A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Public

Craig S. Fleisher and Dam-en Mahafi

Relations Management Assessment

ABSTRACT: This article describes a new managerial approach to assessing Public Relations/Communications @R/C) performance using a balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard requires PR/C executives to develop a set of audience/client/ stakeholder, financial, improvement, and operational/process performance measures that reflect progress against a plan. More than just a measurement system, the approach is being used in a number of progressively managed organizations to clarify, communicate and manage PR/C strategy. The article reviews the current state of PR/C management assessment, illustrates the balanced scorecard framework, highlights the frameworks strengths and weaknesses, describes the process of applying the scorecard to PR/C units, and provides sample applications for use in assessing, measuring and managing organizational PR/communications. Craig S. Fleisher is a professor of business policy & law and President, Canadian Council for Public Affairs Advancement (CCPAA) at the School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University. Darren Mahaffey is in brand management with Procter tci Gamble (Canada) and a CCPAA research associate.

INTRODUCTION
Todays organizations are looking for support in determining priorities, allocating scarce resources and leveraging their human
Summer 1997 117

resources to satisfy their increasingly demanding customers in a globally competitive environment. All organizational functions and departments must be involved in this process and recognize that the quality of their work will ultimately make a difference in how customers behave with respect to the organization. 1 Public relations/communications (PR/C) departments have many opportunities to contribute measurably to organizational performance; however, before this contribution becomes more meaningful, these departments must improve their managerial capabilities in performance assessment.2 In other words, PR/C professionals need to demonstrate the business value and effectiveness of PR/C activities, products, services and/or programs.3 Most public relations/communications executives realize that a well designed performance assessment system is an essential part of any strategic PR/C initiative.4 These executives know that strategic assessment systems can help managers understand not only what is achieved but how it is achieved as well. Strategic PR/C performance assessment systems should be balanced, integrated, and designed to highlight the functions critical input, process, output and outcome (i.e., results) variables. 5 Given the findings of these systems, management should be able to see where value is being created or added, where further resources are required, where improvement is warranted, and where the firms PR/C strategies are being successfully and unsuccessfully implemented. Well-designed and functioning assessment systems can have a profound effect on both how PR/C managers think about their function and how they invest their critical resources such as financial, human, material and time. Even though many PR/C professionals accept the insight contained in the above paragraph, most PR/C management assessment systems do not provide managers with the information they need to assess and manage the all-important competencies that add to their organizations desired perforinance. A sizeable number of PR/C practitioners claim or act as though: much of what they do cannot

be measured, their organizational systems do not allow them to evaluate their activities, PR/C is a mysterious art which can or should only be conducted by practitioners with 3 letters after their names, and/or that management can never hope to understand PR/cs contribution to the organizations bottom-line performance. In this article, we are not suggesting that traditional methods for assessing PR/C performance should be eliminated, but we believe their usefulness for assessing the successes and failures of PR/C managers and their programs is limited. Todays competitive organizational and external environments require performance assessment systems that incorporate financial, non financial, quantitative, qualitative, process and results measures, that is, an assortment of approaclies.6 Even more so, these new PR/C performance assessment systems need to be both descriptive and prescriptive while focusing on action. This article is organized in the following fashion. First, we describe the difficulties encountered in assessing PR/C management performance and examine differences existing in critical performance concepts; next, we introduce a powerful assessment approach called the balanced scorecard, including describing the process which can be used to improve PR/C assessment capabilities. We conclude 118 \<>2I.3 , No. 2
A Ralmced Scorecard Apprnncb

by describing the potential practitioner and research implications of the balanced scorecard technique for PR/C managers and scholars. THE CURRENT STATE OF PR/C MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT There has been no lack of articles about PR/C research, evaluation or measurement.7 Indeed, PR/C practitioners have been exhorted for years to improve this aspect of their activities. 8 But before this article proceeds further, we think it is useful to explain a few terms which are often used interchangeably yet refer to very different aspects of the PR/C management process, these being measurement, evaluation and research. The three terms are related but refer to different aspects of the performance assessment process potentially performed by PR/C managers. Evaluation is a means for determining the relative value or importance of a given program or strategy9 and is typically conducted by trying to assess a program or activitys effectiveness by comparing outcomes or results to a pre-established set of standards. Measurement is the process of applying a precise value or metric to some action and implies precision, hard numbers, validity and reliability.) Research is the basic tool for fact and opinion gathering; the systematic effort aimed at discovering, or confirming though objective appraisal, the facts or opinions pertaining to a specified problem or problems. 11 Based on our research and experience, if and when any of the three processes are performed at all, the one conducted most proficiently is research, although even it is usually among the first items cut out of increasingly tight organizational budgets. When research is conducted, it is typically aimed at assessing communications program effects using communications measures and standards. This research generally does not assess business effects using business metrics. 12 As such, it is tactical, not strategic, in nature. Making research or measurement strategic requires PR/C managers to connect PR/C outcomes and results into business outcomes and results. We have found that this is rarely done successfully in practice and that there are a number of commonly given explanations why this occurs. The most common reasons the connection between organizational PR/C activities and behavioral change is not made and that performance assessment is not successfully conducted tend to fall into one of five categories, as described below: 1. Resouwe scarcity. Explanations in this category include a familiar litany of we do not have enough money, staff, and/or time to perform necessary PR/C activities like research, measurement or evaluative (i.e., assessment) activities. The difficulty in knowing the accuracy of these statements is that it takes time to do the proper assessment to determine *the best utilization of resources and too few professionals
Summer 1997 119

perform convincing &ciency and effectiveness tests to convince top executives that greater resources will lead to a higher return on the PR/C investment-indeed, EDS Vice President John Lacopo states I predict that very few public affairs offices will get meaning&l funding unless they prove themselves to be truly strategic and demonstrate to management

that they measurably contribute to the corporate bottom line. Corporate chiefs will no longer fund an overhead unit without understanding what the company will get in return for the resources invested in that unit. You have got to prove that for each dollar the company invests in public affairs activities, it will achieve some multiple return on that investment. Unfortunately, our research has only uncovered a very small number of senior PR/C executives who can make a documented and valid case to Lacopos challengel4; 2. Methodolog-ical inadequacy. Rationalizations here suggest everything ranging from you can not perform quantitative or bottom-line oriented assessment of PR/C activities to I know good performance when I see it and will trust my many years of experience and insight to lead me in the proper direction. Our studies of the utilization of common management tools by PR/C management professionals suggests that most PR/C units have been laggards to utilize rigorous methods of management analysis commonly used in other parts of the organization. l5 Making arguments for the effectiveness, efficiency or efficacy of PR/C activities based on intuition and experience rather than methodical analysis of concrete and specifiable effects will lead to increasing senior management scepticism of PR/C decisions and resource allocations l h; 3. Colztextual munificence. Senior PR/C professionals often claim that things have historically gone well for their units and organizations and nobody has pressed them to justify their activities. Several of our studies have revealed practitioners who claim weve managed to succeed thus far without doing assessment. Why should we change now? or Whv should we fix it if it aint broke? 7 4. Attitudinal/philosophical aversion. Comments offered here can be summarized by the statements we know that PR/C cannot reallv be mcasured or that communications really has little to do with managing business.18 5. Learningltrainina deficiencies. A number of PR/C professionals recognize the need to evaluate their performance but do not perform assessment activities because thev do not know how to go about doing assessment or where to begin the process.19
120 \ol. 23. No. 2 A Balanced Scorecard Amroach

PR/C managers rationalizations within these categories are not likely to meet the expectations of most of todays demanding organizational executives. Most senior business executives relate to performance in terms like market share, sales, profits, cycle time, productivity, quality, satisfaction. Each of these metrics symbolize peoples behaviors. Sales and market share represent the behavior of consumers, productivity of employees, and profits, quality, and satisfaction the behavioral interaction of employees and consumers. If one accepts the argument that successful public relations and communications activities should ultimately impact peoples behaviors, 20 then it is not too great a stretch for PR/C managers to attempt to affect, evaluate and/or measure the behaviors which senior executives seek to modify, especially those corresponding to financial or economic outcomes; nevertheless, this is rarely accomplished in practice.21 In summary, PR/C managers sometimes successfully make the communications case for a program, project or activity, but rarely the business case for them. A STRATEGY MODEL A key means for overcoming the problems often faced by PR/C groups could lie in an effective strategy development model. There are many concepts for how strategy is developed and evolves although most can be condensed to three or four major steps. The model selected here involves three

Pa\ nning
/
It

Evaluation and Control

Figure 1. Strategy as a Three Step Interactive Process Summer 1997 121

distinct areas: (1) planning, (2) implementation, and (3) evaluation and control. The system can be thought of as existing as follows (See Figure 1). There has been research which has examined how PR/C departments perform against the strategy model. 22 The research indicates that the greatest success is obtained in the implementation phase. This comes as little surprise. PR/C practitioners generally perceive the majority of their work as fire fighters,23 as doers, rather than thinkers or planners. This finding does not claim that PR/C professionals do no thinking, rather that the thinking is tactical as opposed to strategic. In other words, these professionals are focused on achieving communications goals and objectives without necessarily linking them to the achievement of business objectives. The research on PR/C management activities and roles also supports the finding that planning is regarded as a relatively weaker area in strategy development for PR/C departments. 24 This can be seen as emanating from insufficiencies of three primary items: time, money, and management direction. Because of the tactical aspect of the jobs performed by many practitioners, they do not have enough time to devote to planning. In fact, one study found that senior PR/C executives believed they only spent about two-thirds the time they should on planning.25 On the other hand, many PR departments note limited resources as a key obstacle to better planning. 26 Managers recognize they must perform their day-to-day activities and cannot let brush fires go in order to plan an overall strategy. A department needs available resources, including time, to do effective planning. Finally, a lack of direction from senior management may inhibit the ability of PR/C managers to effectively plan. Performing planning activities can be much more difficult if/when senior managers take the what can I get out of you now approach .2 7 In this, context, senior management will either not respect the plan or constantly change it to suit their current needs. Evaluation and control are also a perceived weakness in PR/C management.

Resource scarcity, specifically a lack of time, affects this area. PR/C managers noted that they would like to spend up to 15% of their overall time on evaluation and control. In reality they only spend 10% on average.2H Further, a number of PR/C managers have expressed an inability to communicate their worth to upper management through evaluation and control activities;2y consequently, it becomes a non-priority task. The two key issues for PR/C management are the improvement of planning and evaluation and control. The following sections examine performance assessment as an avenue towards improving on this opportunity area.

PR/C PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESSES

In this article, we refer to the performance assessment process. We view this process as an umbrella term containing research, measurement and evaluation. In other words, in order to successfully assess performance, pro122 Vol. 23, No. 2
A Balanced Scorecard
ADDvoacb

fessionals invariably need to conduct some degree of coordinated research, measurement and evaluation on an ongoing basis. The degree to which either of the three practices is conducted is determined by the nature of the organizations assessment system. What has been lacking in the PR/C literature is a means for tying research, measurement and evaluation into the management of the function; taken further, what is missing is the means for linking the function into its larger organizational domain and tying communications into business performance. This view follows closely from that supported by organizational systems theorists who recognize that, as a key function in many organizations, the PR/C subsystem is keenly integrated into the larger organizations decision making system and the broader environment.3O A key argument which underlies this articles approach is that PR/C practitioners may effectively perform PR/C research or measurement, but still fail to integrate this intelligence into the strategies and tactics taken by the function and larger organization. 31 What we argue is missing from this literature is a paradigm for strategically pulling together the many individual communications research techniques, measurement criteria, and evaluative processes in terms of the business planning and control activities which are conducted in order to improve organizational performance.32 A number of organizational theorists have offered models describing how functions not directly associated with making or selling the organizations services or products can make a contribution to the organizations bottom line.33 Representative of these efforts is a four element model describing effective performance management which we have adapted to show its application in a PR/C context:34 (1) goal manag ement; (2) activity management; (3) resources management; and (4) interface management. According to this application, successful PR/C performance management can be summarized by asking is the PR/C management team successfully managing its goals, activities, resources, and interfaces? These four things must be examined over time, through a judicious combination of research, measurement and evaluation, in a successful performance management assessment process. This article specifically addresses the second and third of these themes, and assumes that PR/C managers are capable of effectively performing their professional job responsibilities. Evolution of Performance Assessment In order to understand the context in which our approach to performance assessment is offered, it is important to examine the evolution of performance assessment at the organizational level. Until the early nineties, most North American organizational management teams were struggling with performance assessment issues associated with using commonly accepted financial and operational measures. The problem with return on investment (ROI), earnings per share (EPS) and other similar measures was that they sometimes led to decisions that were not in the overall best interests of the company. The popular business press frequently recounts situations in which short term gains were rewarded at the expense of long term organizational viability. To counter this trend, a number of forward thinking organizations began focusing on operations measures such as cycle and lead time to offset some of the problems associated with the perceived overreliance on financial measures. These performance measures, which often came into organizations under the rubric of total quality management

(TQM) or continuous improvement (CI), somewhat alleviated the overall performance management problems but did not provide a satisfactory solution as the fairly large number of popularly reported TQM and CI failure or fad stories will attest.35 The early nineties saw a shift in the focus of North American companies. Information era buzzwords such as customer focus, innovation, learning organization, and sustainable competitive advantage became prevalent.36 A key problem the concepts underlying these buzzwords were addressing was that the traditional industrial era control measures in use were inhibitors to the successful implementation of the dynamic, new strategies being designed. This situation called for a revised attitude towards performance assessment. Customer service measures such as satisfaction, on-time delivery, and quality emerged and filled part of this void; however, some companies found themselves facing cost issues as net earnings eroded. The opportunity companies sought to exploit was marrying the aspects of performance such as the valuation of intangible and/or invisible assets that the new economy was demanding. 37 Capitalizing on this opportunity should be a boon for PR/C departments since PR/C activities have been viewed to be somewhat soft and are often justified according to less tangible assets like corporate reputation or image building. The balanced scorecard approach is the most prominent attempt to build upon this marriage. THE BALANCED SCORECARD APPROACH The balanced scorecard approach to assessing performance was first publicly coined in 1992 by two management accounting experts associated with Harvard Universiq, Robert Kaplan and David Norton. It should not be surprising that a performance assessment approach would be offered by management accountants since they have unique professional skills and training. Because of the internal organization4 focus of management accountants they have been influential in developing analytical tools and management information systems that focus on obtaining pro-active, value-added recommendations for organizations. Approaches such as activity based cost management (ABC), informational support for time-based management (TBM), TQM and benchmarking all owe their progress at least partially to developments in management accounting. Mallagement accounting aims to develop effective systems and tools which are useful for improving managerial decision making.
124 \ol. 23. No. 2 A Balanced Scorecard Appronch

Underlying Kaplan and Nortons concept of the balanced scorecard is that all aspects of measurement have their drawbacks; however, if companies offset some of the drawbacks of some measures with the advantages of others, the net measure can lead to decisions resulting in both short term profitability and long term growth/success. 38 Kaplan and Norton described the balanced scorecard as providing managers with a fast but comprehensive view of the business3y which allows them a measure of how well they are creating future value.40 The balanced scorecard originally achieved, according to its designers, two important things. First, it brought together aspects of the company that were not generally related in the past. More importantly, it demonstrated how these aspects must interrelate in order for the company to be successful. Secondly, the scorecard lessens the possibility that any given measure will lead to poor long term decisions in the company. That is, improvement in one key area will not come at the expense of another. 41 In recent revisions, the authors have added a third achievement, however, in that the designing of the balanced scorecard forces the integration of an overall vision into the daily planning in a company, and furthermore, it forces the company to agree on what the vision should be and how it should be attained.42 While this may sound like something of a panacea for management woes in the field of performance measurement, the real test will be in its acceptance by business, and, for the purposes of this article, organizational units such as PR/C, that will be charged with the responsibilities for carrying out the approach. Although this remains to be examined over time, the number of articles written and conferences being held on the topic of the balanced scorecard do suggest that business has paid attention to the approach. These sources have suggested one major drawback to the implementation of a balance scorecard approach-that being a scarcity of time and money to get it properly up and running. The balanced scorecard takes a considerable amount of time (up to 30 months) to design and implement as a strategic management system. For many companies, two to

Financial Perspective
\, :

Customer Perspective ,/
Balanced Scorecard Categories Relationships three years is an inordinately long amount of time, or the cost of resources to design and implement the system is just too large. The Elements of a Balanced Scorecard Kaplan and Norton claim they have designed four generic perspectives that they claim encompasses all the value-creating activities of an organization. These perspectives are financial, customer, internal business, and innovation and learning. The original article on the subject diagrammed the interrelation of the four areas as being interconnected, save between the financial and innovation perspectives. 43 Their subsequent articles demonstrate that a further, central factor must be considered for the system to generate the greatest effect-that of strategy and vision. From this point all areas are judged and measured. The interrelation of the other factors remains. The model has been revised to the following (See Figure 2): While each piece interrelates, there is a sense of direction and/or sequence in terms of the flows that the business will experience on an issue-by-issue basis. There is an order that can be followed to demonstrate this flow. This can be illustrated by the example of the formation of a new business: The owner gets an idea (innovation) and decides how her customers would like to be served. She then designs processes that will make the strategy as efficient and effective as possible. If it all works as hoped for, she garners the financial rewards (See Figure 3). Clearly, however, this is not the end of the road for the company. Ideas, changes or new needs can be determined at any point in the model and can be conveyed forward or backwards to any other point; correspondingly, the feedforward and feedback demonstrated by the models flows. The following sections will delve more thoroughly into each of the central balanced scorecard categories.
Figure 2.

The Innovation and Learning Perspective

The innovation and learning perspective asks the question Can we continue to improve and create value ?44 Innovation, whether it be in process, product or service elements, helps to create a business, learning keeps it prosperous. Kaplan and Norton state that only through the ability to launch new products, create more
Fz&we 3. Feedhtward and Feedback Model
126 Vol. 23, No. 2

A Halamed Scorecard A~~YOLZC~J

value for customers, and improve operating efficiencies continually can a company penetrate new markets and increase revenues and margins.4s Organizational learning should not be overlooked in this category. While technical innovation can represent a big jump forward for a company, constant learning from and adapting to the environment can keep a company from being blind sided by the competition.46 In practice, three categories tend to dominate this perspective47: (1) employee-based items such as staff competencies, productivity and satisfaction; (2) systems capabilities including , and (3) procedural-based items which promote motivation, empowerment and alignment (MEA). Employees need competencies to match the demands of the new information era environment and this greatly affects white-collar staff professionals such as those in PR/C. Systems capabilities deals with the abilities of informational systems such as e-mail, world wide web, intranets, proprietary databases and to inform action throughout the unit. The idea in developing measures in this area is to ensure that all decision makers have the information they need to act at the right time and in the right formats. MEA items included in this perspective are used to asses whether unit professionals are making improvement suggestions, whether team and individual goals are in alignment, and the awareness and attitudes held toward new management innovations. The Audience/Customm/Client Perspective Many ofthe recent shifts in management paradigms have tended to put the customer as the central organizational stakeholder focus. This perspective attempts to assess how well the organization is fulfilling the needs of customers-from the customers perspective. Kaplan and Norton identify four areas that customer service falls into: time, quality, performance and service, and cost.48 They argue that the company should articulate the specific goals it has in each of these areas and set measures to

determine the degree of success in meeting each. It is important to note here that the best measures come from the customer. This is not to say that customers will design the measurement. It is, however, important to know what your customers deem to be the most important aspects of the service network. From here the organization can determine how the customer would rate performance for each aspect.49 The Operational Perspective Good customer service is impfemented and obtained through the processes a company utilizes. For each organization there are certain key processes that drive the other areas success, particularly in customer service. Kaplan and Norton note that excellent customer performance derives from processes, decisions and action accruing throughout an organization. 50 The key is to determine which of the processes are key to satisfying customers, determining what the processes need to accomplish and than to measure them. It is in this perspective that information systems become an important aspect of success. 51 If certain customer service measures are not up to standard, managers need to know the reason. Corrective actions cannot be taken internally if the manager cannot break down the processes or even see the processes from the information system. The key to control under this perspective is timeliness. Where information is stale it is no more usefU1 than an absence of information.52 The Financial Perspective No company survives without ensuring its ongoing financial viability. Shareholders need to be explicitly considered in the balanced scorecard, although Kaplan and Norton call the balanced scorecard a complement to traditional financial measures, not a substitute.53 Finzancial information, used correctly, can be an excellent counterweight in the scorecard. Indeed, consider a hypothetical firm that did not care about their financial picture. They could end up giving away the farm to excessively satis+ customers or create innovation. The financial measures are often the offsetting measure for the sometimes expensive ways involved in improving the other three areas. The Strategy and Vision Perspective Until the early 1990s, many measurement systems had a control focus which was viewed as leading to many of the perceived and actual drawbacks associated with performance assessment. The balanced scorecard does not put measurement and control at the heart of the process, but rather vision and strateby.54 There are two possible outcomes when assessing the performance of a company using a balanced scorecard. It either gets better or worse. If it gets worse, there are two possible reasons. Either the strategy being measured was not successful or the measures encouraging certain actions were not well conceived. Whatever the reason, the best a balanced scorecard can do is translate a companys strategy into specific measurable objectives. 55 However, bvi focusing on the vision and strategy, the balanced scorecard forces long-term strategic thinking and eliminates the short term focus that can pervade an organization. IMPLEMENTING THE BALANCED SCORECARD If the two main problems or obstacles to PR/C departments being more strategic are planning and evaluation and control, the next obvious question is: Does the balanced scorecard sufficiently address these problems? Kaplan and Norton have noted an on-going implementation system that expressly calls for (a) extensive planning and communication of that plan, and (b) effective control and feedback mechanisms that keeps the system dynamic, always refining itself. The process involves four steps: translating the vision, communicating and linking, business planning, and feedback and learning.56 They illustrate this perspective in Figure 4 (See Figure 4).
128 \(,I. 23, No. 2

Feedback and Learning

F&we 4. Balanced Scorecard Implementation Model

Translating the Vision Assuming that the mission and vision of the organizational group has been defined (if it has not, it needs to be) it must be translated into actions.57 It does no good for a department to have lofq goals or spout platitudes about its high quality processes if these do not transfer into appropriate actions. This first step, then, involves dissecting the department into smaller work segments. Each segment is then noted for its importance to achieving the overall goals of the department. This provides the opportunity for consensus. While it may be easy to agree on the wording of a mission statement, it is much more difficult to agree on what the words mean.58

Communicating and Linking While the top levels of management will now understand what is meant by the mission statement and will know what activities will achieve the overall goal, they are not the only ones who need to know. This second step involves bringing in lower levels of management. This permits a better understanding of the departments long term strategic goals.59 These are the people who will end up designing the goals and measures for their groups, so it is important that they understand the implications of the overall plan. With the managers
Summer 1997 129

bought in, the final aspect of this step is achieving the buy-in of individual employees. This is done through: Conununicatin~ and Educating. Expression of the strategic plan to individual employees so they understand the direction of the group, the reasons for it, and how the directions affects them. Setti~z~ Goals. Here managers transfer the corporate goals and objectives into departmental, functional and personal ones, bearing in mind the net effect desired by the organization. This is often done in conjunction with the affected employees for maximum buy-in. Lint&& Rewards to Perfbmance Measures. Simply put, the best way to encourage employees to achieve their goals is to make it rewarding (ie, financially profitable) for them to do so. Business Planning With the key processes determined and the goals set, the third step is designing a budget plan that matches the long term strategic goals. Essentially, this step links strategy to tactics. Often organizations do not link long term planning and business planning. However, where individual or group performance is linked to both orientations it is important to mesh the two plans. This not only demonstrates a link between the two aspects of the plan but it also will show managers or even employees where re-engineering needs to occur to meet the challenges of the strategic plan. Feedback and Learning The final step in the outer circle is getting feedback from the process as implemented and fine hlIle it. It is described as testing the strategy in re4 time.hl This means that the strategvi can be consistently evaluated as to its appropriateness in the ever evolving environment. Kaplan and Norton argue that the balanced scorecard provides three elements needed for such strategic learning to occur.62 First, it clearly denotes the overall mission of the company and links individual performance to overall strategic success. Second, the balanced scorecard provides a strategic feedback system. It allows the Strategic Business Unit (SBU) to test strategy hypotheses and merges short and long term goals. Finally, the balanced scorecard allows the organization or department to critically review it overall strategy. As this implementation process demonstrates, the planning aspect is cared for in two areas: translating the vision and business planning. Evaluation and control are specifically cared for in the final section. Furthermore, because the process requires each step be performed to move cm to another, it ingrains itself into the organization. There is no avoiding planning or evaluation and controlas such it overcomes the identified problems of strategically managing PR/C. 130 Vol. 23. No. 2
A Hnlavxed Scovecnvd Appmncb

APPLICABILITY AND ACTIONABILITY TO PR/C OF A BALANCED SCORECARD It is not enough to state that the concept could solve the performance assessment problem for organizations, and, specifically for the purposes of this article, for PR/C managers. The next step is to decide whether or not the process can be effectively implemented. Taken from a macro view, the question would be: Are there PR/C measures that can be implemented for each section of the balanced scorecard? In addition to the implementability of measures, another question to ask is if there are pertinent examples of any organizations currently managing their departments along these perspectives. In the following section, we discuss some of the challenges of developing measures in each perspective and highlight examples of companies which demonstrate PR/C management using the respective approach being discussed. Innovation and Learning Perspective There are apparent problems with designing innovation

and learning measures for a staff function such as PR/C management. Because there is little outside competition for PR/C products and services, there have been few reasons for staff departments to innovate or even to identify the key success factors to be improved. There is also often a lack of an identifiable, specified and tangible end-product that makes it difficult to visualize improvements. However, the process previously outlined overcomes these drawbacks. The system ensures that buy-in is achieved and that key processes are identified. From here it is not difficult to design measures to judge the development of new processes/services. The key is to answer the question: What do we need to be a successful group in the future ?63 This will lead to thinking around innovation. A company that actively addresses the management and measurement challenges under this perspective well is Labatt Breweries which allocates a couple of days a year to bring their PR/C managers off-site to do some leading-edge thinking and to be exposed to the newest innovations affecting the knowledge bases in their respective responsibility areas. Several other Canadian PR/C departments, including the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Mutual Life measure and seek to continuously upgrade their PR/C employees competencies and the set of competencies available in their departments. Imperial Oil, Levi Strauss Canada and Pacific Gas & Electric have sought to improve and upgrade various parts of their PR/C management systems through applications of Baldrige-based audits and benchmarking. h4 These audit-based approaches compel these units to develop a rigorous set of measurement criteria and to apply several forms of research to test performance against the measurement categories. Audience/Client/Customer Perspective Few would argue that there are a myriad of measures for assessing customer service. Many of these can apply directly to the PR/C function.6
Summer 1997 131

Especially useful are measures normally attributed to service providers when the PR/ C department produces no product, but rather engages in consultative or advisory processes. The only caution that needs to be noted here is not to overmeasure or measure so often as to defeat the purpose of measurement. This GUI overwhelm the usefulness of the other measures in the scorecard. Xerox PR departments role is to disseminate information for educating, shaping opinion, and stimulating actions. Customers for the departments information include employees, product market purchasers, shareholders, suppliers, government officials, media, the general public and financial analvsts. The department identifies customers for everything it does. They prioritize their performance against customer requirements by asking three questions: (1) what must be done legally? (2) what the department should do to support the goals of the company as established bv senior management? and (3) what it would be nice to do if there were sufficient.money and time. ~56 In a companv which prides itself on satis@ing customers as has been an important corporate objective at Xerox, this departments comprehensive approach makes it easier to conduct an assessment of performance through the customer perspective on a balanced scorecard. Operational Perspective There are any number of previously developed process measures that can be culled from other departments. The important point is that any PR/C job or project can be broken into its component process. The group can assess which of these processes are the keys to success in other areas and what standards need to be met. With such kev success factors defined it is easv to measure the process against them. Ontario Hydros communications group put this perspective into use when it engaged on a process to develop a process map of its annual and ongoing issues management process. During this exercise, the department established a project team which was responsible for identifying all the key process steps, measuring cycle time between steps and for the entire process, and to determine the allocation of resources to each of the key steps. The departments objectives were to remove unnecessary, redundant or wasteful steps in the process, identify opportunities for reducing cycle time, and communicating the process to those individuals who would be involved over time. The project team leaders initial observations from the effort suggested that both tangible and intangible benefits were gained by taking this operational perspective, and they hoped to build in even more improvements through benchmarking over time.67 Financial Perspective Staff departments have been traditionallv viewed as cost centers. Because PR/C departments do not generally produce a product that is

sold (or where it is sold, it is an internal transfer, subject to the drawbacks and vagaries of transfer pricing) there is rarely , a direct connection to revenue. Alternately, there is often a problem establishing a causal relationship to revenues gen132 \Tol. 23. No. 2 A Balmced Scorecard Appmach

erated or costs averted due to PR/C effort;h8 nevertheless, this is a narrow way to look at the financial perspective. Because the group may be a cost center, it may be appropriate to look at monetary efficiency (doing more with the same or less) and to judge this versus a benchmark. PR/C departments at EDS and Labatt Breweries actively attempt to quantify bottom line impacts of public and government affairs activities and move the assessment of their activities towards a dollar or return figure for their departments. 69 Mead and Imperial Oil attempt to operate on an internal market economy basis whereby they act analogously to a professional services agency and negotiate the pricing of their products based as closely as possible to market considerations. In sum, it is our contention that any area of any PR/C department can be measured across the four perspectives. We also suggest that areas may want to add their own unique perspectives to their scorecards. We have seen examples where organizations added human resources, environmental stewardship, and community relations perspectives, among others, to their scorecard since they wanted to emphasize performance management along these dimensions. The next level assessed after the macro view is the micro level. At the micro level, the decision needs to be made as to whether a balanced scorecard can be designed for a given department in a given company. For this, a process is necessary such as the one which was previously described. To demonstrate this, we provide the measurement portion of the application of a balanced scorecard in the PR/C at a major national financial services organization (see Figure 5). The example being used in this article is of a corporate publications department. The department is currently producing three separate publications: one is a bi-monthly, the second is a quarterly, and the third is a vi early. All operational Innovation & Learning Perspective I. Distribution or process improvements via technology II. Percentage readership of new colllmns Audience/Client/ Customer Perspective III. survey of readers assessment of quality of, timeliness of, and usefulness of information Iv. Survey of internal clients assessment of accuracy of information and degree of coverage
operational

Perspective V. Total time for layout and final edits VI. Average time for receipt of internal approval VII. % of deadlines met VIII. Level of distribution/

readership Financial Perspective IX. Cost per issue X. Cost per reader XI. Total expenditures as a % of budget F&we 5. Sample Scorecard Measures for a Publications Department
Summer 1997 133

processes are essentially the same for each. Most of the writing and printing is contracted out to freelancers or studios while the majority of production is done in-house. The goals of the publications are to provide timely, cost effective information to the employees of the organization that helps them to better understand the corporate goals and mission, aids them to improve job performance, and encourages a symmetrical, two-way communication atmosphere.
Rationale

Innovation and Learning Measures The department has two measures for innovation and learning. The first forces the department to examine technology to improve processes, reduce time and cost, or improve distribution (i.e., new readers or lower cost). Success here will improve performance in both the financial and operation4 segments. The second measure gauges the ability of the department to give readers new information that is of value to them. It is a measure that is designed to keep publication COIItent fresh and current. Audience/Client/Customer Measures The first measure of customer service targets the one key audience in the department: the employees. Internal departmental research had shown that the companys employees wanted information that is: (1) of a level of quality that it is useful for them, (2) timely, in that the information is not stale, and (3) helpful for them to do their job better and not filler or fluff that is unrelated to job performance. The second measure targets the other 1teV stakeholder group, the interlA clients. These individuals are the owners of the business lines about which the articles focus. Surveys showed that these internal customers are looking for accurate information about their topics and sufficient coverage so that a complete stop is told to readers; therefore, objectives and measures were designed to assess this <area. Operational Measures The first measure looks at the total time it takes the department to produce the final product once all articles are in and approved. It is an importaut step and a possible bottleneck in the process. Decreasing time at this step will lower costs and assist in meeting deadlines. The second measure looks at the other major roadblock in the process, which is getting approval from business owners or supervisors as to the content of the articles concerning them. Faster turnaround indicates a better understanding of their needs as well as lowering costs due to rewrites. The third measure looks at the process from a higher level by examining what percent of deadlines are met or exceeded. This measure will encompass other parts of the process not directly measured to indicate if other problems exist. This measure is an important aspect of ensuring employees get timely information from their publications. The fourth measure looks at the level of distribu134 \(,I. 23. No. 2

A Balanced Scorecard Approncb

tion and readership of the publications. From surveys, the department can estimate the number of people receiving the publications and compare this to the total number of employees. Less than 100% would indicate that distribution systems are not getting copies to everyone. At a deeper level, the number of readers of the publications will reflect the quality of the publications, where it is assumed that disinterest in reading is a direct indicator of quality.
Financial Measures

The first measure, cost per issue, attempts to link the innovation and process measures to their ultimate goal which is cost reduction. With lower costs per issue, at a steady quality, either the department can improve the quality or redistribute funds to lower priority projects. The second measure links cost to quality in a measurable way. Can readership be increased (where readership is assumed to be a function of quality and distribution) without disproportionate

increases in cost? Incremental readership greater than incremental cost is the target of this measure. The third measure assesses the departments ability the manage a budget while fulfilling the goals of the department. A ratio of less than 1: 1 would be targeted with no corresponding drop in quality. It is important to note that the implementation process does not end with the design of measures. The next step is to obtain a yardstick for evaluation. These comparisons can be both internal (how are we doing compared to our performance in a different time period or in a similar function situated in a different part of the organization) or external (how are we doing compared to others outside the organization) and can be current or past in dimension. Benchmarking provides a particularly useful process perspective from which to make these comparisons.70
Final &reJation

With measures in place, the function needs some method to aggregate the variety of measures to a consistent comparison basis. It is suggested that, primarily, each of the four categories of the balanced scorecard be rated relative to their importance to the overall company goals. For example, if cost cutting was an organizational priority, financial measures would receive a higher weighting than other categories. Within each category the individual measures should also be weighted. Finally, the measures themselves should be translated onto a consistent scale of the organizations choosing. In so doing the function can aggregate all information into a final figure that can be used to evaluate the overall performance of the function. Wood sums this up nicely by stating Management is likely to accept any valid performance measure if it embodies the corporate agenda and if the operating units and top executives get the help they need on the issues. 71 The process prescribed by Kaplan and Norton represents a generic implementation strategy, however it is believed that it is flexible enough that it can be modified to suit a given organization. One must be cautious, however, not to change the process so much that it loses the valuable qualities that make it a useful tool for PR/C managers.
Summer 1997 135

BALANCED SCORECARD MEASURE DEVELOPMENT IN A IX/C ENVIRONMENT The theory of how one would go about designing a balanced scorecard is useless if it cannot work in practice. Most important here, because the planning and evaluation and control activities will be unique to each organization, is the design of actual measures. To that end, Figure 6 represents a generic starting list of measures that have been and can be used in the balanced scorecards for many of the activities that are found in a PR/C environment. Careful consideration should be given to the way in which the actual balanced scorecard measures are developed. Organizational theorists have identified six characteristics that underlie what constitutes an effective performance indicator. 72 Effective performance indicators: 1. make stvate@c objectives clear-it should be shared with relevant persons in the PR/C unit and the organization as a whole are headed in the same direction. 2. fi)cus on core processes-it is important that performance indicators capture the important dimensions of core PR/C processes and their outcomes. For example, in a fast evolving, high-technology sales environment, the core PR/C process may be information acquisition and development via digitized means (eg., an intranet) to assure rapid dissemination among the organizations marketing agents. 3 concentrate OH critical va&ables-if PR/C success is ultimately measured by a factor such as audiencc/client/stakeholdcr satisfaction, which is determined to mean things like outstanding service, high quality, fast response, variety and value, then these arc the measures which the PR/ C performance assessment system should emphasize. It is vital that the function determine those few performance indicators that are truly central to PR/C success. The balanced scorecard itself can be weighted to reflect the various contributions executives want emphasized. 4. provide jledjhwavd intellz&ence-effective indicators provide a moving picture as opposed to a snapshot view of PR/C activity. They should be an early warning device regarding key variables and communicate progress and potential problems to concerned managers.
I.

5. ident@ which critical factors warrant attention or change-PR/C managers should pay particular attention to critical variables that do not demonstrate improvement or fail to meet client expectations. Simply yet powerfully stated, effective performance indicators will help employees to improve. 6. use as a basis jh reward/recoanition-the purpose of performance indicators ultimatelv is to make the PR/C function, and ultimately the orga136 Vol. 23. No. 2 A Balanced Scwecnvd Appmach

AudienceKlientlStakeholder (A/C/S) Indicators A/C/S satisfaction/dissatisfaction indices A/C/S awareness ratios A/C/S believability indices A/US knowledge levels 0 A/C/S trust levels New and lost media/opinion leader contacts Meeting hours with specific audiences/clients/stakeholders Number of information requests per A/C/S Benchmark Comoarison Indicators Media share Number/ratio of favourablelunfavourable stories Share of audience Audience favorability indices Coverage (takeup) by different media/reporters/location Media scope Financial Indicators 0 Compensating variation Price performance 0 Cost per program/service Return on PR/C investment Return per PR/C program Cost growth Percentage of budget which is outsourced Cost per media contact Human Resource Indicators Programs per PR/C employee Development hours per PR/C employee Applicants/acceptance ratio 0 Number of professional speaking invitations per employee Person/days of community service 0 Competence measures 0 Flexibility measures Hours spent in unit meetings OnerationabProcess Indicators Program/product/service development cycle time Number of person/hours per completed project/program 0 Average and range of response time to client/media inquiries Number of speech drafts completed before sign-off Quality performance level Volume of media releases per specific time period 0 Ratio of media releases published to those sent (success rate) Ratio of deadlines met to those missed Number of new PR/C products per time period Proportion of new products,programs/services Figure 6. Some Examples of PR/C Performance Indicators
Summer 1997 137

nization which cmplovs PR/C, more successful. To the extent that the function and employing organization succeed, key contributors should be recognized and/or rewarded for their part in successful performance. IMPLICATIONS The balanced scorecard approach to assessing PR/C performance has a number of implications for both practitioners and researchers. We address several of these in the sections to follow: Practitiolzer implications: The balanced scorecard approach will signal to others in the organization PR/cs intention to assess performance along decision making criteria that are accepted for decision making and improvement purposes in other parts of the organization. In doing so, PR/C will be seen as communicating its performance in the language of business performance. In other words, the balanced scorecard can be used

as a powerful means to market the function. Communication of the performance upon which indicators are established can be a powerful tool to enhance the image of the PR/C function since it demonstrates to others what PR/C has done for others and the tangible results and intangible benefits derived from PR/C activity. The authors see this as a step forward in assisting organizational PR/C functions to achieve a level of legitimacy that has frequently been unattainable using traditional, PR/C assessment methods. The biggest problem PR/C practitioners will face in adopting a balanced scorecard approach for their areas will be in developing appropriate measures and installing the information systems needed to capture the data underlying the measures. For example, in one large department of 34 PR/C professionals we observed adapting the approach described in this paper, one manager was unwilling to change her areas traditional information systems, three others had great difficulties in recommending metrics across each of the core categories, while two persons retained the view that assessment of any kind of their work was either undesirable, unnecessary, or burdensome of their time. Because of the diffkulties associated with a major change such as installing a balanced scorecard approach, it should be made clear at the very outset to the sponsors of these improvement efforts that there will be a moderate learning curve that requires supplemental training sessions to help some professionals acquire the knowledge and skills needed to overcome these barriers. Researcher ivaplicatiom: The authors research into balanced PR/C scorecards has not yet reached a critical mass of adopting departments, hindering the use of anything at this point more sophisticated than the application of exploratory research methods such as comparative case studies. Since balanced scorecards have onlv been in use for about four
138 Vol. 23. No. 2

A Ralamed Scorecard AbbroacB

years in total, and even less time in PR/C applications, it has also been difficult

to assess dependent variable effects in a longitudinal manner. These details should not suggest that researchers cannot pursue a number of exciting avenues associated with the balanced scorecard assessment approach; in reality, there are a number of research possibilities associated with doing statistical analysis across a variety of organizational and departmentallevel performance, strategy and structural variables over time within individual organizations as well as doing quantitative cross-organizational benchmarking comparisons. There are a number of major research questions associated with the balanced scorecard assessment approach which we believe prompt scholarly exploration, including: (1) do departments using balanced scorecards perform more effectively than those not using this approach? (2) will the implementation of a balanced scorecard approach by a PR/C unit raise the level of organizational legitimacy experienced by PR/C as perceived by other organizational functions? (3) is the adoption of a balanced scorecard approach more effectively facilitated within the area when chosen proactively by the senior PR/C executive or is it done more effectively when required by executives from outside the department (i.e., the compulsory approach)?
CONCLUSION

Even though we believe the balanced scorecard approach has immense implications for assessing PR/C management performance, we are not suggesting a one-system-fits-all approach. How a PR/C unit manages implementation is a function of its context, position, culture and complexity of its work processes. The process of building and constructing a strategic PR/C assessment system should be tailored or customized to each unit. Some will elect to install fully developed performance assessment systems. Others may choose to proceed in a step-by-step fashion, putting a pilot system in place first and building slowly toward a continuously improving, integrated approach. Regardless of which approach is taken, a method for assessing PR/C management performance like the balanced scorecard can have a dramatic impact on the ability of PR/C units to gain long sought after organizational legitimacy.
NOTES 1. J.M. Juran and F. Gryna, Qualiv Planning and Analysis: From Product Development Through Use (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993). 2. J.D. Lacopo, Demonstrating Value: Public Affairs as a Strategic Function, hPACt (July/August 1993), pp. l-2.

Summer 1997 139

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. J.H. Bissland, The Accountability Gap, Public Relations Review 16 (1990), pp. 25-35. W.K. Lindenmann, Research, Evaluation and Measurement, Public Relations Review 16 (1990), pp. 3-16. C.S. F&her, Quantifying Your Results: Integrating Measurement in Public Affairs, in D.P. Shafer (ed.), Adding Value to the Public A&m Function (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994), pp. 133-139. W.K. Lindenmann, Believe It or Not, Measuring Public Relations is Possible, in D.P. Shafer (ed.), Adding Value to the Public Affak Function (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994), pp. 106-118. PRSA Task Force, Public Relations Body of Knowledge Task Force Report, Public Relations Review 14 (1988), pp. 26-28, 30-31. W.K. Lindenmann, Hunches No Longer Suffice, Public Relations Journal (June 1980), pp. 9-13. Ibid., p. 10. W.K. Lindenmann (1994), op. cit., p. 107. W.K. Lindenmann (1980), op. cit., p. 10. B. Whitworth, Proof At Last, Communication World 7 (1990), pp. 28-31. Lacopo, J.D., Making Public Affairs a Strategic Functions, in Shafer, P. (cd.), Adding Value to the PublicA@irsFunction (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994), pp. 146-147. C.S. Fleisher, Public Affairs Management Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Measurement and Evaluation, m J. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Perfbrnuance and Policy, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1993), pp. 13Y--163. C.S. Fleisher and J.R. Nickel, Attempting TQM in Organizational Staff Functions: TQM as Managerial Innovation in Corporate Public Affairs, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 12 (1995), pp. 116-127. Lacopo, op. cit., p. 147. C.S. Fleishcr and J.R. Nickel, Analyzing the TQM Adoption Experiences within a Corporate Staff Unit: A Progressive Learning Model, Total Qualit?, Management 5 (1994), pp. 77-91. C.S. Fleisher, Leading-Edge Measurement and Evaluation Ideas for Managing Public Affairs, in Shafer, P. (ed.), Addin Value to the Public Affairs Function (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994), pp. 123-132. See also a refutation of this nature of claims in Lindenmann (1994), p. 106. Ibid., p. 124. W.K. Lindenmann, An Effectiveness Yardstick for Measuring PR Success, Public Relations Quarterly 38 (1993), p. 9; and E. Robertson, Doing Right Things Right,DlBC Cowwnunication World (September 1991), p. 35. W.P. Ehling, 1992 Estimating the Value of Public Relations and Communication to an Organization, in J.E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1992), pp. 617-638. J.M. Piekos, An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Practitioner Roles and Gender on Decision Making and Program Evaluation in Public Relations, unpublished masters thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, 1988. C.S. Fleisher (1993), op. cit.

See, for example, D.M. Dozier, Program Evaluation and the Roles of Practitioners, Public Relations Review 10 (1984), pp. 13-21 and J.E. Grunig, Excellence in
140 \<A. 23. No. 2

A Balanced Scorecard Approach

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Public Relations and Communications Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1992). C.S. Fleisher (1993), op. cit. C.S. Fleisher and R. Hoewing, Strategically Managing Corporate Public Affairs: New Challenges and Opportunities, Journal of Strategic Change 1 (1992), pp. 287-296. Ibid. C.S. Fleisher (1993), op. cit. C.S. Fleisher and R. Hoewing, op. cit. See, for example, P.N. Andrews, Public Affairs Offices and Their Evaluation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Management, Boston University, 1987; T. Marx, Strategic Planning for Public Aflairs, Long Range Planning 23 (1990), pp. 9-16; and R. Strand, A Systems Paradigm of Organizational Adaptations to the Social Environment,Academy ofManagement Review 8 (1983), pp. 90-96. D. Hauss, Measuring the Impact of Public Relations, Public Relations Journal (Jan./Feb. 1993), pp. 14-21. R.E. Wood, Measuring Performance: The Critical Factors, in W. Pedersen (ed.), Leveraging State Govemzment Relations: How to Win in Today? Most Critical Policy Arenas (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1990), pp. 48-52. See, W. Kaydos, Measuring, Managing and Maximizing Perfomzance (Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 1991) and R.A. Swanson, Analysis fm Improving Pe@rnzance (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1994). G.A. Rummier and A.P. Brache, Improving Perjhmance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc., 1990). G. Fuchsberg, Quality Programs Show Shoddy Results, Wall Street Journal May 14, 1992), pp. Bl-B4. E.C. Shapiro, Fad Su$ng in the Boardroom (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995). R.G. Eccles, The Performance Measurement Manifesto, Harvard Business Review (lanuary/Feburary 1991). R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard-Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review (January/February 1992), pp. 71-79. Ibid., p. 71. R.S. Kaplan, Devising a Balanced Scorecard Matched to Business Strategy, Harvard Business Review (September/October 1994), p. 15. Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 73. R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System, Harvard Business Review (January/February 1996), pp. 75-85. Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 72. Ibid., p. 75.

Ibid., p. 76. P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990). R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard (Boston MA: HBS Publishing, 1996). Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 73. B.T. Gale, Managing Customer Value (New York: The Free Press, 1994). Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 74. P.F. Drucker, The Information Executives Truly need, Harvard Business Revim (January/February 1995).
Summrr 1997 141

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 75. Kaplan and Norton (1996), op. cit., p. 75. Kaplan and Norton (1992), op. cit., p. 79. Ibid., p. 78. Kaplan and Norton (1996), op. cit., p. 77. Ibid., p. 78. Ibid. Kaplan and Norton (1996), op. cit., p. 80. Ibid., p. 83. Ibid., p. 84. Ibid., p. 78. G. Hamel and C.K. Pralahad, Competing j-br the Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994). C.S. Fleisher, Public Affairs Benchmarking: A Comprehensive Guide (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994). D.P. Shafer, Adding Value to the Public A&w Function (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994). T.C. Abbott, Implementing Quality in the Public Relations Function at Xerox, in P. Shafer (ed.), Addin& Value to the Public Affairs Function (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1994), pp. 214-218, 256-261. J. Bozzo, Benchmarking Public Affairs at Ontario Hydra, in C. Fleisher (ed.), Public Affaiw Benchmarking: A Comprehensive Guide (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Council, 1995), pp. 224-229. W.P. Ehling, Estimating the Value of Public Relations and Communication to an Organization, in J.E. Grunig (ed.), E.wellence in Public Relations and Communications Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., lYY2), pp. 617-638. See, for example, J.1). Lacopo, Demonstrating Value: Public Affairs as a Strategic Function, ImPACt (July/August 1993), pp. l-2. More generically, see N. Laird and R. Roosevelt, Quantz@g Impacts Handbook (Washington, DC: Laird and Associates, 1994). C.S. Fleisher and S. Burton, Taking Stock of Corporate Benchmarking Practices: Panacea or Pandoras Box? Public Relations Review 21 (1995), pp. l-20. R.E. Wood, op. cit., p. 52. See, for example, R.L. Lynch and K.F. Cross, Measure Up: rardsticksfor Continuous Improvement (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991); S.M. Hronec, Vital Szans: Using Quality, Time, and Cost Pefoomnance Measures to Chart Your Companys Future (New York: American Management Association, 1993); and R.A. Swanson, Analysis for

Zmpwvin~ Perjh-mance (San Francisco, CA: Bcrrctt-Koehler Publishers, 1994).