MBA 620 Module 1 Measuring Success Discussion example

Reviewed by Portia Lambrick, MBA Measuring Success in an Organization Southern New Hampshire University Full sample paper Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This complete MBA 620 Module 1 discussion post opens a course on measuring organizational success with a familiar trap: judging a company by profit alone. A composite U.S. airline reports its best operating margin in five years, yet flights arrive late more often, cancellations are rising and experienced mechanics are leaving. The post explains the difference between lagging and leading indicators, shows how a balanced set of measures would have flagged the trouble, and asks classmates which measure their organization watches too closely. The airline is composite; the sources are real.

What this page holds

An MBA 620 Module 1 post of roughly 350 words showing why profit alone misleads, distinguishing lagging from leading indicators with airline examples and introducing the balanced scorecard's four perspectives. Searches like "mba 620 module 1 assignment", "mba620 module 1 measuring success discussion" and "mba 620 module 1 example" land here.

The MBA 620 Module 1 example, in full

1

Module One Discussion: How Organizations Measure Success

Re: A record margin and a warning light

My example is a composite U.S. airline that just reported an operating margin of 11 percent, its best in five years. Investors cheered. Inside the company, other numbers told a different story: on-time arrivals had fallen from 82 to 74 percent, cancellations had doubled, and turnover among experienced aircraft mechanics had reached 18 percent a year.

Profit is a lagging indicator: it reports the results of decisions already made. Part of this airline's record margin came from deferring maintenance hiring and flying aircraft more hours between checks. Those choices raised profit this year while weakening the operation that produces profit next year. The falling on-time rate and rising mechanic turnover were leading indicators, early signals of future cost and lost customers. Within a year, the airline was paying overtime to cover the mechanic shortage and compensating travelers for canceled flights, and part of the record margin had already been given back.

Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the balanced scorecard because financial measures alone tell managers where they have been, not where they are going. The scorecard adds three perspectives to the financial one: customers, internal processes and learning and growth. For an airline, that might mean tracking customer satisfaction and on-time performance, maintenance completion and aircraft availability, and the retention and training of skilled staff. A company that watches only its margin can drive into trouble while the dashboard says everything is fine. Research on performance measurement systems makes the same point: measures should be chosen to reflect strategy and to balance short-term results with the capabilities that sustain them (Neely et al., 1995).

Measuring more is not automatically better, however. Too many measures dilute attention, and the ones that matter must connect to the strategy, which is why the authors later described the scorecard as a way of translating strategy into a few linked measures rather than a long list (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).

My question for classmates: which single number does your organization watch most closely, and what might it be hiding?

What this page is doingThe post uses one company to show how a lagging measure can mislead and how leading measures would have signaled trouble. Adding a caution about measuring too much shows balanced judgment.
2

References

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622

How this MBA 620 Module 1 example is structured

The post opens with a result that looks good and then shows what it hides. It distinguishes lagging from leading measures with examples, introduces a framework that balances them and asks classmates to apply the idea to their own organizations.

Get MBA 620 Module 1 written to your instructions

Pass along your MBA 620 Module 1 discussion question and grading rubric; a reply on performance measurement, KPIs or the concept your prompt raises comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

Request this module free All MBA 620 modules Finished samples

MBA 620 Module 1 questions, answered

What is MBA 620 Module 1 usually about?

Courses on measuring organizational success usually begin with why organizations measure performance, the difference between financial and nonfinancial measures, key performance indicators and frameworks such as the balanced scorecard.

What is the difference between leading and lagging indicators?

Lagging indicators report results that have already happened, such as profit or market share. Leading indicators measure conditions that tend to predict future results, such as employee turnover, customer satisfaction or maintenance backlogs. A good measurement system includes both.

What are the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard?

The balanced scorecard measures performance from four perspectives: financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning and growth. Together they link current financial results to the drivers of future performance.