3 pages paper work in Chick-fil-A

  

1.  Identify the specific relevant stakeholders for the subject firm.2.  For each stakeholder, identify the key satisfaction attributes for each stakeholder.3.  Determine, to the extent possible based on the information provided, how well the subject firm is meeting the key satisfaction attributes for each stakeholder.Attached is the article you may want to read.
04_06_wp_stakeholderanalysis_curtice.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
3 pages paper work in Chick-fil-A
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Stakeholder Analysis:
The Key to Balanced Performance Measures
Robert M. Curtice
Vice President, Performance Improvement Associates
The Need for Balanced Performance Measures
Traditional business performance measures – such as return-on-assets or earnings per share –
focus on the overall financial results achieved by a company in a given time period. While
important, they give little insight into why particular results were achieved. By themselves, they
provide little guidance for where or how improvements can be made. Additional “in process”
measures are needed, the better to assess particular contributions to the end performance.
But there is also a growing awareness that the traditional financial measures are uni-dimensional
– that a modern company seeks to be more than financially successful; that financial success in
the short term does not guarantee it in the long term; and that there are other, more complete, yet
fundamental aspects of performance that can be measured to give a more balanced picture of the
health of the enterprise. These metrics can then be tracked over time to complement financial
performance measures and perhaps give some independent, early, and insightful signs of
performance problems.[1]
A focus on financial measures reflects an ownership view of the company: The owners
(stockholders) are concerned with the return on their investment. Interestingly, the owners
themselves have little direct impact on the performance of the company. A more balanced view
would measure performance in terms of all the major constituents who directly influence the
company’s performance. We call these groups of constituents the “stakeholders” of the company;
they always include customers and employees, in addition to the owners, but may encompass
other key groups as well. Stakeholders are individuals or groups who expect certain things from
the company, and at the same time have a considerable influence on its success.
Measuring how well the expectations of each of the company’s stakeholders are met yields a
more balanced and holistic picture of performance that can provide critical insight and guidance
for action. For example, a company with steadily rising earnings per share, but whose customer
satisfaction has dropped three years in a row, is not performing at a healthy level.
Interestingly, the very process of establishing such a balanced stakeholder-based measurement
approach has often proven to be an opportunity for real organizational learning, resulting in
insights about the fundamental mission and vision of the company, as it proceeds to ask
questions such as:



Who are our customers? What do they want from us? How well do we really satisfy
them?
Who are our owners? What do they expect of us? How well do we meet these
expectations?
Who are our employees? What do they want from their work experience? What do they
really think about working here?
Acme Electric: A Case Study
Acme Electric is a publicly owned electric utility, considered to be a successful private enterprise
within its economic sphere. For many years the Company focused on technical and engineering
1
excellence and early adoption of modern technological improvements. Like most utilities, it
enjoyed a monopolistic situation and its rate of return was predictably steady. Yet the
management at Acme felt that the focus on financial measures was not providing a well rounded
picture of overall performance; it wanted to compare itself with other utilities and with less
regulated businesses, and to understand how it was perceived by outsiders in comparison to
other enterprises. Management also planned to embark on a performance improvement program
for key business processes but had little idea where to begin; the current financially oriented
measurement system provided no guidance as to where the priorities for improvement might lie.
Acme decided to embark on an effort to broaden and balance its performance measures. It
decided that these measures needed to reflect how well the Company was satisfying the
expectations of all its important stakeholders, not just the shareholders. Shortly after reaching this
decision, Acme management came to three critical realizations:



There was basic, but not total, agreement as to who the stakeholders of the business
were;
There was a wide disparity of views as to what the stakeholders actually expected of the
Company; and
There was almost no agreement as to how well the Company was actually meeting these
expectations.
In itself, this shared level of understanding about what was known and what was not, and what
was agreed upon and what was not, had a galvanizing impact on the senior management team.
Stakeholders and Their Expectations
A stakeholder is an individual or group that can heavily influence the performance of the business
– i.e., whose support the business needs if it is to be successful. These people, in turn, have
certain expectations from the company, and assessing the degree to which these expectations
are currently being satisfied in a balanced fashion provides a valuable indicator of current and
future performance.
Stakeholders will almost always include the “big three”: Customers, Employees, and Owners. For
most commercial enterprises, these three are by far the most important, and the scope of the
performance measurement is usually focused on them. In other situations, the scope may need to
be broadened.
Stakeholders should be clearly defined, particularly if there is any potential question of who is
included or excluded in each group. For example, here is the list of stakeholders that Acme
decided upon:






Customers (both users of electricity and land developers)
Employees (both full and part time, at all levels)
Owners (stockholders)
Suppliers
Regulators
Local Communities (specifically mayors and city councils, as well as people who
influence public opinion)
Again, the process of deciding upon the list of stakeholders proved to be a valuable and insightful
learning experience for Acme’s management team. The fact that suppliers (and particularly the
smaller, local suppliers) were important stakeholders in the Company was not previously
recognized; understanding the interdependencies between the Company and these suppliers
eventually led to significant policy changes in the way the Company dealt with them.
2
One of the key tenets of the balanced approach is that over the long run, you cannot satisfy one
stakeholder at the expense of another. Yes, customers are very important, but in the long run if
your employees are disgruntled, they will not provide the levels of service necessary to satisfy the
customers. Similarly, merely lowering prices to attract more customers may not be sustainable
from the owners’ viewpoint.
The next step is to determine the expectations, or “satisfaction attributes,” of each stakeholder.
The most important aspect of this analysis is that it must be objective and fact-based, not based
on preconceived judgments or assumptions. The expectations of customers, employees, and
owners need to be empirically verified by survey, focus groups, or through other methods. Many
organizations, including Acme, make the serious mistake of assuming they know and understand
the stakeholders’ expectations when in fact they do not. This is particularly true of employees:
Senior management frequently assumes it knows what the employees want from their jobs, and
they are often quite mistaken. Moreover, as the external world changes (e.g., competitors begin
to satisfy more of the customer’s expectations; other companies in the area offer improved
working conditions; etc.), stakeholder expectations change.
Certain satisfaction attributes may be more important to the stakeholder than others. In this
regard, the ideas of Kano often prove useful [2]. Kano distinguishes between threshold,
performance, and excitement “attributes” of a product. A threshold attribute looses importance
after a certain level is reached (e.g., the maximum speed of an automobile must be 90 miles per
hour, but increasing it much beyond that is not valuable to the customer), while improvement in a
performance attribute continues to be proportionately valued (e.g., the fewer defects the better).
An excitement attribute, on the other hand, would have a disproportionately greater impact than a
performance improvement, and, hence, be of greater value to the stakeholder (e.g., the ability to
avoid accidents automatically).
The relative importance of stakeholder satisfaction attributes can also reflect strategic decisions
of the company. To take an oversimplified example, if price and quality are of equal importance to
customers, a strategy that emphasizes competing on the basis of quality will raise the importance
of quality expectations to the targeted set of customers.
Typically, it is best to focus attention on 3 to 5 satisfaction attributes for each stakeholder; a
scheme involving hundreds of performance measures will not prove workable.
For example, at Acme, a survey was conducted to establish the following expectations among the
employees:
Satisfaction Attribute
Competitive compensation
Safe work conditions
Pleasant work environment
Career development
Importance
High
High
Medium
High
Performance Metrics and Measurements
How do you actually measure how well you are meeting the expectations of the stakeholders?
Here again there is a tendency on the part of some to assume they know how well they are
performing; this must be avoided (e.g., of course, our customers are happy; our benefits package
is as good as any other company in the area; our delivery service is second to none; etc).
Instead, performance metrics must be defined that can be used to measure empirically the
degree to which the stakeholder expectations are being met.
3
Each stakeholder satisfaction attribute can have one or more metrics behind it. For example, in
Acme’s case the customer expectation for high quality electric service is measured in terms of
two metrics:


maximum percentage voltage fluctuation (+ and -) during the month, and
average outage time per customer during the month.
These metrics can be empirically determined and are not subject to interpretation. While the
numbers themselves are important, the trend is even more telling. So it is vital to agree on the
stakeholder expectations and the associated metrics and then to put in place an ongoing reliable
measurement and reporting scheme.
Some satisfaction attributes might appear difficult to measure on a quantifiable basis, for
example, career development. However, it is usually possible to find appropriate metrics after a
little thought; for example, one might measure the number or percentage of staff promoted from
within, and the number of employees taking career development training. Another possibility is to
quantify the results of surveys, e.g., percentage of employees who rated their career
development opportunities as above average or excellent on the annual employee survey.
The general idea is that all stakeholder expectations must have one or more quantifiable metrics
that can be tracked over time, so that the effect of performance improvement programs can be
measured. Typically, the company will already have collected data of some sort relative to
measures of performance appropriate to the satisfaction attribute (e.g., customer surveys,
employee surveys, etc.). This source of data can be particularly useful in establishing a trend of
performance over time.
Several methods are available to determine actual current levels of performance, depending on
the type of metric:




Empirical observation: e.g., counting the number of minutes of electric outage, or
observing the actual voltage fluctuation
Sampling: similar to empirical observation but for a sample of the entire population
Questionnaire: asking the stakeholders in a survey
Focus group: a smaller sample than a survey, but perhaps yielding more insight (good to
do the first time around)
Surveys or focus groups tend to be subjective; they measure the perception of performance
against the expectation. Of course, the perception is as important as the actual performance. A
good practice is to incorporate both subjective and objective measures into the scheme; e.g.,
number of minutes of electric outage vs. customer’s opinion as to electric reliability. When these
measures are moving in opposite directions, further investigation is warranted to determine the
reasons (e.g., the customer’s definition of reliability is different or has changed).
Setting Targets and Reporting Performance
How are targets established for performance improvement? Certainly one way is to benchmark
how you compare with others. Frequently, industry or trade organizations will publish relevant
statistics that can be used for comparison purposes. Acme might decide, for example, to aim to
be in the top 10% of electric utilities in terms of voltage fluctuations: the industry statistics will
show that this target translates into no more than .4% fluctuation over an entire year.
Corporate strategy is another source of insight to help set performance targets. Specific elements
of the business strategy may well suggest an aggressive target for cost reduction or customer
service, for example.
4
Once the basic elements of a balanced performance measuring scheme are established, the last
step is to implement a periodic assessment and reporting process. The outcome can be used in
various ways – as an informal report to the stakeholders themselves (e.g., printed in the company
newsletter), as a report to the board of directors, as part of the formal annual report, and so on.
Typically, such a formal report would be issued on an annual basis. More frequent tracking of
some measures might also be appropriate.
If appropriate targets can be set for several years in the future and then tracked, year by year, a
useful trend can be produced.
Based on the current level of performance and the target set for the various metrics of a
satisfaction attribute, an overall “gap” is assigned. The gap is a reflection of how far the current
level of performance is from the desired or targeted level. Consider expressing the gap in terms
of percent of target to be achieved (using a simple example, if there were one metric for the
attribute that had a current performance level of 60 out of a target of 100, then the percent gap
would be 40). One of the benefits of a percent gap (i.e., 0% = reaching the target levels in all
metrics) is that an overall “report card” can then be prepared showing which attributes are
farthest from their targets on a comparable basis.
At Acme, a balanced stakeholder performance report is compiled and published on an annual
basis, along the lines shown in Figure 1. Some measures are updated more frequently. The
current measures, targets, and gaps are made available to senior management as part of Acme’s
Executive Information System (EIS), as are definitions of the stakeholders, their expectations,
and the metrics.
Stakeholder
Expectation
As measured by metric
Quality of Electric Service
No of times voltage varied >+/- 3% per year
Average minutes outage per customer per
year
Quality of Customer Service
No of complaints per 1000 customers per year
Percent customers ranking service very good
or excellent on survey
Customers
Average time to install service
Fair Price
Percent of family budget spent on Electric
service
2000
2001
2002
2003
Target
17
13
15
12
8
22
41
27
25
18
48
36
38
32
24
68
76
78
81
97
4.2
3.5
3.2
2.8
1.5
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.7
4
Fair Compensation
Employees
Safe Work Conditions
Pleasant Work Environment
Career Development
Return on Investment
Owners
Suppliers
Liquidity of Investment
Stability
Attention
Good Business Relations
Fair Price for Goods
On-time Payment
Figure 1. Balanced Stakeholder Performance Report
The analysis of gaps in meeting stakeholder expectations as depicted in the balanced
performance report have been utilized at Acme to focus business process redesign
(reengineering) efforts on high priority opportunities. First, the relative importance of each
attribute was multiplied by the gap in actual performance to yield a need for improvement
5
weighting scheme. Then a correlation matrix was established between the stakeholder
satisfaction attributes and the business processes to understand the degree to which each
process influences each attribute.
For example, the process “Supply Electric Energy” might have a high influence on Quality of
Electric Service and receive a base score of 3 in this cell of the matrix, while the same process
has little influence on Career Development, resulting in a base score of 0. When these base
scores are combined with the attribute weighting scheme the result is a chart similar to the one in
Figure 2. This chart clearly shows which processes must be improved in order to close the most
important gaps in meeting stakeholder expectations.
Business Processes
Suppliers
Owners
Em ployees
Custom ers
Stakeholder
Satisfaction
Attribute
Relative
Importance
X
Current
Satisfaction Gap
=
Manage
Human
Resources
Need for
Improvement
Supply Electric
Energy
3.4
0.4
2.3
0.4
4.5
4.3
Serve the
Customer
Manage
Financial
Resources
Provide
Materials &
Supplies
Provide
Infrastructure
1.7
3.2
2.8
0.8
0.4
1
Quality of Electric Service
3
60
180
Quality of Customer Service
2
80
160
Fair Price
2
40
80
2.2
0.3
0
2
0.7
1
Fair Compensation
3
60
180
0
0
2.9
3.4
0
0
Safe Work Conditions
2
20
40
0.5
0.6
1.6
0.6
1.6
1.3
Pleasant Work Environment
1
50
50
0
0.8
0.6
0
0.5
0.8
Career Development
2
70
140
0
0
4.2
0.3
1
0
Return on Investment
3
20
60
2.1
0.5
0.5
2.4
0.6
1.3
Liquidity of Investment
2
30
60
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
Stability
2
40
80
2
0.9
2.1
1.8
0.9
0
Attention
1
60
60
0
0
2.8
0
1
0.2
Good Business Relations
2
40
80
1
0
0.5
1.5
0.8
2
Fair Price for Goods
3
50
150
0
0
0
0.7
3.8
1.8
On Time Payment
2
80
160
Priority for Improvement
0.3
0
0.2
0.8
1.3
0.6
11.9
8
22
16.8
15.8
12.8
Figure 2. Correlation of Business Processes with Need for Improvement
Summary
Traditional financial measures do not provide a well balanced picture of the performance of a
company, nor do they help to identify where performance improvements need to be focused. A
more balanced approach considers the expectations of all the important stakeholders of the
enterprise, and measures the degree to which these expectations are being met. We have
reviewed here an approach to defining stakeholders, identifying their expectations, and then
measuring the gaps that exist in actual versus targeted performance levels in meeting these
expectations.
Objectivity is perhaps the most important aspect in identifying stakeholder expectations and then
measuring actual stakeholder satisfaction. The balanced performance measures must be based
on actual data compiled from empirical studies and surveys if they are going to have real value in
tracking company performance over time and in focusing performance improvement efforts.
References
[1] Kaplan, Robert and David Norton “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive
Performance,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992
6
[2] Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1996) Attractive quality and must-be
quality. In The best on quality, edited by John D. Hromi. Volume 7 of the BookSeries of the
International Academy for Quality. Milwaukee:
ASQC Quality Press.
——–Robert Curtice is the Vice President of Performance Improvement Associates.
reached at bobcurtice@pfima.com
He can be
7

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP