EXHIBIT AThe Balanced Business Scorecard
A whole-company scorecard linking daily work to annual goals across four perspectives, proposed, ratified, and then run as the monthly management rhythm. The design principle: every function sees itself on one page, and seniority shifts the weight from individual metrics toward the organization's result.
The four perspectives, each anchored to a question
Financial
"If we succeed, how will we look to our shareholders?"
Cost of revenue and SG&A against budget; revenue growth and operating income as the anchor organizational result.
Client
"To achieve our vision, what customer needs must we serve?"
Quality against benchmark; client satisfaction at 95%+ with an "exceeds expectations" bar; and aspire to achieve NPS > 65.
People & Process
"How should we engage and retain critical talent?"
"Business processes: can we improve what we don't measure?"
Defect 5% – rework 20% – quality LEAN-6σ; employee satisfaction 90%+; retention 80%+.
Learning & Growth
"To excel in our processes, what must our organization learn & how must we pass on institutional knowledge?"
New training & knowledge-sharing programs launched; measured teaching & learning hours; structured succession management program rolled-out.
A fifth, cross-cutting theme, strategic initiatives ("build for scale"), carried the transformation portfolio alongside the four run-the-business perspectives.
Weight migrates with seniority
Organizational metricsService line metricsMission metricsIndividual metrics
Weight concentrates differently by design: a Mission Hub Leader is judged mostly on their own mission's result (50%); a CXO is judged almost entirely on the whole organization (75/25, no mission or individual component). Director and VP sit on the migration path between the two.
Four scorecards, as early prototypes: CXO, VP, Director & Mission Hub Leader
First-pass drafts, not yet reconciled to the four-category weighting above, carried forward for calibration during immersion.
FinancialStrategyClientPeople & ProcessLearning & Growth
FinancialMission 40%Delivery 50%VP 50%CXO 60%
Mission Hub Leader40% of scorecard
Cost per billed hour10%Against target
Revenue per billed hour10%Against target
Efficiency (effective vs. sold rate)20%100%
Delivery Director50% of scorecard
Gross margin20%Per target
Efficiency (effective vs. sold rate)10%100%
Cost per FTE10%Per target
Revenue per FTE10%Per target
VP Operations50% of scorecard
Revenue growth20%€50M
Operating income15%€15M
Net income15%€8M
CXO60% of scorecard
Revenue & net income60%€50M revenue · €8.0M net income
StrategyVP 30%CXO 20%
VP Operations30% of scorecard
Delivery transformation initiative; supporting market & capability expansion30%Transformation objectives met
CXO20% of scorecard
Strategic initiatives (market expansion, delivery transformation, etc.)20%Achievement vs. plan
ClientMission 30%Delivery 30%VP 10%CXO 10%
Mission Hub Leader30% of scorecard
CSAT scores (NPS + execution surveys)15%NPS 70 · 95%+ exceeds expectations
Quality (defect, rework, quality)15%Baseline +5%
Delivery Director30% of scorecard
SLA compliance (quality, defects, rework, on-time)15%95% of top-20 clients fully compliant
CSAT scores (NPS + service-line feedback)15%NPS 70 · 95% of service lines exceed expectations
VP Operations10% of scorecard
CSAT scores (NPS + execution surveys)10%NPS 70 · 95%+ missions exceed expectations
CXO10% of scorecard
CSAT scores (NPS survey + service-line feedback)10%NPS 70 · CSAT 95%
People & ProcessMission 20%Delivery 20%VP 10%CXO 10%
Mission Hub Leader20% of scorecard
E-SAT (HR survey methodology)10%75%
Critical talent retention (top 30th pct.)10%90%
Delivery Director20% of scorecard
Critical talent retention (70th pct.+)10%90%
E-SAT (HR engagement survey)10%75%
VP Operations10% of scorecard
Learning & GrowthMission 10%
Mission Hub Leader10% of scorecard
L&D credits10%Per L&D policy
Each metric carried a five-point anchored rating scale (client satisfaction: below 90% = 1 · 90% = 2 · 94% = 3 · 96% = 4 · 97%+ = 5), so "what does a 4 mean" was never a debate.
The scorecard live: organization-level result vs. plan
Client satisfaction
97%
Benchmark · 95%
Operating income vs. plan
42.9%
Benchmark · 38.0%
Revenue vs. plan
€45M
Benchmark · €50M
Delivery transformation progress: illustrative sample view, six-swimlane roadmap
A mockup of the tracking view this scorecard would produce once the mandate is signed and swimlanes are seated, using sample positions to demonstrate the mechanism.
Scorecard & Margin Discipline
46% / 40% tgt
Performance, Pay & Recognition
33% / 35% tgt
Delivery Standardization & Playbooks
19% / 30% tgt
Automation & Operations Fabric
20% / 20% tgt
Product Standardization & Technical Debt
6% / 15% tgt
Expansion, GTM & Focused Exits
27% / 25% tgt
White tick marks the target checkpoint for this stage; the bar shows where the lane actually stands. Green = at or ahead of checkpoint, blue = within 3 points, rose = behind.
Metric definitions: the arithmetic behind every number
| Metric | Definition |
|---|
| Cost per FTE | (Salaries + bonus + benefits + cost of revenue + contractors) ÷ billable headcount |
| Cost per billable hour | Cost of revenue per charged hour × charged hours ÷ billed hours |
| Efficiency (effective vs. sold rate) | (Revenue ÷ charged hours) ÷ (revenue ÷ budgeted hours) |
| Billed hours per person | Billed hours ÷ billable headcount |
| Delivery-management cost % | Delivery-management (non-charged) cost ÷ total income |
| Controllable SG&A | Department-level travel & entertainment against budget |
EXHIBIT BGovernance: the Monthly Operating Review
The scorecard in motion: a monthly leadership review where every metric renders as benchmark vs. actual, deviations carry a direction, and client feedback closes the loop at question level. One page, no ambiguity about where the organization stands.
Client, employee & learning gauges: monthly snapshot, benchmark on every dial
Client satisfaction
97%
Benchmark · 95%
First time right
96.1%
Benchmark · 96.0%
Client reporting · on-time
100%
Benchmark · 100%
Employee satisfaction
82%
Benchmark · 75%
Overall retention
82.2%
Benchmark · 82.0%
Learning & development credits
58.5%
Benchmark · 50.0%
Training effectiveness
88.7%
Benchmark · 60.0%
±
Every gauge carries its benchmark; every financial line carries a signed deviation, favorable green or adverse red
Training effectiveness measured on the four-level Kirkpatrick model of learning outcomes.
Financial metrics: benchmark vs. actual, with signed deviations
| Metric | Benchmark | Actual | Deviation |
|---|
| Operating income % | 38.0% | 42.9% | ▲ +4.9 pt |
| Gross margin | 64.5% | 61.1% | ▼ −3.4 pt |
| Delivery-management cost % | 5.0% | 3.4% | ▲ −1.7 pt |
| Cost per FTE | €2,612 | €3,068 | ▼ −€456 |
| Billed hours per person | 150.0 | 135.1 | ▼ −14.9 |
| Effective vs. sold rate | 100.0% | 97.6% | ▼ −2.4 pt |
| Travel & entertainment | €316.9K | €265.8K | ▲ +€51.1K |
| Cost per billable hour | €19.6 | €22.8 | ▼ −€3.2 |
The client-feedback governance loop, question by question
212
Client contacts touched
17%
Response rate: tracked honestly, low is a finding too
97%
Cumulative satisfaction
We delivered the work product on time
100%
We were responsive to your questions or concerns
100%
We followed your instructions
98%
We met your expectations on quality
96%
We drew your attention to relevant issues / deviations
94%
We were substantively knowledgeable
94%
Survey mechanics tracked completed, awaiting, expired, and discarded responses, since response hygiene was itself governed.