Performance Management Shared Interest Group

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

As Mikhail states, EVA has it's challenges, like any management / measurement system, which I'll refer to as decision support.  A robust system needs to:

1. Reflect the economic value creation to Shareholders / investor / members (depending on the organization type) arising from management decisions
2. Be grounded in real numbers, either fully factually-based (e.g. straight cash generation) or guided by accepted norms (GAAP, IFRS, Taxable income)
3. Resistant to 'manipulation' of the objective or achievement by non-disinterested parties (executive leadership)
4. Operationalizable to sub-units of an overall corporate structure, to enable decision making and evaluation at lower levels of the organization.
5. Coupled with a clear set of responsibilities and authorities that serve to optimize the entire organization.

This last two are the hard bits, and where I have seen EVA (and other models) start to fall apart.  Companies who seek integration across business units and economies of scope have difficulty assigning true cost of capital charges to business units, or identifying individual profit generation to one particular business  (Think about discounting across product lines for a specific client and how they could vary from client-to-client). 

The companies who follow a more silo approach, where products don't tend to interact, have an easier time with this, but are then often viewable as independent investments, subject to a number of market-oriented evaluations.  Even in these, it can be a struggle to determine the decision making process for functions (how much do sales, production, and R&D each contribute to EVA?  If R&D's value won't be seen for 2 years in product sales, how does this year's EVA affect them?)

Like many investment evaluations, EVA is a fairly good company-wide or isolated-segment evaluation technique, but more intellectual than operational, especially in larger organizations.  It may be best used for strategic evaluation and decision, but a bit less operational than some other metrics.  

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

As Mikhail states, EVA has it's challenges, like any management / measurement system, which I'll refer to as decision support.  A robust system needs to:

1. Reflect the economic value creation to Shareholders / investor / members (depending on the organization type) arising from management decisions
2. Be grounded in real numbers, either fully factually-based (e.g. straight cash generation) or guided by accepted norms (GAAP, IFRS, Taxable income)
3. Resistant to 'manipulation' of the objective or achievement by non-disinterested parties (executive leadership)
4. Operationalizable to sub-units of an overall corporate structure, to enable decision making and evaluation at lower levels of the organization.
5. Coupled with a clear set of responsibilities and authorities that serve to optimize the entire organization.

This last two are the hard bits, and where I have seen EVA (and other models) start to fall apart.  Companies who seek integration across business units and economies of scope have difficulty assigning true cost of capital charges to business units, or identifying individual profit generation to one particular business  (Think about discounting across product lines for a specific client and how they could vary from client-to-client). 

The companies who follow a more silo approach, where products don't tend to interact, have an easier time with this, but are then often viewable as independent investments, subject to a number of market-oriented evaluations.  Even in these, it can be a struggle to determine the decision making process for functions (how much do sales, production, and R&D each contribute to EVA?  If R&D's value won't be seen for 2 years in product sales, how does this year's EVA affect them?)

Like many investment evaluations, EVA is a fairly good company-wide or isolated-segment evaluation technique, but more intellectual than operational, especially in larger organizations.  It may be best used for strategic evaluation and decision, but a bit less operational than some other metrics.  

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

Thank you Larry and I agree the metric should be linked to the actual operations so that it is understandable and "actionable" for departments other than Finance. Can you elaborate on the kind of decision support information that you would you recommend using for EVA? 

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

I've attached an article I drafted with an EVA practitioner that supports and explains the integration of EVA and internal decision support.

I hope Performance Management SIG members find it interesting.

Thank you Larry and I agree the metric should be linked to the actual operations so that it is understandable and "actionable" for departments other than Finance. Can you elaborate on the kind of decision support information that you would you recommend using for EVA? 

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

Thank you, Larry-this document is a very insightful and comprehensive overview of EVA. One area I found particularly valuable is the application of EVA in forward-looking planning and decision-making-especially when it can be compared later to actuals.

Are there standardized or commonly accepted guidelines for EVA adjustments? And what sources would you recommend to someone looking to implement EVA in practice-either at a high level or more operationally?

I've attached an article I drafted with an EVA practitioner that supports and explains the integration of EVA and internal decision support.

I hope Performance Management SIG members find it interesting.

Thank you Larry and I agree the metric should be linked to the actual operations so that it is understandable and "actionable" for departments other than Finance. Can you elaborate on the kind of decision support information that you would you recommend using for EVA? 

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.

I heard that this is a very good read. 

The EVA® Revolution: Unlocking the True Economic Profit Potential of Your Company" by Stern Stewart & Co. (Joel M. Stern and John S. Shiely)

Thank you, Larry-this document is a very insightful and comprehensive overview of EVA. One area I found particularly valuable is the application of EVA in forward-looking planning and decision-making-especially when it can be compared later to actuals.

Are there standardized or commonly accepted guidelines for EVA adjustments? And what sources would you recommend to someone looking to implement EVA in practice-either at a high level or more operationally?

I've attached an article I drafted with an EVA practitioner that supports and explains the integration of EVA and internal decision support.

I hope Performance Management SIG members find it interesting.

Thank you Larry and I agree the metric should be linked to the actual operations so that it is understandable and "actionable" for departments other than Finance. Can you elaborate on the kind of decision support information that you would you recommend using for EVA? 

Mikhail,

You raise excellent points about EVA.

As I see it, performance information should relate as clearly as possible to the actual operations of the organization.  Frequently, traditional financial reporting information does not do that well.  I would also agree that EVA adds a layer of abstraction, but in the end is more reflective of long-term value creation.   

I am an advocate of maintaining an internal decision support information that is reconciled on periodic basis with financial accounting information, not in detail, but to a level that provides confidence to Executives and the Board.