help with final proj 4 due in 48 hours

Balanced_Scorecard.PDF

Home >Education homework help >help with final proj 4 due in 48 hours

providing B2G services. Start-ups and other companies with little or no B2G experience can gain a foothold in the sector as a subcontractor to a more established B2G operator.

• Take advantage of online registries—government agencies often post new contract opportunities on official online hubs. For example, the U.S. federal government uses https://www.fbo.gov as its listing site. B2G-sector companies should register with all relevant sites and, in most cases, use them as the initial portal to the bidding process.

• Develop a B2G marketing strategy—although successfully navigating the formal bidding process is an indispensable component of B2G commerce, most companies that make government contracts a central part of their business models also deploy various marketing strategies that are tailored to promote their products and services to government agencies. For example, email-based campaigns are considered particularly effective as a way to reach and influence specific decision makers. Face-to-face networking is another valuable way to establish and maintain an ongoing relationship with decision makers and is especially recommended for businesses that want contracts from midsized and smaller municipalities, where a comparatively small number of individuals may be responsible for awarding contracts. Companies should seek out and take full advantage of face-to-face networking opportunities such as community events and government-hosted business and commerce convocations. Experts also recommend focusing B2G marketing efforts on educational outreach. Governments often hire contractors and consultants because their own employees lack the expertise to execute specific tasks. Canny B2G operators can raise their profile with decision makers by offering educational opportunities such as training seminars and webinars in their areas of specialization.

With billions of dollars in federal, state, and munic- ipal contracts awarded every year, most organizations with the ability to service such contracts should at least consider entering the B2G sector. Consistently landing contracts of any scale, however, will require concentrated effort and a significant level of proficiency. The assistance of outside consultants and specialists is recommended for any organ- ization seeking to derive a significant portion of its income from government contract work.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

FURTHER READING

‘‘Competition in Contracting.’’ USAspending.gov, 2018. Available from: https://datalab.usaspending.gov/competition-in-contrac ting.html.

Flammer, Caroline. ‘‘Competing for Government Procurement Contracts: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility.’’ Strategic Management Journal 39, no. 5 (May 2018): 1299– 1324.

Martin, Marci. ‘‘A Small Business Guide to Government Contracting.’’ Business News Daily, February 6, 2018.

Srinivasan, Anand. ‘‘How to Succeed as a Business-to-Government (B2G) Startup.’’ Entrepreneur, April 25, 2018. Available from: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311806.

BALANCE SHEETS SEE Financial Statements.

BALANCED SCORECARD The balanced scorecard is a performance measurement tool developed in 1992 by Robert S. Kaplan, a professor of accounting at the Harvard Business School, and David P. Norton, cofounder of the Massachusetts-based strategy consulting firm Renaissance Worldwide Inc. Kaplan and Norton’s research led them to believe that traditional finan- cial measures, such as return on investment, could not provide an accurate picture of a company’s performance in the innovative business environment of the 1990s. Rather than forcing managers to choose between ‘‘hard’’ financial measures and ‘‘soft’’ operational measures—such as customer retention, product development cycle times, or employee satisfaction—they developed a method that would allow managers to consider both types of measures in a balanced way. ‘‘The balanced scorecard includes finan- cial measures that tell the results of actions already taken,’’ Kaplan and Norton explain in the seminal 1992 Harvard Business Review article that launched the balanced scorecard methodology. ‘‘And it complements the financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, inter- nal processes, and the organization’s innovation and improvement activities—operational measures that are the drivers of future financial performance.’’

The balanced scorecard provides a framework for managers to use in linking the different types of measure- ments together. Kaplan and Norton recommend looking at the business from four perspectives: the customer’s perspective, an internal business perspective, an innova- tion and learning perspective, and the financial (or share- holder’s) perspective. Using the overall corporate strategy as a guide, managers derive three to five goals related to each perspective, and then develop specific measures to support each goal. Ideally, the scorecard helps managers to clarify their vision for the organization and translate that vision into measurable actions that employees can understand. It also enables managers to balance the

Balance Sheets

34 E NCYC LOPEDI A OF MANAGEME NT, 8 TH EDITION

concerns of various stakeholders to improve the com- pany’s overall performance. ‘‘The balanced scorecard is a powerful concept based on a simple principle: managers need a balanced set of performance indicators to run an organization well,’’ Paul McCunn explains in an article for Management Accounting. ‘‘The indicators should measure performance against the critical success factors of the business, and the ‘balance’ is the balancing tension between the traditional financial and nonfinancial opera- tional, leading and lagging, and action-oriented and monitoring measures.’’

According to the Financial Times, the balanced scorecard was used by 80 percent of large U.S. companies in 2004. However, the tool’s popularity began to decline by the latter half of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Bain & Company’s annual Management Tools and Trends survey found that 66 percent of executives used a balanced scorecard in 2006. By 2014 that figure had dropped to 38 percent, and by 2017 only 29 percent of executives surveyed said they used the balanced score- card. Nevertheless, the consulting firm 2GC’s Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey for 2017 found that the tool remained an important part of business management strategy, albeit one that relied on careful design and implementation.

Some companies have enjoyed considerable success using the balanced scorecard. After the electronics retailer Best Buy implemented the balanced scorecard in 2003, its revenue, stock price, and dividends rose dramatically. In 2009 the company used the tool to recognize strengths as well as areas of improvement throughout its vendor factories, including benchmarking factories and vendors based on their compliance to make sourcing decisions;

measuring the gap between existing practices and best practices; and assessing where monitoring was most needed. As a result, Best Buy saw balanced scorecard results relating to vendor factory compliance improve by almost 5 percent in fiscal 2009.

The consulting firm Palladium Group advises organ- izations on business strategy, with an emphasis on using the balanced scorecard approach. Every year it gives its Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame award to organizations that have successfully implemented the strategy. In 2017 it recognized the Chilean meat producer Agrosuper, which had adopted the approach five years earlier to help it expand globally. According to Palladium, during that time Agrosuper realized several positive results: ‘‘Revenue increased by 99% while EBITDA [earnings before inter- est, tax, depreciation and amortization] increased 261%. The organisation went from being the 7th highest rated supermarket supplier to being the top rated supplier. Various key productivity measures also improved includ- ing a 10% increase in the number of kilograms of meat produced per work hour.’’

HISTORY OF THE BALANCED SCORECARD

APPROACH

In 1990 Kaplan and Norton conducted a year-long research project involving twelve large companies. The original idea behind the study, as Anita van de Vliet explains in an article in Management Today, was that ‘‘relying primarily on financial accounting measures was leading to short-term decision-making, over-investment in easily valued assets (through mergers and acquisitions) with readily measurable returns, and under-investment in intangible assets, such as product and process innovation, employee skills, or customer satisfaction, whose short- term returns are more difficult to measure.’’

Kaplan and Norton looked at the way these compa- nies used performance measurements to control the behav- ior of managers and employees. They used their findings to devise a new performance measurement system that would provide businesses with a balanced view of financial and operational measures. Kaplan and Norton laid out their balanced scorecard approach to performance meas- urement in three Harvard Business Review articles begin- ning in 1992. Before long, the balanced scorecard had become one of the hottest topics at management confer- ences around the world. In fact, the Harvard Business Review called it one of the most important and influential management ideas of the past seventy-five years. In 1996 Kaplan and Norton expanded on their original concept in the book The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. They followed up with four other books that further developed the approach: The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive

Financial perspective

(How does the company appear to shareholders?)

Internal business perspective

(What are the critical business processes at which we must excel?)

Customer perspective

(How does the company appear to customers?)

Innovation & learning perspective

(How can we continue to improve and create value?)

Balanced Scorecard

E NCYCLO PEDI A O F MA NAGEMENT , 8 TH E DIT IO N 35

in the New Business Environment (2001), Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes (2004), Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies (2006), and The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage (2008).

THE FOUR PERSPECTIVES

Kaplan and Norton’s basic balanced scorecard asks manag- ers to view their business from four different perspectives: the customer perspective, an internal business perspective, an innovation and learning perspective, and the financial perspective. These perspectives are relevant to all types of businesses.

However, additional perspectives also may be impor- tant in certain types of businesses. For example, a com- pany in the oil industry might wish to incorporate an environmental regulation perspective. In this way, the balanced scorecard maintains some flexibility for compa- nies with special needs to add other perspectives. Other such perspectives can include people, operations, and leadership. ‘‘Since the mid-1990s commentators have proposed changes to the number of and names used for the balanced scorecard perspectives,’’ 2GC explains in its Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2010. ‘‘The survey shows that the original four headings remain dominant— though the emergence of ‘stakeholder’ and ‘learning’ as popular headings may indicate these suggestions are beginning to have an effect.’’ In its report on the 2016 survey, 2GC notes the emergence of other new perspec- tive names, including ‘‘organizational capability,’’ ‘‘risk related,’’ and ‘‘environment/safety.’’

Customer Perspective. According to Kaplan and Norton, viewing a business from the customer perspective involves asking the question ‘‘How do customers see us?’’ They contend that many companies in a wide range of industries have made customer service a priority. The balanced score- card allows managers to translate this broad goal into specific measures that reflect the issues that are most impor- tant to customers. For example, Kaplan and Norton men- tion four main areas of customer concern: time, quality, cost, and performance. They recommend that companies establish a goal for each of these areas and then translate each goal into one or more specific measurements. Kaplan and Norton note that some possible measures, such as percentage of sales from new products, can be determined from inside the company. Other measures, such as on-time delivery, will depend on the requirements of each customer. To incorporate such measures into the balanced scorecard, managers will need to obtain outside information through customer evaluations or benchmarking. Collecting data from outside the company is a valuable exercise because it forces managers to view their company from the customers’ perspective.

Internal Business Perspective. The internal business per- spective is closely related to the customer perspective. ‘‘After all, excellent customer performance derives from processes, decisions, and actions occurring throughout an organization,’’ Kaplan and Norton write. ‘‘Managers need to focus on those critical internal operations that enable them to satisfy customer needs.’’ Viewing a com- pany from the internal business perspective involves ask- ing the question ‘‘What must we excel at?’’ Kaplan and Norton recommend focusing first on the internal proc- esses that impact customer satisfaction, such as quality, productivity, cycle time, and employee skills. Using these critical processes as a base, managers should develop goals that will help the company meet its customers’ expect- ations. These goals should then be translated into meas- ures that can be influenced by employee actions. It is important that internal goals and measures are broken down at the local level to provide a link between top management goals and individual employee actions. ‘‘This linkage ensures that employees at lower levels in the organization have clear targets for actions, decisions, and improvement activities that will contribute to the com- pany’s overall mission,’’ the authors explained.

Innovation and Learning Perspective. By including the innovation and learning perspective in their balanced score- card, Kaplan and Norton recognized that modern compa- nies must make continual improvements to succeed in an intensely competitive global business environment. ‘‘A company’s ability to innovate, improve, and learn ties directly to the company’s value,’’ they note. That is, only through the ability to launch new products, create more value for customers, and improve operating efficiencies continually can a company penetrate new markets and increase revenues and margins—in short, grow and thereby increase shareholder value. Accordingly, viewing a business from the innovation and learning perspective involves ask- ing the question ‘‘How can we continue to improve and create value?’’ Managers should establish goals related to innovation and learning, and then translate the goals into specific measures, such as increasing the percentage of the company’s sales derived from new products.

Financial Perspective. Kaplan and Norton developed the balanced scorecard at a time when financial measures were increasingly coming under attack from management experts. Critics claimed that judging performance by finan- cial measures encouraged companies to focus on short-term results and avoid taking actions that would create value over the long term. They also argued that financial measures looked backward at past actions rather than forward at future possibilities. Some experts told managers to focus solely on operational improvements and allow the financial performance to improve on its own.

Balanced Scorecard

36 E NCYC LOPEDI A OF MANAGEME NT, 8 TH EDITION

Although these arguments convinced Kaplan and Norton to conduct their study of performance measure- ment, they found that financial controls are an important part of the puzzle. They claim that managers need to know whether or not their operational improvements are reflected in the bottom line. If not, it may mean that management needs to reevaluate its strategy for the busi- ness. ‘‘Measures of customer satisfaction, internal busi- ness performance, and innovation and improvement are derived from the company’s particular view of the world and its perspective on key success factors. But that view is not necessarily correct,’’ Kaplan and Norton write. ‘‘Periodic financial statements remind executives that improved quality, response time, productivity, or new products benefit the company only when they are trans- lated into improved sales and market share, reduced operating expenses, or higher asset turnover.’’

Thus, the fourth perspective in the balanced scorecard asks the question ‘‘How do we look to shareholders?’’ Some of the goals a company might set in this area involve profitability, growth, and shareholder value. The measures attached to these goals might include traditional financial performance measures, such as return on assets or earnings per share. Although these measures can prove misleading when taken alone, when incorporated into a balanced scorecard they can provide managers with valuable infor- mation about whether the strategy has contributed to bottom-line improvement. According to Kaplan and Nor- ton, a common mistake for managers making large-scale operational improvements is failing to follow up with addi- tional actions. For example, a company might undertake a quality improvement initiative that, when implemented successfully, creates excess capacity or makes certain employees redundant. Financial measurements will point out the need to make further changes.

DEVELOPING A BALANCED SCORECARD

Development of a balanced scorecard begins with the company’s overall strategy or vision. It is important to consult with top management, rather than line managers, to obtain a clear picture of where the company wants to be in three to five years. The next step is to appoint a ‘‘score- card architect’’ to establish the framework and method- ology for designing the scorecard. With this framework in mind, the organization must define a linked set of strategic objectives that will lead the company toward top manage- ment’s vision. These objectives should be true drivers of performance for the business as a whole, rather than a list of separate goals for business units or departments. It may be helpful to begin with the four perspectives included in the balanced scorecard model and then add more if needed, depending on the industry.

At this point, most companies will begin to involve line managers and staff members—and perhaps even customers—in establishing goals or objectives. The involvement might take the form of an executive work- shop at which participants review and discuss the goals and appropriate measures. This approach builds consen- sus around the balanced scorecard and reduces the poten- tial for unrealistic goals to be handed down from the top.

The strategic objectives of the balanced scorecard provide a framework for managers to use in developing specific performance measures. ‘‘Most of the measures we use are not new, but they had been held in different silos, different boxes, in the organization,’’ Rick Ander- son, a performance analyst at BP Chemicals, told van de Vliet. ‘‘The [balanced scorecard] approach has brought existing measures onto one piece of paper, so everybody can relate to one area.’’ The goals and measures in an organization’s balanced scorecard can be broken down to provide custom scorecards for all business levels, even down to individual employees. These custom scorecards show how an employee’s work activities link to the business’s overall strategy. For incentive and compensa- tion purposes, it is possible to assign weights to each measure based on its importance to the company and the individual’s ability to affect it.

Once the balanced scorecard is in place, the next step is to collect and analyze the data for performance meas- urements. This data will enable the organization to see its strong performance areas, as well as areas for potential improvement. It is important to supply the performance data to employees and to empower employees to find ways to sustain high performance and improve poor performance. Managers must also realize that the bal- anced scorecard is not set in stone. Experience in using the scorecard may point out areas that should be modi- fied or adapted. In addition, managers may find ways to tie the scorecard into other areas, such as budgets, resource allocation, compensation, succession planning, and employee development.

AVOIDING POTENTIAL PITFALLS

Numerous organizations have implemented some version of the balanced scorecard since its introduction in 1992. However, Claude Lewy of the Free University of Amster- dam found that 70 percent of scorecard implementations failed. Many companies are attracted by the power and simplicity of the balanced scorecard concept but then find implementation to be extremely time consuming and expensive. Lewy admits that the balanced scorecard can be an effective way of translating an overall strategy to the many parts of an organization. However, he stresses that organizations must have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish and be willing to commit the necessary

Balanced Scorecard

E NCYCLO PEDI A O F MA NAGEMENT , 8 TH E DIT IO N 37

resources to successfully implement the balanced score- card. Along with Lex Du Mee of KPMG Management Consulting, Lewy conducted a study of seven European companies and came up with what he called the Ten Commandments of Balanced Scorecard Implementation.

To ensure an effective balanced scorecard implemen- tation, Lewy and Du Mee recommend that organizations obtain the commitment of a top-level sponsor, as well as relevant line managers. The balanced scorecard initia- tive must be the organization’s top priority if implemen- tation is to succeed. Lewy and Du Mee also emphasize the importance of putting strategic goals in place before implementing the scorecard. Otherwise, the goals and measures included in the scorecard are likely to drive the wrong behavior. Lewy and Du Mee suggest that organizations try a pilot program before moving on to full-scale implementation. Testing the balanced scorecard in a few key business areas enables managers to make necessary changes and increase support for the initiative before involving the entire company. It also is important to provide information and training to employees prior to an organization-wide rollout.

Lewy and Du Mee warn managers against using the balanced scorecard as a way to achieve extra top-down control. Employees are unlikely to support the goals and measures if the scorecard is used as a ‘‘gotcha’’ by man- agement. Another potential pitfall, according to the researchers, is trying to use a standardized scorecard. Instead, they stress that each organization must devote the time and resources to develop its own customized program. Lewy and Du Mee say that balanced scorecard implementation is more likely to fail when companies underestimate the amount of training and communica- tion required during the introductory phase, or the extra workload and costs involved with periodic reporting later on. Although the balanced scorecard appears to be a simple idea, implementing it usually brings about signifi- cant changes in an organization.

SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT

Once the balanced scorecard has been implemented suc- cessfully, the next significant task involves collecting and analyzing measurement data. ‘‘To get the best results an organisation should want its Balanced Scorecards to be reported and reviewed frequently,’’ 2GC explains. It also notes that ‘‘software automation is a good way to ensure more frequent reporting and to trigger the decision mak- ing changes that lead to improved performance.’’ Dozens of software vendors offer products dedicated to the bal- anced scorecard. These include tools for designing score- cards, tracking and analyzing performance measures, and generating strategy maps and reports. The most robust solutions offer the ability to link to desktop software such

as Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint and to aggregate data across an organization’s various departments.

Software is only a piece of the larger machine that makes the balanced scorecard an effective tool for the modern business. Any combination of methodologies, software, and literature might prove effective or disas- trous, and depends on a variety of factors. Seeking the advice of people who are well versed in balanced score- card implementation, whether inside the organization or via an outside consulting firm, can often make the difference in future successful implementations.

SEE ALSO Organizational Performance; Strategy Formulation.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

FURTHER READING

2GC Limited. Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2010: Summary of Findings. Berkshire, England: Author, 2010. Available from: https://2gc.eu/assets/files/site/Survey_Files/2GC-BSCSurvey 101006Screen.pdf.

———. Balanced Scorecard Usage Survey 2016: Summary of Findings. Berkshire, England: Author, 2017. Available from: https://2gc.eu/assets/files/site/Survey_Files/2016_Survey_ Document_Final.pdf.

Best Buy. Open Source: Corporate Responsibility 2009. Richfield, MN: Author, 2009.

Bolt-Lee, Cynthia E., and Monte Swain. ‘‘Highlights of Management Accounting Research: Learn What the Scholarly Community Has to Say about the Balanced Scorecard, Performance Reviews, and Other Management Accounting Topics.’’ Journal of Accountancy 222, no. 6 (December 2016).

‘‘Hall of Fame 2017 Winners Announced at Positive Impact Summit.’’ Press release. London: Palladium Group, March 15, 2018. Available from: http://thepalladiumgroup.com/ who/news/Hall-of-Fame-2017-winners-announced-at-Positive- Impact-Summit.

Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.

———. ‘‘The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive Performance.’’ Harvard Business Review 70, no. 1 (1992): 71.

———. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.

———. The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2008.

———. ‘‘Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work.’’ Harvard Business Review 71, no. 5 (1993).

———. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001.

———. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.

———. ‘‘Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System.’’ Harvard Business Review 74, no. 1 (1996): 75.

Lester, Tom. ‘‘Measure for Measure: The Balanced Scorecard Remains a Widely Used Management Tool, but Great Care

Balanced Scorecard

38 E NCYC LOPEDI A OF MANAGEME NT, 8 TH EDITION

Must Be Taken to Select Appropriate and Relevant Metrics.’’ Financial Times, October 6, 2004.

Lewy, Claude, and Lex Du Mee. ‘‘The Ten Commandments of Balanced Scorecard Implementation.’’ Management Control and Accounting, April 1998.

McCunn, Paul. ‘‘The Balanced Scorecard . . . the Eleventh Commandment.’’ Management Accounting 76, no. 11 (1998): 34.

Niven, Paul R. Balanced Scorecard Evolution: A Dynamic Approach to Strategy Execution. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Rigby, Darrell, and Barbara Bilodeau. Management Tools and Trends 2007. Boston: Bain & Company, 2007. Available from: http://www.bain.com/management_tools/Management_Tools_ and_Trends_2007.pdf.

———. Management Tools & Trends. Boston: Bain & Company, 2018. Available from: http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_ BRIEF-Management_Tools_and_Trends.pdf.

Van de Vliet, Anita. ‘‘The New Balancing Act.’’ Management Today, July 1997, 78.

BAR CODING AND RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION Bar coding and radio frequency identification (RFID) are technologies that automatically identify items, capture data about them, and convey that information to a com- puter system. Bar coding is the simpler and less expensive choice. It utilizes patterned shapes containing encoded data that are read via scanning or camera imagery. The retail industry relies heavily on bar coding to facilitate product tracking and point-of-sale transactions. RFID is a more sophisticated technology. It uses radio waves that interact with integrated circuits built into thin compo- nents called ‘‘tags.’’ RFID tags hold much more encoded data than bar codes; however, RFID systems are more expensive to deploy. Both technologies are widely used for logistical purposes and to enhance inventory control and supply chain management.

BAR CODING HISTORY

In ‘‘The History of the Bar Code,’’ Gavin Weightman of Smithsonian Magazine indicates that the inventor N. Joseph Woodland (1921–2012) developed the bar code concept in 1949 with his colleague Bernard Silver (1925?–1963). Woodland envisioned sets of wide and narrow lines that would function much like the dots and dashes in Morse code. The two created and patented a rough working system. However, the optical scanning technologies of the time were too crude to make bar coding commercially viable.

Following the introduction of the laser in 1960, the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) developed a more refined bar code scanner. It read bars arranged in concentric

circles such as a bull’s-eye pattern. During the early 1970s the system was field tested in a grocery store and proved workable. The Ad Hoc Committee of the Universal Product Identification Code, a grocery industry group, was searching for a bar coding system to adapt as the industry standard. The committee considered the RCA system but chose a different design proffered by the engineer George J. Laurer (b. 1925) at the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). His bar code was a rectangular arrangement of bars and spaces that resembled a picket fence. This format (or symbology, as it is called) was selected as the model for the Universal Product Code (UPC) that was placed on the labels or packaging of consumer products. UPCs became ubiqui- tous throughout the retail industry for inventory tracking and speeding the checkout process for customers.

Originally, bar codes appeared in print form only. However, in the twenty-first century bar codes can also be rendered on the screens of computers, smartphones, and other digital devices. For example, a smartphone user can click on a link at a website to produce a bar code on the phone’s screen that serves as a ticket to enter a concert or other event.

BAR CODE SYMBOLOGIES

Since the 1970s, dozens of bar code symbologies have been created and standardized by various organizations and industries. Some of the systems are proprietary and others are open-source, meaning they can be used by any business that wishes to adapt them for its own purposes.

One-Dimensional Symbologies. All of the ‘‘picket-fence’’ type bar codes are called one-dimensional (1D) symbol- ogies because they have data that is encoded only in a linear direction. These bar codes contain a series of parallel black bars and white spaces, both of varying widths. Bars and spaces together are called ‘‘elements.’’ Different com- binations of the bars and spaces represent different char- acters, such as numbers or letters. Some symbologies support only numeric characters, whereas others support alphanumeric characters.

The data encoded in 1D bar codes is only decipher- able with the aid of a computer database. For example, a bar code on a product label contains an identifier that can be matched with database information such as price, prod- uct type, place of manufacture, or origin of shipment.

Two-Dimensional Symbologies. During the late 1980s companies introduced two-dimensional (2D) symbolo- gies that encode data in two directions. Some of these symbologies are called stacked bar codes because they look like overlapping layers of linear bar codes. Other

Bar Coding and Radio Frequency Identification

E NCYCLO PEDI A O F MA NAGEMENT , 8 TH E DIT IO N 39