Writing Sample
Chapter 3 Linking IT to Business Metrics
From the first time IT started making a significant dent in corporate balance sheets, the holy grail of academics, consultants, and business and IT managers has been to show that what a company spends on IT has a direct impact on its performance. Early efforts to do this, such as those trying to link various measures of IT input (e.g., budget dollars, number of PCs, number of projects) with various measures of business performance (e.g., profit, productivity, stock value) all failed to show any relationship at all (Marchand et al. 2000). Since then, everyone has prop- erly concluded that the relationship between what is done in IT and what happens in the business is considerably more complex than these studies first supposed. In fact, many researchers would suggest that the relationship is so filtered through a variety of “conversion effects” (Cronk and Fitzgerald 1999) as to be practically impossible to demonstrate. Most IT managers would agree. They have long argued that technology is not the major stumbling block to achieving business performance; it is the business itself—the processes, the managers, the culture, and the skills—that makes the differ- ence. Therefore, it is simply not realistic to expect to see a clear correlation between IT and business performance at any level. When technology is successful, it is a team effort, and the contributions of the IT and business components of an initiative cannot and should not be separated.
Nevertheless, IT expenditures must be justified. Thus, most companies have concentrated on determining the “business value” that specific IT projects deliver. By focusing on a goal that matters to business (e.g., better information, faster transaction processing, reduced staff), then breaking this goal down into smaller projects that IT can affect directly, they have tried to “peel the onion” and show specifically how IT delivers value in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, a series of surrogate measures are usually used to demonstrate IT’s impact in an organization. (See Chapter 1 for more details.)
More recently, companies are taking another look at business performance met- rics and IT. They believe it is time to “put the onion back together” and focus on what
1 This chapter is based on the authors’ previously published article, Smith, H. A., J. D. McKeen, and C. Street. “Linking IT to Business Metrics.” Journal of Information Science and Technology 1, no. 1 (2004): 13–26. Reproduced by permission of the Information Institute.
1
27
28 Section I • Delivering Value with IT
really matters to the enterprise. This perspective argues that employees who truly understand what their business is trying to achieve can sense the right ways to per- sonally improve performance that will show up at a business unit and organizational level. “People who understand the business and are informed will be proactive and ... have a disposition to create business value every day in many small and not-so-small ways” (Marchand et al. 2000). Although the connection may not be obvious, they say, it is there nevertheless and can be demonstrated in tangible ways. The key to linking what IT does to business performance is, therefore, to create an environment within which everyone thoroughly understands what measures are important to the business and is held accountable for them. This point of view does not suggest that all the work done to date to learn how IT delivers value to an organization (e.g., business cases, productivity measures) has been unnecessary, only that it is incomplete. Without close attention to business metrics in addition, it is easy for IT initiatives and staff to lose their focus and become less effective.
This chapter looks at how these controversial yet compelling ideas are being pursued in organizations to better understand how companies are attempting to link IT work and firm performance through business metrics. The first section describes how business metrics themselves are evolving and looks at how new management philosophies are changing how these measures are communicated and applied. Next it discusses the types of metrics that are important for a well-rounded program of business measurement and how IT can influence them. Then it presents three differ- ent ways companies are specifically linking their IT departments with business met- rics and the benefits and challenges they have experienced in doing this. This section concludes with some general principles for establishing a business measurement pro- gram in IT. Finally, it offers some advice to managers about how to succeed with such a program in IT.
Business MeasureMent: an Overview
Almost everyone agrees that the primary goal of a business is to make money for its shareholders (Goldratt and Cox 1984; Haspeslagh et al. 2001; Kaplan and Norton 1996). Unfortunately, in large businesses this objective frequently gets lost in the midst of people’s day-to-day activities because profit cannot be measured directly at the level at which most employees in a company work (Haspeslagh et al. 2001). This “missing link” between work and business performance leads companies to look for ways to bridge this gap. They believe that if a firm’s strategies for achieving its goal can be tied much more closely to everyday processes and decision making, frontline employees will be better able to create business value. Proponents of this value-based manage- ment (VBM) approach have demonstrated that an explicit, firmwide commitment to shareholder value, clear communication about how value is created or destroyed, and incentive systems that are linked to key business measures will increase the odds of a positive increase in share price (Haspeslagh et al. 2001).
Measurement counts. What a company measures and the way it measures influence both the mindsets of managers and the way people behave. The best measures are tied to business performance and are linked to the strategies and business capabilities of the company. (Marchand et al. 2000)
Chapter 3 • Linking IT to Business Metrics 29
Although companies ascribe to this notion in theory, they do not always act in ways that are consistent with this belief. All too often, therefore, because they lack clarity about the links between business performance and their own work, individuals and even business units have to take leaps of faith in what they do (Marchand et al. 2000).
Nowhere has this been more of a problem than in IT. As has been noted often, IT investments have not always delivered the benefits expected (Bensaou and Earl 1998; Holland and Sharke 2001; Peslak 2012). “Efforts to measure the link between IT investment and business performance from an economics perspective have... failed to establish a consistent causal linkage with sustained business profitability” (Marchand et al. 2000). Value-based management suggests that if IT staff do not understand the business, they cannot sense how and where to change it effectively with technology. Many IT and business managers have implicitly known this for some time. VBM simply gives them a better framework for implementing their beliefs more systematically.
One of the most significant efforts to integrate an organization’s mission and strategy with a measurement system has been Kaplan and Norton’s (1996) balanced scorecard. They explain that competing in the information age is much less about managing physical, tangible assets and much more about the ability of a company to mobilize its intangible assets, such as customer relationships, innovation, employee skills, and information technology. Thus, they suggest that not only should business measures look at how well a company has done in the past (i.e., financial performance), but they also need to look at metrics related to customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth that position the firm to achieve future performance. Although it is difficult putting a reliable monetary value on these items, Kaplan and Norton sug- gest that such nonfinancial measures are critical success factors for superior financial performance in the future. Research shows that this is, in fact, the case. Companies that use a balanced scorecard tend to have a better return on investment (ROI) than those that rely on traditional financial measures alone (Alexander 2000).
Today many companies use some sort of scorecard or “dashboard” to track a vari- ety of different metrics of organizational health. However, IT traditionally has not paid much attention to business results, focusing instead on its own internal measures of performance (e.g., IT operations efficiency, projects delivered on time). This has per- petuated the serious disconnect between the business and IT that often manifests itself in perceptions of poor alignment between the two groups, inadequate payoffs from IT investments, poor relationships, and finger-pointing (Holland and Sharke 2001; Peslak 2012; Potter 2013). All too often IT initiatives are conceived with little reference to major business results, relying instead on lower-level business value surrogates that are not always related to these measures. IT organizations are getting much better at this bot- tom-up approach to IT investment (Smith and McKeen 2010), but undelivered IT value remains a serious concern in many organizations. One survey of CFOs found that only 49 percent felt that their ROI expectations for technology had been met (Holland and Sharke 2001). “Despite considerable effort, no practical model has been developed to measure whether a company’s IT investments will definitely contribute to sustainable competitive advantage” (Marchand et al. 2000). Clearly, in spite of significant efforts over many years, traditional IT measurement programs have been inadequate at
30 Section I • Delivering Value with IT
assessing business value. Many IT organizations believe, therefore, that it is time for a different approach to delivering IT value, one that holds IT accountable to the same measures and goals as the rest of the business.
Key Business Metrics fOr it
No one seriously argues that IT has no impact on an organization’s overall financial performance anymore. There may be disagreement about whether it has a positive or a negative impact, but technology is too pervasive and significant an expense in most firms for it not to have some influence on the corporate bottom line. However, as has been argued earlier, we now recognize that neither technology nor business alone is responsible for IT’s financial impact. It is instead a joint responsibility of IT and the busi- ness. This suggests that they need to be held accountable together for its impact. Some companies have accepted this principle for individual IT projects (i.e., holding business and IT managers jointly responsible for achieving their anticipated benefits), yet few have extended it to an enterprise level. VBM suggests that this lack of attention to enter- prise performance by IT is one reason it has been so hard to fully deliver business value for technology investments. Holding IT accountable for a firm’s performance according to key financial metrics is, therefore, an important step toward improving its contribu- tion to the corporate bottom line.
However, although financial results are clearly an important part of any mea- surement of a business’s success today, they are not enough. Effective business metrics programs should also include nonfinancial measures, such as customer and employee satisfaction. As already noted, because such nonfinancial measures are predictive of future performance, they offer an organization the opportunity to make changes that will ultimately affect their financial success.
Kaplan and Norton (1996) state “the importance of customer satisfaction probably cannot be overemphasized.” Companies that do not understand their customers’ needs will likely lose customers and profitability. Research shows that merely adequate satis- faction is insufficient to lead to customer loyalty and ultimately profit. Only firms where customers are completely or extremely satisfied can achieve this result (Heskett et al. 1994). As a result, many companies now undertake systematic customer satisfaction surveys. However, in IT it is rare to find external customer satisfaction as one of the metrics on which IT is evaluated. While IT’s “customers” are usually considered to be internal, these days technology makes a significant difference in how external custom- ers experience a firm and whether or not they want to do business with it. Systems that are not reliable or available when needed, cannot provide customers with the informa- tion they need, or cannot give customers the flexibility they require are all too common. And with the advent of online business, systems and apps are being designed to inter- face directly with external customers. It is, therefore, appropriate to include external customer satisfaction as a business metric for IT.
Another important nonfinancial business measure is employee satisfaction. This is a “leading indicator” of customer satisfaction. That is, employee satisfaction in one year is strongly linked to customer satisfaction and profitability in the next (Koys 2001). Employees’ positive attitudes toward their company and their jobs lead to posi- tive behaviors toward customers and, therefore, to improved financial performance
Chapter 3 • Linking IT to Business Metrics 31
(Rucci et al. 1998; Ulrich et al. 1991). IT managers have always watched their own employee satisfaction rate intently because of its close links to employee turnover. However, they often miss the link between IT employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction—both internal customer satisfaction, which leads to improved general employee satisfaction, and external customer satisfaction. Thus, only a few companies hold IT managers accountable for general employee satisfaction.
Both customer and employee satisfaction should be part of a business metrics program for IT. With its ever-growing influence in organizations, technology is just as likely to affect external customer and general employee satisfaction as many other areas of a business. This suggests that IT has three different levels of measurement and accountability:
1. Enterprise measures. These tie the work of IT directly to the performance of the organization (e.g., external customer satisfaction, corporate financial performance). 2. Functional measures. These assess the internal work of the IT organization as a whole (e.g., IT employee satisfaction, internal customer satisfaction, operational
performance, development productivity). 3. Project measures. These assess the performance of a particular project team in
delivering specific value to the organization (e.g., business case benefits, delivery on time).
Functional and project measures are usually well addressed by IT measurement programs today. It is the enterprise level that is usually missing.
Designing Business Metrics fOr it
The firms that hold IT accountable for enterprise business metrics believe this approach fosters a common sense of purpose, enables everyone to make better decisions, and helps IT staff understand the implications of their work for the success of the organi- zation (Haspeslagh et al. 2001; Marchand et al. 2000; Potter 2013; Roberts 2013). The implementation of business metrics programs varies widely among companies, but three approaches taken to linking IT with business metrics are distinguishable.
1. Balanced scorecard. This approach uses a classic balanced scorecard with mea- sures in all four scorecard dimensions (see the “Sample Balanced Scorecard Business Metrics” feature). Each metric is selected to measure progress against the entire enterprise’s business plan. These are then broken down into business unit plans and appropriate submetrics identified. Individual scorecards are then developed with metrics that will link into their business unit scorecards. With this approach, IT is treated as a separate business unit and has its own scorecard linked to the business plan. “Our management finally realized that we need to have everyone thinking in the same way,” explained one manager. “With enterprise systems, we can’t have people working in silos anymore.” The scorecards are very visible in the organization with company and business unit scorecards and those of senior execu- tives posted on the company’s intranet. “People are extremely interested in seeing how we’re doing. Scorecards have provided a common framework for our entire company.” They also provide clarity for employees about their roles in how they affect key business metrics.
32 Section I • Delivering Value with IT Sample Balanced Scorecard Business Metrics
• Shareholdervalue(financial) • Expensemanagement(financial) • Customer/clientfocus(customer) • Loyalty(customer) • Customercentricorganization(customer) • Effectivenessandefficiencyofbusinessoperations(operations) • Riskmanagement(operations) • Contributiontofirmwideprioritiesandbusinessinitiatives(growth)
Although scorecards have meant that there is better understanding of the business’s drivers and plans at senior management levels, considerable resistance to them is still found at the lower levels in IT. “While developers see how they can affect our customers, they don’t see how they can affect shareholder value, profit, or revenue, and they don’t want to be held accountable for these things,” stated the same manager. She noted that implementing an effective scorecard program relies on three things: good data to provide better metrics, simplicity of metrics, and enforcement. “Now if someone’s scorecard is not complete, they cannot get a bonus. This is a huge incentive to follow the program.”
2. Modified scorecard. A somewhat different approach to a scorecard is taken by one company in the focus group. This firm has selected five key measures (see the “Modified Scorecard Business Metrics” feature) that are closely linked to the com- pany’s overall vision statement. Results are communicated to all staff on a quarterly basis in a short performance report. This includes a clear explanation of each mea- sure, quarterly progress, a comparison with the previous year’s quarterly results, and a “stretch” goal for the organization to achieve. The benefit of this approach is that it orients all employees in the company to the same mission and values. With everyone using the same metrics, alignment is much clearer all the way through the firm, according to the focus group manager.
In IT these key enterprise metrics are complemented by an additional set of business measures established by the business units. Each line of business identifies one or two key business unit metrics on which they and their IT team
Modified Scorecard Business Metrics
· Customer loyalty index. Percentage of customers who said they were very satisfied with the company and would recommend it to others.
· Associate loyalty index. Employees’ perception of the company as a great place to work.
· Revenue growth. This year’s total revenues as a percentage of last year’s total revenues.
· Operating margin. Operating income earned before interest and taxes for every dollar of
revenue.
· Return on capital employed. Earnings before interest and tax divided by the capital used
to generate the earnings.
Chapter 3 • Linking IT to Business Metrics 33
will be measured. Functional groups within IT are evaluated according to the same metrics as their business partners as well as on company and internal IT team performance. For example, the credit group in IT might be evaluated on the number of new credit accounts the company acquires. Shared IT services (e.g., infrastructure) are evaluated according to an average of all of the IT func- tional groups’ metrics.
The importance the company places on these metrics is reflected in the firm’s generous bonus program (i.e., bonuses can reach up to 230 percent of an individual’s salary) in which all IT staff participate. Bonuses are separate from an individual’s salary, which is linked to personal performance. The percentage influence of each set of business measures (i.e., enterprise, business unit, and individual/team) varies according to the level of the individual in the firm. However, all staff have at least 25 percent of their bonus linked to enterprise performance metrics. No bonuses are paid to anyone if the firm does not reach its earnings-per-share target (which is driven by the five enterprise measures out- lined in the “Modified Scorecard Business Metrics” feature). This incentive sys- tem makes it clear that everyone’s job is connected to business results and helps ensure that attention is focused on the things that are important to the company. As a result, interest is much stronger among IT staff about how the business is doing. “Everyone now speaks the same language,” said the manager. “Project alignment is much easier.”
3. Strategic imperatives. A somewhat different approach is taken by a third focus group company. Here the executive team annually evaluates the key environmen- tal factors affecting the company, then identifies a number of strategic imperatives for the firm (e.g., achieve industry-leading e-business capability, achieve 10–15 percent growth in earnings per share). These can vary according to the needs of the firm in any particular year. Each area of the business is then asked to identify initiatives that will affect these imperatives and to determine how they will be measured (e.g., retaining customers of a recent acquisition, increased net sales, a new product). In the same way, IT is asked to identify the key projects and mea- sures that will help the business to achieve these imperatives. Each part of the company, including IT, then integrates these measures into its variable pay pro- gram (VPP).
The company’s VPP links a percentage of an individual’s pay to business results and overall business unit performance. This percentage could vary from a small portion of one’s salary for a new employee to a considerable proportion for senior management. Within IT, the weight that different measures are accorded in the VPP portion of their pay is determined by a measurement team and approved by the CIO and the president. Figure 3.1 illustrates the different percentages allo- cated to IT’s variable pay component for a typical year. Metrics can change from year to year depending on where management wants to focus everyone’s attention. “Performance tends to improve if you measure it,” explained the manager. “Over the years, we have ratcheted up our targets in different areas. Once a certain level of performance is achieved, we may change the measure or change the emphasis on this measure.”
34
Section I • Delivering Value with IT
IT Variable Pay 100%
Business Results 40%
IT Performance 60%
Report Card Goals 30%
Key Projects 30%
Partner Satisfaction 10%
Application Delivery Effectiveness 5%
Production Availability 5%
Member Retention 5%
Product Recovery 5%
figure 3.1 Percentage Weightings Assigned to IT Variable Pay Components for a Particular Year
An important difference from the scorecard approach is the identification of key IT projects. “These are not all IT projects, but a small number that are closely aligned with the strategic business imperatives,” stated the manager. “Having the success of these projects associated with their variable pay drives everyone’s behavior. People tend to jump in and help if there’s a problem with one of them.” The goal in this process is for everyone to understand the VPP measures and to make them visible within IT. Targets and results are posted quarterly, and small groups of employees meet to discuss ideas about how they can influence business and IT goals. “Some amazing ideas have come out of these meetings,” said the manager. “Everyone knows what’s important, and these measures get attention. People use these metrics to make choices all the time in their work.”
Each of these business measurement programs has been implemented somewhat differently, but they all share several key features that could be considered principles of a good business metrics program for IT:
1. Focus on overall business performance. These programs all focus employees on both financial and nonfinancial enterprise performance and have an explicit expecta- tion that everyone in the organization can influence these results in some way.
2. Understanding is a critical success factor. If people are going to be held accountable for certain business results, it is important that they understand them. Similarly, if the organization is worried about certain results, this must be communicated as well. Holding regular staff meetings where people can ask ques- tions and discuss results is effective, as is providing results on a quarterly basis. Understanding is the goal. “If you can ask ... a person programming code and they can tell you three to four of their objectives and how those tie into the compa- ny’s performance and what the measures of achieving those objectives are, you’ve got it” (Alexander 2000).
3. Simplicity. Successful companies tend to keep their measures very simple and easy to use (Haspeslagh et al. 2001). In each approach already outlined, a limited number of measures are used. This makes it very easy for employees to calculate
Chapter 3 • Linking IT to Business Metrics 35
their bonuses (or variable pay) based on the metrics provided, which further
strengthens the linkage between company performance and individual effort. 4. Visibility. In each of the programs already discussed, metrics were made widely available to all staff on a quarterly basis. In one case they are posted on the com- pany’s intranet; in another they are distributed in a printed report; in a third they are posted in public areas of the office. Visibility encourages employee buy-in and accountability and stimulates discussion about how to do better or what is working
well. 5. Links to incentive systems. Successful companies tend to include a much
larger number of employees in bonus programs than unsuccessful ones (Haspeslagh et al. 2001). Extending incentive schemes to all IT staff, not just management, is important to a measurement program’s effectiveness. The most effective programs appear to distinguish between fair compensation for individual work and competencies and a reward for successfully achieving corporate objectives.
aDvice tO Managers
The focus group had some final advice for other IT managers who are thinking of implementing a business metrics program:
• Results will take time. It takes time to change attitudes and behavior in IT, but it is worth making the effort. Positive results may take from six months to a year to appear. “We had some initial pushback from our staff at the beginning,” said one manager, “but now the metrics program has become ingrained in our attitudes and behaviors.” Another manager noted, “We had a few bumps during our first year, but everyone, especially our executives, is getting better at the program now [that] we’re in our third year. It really gets our staff engaged with the business.” If there has been no dramatic difference within three years, management should recognize that it is either using the wrong measures or hasn’t got employee buy-in to the pro- gram (Alexander 2000).
• Have common goals. Having everyone measured on the same business goals helps build a strong team at all levels in the organization. It makes it easier to set priorities as a group and collaborate and share resources, as needed.
· Follow up on problem areas. Companies must be prepared to take action about poor results and involve staff in their plans. In particular, if companies are going to ask customers and employees what they think, they must be prepared to act on the results. All metrics must be taken seriously and acted on if they are to be used to drive behavior and lead to continuous improvement.
· Be careful what you measure. Measuring something makes people pay attention to it, particularly if it is linked to compensation. Metrics must, therefore, be selected with care because they will be a major driver of behavior. For example, if incen- tives are solely based on financial results, it is probable that some people may be so driven that they will trample on the needs and interests of others. Similarly, if only costs are measured, the needs of customers could be ignored. Conversely, if a metric indicates a problem area, organizations can expect to see a lot of ingenuity and sup- port devoted to addressing it.
36 Section I • Delivering Value with IT
• Don’t use measurement as a method of control. A business metrics program should be designed to foster an environment in which people look beyond their own jobs and become proactive about the needs of the organization (Marchand et al. 2000). It should aim to communicate strategy and help align individual and organizational initiatives (Kaplan and Norton 1996). All managers should clearly
understand that a program of this but rather as a motivational tool.
Conclusion
Getting the most value out of IT has been a serious concern of business for many years. In spite of considerable effort, measurement initiatives in IT that use surrogates of busi- ness value or focus on improving internal IT behavior have not been fully successful in delivering results. Expecting IT to participate in achieving specific enterprise objectives— the same goals as the rest of the organiza- tion—has been shown to deliver significant benefits. Not only are there demonstrable financial returns, but there is also consider- able long-term value in aligning everyone’s behavior with the same goals; people become more supportive of each other and more
References
Alexander, S. “Business Metrics.” Computerworld 34, no. 24 (2000): 64.
Bensaou, M., and M. Earl. “The Right Mind-Set for Managing Information Technology.” Harvard Business Review 76, no. 5 (September–October 1998): 110–28.
Cronk, M., and E. Fitzgerald. “Understanding ‘IS Business Value’: Derivation of Dimensions.” Logistics Information Management 12, no. 1–2 (1999): 40–49.
Goldratt, E., and J. Cox. The Goal: Excellence in Manufacturing. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, 1984.
Haspeslagh, P., T. Noda, and F. Boulos. “Managing for Value: It’s Not Just About the Numbers.” Harvard Business Review (July–August 2001): 65–73.
type should not be used for controlling behavior,
sensitive to the greater corporate good, and decisions are easier to make. A good business metrics program, therefore, appears to be a powerful component of effective measure- ment in IT. IT employees may initially resist accountability for business results, but the experiences of the focus group demonstrate that their objections are usually short lived. If a business measurement program is carefully designed, properly linked to an incentive pro- gram, widely implemented, and effectively monitored by management, it is highly likely that business performance will become an integral part of the mind-set of all IT staff and ultimately pay off in a wide variety of ways.
Heskett, J., T. Jones, G. Loveman, E. Sasser, and L. Schlesinger. “Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work.” Harvard Business Review (March– April 1994): 164–74.
Holland, W., and G. Sharke. “Is Your IT System VESTed?” Strategic Finance 83, no. 6 (December 2001): 34–37.
Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Koys, D. “The Effects of Employee Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Turnover on Organizational Effectiveness: A Unit-Level, Longitudinal Study.” Personnel Psychology 54, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 101–14.
Marchand, D., W. Kettinger, and J. Rollins. “Information Orientation: People, Technology
and the Bottom Line.” Sloan Management
Review (Summer 2000): 69–89. Peslak, A. R. “An Analysis of Critical Information
Technology Issues Facing Organizations.” Industrial Management and Data Systems 112, no. 5 (2012): 808–27.
Potter, K. “Business Key Metrics Data: Accelerate the IT Value Journey.” Gartner Group, ID: G00256958, October 16, 2013.
Roberts, J. P. “Define Strategic IT Metrics as Part of Your IT Strategy.” Gartner Group, ID: G0025861, November 5, 2013.
Chapter 3 • Linking IT to Business Metrics 37
Rucci, A., S. Kirn, and R. Quinn. “The Employee- Customer-Profit Chain at Sears.” Harvard Business Review 76 (January/February 1998): 82–97.
Smith, H., and J. McKeen. “Investment Spend Optimization at BMO Financial Group.” MISQ Executive 9, no. 2 (June 2010): 65–81.
Ulrich, D., R. Halbrook, D. Meder, M. Stuchlik, and S. Thorpe. “Employee and Customer Attachment: Synergies for Competitive Advantage.” Human Resource Planning 14 (1991): 89–103.