Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Closing Thoughts
Appendix Results of a SCIP 2003 Conference Workout Session
2
Todays Presentation
IN SCOPE
Examination Process, Questions To Ponder When Developing Personal Model
Annas Experience At GE Comparing Practices / Experiences
OUT OF SCOPE
One Size Fits All Model Ongoing Measurement Maritz Detail evolving, too new
Does The Company Generally Value Long-Term Planning & Forward Looking Efforts
In a Tight Financial Environment, Will Operating Areas / BUs Take Full Credit for Successes or Is There a Mechanism for Shared Glory ?
5
How Do We Compare ?
Pricing Capabilities Servicing
What Differentiates Us From Competitors in the Eyes of Our Clients & Prospects ? What Are The Competitors Saying About Us & Do Clients Believe It ? What Are Our Competitors Sales Strategy & Marketing Messaging ? Who Are The Emerging Competitors ? How Confident Are You in the Answers, How Do We Know This, What Role Did You Play in Gaining This Understanding & What (Time/Money) Did It Cost Us ?
Quantitative Improvements
Revenue Net Income Margins Client Satisfaction
Access To Internal Records, Some Level of Sophistication in Those Records & Internal Client Advocates Validating Contributions is Key
7
Once Linkage of CI Activities to Improvement Firmly Established, Begin Migration To Attribution Given This Model, What Then Are The Metrics ?
Are those stakeholders also financing other related resources what is their total CI spend (their perspective) ?
What other stakeholders have influence, despite not providing funding directly ?
10
Corporate Leadership
Revenue Growth
(Baseline / Stretch)
10 % / 15 %
8 % / 10%
8 % / 10 %
8% / 10%
Customers
Cost Reductions
(Baseline / Stretch)
10% / 15%
10% / 15 %
15% / 20%
30% / 35%
15 % / 25
Other
Expand Internationally
11
Qualitative
BU Stakeholder / % CI Support Initiative / Our Metric -- Benefit Statements Linked To
Corporate Leadership
12
Quantitative
BU Stakeholder / % CI Support Initiative / Our Metric
Corporate Leadership
% Requests Delivered (To Spec) On/Below Budget Degree of Proactivity & Ability To Triangulate Actionable Intelligence (survey) Overall & Segmented Satisfaction Rating (survey)
13
Closing Thoughts
There Is No Silver Bullet You Can Please Some of the People All of the Time, You Can Please All of the People Some of the Time, But You Cant Please All of the People All of the Time The Key Is To:
Believe in Your Value Proposition Be Able To Express It Clearly & Concisely Learn From Your Experiences Keep The Momentum Going
14
Preliminary Conclusions From the Study These conclusions will be addressed utilizing the four main categories under which the 20 questions were grouped. 1. Reasons for measuring ROI: Respondents had no difficulty in providing justification to go through the process of measuring CI ROI. Similarly, they saw a wide group of users within the organization who would be interested in this information, ranging from executive management, business unit management, the CI group, to external customers. Respondents saw good uses of the CI ROI information as putting a mark of validity of CI within the organization & cost justification for CI resources such as people & tools. Bad uses of CI ROI information included political/bureaucratic posturing & budget raiding & cuts. Another justification for measuring CI ROI given was that other staff functions in their organizations measured their ROI, & the methods utilized were given. There was no lack of respondents citing benefits to their organizations with an accurate CI ROI measurement, which included: CI performance demonstration, justification of acquiring new resources, increasing business for the CI function & the firm, to the movement of CI from being a cost centre to a profit centre.
15
16
17
2) Damodaran, A. (1999). Applied Corporate Finance: A User's Manual. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 5, "Measuring Return on Investments," pp.120-186
3) Ezzamel, M. (1992). Business Unit & Divisional Performance Measurement. New York, NY: Academic Press. Chapter 2, "Traditional Accounting Measures of Performance," pp.19-44. 4) Horngren, C.T., Sundem, G.L., Stratton, W.O. & H.D. Teall. (1996). Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall Canada. pp. 449-452 5) Ingram, R.W., Albright, T.L. & J.W. Hill. (2001). Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions. Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern College Publishing. pp. M306-M312 6) Lumby, S. & C. Jones (1998). Investment Appraisal & Financial Decisions. London, UK: International Thompson Business Press. pp. 48-51 7) McMenamin, J. (1999). Financial Management: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 12, 16-18, 23, 44, 50-51, 301-304, 312, 317, 319-321, 324-325, 331, 360, 362, 419 8) Riahi-Belkaoui, A. Advanced Management Accounting. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. pp. 186, 258-263 9) Weston, J.F. & T.E. Copeland. (1989). Managerial Finance. Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press. pp.108-109, 186, 228-231
18
Speaker Bio
Anna Shallenberger is the Director of Business Research @ Maritz Inc. Previously, Anna served as Director, Knowledge Leverage for GE Capitals GEFA division (now known as GE Insurance.) Her experience prior to GE includes running her own consulting business & managing Investment Banking Research Centers on Wall Street. Anna recently returned to St. Louis after 17 years in the NYC metro area. She holds a BA in Economics & German from Westminster College & an MS in Information Science from Rutgers University. Her studies include sessions @ Albert-Ludwigs Universitat (Freiburg, Germany) & Washington Universitys International Affairs Program. Contact information: Phone 636.827.2469 Fax 636.827.2801 Cell 314.954.0519 e-mail anna.shallenberger@maritz.com
19