’s use of knowledge management practices. However, Dr. Remez had a unique set of skills that vary from the typical CIO, a Ph.D. in the human resources/education area, which made her a perfect fit for a CKO.

Davenport (1996) believes that CKOs have three critical responsibilities – creating a knowledge management infrastructure, building a knowledge culture, and making it all pay off economically. A good CKO should combine an orientation to structured, explicit knowledge with an intuitive feel for the influence of cultural and behavioural factors on the leveraging of knowledge in an enterprise.

John Sviokla (2001) of Diamond Cluster International suggested that CIOs must redefine knowledge management in terms that focus on what is most valuable to a business. He stated the CIO needs to focus the knowledge management people on the goal of lowering asset intensity and improving the cash collection cycle. In the same issue of CIO Magazine, the CIO for Warner Music Group, Jim Noble, suggested that a CIO needs to connect with everyone and adds that the CIO has to engage the “hearts and minds” of the executive team. Mony Group’s CIO, E.P. Rogers, indicates that his role as ClO has changed over the years. He used to spend 90 percent of his time on IT, but today he probably spends 80 percent of his time on corporate business projects. He adds that with new technologies, new skills, and a more collaborative style, IS has evolved into an organisation much more attuned to the business. EDS’ CIO, Terry Milholland, says that there are higher expectations from business leaders – they have to react in days not months!

Tom Koulopoulos, President of The Delphi Group, feels that the primary purpose of having someone in charge of leveraging knowledge inside an organisation is to search for opportunities (Brown, 1999). Koulopoulos indicates that the best CKOs, no matter what they’re called, are “nomads” or “bounty hunters”, browsing the entire company searching for opportunities. A knowledge leader, like the CKO, must also be adept at traversing the information technology communities, which are part of the corporation, and must understand the basic principles behind intellectual capital. Koulopoulos points out that the critical success factor for a CKO is being incredibly competent and serving as a conduit or “super facilitator” for creating knowledge, not merely acting as “knowledge czars”.

Ogden Forbes, who has served as Chief Knowledge and Research Officer at shopping.com, indicates that “CIOs are charged with implementing technology; I assist them as the eyes and ears of what strategies to follow while they also remind me of what can be done” (Carrillo, 1997). According to Wayne Toms of the Delphi Consulting Group, the CKO’s role is expected to grow, because companies are focusing more on employees than on technology. David Jones of Xerox says that the CKO’s role is mostly concerned with cultural change.

Weinstein (1998), a Knowledge Officer of an online retail store, described his job as increasing the knowledge base of the company’s workers so that better decisions are made and assisting the ClO in implementing technology. Additionally, the CKO may also be in charge of managing intellectual property. Typically the CKO should have a broad mix of personal, corporate, and technical skills. Sue Gilly, the Chief Knowledge Officer at Cavanaugh Leahy & Company, feels that the core of her work as CKO is how people collaborate and learn.

So the question remains – can a CIO be the CKO in most organisations? In the view of this author, these two positions should be separate unless the organisation has an exceptional individual with the necessary skill sets for serving as both CIO and CKO. The two positions should be closely aligned; however, if knowledge management is to fruly succeed, and a CKO should be appointed in the organisation to develop and implement a knowledge management strategy in the organisation and to spearhead these knowledge management initiatives.

Developing Knowledge Sharing Proficiencies

One of the basic tenets of knowledge management is to build a supportive culture for knowledge sharing (Liebowitz, 2000; Liebowitz, 2001; Liebowitz & Chen, 2001). The adage “knowledge is power” needs to be replaced by the motto “sharing knowledge is power” for organisations to truly maximise their intellectual capital (Neches et al., 1991). Very little research in the knowledge management field has focused on determining how effective knowledge sharing is occurring in organisations. As organisations start to incorporate learning and knowledge sharing proficiencies as part of their annual job performance evaluations (The World Bank, Gemini Consulting, and Accenture), it becomes necessary to establish criteria for such proficiencies or competencies and then to measure how well people are doing with respect to these knowledge sharing factors.

Companies are already realising that knowledge sharing gives them their competitive edge by leading to accelerated learning and innovation (Hickins, 1999). Xerox’s reputation as a leading knowledge company has been built on a strong knowledge sharing culture (Hickins, 1999). Xerox claims that knowledge sharing is going to become part of a fabric inside the company for all employees. Similarly, Dow Corning has expressed its commitment to team building and knowledge sharing. At Dow Corning Europe there are various professional clubs that share common aims such as to improve the understanding of fundamental concepts, raise awareness of techniques available in Dow Corning and elsewhere; to learn by example how to interpret the results of measurements and relate them to applications; to identify gaps in Dow’s overall understanding and to formulate ways to fill those gaps, share experiences, problems, failures, successes, provide a forum for the peer review of ideas, theories, and the interpretation of test data (Easton & Parbhoo, 1998). Lockheed-Martin’s, key to knowledge sharing is matching the type of knowledge with the right transfer method (Dixon, 2000). Three factors – whether the task is routine or non routine; whether the knowledge related to it is tacit or explicit; and the similarity between the originator and the receiver of the information – determine the method through which the knowledge can be most effectively transferred (Dixon, 2000).

To help build a knowledge sharing culture, various knowledge sharing proficiencies should be developed and integrated into the performance system of the organisation. A number of organisations like CapitalWorks in Williamstown (Massachusetts) have developed learning effectiveness inventories, since learning is at the core of human capital performance and knowledge creation in the new economy. CapitalWorks, for example, has a Learning Value Analysis where learning is assessed across multiple dimensions by the indicators:

• Operating performance (economics, productivity, human capital)
• Knowledge performance (applied knowledge, knowledge creation, social capital)
• Learning performance (portfolio composition, organisational dynamics, individual dynamics)
• Organisational performance (social practice, workplace dynamics, critical behaviours, job dimensions)
• Strategic performance (alignment objectives, economic objectives, and human capital objectives).

Other organisations like Human Synergistic and the Centre for Applied Research Inc. have developed an Organisational Effectiveness Inventory to provide information about itself, its effectiveness, and its impact on members.

In order to create knowledge sharing roles and a nurturing knowledge management culture, the American Society for Interior Designers under the Chief Knowledge Leader, Dr. Michael Berens, has worked on various knowledge competencies with Jay Liebowitz as applied to ASID.

Other possible knowledge sharing proficiencies could include:

• The number of new colleague-to-colleague and member relationships spawned;
• The reuse rate of “frequently accessed/reused” knowledge;
• The number of key concepts that are converted from tacit to explicit knowledge in the knowledge repositories and
• Used by staff and members;
• The dissemination of knowledge sharing (i.e., distribution of knowledge) to appropriate individuals; the number of new ideas generating innovative products or services; and
• The number and quality of lessons learned and proven practices applied to create value-added; the number of “apprentices” that one mentors, and the success of those apprentices as they mature in the organisation.

Building High Performance Organisations Through Knowledge Management

Organisations are engaging in knowledge management for a number of key reasons: to increase innovation and creativity; to better leverage knowledge internally and externally for improved worker productivity and customer relations; to capture and preserve knowledge for building the institutional memory of the organisation; and to improve efficiency and effectiveness of decision making. If an organisation is to be high performance organisation, knowledge management plays a critical role in transforming it into a well oiled, thriving business.

What does it mean to be high performance mean? Many analysts feel that an organisation needs to be quickly adaptable to changes in the marketplace, and knowledge management offers a way to do this. According to Lawton (2001), knowledge management’s key underpinning technologies enable content and workflow management which categorize knowledge and direct it to workers who can benefit from it; search functionality, to let users look for relevant knowledge; and collaboration, to help workers share knowledge. Through the use of “intelligent” agents, knowledge management systems should be able to push relevant lessons learned to appropriate individuals in the organisation who can best benefit from them in order to build the organisational intelligence of the firm. “Data and text mining” can also be used to develop user profiles to push relevant information and knowledge from repositories to employees and customers.

High-performance organisations generally have a high organisational intelligence. Liebowitz (1999, 2000) views organisational intelligence as the collection of all intelligence that contributes toward building a shared vision, a renewal process, and a direction for the entity. Organisational intelligence involves the following knowledge functions – transforming information into knowledge; identifying and verifying knowledge; capturing and securing knowledge; organizing knowledge; retrieving and applying knowledge; combining knowledge; creating knowledge; learning knowledge; and distributing/selling knowledge.

In order to promote and build a high performance organisation, knowledge exchange a basic tenet of knowledge management is a critical element. In some interesting work on electronic communities of practice McClure-Wasko and Faraj (2000), found that for increasing knowledge exchange, organisations should consider using knowledge management systems that connect members to open-membership electronic communities of practice, and that organisations should establish a cultural norm that encourages people to participate and share knowledge by acknowledging the reputation and status of organisational members actively engaged in their electronic community. They found that extrinsic (versus intrinsic) reward systems may not be the best approach to use for increasing knowledge exchange but rather that, successful communities have members that act out of community interest (intrinsic value) rather than self-interest (extrinsic rewards promote self interest). Increased knowledge exchanges hopefully leads to increased knowledge flows and innovation within the community and the organisation.

Ryder System Inc., the transportation and logistics firm based in Miami, has developed a knowledge centre using Lotus Notes, QuickPlace, Same-time, and Prevail Solutions Suite. According to Knowledge Management (2000), the Ryder executives and others in the organisation have embraced knowledge management and the knowledge centre supports various internal communities and provides a way to produce better and quicker business proposals. This type of knowledge management activity helps in having Ryder as a high performance organisation.

If organisations are to be adaptable, flexible, and innovative, knowledge management needs to be an essential part of the organisation’s strategy. In today’s rapidly changing and competitive environment, those organisations that are high performance are most likely the ones that will survive. Creating knowledge through knowledge management initiatives will help to produce high performance organisations, and the “double-loop” learning effect should increase an organisation’s innovation and adaptability.

What’s Beyond Knowledge Management?

Authors such as Davenport and Beck (2001) have indicated that “attention management” will compliment knowledge management, involving the application of intelligent agents and other software programming techniques to browse and prioritise the CEO’s daily email, news, voice mail, and digitised documentation and to determine what should attract their attention. Others indicate that E-CRM (Electronic-Customer Relations Management), E-Business, and specialised niche markets will continue to grow in emphasis and usage by businesses, and will be the prevailing trend after knowledge management. Others predict that wireless communications and mobile computing will dominate applications in the business world beyond knowledge management. Still others predict that hard coding ‘knowledge on chips’ will be commonplace in the years ahead. Certainly, improved user interfaces to knowledge management systems, such as through speech and natural language understanding, will be developed in the near term to enhance the collection, access, and usage of these systems.

If these predictions come true, how should businesses better position themselves to compete in the marketplace beyond knowledge management? First, in the same vein as using knowledge management to better leverage knowledge internally and externally, companies will probably need to merge and acquire other companies in related businesses to leverage their know how and create new products and services. Synergy will ensure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Namely, taking the best from complementary businesses will hopefully produce more competitive products or services, and should also stimulate creativity and innovation.

Second, companies should take advantage of developing, selling, or buying “knowledge full” products. These types of products will capture the expertise and experience of a company’s knowledgeable employees and encode this knowledge in the forms of web based and intranet based expert systems, hard coded “knowledge” chips, or in wireless knowledge repositories. In this manner, the institutional memory of the organisation can be built as critical, core competency knowledge and expertise are preserved.

Third, developing niche markets in the Internet and e-business age will offer new opportunities, especially for dot.com companies. Whether developing intelligent agents to profile customers and to push relevant information to them or to create online “community” software or the like, businesses in the coming years will continue to find new ways of improving existing processes.

Last, companies will need to get the products to market even faster via the internet age. Product development times and entry-to-market times will be greatly reduced in order for companies to maintain their competitive edge. In all these areas, knowledge management and the CKO can greatly move the organisation towards being a “high performance, knowledge organisation.”

SOURCE : rphrm.curtin.edu.au/2002/issue2/knowledge.html

A firm that had invested millions of dollars in a state-of-the-art intranet intended to improve knowledge sharing got some bad news: Employees were using it most often to retrieve the daily menu from the company cafeteria. The system was barely used in day-to-day business activities.

Few executives would argue with the premise that knowledge management is critical—but few know precisely what to do about it. There are numerous examples of knowledge-management programs intended to improve innovation, responsiveness and adaptability that fall short of expectations. Researchers at the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change have been exploring the roots of the problem and have developed a method to help executives make effective knowledge management a reality in their organizations.

Much of the problem with knowledge management today lies in the way the subject has been approached by vendors and the press. Knowledge management is still a relatively young field, with new concepts emerging constantly. Often, it is portrayed simplistically; discussions typically revolve around blanket principles that are intended to work across the organization. For example, companies are urged to emulate knowledge-management leaders such as British Petroleum and Skandia. And most knowledge-management initiatives have focused almost entirely on changes in tools and technologies, such as intranets and Lotus Notes.

These approaches have little relevance for executives contending with the day-to-day reality of running a company. Knowledge management is complex and multifaceted; it encompasses everything the organization does to make knowledge available to the business, such as embedding key information in systems and processes, applying incentives to motivate employees and forging alliances to infuse the business with new knowledge. Effective knowledge management requires a combination of many organizational elements—technology, human resource practices, organizational structure and culture—in order to ensure that the right knowledge is brought to bear at the right time.

Many companies have implemented sophisticated intranets, common repositories and other systems, largely ignoring the complex cultural issues that influence the way people behave around knowledge. By and large, those companies have seen little improvement in their ability to manage knowledge. Too often, companies implement state-of-the-art technology and then discover that culture and behavior are slow to change.

In short, simplistic solutions and “one-size-fits-all” approaches leave executives with little in the way of practical advice about how to transform the entire knowledge-management system. What’s more, this fuzziness makes it difficult for executives to see a clear link between their knowledge-management investments and business value.

To help executives, the Institute has developed a framework that associates specific knowledge-management strategies with specific challenges that companies face. This Knowledge Management Framework is based on the premise that the focus should be placed on the way knowledge is used to build the critical capabilities a company needs in order to succeed—on the core processes and activities that enable it to compete. Enhancing a bank’s know-how in evaluating credit risk, for example, should result in reduced loan losses; improving a consumer products company’s understanding of customer preferences should increase its percentage of successful new products.

The framework begins by assessing and categorizing the way work is done in the core process. Work can be evaluated along two dimensions. First is the level of interdependence involved—that is, the degree to which individuals and organizations need to collaborate and interact. Second is the complexity of work involved—the degree to which employees need to apply their judgment and interpret a variety of information. Using these two factors, the Institute has identified four distinct categories of work, or “work models”:

• Transaction model, in which there is a low degree of both interdependence and complexity. Work is typically routine, highly reliant on formal rules, procedures and training, and depends on a workforce that exercises little discretion.
• Integration model, in which there is a high degree of interdependence and a low degree of complexity. Work is systematic and repeatable, relies on formal processes, methodologies and standards, and depends on tight integration across functional boundaries.
• Expert model, in which there is low interdependence and high complexity. Work requires judgment and is dependent on “star performers.”
• Collaboration model, in which there is a high degree of both interdependence and complexity. Work involves improvisation and learning by doing, and relies on deep expertise across functions and the use of flexible teams.

Key to Understanding

In general, a given core process can be mapped to one of these four categories. For example, supply-chain management and procurement tend to fit into the integration model; the work in these processes is often routine, and activities generally span multiple functions and organizations. In comparison, marketing and financial management tend to be expert model work, requiring individuals in one functional area to apply their judgment to solve unanticipated problems.

However, it is important to note that there are no hard-and-fast connections between a certain core process and a work model, because the same process can be performed in different ways. Sales, for example, can refer to individuals covering their respective territories (expert model) or to a supplier’s multifunctional team working closely with a customer to maintain retail inventories (integration model). So the key is to understand how work is performed; it is the nature of the work that determines the appropriate knowledge-management approach.

Knowing the work model that’s associated with the core process is important because each model presents its own distinct set of knowledge-management challenges. In the collaboration model, for example, a key challenge is the achievement of breakthrough innovation. To drive such innovation, a company needs to encourage risk-taking and bring together a variety of knowledge domains, such as research, product development, marketing and manufacturing, in order to solve complex problems. At one biotech company, the Institute found that increasingly complicated projects and the need for a growing number of scientific disciplines was making it harder to integrate activities into a coherent whole. Every point in the chain needs to know not just what the links above and below are, but also needs to have some idea of what the whole continuum is.

In the expert model, on the other hand, the organization usually needs to focus on getting results from its star performers. To do so, companies must contend with issues such as attracting and motivating talented individuals and overcoming “silos” of information. For example, at one expert model company studied by the Institute, individuals had a tremendous amount of knowledge about products, but each person rarely knew what the others were doing. In one product area, managers discovered seven redundant research projects.

In essence, the framework allows executives to gain a better understanding of their current knowledge-management practices—which in most companies have evolved in an ad hoc, unconscious manner—and to identify the knowledge-management challenges associated with their core processes. From that specific diagnosis, it is a short step to prescribing specific remedies, because each set of challenges points to a handful of potential knowledge-management strategies.

For example, the challenges in the transaction model are centered on the need to codify knowledge and ensure consistent performance. Possible knowledge-management strategies would therefore include “automation” that embeds knowledge in systems, or perhaps “routinization,” in which knowledge is built into policies and procedures, and training is aimed at standardizing workers’ behavior. In the integration model, where the challenge is to orchestrate activity across various parts of the organization, executives might consider the adoption of standard processes or methodologies that integrate performance across functions. Or they might use softer measures that focus on the use of cross-functional teams, shared goals and feedback systems.

In the expert model, knowledgeable individuals are key. Here, executives may recruit star performers away from other companies, or may choose to focus on programs that develop stars internally through long-term career-progression programs, apprenticeships, mentoring and training. And in the collaboration model, where the challenges revolve around creating breakthrough innovations, the choices may include “action-learning” strategies that encourage discovery through “skunkworks” and pilots, or “knowledge-linking” strategies that focus on learning through consortia and alliances.

The framework also makes it possible to address all elements of the knowledge-management system as a whole—technology, human resource practices, organization and culture—because it focuses executives’ attention on the capabilities their organizations need rather than on component solutions. Also, attention is shifted from broad, vague issues to a well-defined set of challenges that are specific to their business. They have a manageable number of targeted options from which to choose, which makes it easier to formulate an integrated approach to changing organizational structure, technology, human resources and the world culture.

In addition to guiding improvements in today’s core processes, the framework can also be used to help companies evolve and adapt to new conditions. Markets, customers, technology and competition are always changing. To thrive, companies must change over time as well, or their core capabilities may well become core rigidities that lead to obsolescence. As they strive to move in new directions, executives can use the framework to understand the knowledge-management systems that new capabilities will require.

In the silicon-chip industry, for example, the design of new microchip manufacturing processes has always been considered something of an art—a collaborative model type of effort involving a small cadre of experts, extensive experimentation and rapid learning to get it right. Now, however, with most personal computers selling for less than $1,000, chip makers need to move to lower-cost approaches—and to an integration model of knowledge management, where the focus is on standardization, repeatable work and continuous improvement. The framework can help companies envision what their new knowledge-management approach should look like under their new strategy, and plot out a path that will take them there.

At one highly successful financial services company, executives are using the framework to help identify today’s knowledge-management challenges and constraints in the area of product development, and to help shape the company’s approach to tomorrow’s products. Currently, the company develops products under an expert model, with knowledgeable individuals driving the process. Although this model has been appropriate for incremental product development—essentially, enhancements and extensions of existing offerings—it has rarely produced a real product innovation.

The company believes that it may be falling behind in terms of bringing true breakthrough products to market, particularly in the area of eCommerce. Executives want to build on traditional strengths to keep improving existing products, but they also recognize that they will need to take a different approach if the company is to maintain product leadership in its industry. So in the creation of electronic commerce products, the company is considering a move toward the collaboration model and the use of a skunkworks-style operation that relies on multidisciplinary teams and team incentives, rather than individual experts.

Executives are also beginning to experiment with external alliances as a way to bring new knowledge into the company. Using the framework as a guide, the company has been able to gain a sophisticated understanding of how to improve its current knowledge-management systems and, at the same time, develop a sense of how it can manage knowledge to forge new capabilities for the long term.

That kind of evolutionary ability will become increasingly important in the coming years, as the demands of new markets and new competitors drive continuing shifts in corporate strategies. To support those strategies, companies will have to build new capabilities more and more rapidly—and so the ability to manage knowledge to support that change will be critical.

SOURCE : www.accenture.com/Global/…and…/Knowledgevalue.htm

Konsep Balanced Scorecard.

Konsep balanced scorecard berkembang sejalan dengan perkembangan implementasi konsep tersebut. Kapalan dan Norton, 1996 menyatakan bahwa Balanced scorecard terdiri dari kartu skor (scorecard) dan berimbang (balanced). Kartu skor adalah kartu yang digunakan untuk mencatat skor hasil kinerja seseorang. Kartu skor juga dapat digunakan untuk merencanakan skor yang hendak diwujudkan oleh peronil di masa depan. Melalui kartu skor, skor yang akan diwujudkan personil di masa depan dibandingkan dengan hasil kinerja sesungguhnya. Hasil perbandingan ini digunakan untuk melakukan evaluasi atas kinerja personil yang bersangkutan. Kata berimbang dimaksudkan untuk menunjukkan bahwa kinerja personil diukur secara berimbang dari dua aspek: keuangan dan non keuangan, jangka pendek dan jangka panjang, intern dan ekstern. Oleh sebab itu personil harus mempertimbangkan keseimbangan antara pencapaian kinerja keuangan dan non keuangan, antara kinerja jangka pendek dan jangka panjang, serta antara kinerja yang bersifat intern dan yang bersifat ekstern jika kartu skor personil digunakan untuk merencanakan skor yang hendak diwujudkan di masa depan.

Balanced scorecard memperkenalkan empat proses manajemen yang baru, yang terbagi dan terkombinasi antara tujuan strategik jangka panjang dengan peristiwa-peristiwa jangka pendek. Keempat proses tersebut adalah (Kaplan dan Norton, 1996):

Menterjemahkan visi, misi dan strategi perusahaan.

Untuk menentukan ukuran kinerja, visi organisasi perlu dijabarkan dalam tujuan dan sasaran. Visi adalah gambaran kondisi yang akan diwujudkan oleh perusahaan di masa mendatang. Untuk mewujudkan kondisi yang digambarkan dalam visi, perusahaan perlu merumuskan strategi. Tujuan ini menjadi salah satu landasan bagi perumusan strategi untuk mewujudkannya. Dalam proses perencanaan strategik, tujuan ini kemudian dijabarkan ke dalam sasaran strategik dengan ukuran pencapaiannya.

Komunikasi dan Hubungan.

Balanced scorecard memperlihatkan kepada setiap karyawan apa yang dilakukan perusahaan untuk mencapai apa yang menjadi keinginan para pemegang saham dan konsumen karena oleh tujuan tersebut dibutuhkan kinerja karyawan yang baik. Untuk itu, balanced scorecard menunjukkan strategi yang menyeluruh yang terdiri dari tiga kegiatan:

– Comunicating and educating

– Setting Goals

– Linking Reward to Performance Measures

Rencana Bisnis

Rencana bisnis memungkinkan organisasi mengintegrasikan antara rencana bisnis dan rencana keuangan mereka. Hampir semua organisasi saat mengimplementasikan berbagai macam program yang mempunyai keunggulannya masing-masing saling bersaing antara satu dengan yang lainnya. Keadaan tersebut membuat manajer mengalami kesulitan untuk mengintegrasikan ide-ide yang muncul dan berbeda di setiap departemen. Akan tetapi dengan menggunakan balanced scorecard sebagai dasar untuk mengalokasikan sumber daya dan mengatur mana yang lebih penting untuk diprioritaskan, akan menggerakkan ke arah tujuan jangka panjang perusahaan secara menyeluruh.

Umpan Balik dan Pembelajaran.

Proses keempat ini akan memberikan strategic learning kepada perusahaan. Dengan balanced scorecard sebagai pusat sistem perusahaan, maka perusahaan dapat melaukan monitoring terhadap apa yang telah dihasilkan perusahaan dalam jangka pendek, dari tiga pespektif yang ada yaitu: konsumen, proses bisnis internal serta pembelajaran dan pertumbuhan untuk dijadikan sebagai umpan balik dalam mengevaluasi strategi. Keempat proses tersebut dapat digambarkan sebagai berikut:

– Memperjelas dan Menerjemahkan visi dan strategi

o Memperjelas visi

o Menghasilkan Konsensus

– Merencanakan dan Me-netapkan sasaran

o Menetapkan sasaran

o Memadukan inisiatif strategis

o Mengalokasikan sumber daya

o Menetapkan tonggak-tonggak penting

– Mengkomunikasikan dan Menghubungkan

o Mengkominikasikan dan mendidik

o Menetapkan tujuan

o Mengkaitkan imba-lan dengan ukuran kinerja

o

Balanced scorecard

– Umpan Balik dan Pembelajaran Strategis

o Mengartikulasikan isi bersama

o Memberikan umpan balik strategis

o Memfasilitasi tinjauan ulan dan pembela- jaran strategis

Balanced Scorecard sebagai suatu kerangka kerja tindakan strategis

Tolok Ukur dalam Balanced Scorecard.

Perspektif Keuangan (finansial)

Perspektif keuangan tetap menjadi perhatian dalam balanced scorecard karena ukuran keuangan merupakan ikhtisar dari konsekuensi ekonomi yang terjadi akibat keputusan dan tindakan ekonomi yang diambil. Tujuan pencapaian kinerja keuangan yang baik merupakan fokus dari tujuan-tujuan yang ada dalam tiga perspektif lainnya. Sasaran-sasaran perspektif keuangan dibedakan pada masing-masing tahap dalam siklus bisnis yang oleh Kaplan dan Norton dibedakan menjadi tiga tahap:

Growth (Berkembang)

Berkembang merupakan tahap pertama dan tahap awal dari siklus kehidupan bisnis. Pada tahap ini suatu perusahaan memiliki tingkat pertumbuhan yang sama sekali atau peling tidak memiliki potensi untuk berkembang. Untuk menciptakan potensi ini, kemungkinan seorang manajer harus terikat komitmen untuk mengembangkan suatu produk atau jasa baru, membangun dan mengembangkan fasilitas produksi, menambah kemampuan operasi, mengembangkan sistem, infrastruktur dan jaringan distribusi yang akan mendukung hubungan global, serta mengasuh dan mengembangkan hubungan dengan pelanggan. Perusahaan dalam tahap pertumbuhan mungkin secara aktual beroperasi dengan cash flow negatif dan tingkat pengembalian atas modal yang rendah. Investasi yang ditanam untuk kepentingan masa depan sangat memungkinkan memakai biaya yang lebih besar dibandingkan dengan jumlah dana yang mampu dihasilkan dari basis operasi yang ada sekarang, dengan produk dan jasa dan konsumen yang masih terbatas. Sasaran keuangan untuk growth stage menekankan pada pertumbuhan penjualan di dalam pasar baru dari konsumen baru dan atau dari produk dan jasa baru.

Sustain Stage (Bertahan).

Bertahan merupakan tahap kedua yaitu suatu tahap dimana perusahaan masih melakukan investasi dan reinbestasi dengan mempersyaratkan tingkat pengembalian yang terbaik, Dalam tahap ini perusahaan berusaha mempertahankan pangsa pasar yang ada dan mengembankannya apabila mungkin. Investasi yang dilakukan umumnya diarahkan untuk menghilangkan kemacetan, mengembangkan kapasitas dan meningkatkan perbaikan operasional secara konsisten. Pada tahap ini perusahaan tidak lagi bertumpu pada strategi-stratei jangka panjang. Sasaran keuangan tahap ini lebih diarahkan pada besarnya tingkat pengembalian atas investasi yang dilakukan.

Harvest (Panen).

Tahap ini merupakan tahap kematangan (mature), suatu tahap dimana perusahaan melakukan panen (harvest) terhadap investasi mereka. Perusahaan tidak lagi melakukan investasi lebih jauh kecuali hanya untuk memelihara dan perbaikan fasilitas, tidak untuk melakukan eksppansi atau membangun suatu kemampuan baru. Tujuan utama dalam tahap ini adalah memaksimumkan arus kas yang masuk ke perusahaan. Sasaran keuangan untuk harvest adalah cash flow maksimum yang mampu dikembalikan dari investasi dimasa lalu.

Perspektif Pelanggan.

Pada masa lalu seringkali perusahaan mengkonsentrasikan diri pada kemampuan internal dan kurang memperhatikan kebutuhan konsumen. Sekarang strategi perusahaan telah bergeser fokusnya dari internal ke eksternal. Jika suatu unit bisnis inin mencapai kinerja keuangan yang superior dalam jangka panjang, mereka harus menciptakan dan menyajikan suatu produk atau jasa yang bernilai dari biaya perolehannya. Dan suatu produk akan semakin bernilai apabila kinerjanya semakin mendekati atau bahkan melebihi dari apa yang diharapkan dan persepsikan konsumen (Heppy Julianto, 2000). Tolok ukur kinerja pelanggan dibagi menjadi dua kelompok (Budi W. Soejtipto, 1997):

Kelompok Inti

1). Pangsa pasar: mengukur seberapa besar pororsi segmen pasar tertentu yang dikuasai oleh perusahaan.

2). Tingkat perolehan para pelanggan baru: mengukur seberapa banyak perusahaan berhasil menarik pelanggan-pelanggan baru.

3). Kemampuan mempertahankan para pelanggan lama: mengukur seberapa banyak perusahaan berhasil mempertahankan pelangan-pelanggan lama.

4). Tingkat kepuasan pelanggan: mengukur seberapa jauh ppelanggan merasa puas terhadap layanan perusahaan.

5). Tingkat profitabilitas pelanggan: mengukur seberapa besar keuntungan yang berhasil diraih oleh perusahaan dari penjualan produk kepada para pelanggan.

Kelompok Penunjang.

1). Atribut-atribut produk (fungsi, harga dan mutu)

Tolok ukur atribut produk adalah tingkat harga eceran relatif, tingkat daya guna produk, tingkat pengembalian produk oleh pelanggan sebagai akibat ketidak sempurnaan proses produksi, mutu peralatan dan fasilitas produksi yang digunakan, kemampuan sumber daya manusia serta tingkat efisiensi produksi.

2). Hubungan dengan pelanggan

Tolok ukur yang termasuk sub kelompok ini, tingkat fleksibilitas perusahaan dalam memenuhi keinginan dan kebutuhan para pelanggannya, penampilan fisik dan mutu layanan yang diberikan oleh pramunaga serta penampilan fisik fasilitas penjualan.

3). Citra dan reputasi perusahaan beserta produk-produknya dimata para pelanggannya dan masyarakat konsumen.

Perspektif Proses Bisnis Internal.

Menurut Kaplan dan Norton 1996, dalam proses bisnis internal, manajer harus bisa mengidentifikasi proses internal yang penting dimana perusahaan diharuskan melakukan dengan baik karena proses internal tersebut mempunyai nilai-nilai yang diinginkan konsumen dan dapat memberikan pengembalian yang diharapkan oleh para pemegang saham. Tahapan dalam proses bisnis internal meliputi:

Inovasi.

Inovasi yang dilakukan dalam perusahaan biasanya dilakukan oleh bagian riset dan pengembangan. Dalam tahap inovasi ini tolok ukur yang digunakan adalah besarnya produk-produk baru, lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk mengembangan suatu produk secara relatif jika dibandingkan perusahaan pesaing, besarnya biaya, banyaknya produk baru yang berhasil dikembangkan.

Proses Operasi.

Tahapan ini merupakan tahapan dimana perusahaan berupaya untuk memberikan solusi kepada para pelanggan dalam memenuhi kebutuhan dan keinginan pelanggan. Tolok ukur yang digunakan antara lain Manufacturing Cycle Effectiveness (MCE), tingkat kerusakan produk pra penjualan, banyaknya bahan baku terbuang percuma, frekuensi pengerjaan ulang produk sebagai akibat terjadinya kerusakan, banyaknya permintaan para pelanggan yang tidak dapat dipenuhi, penyimpangan biaya produksi aktual terhadap biaya anggaran produksi serta tingkat efisiensi per kegiatan produksi.

Proses Penyampaian Produk atau Jasa pada Pelanggan.

Aktivitas penyampaian produk atau jasa pada pelanggan meliputi pengumpulan, penuimpanan dan pendistribusian produk atau jasa serta layanan purna jual dimana perusahaan berupaya memberikan manfaat tambahan kepada pelanggan yang telalh membeli produknya seperti layanan pemeliharaan produk, layanan perbakan kerusakan, layanan penggantian suku cadang, dan perbaikan pembayaran.

Perspektif Pembelajaran dan Pertumbuhan.

Perspektif keempat dalam balanced scorecard mengembangkan pengukuran dan tujuan untuk mendorong organisasi agar berjalan dan tumbuh. Tujuan dari perspektif pembelajaran dan pertumbuhan adalah menyediakan infrastruktur untuk mendukung pencapaian tiga perspektif sebelumnya. Perspektif keuangan, pelanggan dan sasaran dari proses bisnis internal dapat mengungkapkan kesenjangan antara kemampuan yang ada dari orang, sistem dan prosedur dengan apa yang dibutuhkan untuk mencapai suatu kinerja yang handal. Untuk memperkecil kesenjangan tersebut perusahaan harus melakukan investasi dalam bentuk reskilling employes. Adapun faktor-faktor yang harus diperhatikan adalah (Kaplan dan Norton, 1996):

Karyawan.

Hal yang perlu ditinjau adalah kepuasan karyawan dan produktivitas kerja karyawan. Untuk mengetahui tingkat kepuasan karyawan perusahaan perlu melakukan survei secara reguler. Beberapa elemen kepuasan karyawan adalah keterlibatan dalam pengambilan keputusan, pengakuan, akses untuk memperoleh informasi, dorongan untuk melakukan kreativitas dan inisiatif serta dukungan dari atasan. Produktivitas kerja merupakan hasil dari pengaruh agregat peningkatan keahlian moral, inovasi, perbaikan proses internal dan tingkat kepuasan konsumen. Di dalam menilai produktivitas kerja setiap karyawan dibutuhkan pemantauan secara terus menerus.

Kemampuan Sistem Informasi.

Perusahaan perlu memiliki prosedur informasi yang mudah dipahami dan mudah dijalankan. Tolok ukur yang sering digunakan adalah bahwa informasi yang dibutuhkan mudah didapatkan, tepat dan tidak memerlukan waktu lama untuk mendapat informasi tersebut.

Keunggulan Balanced Scorecard.

Dibandingkan dengan pengukuran kinerja tradisional yang hanya mengukur kinerja berdasarkan perspektif keuangan, maka balanced scorecard memiliki beberapa keunggulan (Barbara Gunawan, 2000):

Komprehensif.

Balanced scorecard menekankan pengukuran kinerja tidak hanya aspek kuantitatif saja, tetapi juga aspek kealitatif. Aspek finansial dilengkapi dengan aspek customer, inovasi dan market development merupakan fokus pengukuran integral. Keempat perspektif menyediakan keseimbangan antara pengukuran eksternal seperti laba pada ukuran internal seperti pengembangan produk baru. Keseimbangan ini menunjukkan trade off yang dilakukan oleh manajer terhadap ukuran-ukuran tersebut untuk mendorong manajer untuk mencapai tujuan tanpa membuat trade off di antara kunci-kunci sukses tersebut melalui empat perspektif. Balanced scorecard mampu memandang berbagai faktor lingkungan secara menyeluruh.

Adaptif dan Responsif terhadap Perubahan Lingkungan Bisnis.

Pengukuran aspek keuangan tradisional melaporkan kejadian masa lalu tanpa menunjukkan cara meningkatkan kinerja di masa depan. Aspek customer, inovasi dan pengembangan, learning memberikan pedoman terhadap customer yang selalu berubah preferensinya.

Fokus terhadap tujuan perusahaan.

Adapun tujuan dan sasaran yang ingin dicapai pada setiap perspektif adalah (Barbara Gunawan, 2000):

1. Perspektif Keuangan.

Terwujudnya tanggung jawab ekonomi melalui penerapan pengetahuan manajemen dalam pengolahan bisnis dan peningkatan produktivitas yang dikuasai personil.

2. Perspektif Customer.

Terwujudnya tanggung jawab sosial sehingga perusahaan dikenal secara luas sebagai perusahaan yang akrab dengan lingkungan.

3. Perspektif Proses Bisnis Internal.

Terwujudnya pelipatgandaan kinerja seluruh personil perusahaan melalui implementasi.

4. Perspektif Pembelajaran dan Pertumbuhan

Terwujudnya keunggulan jangka penjang perusahaan lingkungan bisnis global melalui pengembangan dan pemfokusan potensi sumber daya manusia.

III. ANALISIS DAN PEMBAHASAN APLIKASI BALANCED SCORECARD

Dalam penelitian Nomura Research Institute (NRI) Papers No. 45, 1 April 2002 dikemukakan bahwa Jepang sudah beberapa tahun lalu mengintroduksikan pola kerja balance scorecard (BSC) terhadap lebih dari 20 perusahaan (Morisawa, 2002:3). Dari hasil penelitiannya, NRI dapat memberi kesimpulan bahwa berdasarkan pengalaman-pengalaman perusahaan yang menerapkan pengukuran kinerja dengan balanced scorecard tersebut merasakan bahwa balanced scorecard memang memiliki keunggulan yang dirangkum menjadi lima point sebagai berikut:

Balanced scorecard dapat digunakan untuk melakukan perbaikan keseimbangan di antara sasaran-sasaran jangka pendek, jangka menengah, dan jangka panjang.

Dapat menciptakan pemahaman strategi perubahan dengan menyusun atau menetapkan indikator-indikator non-finansial kuantitatif disamping indikator-indikator finansial.

Mengurangi keragu-raguan atau kekaburan dengan tetap menjaga indikator-indikator non finansial kuantitatif.

Mempromosikan proses pembelajaran organisasi melalui suatu pengulangan siklus hipotesis verifikasi.

Memperbaiki platform strategi komunikasi secara umum dalam organisasi yang mencerminkan keterkaitan antara pimpinan dan bawahan. NRI mengemukakan salah satu contoh kasus yang spektakuler tentang keberhasilan penerapan Balanced scorecard yang berimplikasi pada perbaikan kinerja perusahaan seperti yang dialami oleh perusahaan KANSAI ELECTRIC POWER CO. LTD, perusahaan terbesar kedua di Jepang yang memproduksi dan mensuplai kebutuhan listrik di Jepang. Perusahaan ini memperkenalkan cara kerja baru yang disebut “Linked Contract” yang kinerjanya diukur dengan Balanced Scorecard.

Murphy and Russel (2002:2) menemukan bahwa penggunaan Balanced Scorecard dapat menggantikan Costumer Relationship Management (CRM) Strategi, yakni suatu strategi dimana perusahaan mencoba mengelola hubungan yang baik dengan para pelanggan untuk menciptakan nilai tambah untuk para pelanggan dan untuk perusahaan itu sendiri. Hal ini ditunjukkan bahwa lebih dari setengah proyek-proyek CRM tidak menghasilkan nilai tambah apapun bagi perusahaan, dan 50% dari CRM Strategy tetap saja mengalami kegagalan dalam penerapannya di dunia bisnis, namun Balanced Scorecard dapat menggantikannya.

R. Abdul Haris dalam penelitiannya terhadap 64 BUMD di Jawa Timur menemukan bahwa kinerja BUMD tergolong baik, terutama perspektif keuangan yang seluruh indikatornya (pertumbuhan pendapatan, efisiensi biaya, peningkatan laba dan pemanfaatan aktiva/ strategi investasi). Namun ditemukan pula adanya beberapa perspektif yang perlu dibenahi yaitu: perspektif pelanggan yakni pencapaian kuantitas produksi serta pangsa pasar yang dimiliki, perspektif proses bisnis internal yakni jaringan hubungan dengan pemasok dan pengendalian kualitas, serta perspektif pembelajaran dan pertumbuhan yakni peningkatan kinerja dan pemenuhan kebutuhan karyawan.

IV. KESIMPULAN

Dalam menilai kinerja suatu perusahaan, ukuran-ukuran keuangan saja dinilai kurang mewakili. Hal ini disebabkan karena ukuran-ukuran keuangan memiliki beberapa kelemahan yaitu (Mulyadi, 1997): Pendekatan finansial bersifat historis sehingga hanya mampu memberikan indikator dari kinerja manajemen dan tidak mampu sepenuhnya menuntun perusahaan kearah yang lebih baik. Pengukuran lebih berorientasi kepada manajemen operasional dan kurang mengarah kepada manajemen strategis. Tidak mampu mempresentasikan kinerja intangible assets yang merupakan bagian struktur aser perusahaan.

Balanced scorecard dapat digunakan sebagai alternatif pengukuran kinerja perusahaan yang lebih komprehensif dan tidak hanya bertumpu pada pengukuran atas dasar perspektif keuangan saja. Hal ini terbukti dengan adanya manfaat-manfaat yang dirasakan oleh perusahaan-perusahaan yang menerapkannya.

source : http://pakpid.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/balance-scorecard/