Recent orders
Provide a comprehensive definition of the Balanced Scorecard framework,
Measuring Sustainability
(Author’s name)
(Institutional Affiliation)
Provide a comprehensive definition of the Balanced Scorecard framework, including anticipated benefits, balance of financial and non-financial metrics, significance of cause-and-effect linkages, role of Strategy Maps, implementation, and/or measurement challenges.
The balanced scorecard was developed by David Norton and Robert Kaplan in 1990 to act as a management tool. The management tool’s main purpose is to provide the user with non- financial and financial metrics in four different main areas; financial performance, internal business process perspective, customer perspective, and growth and learning perspective. In the process of implementing the management tool, an organization has to come up with lagging and leading metrics in each of the above metrics to use in such areas as setting goals, evaluating performance, and ultimately to help in optimizing and identifying results derived from the cause- and – effect linkages that exist among the four perspectives. The balanced scorecard has since developed into a balanced scorecard framework that is made up of the balance scorecard itself, and another management tool, and a strategy map. In the recent years, there has been an increase in the number of individuals seeking to use the balanced scorecard framework for measuring business performance as a sustainable management basis.
Provide a comprehensive definition of STARS, including its stated goals (five broad objectives), and the primary internal and external stakeholder groups addressed in the three STARS perspectives.
STARS, sustainability tracking and rating system are a campus sustainability scorecard model that was developed by the association for the advancement of sustainability in higher education or the AASHE. The program was built to measure sustainability in three main areas; operations, research and education, planning, engagement and administration. The perspectives of the STARS addressed different stakeholders. These included different departments of the SU campus and different sustainability officers. The STARS also needed the involvement of different staff members from the campus.
Review user guidance provided in the STARS Technical Manual. Choose five specific credits in each of the three broad categories. Comment on what you see as potential implementation and/or measurement benefits and challenges
The guidelines indicate that any framework that an organization decides to use in promoting its sustainable developments, several criteria have to be met. Some of the main ones include addressing the sustainability bottom line; economic sustainability, environmental and social sustainability. In addition to this, the guideline indicates that the organization must have metrics that can be easily measured and understood. From these guidelines, it is possible to see that the social and economic metrics can be easily implemented, while it would be challenging to implement the environmental performance. This is because of the affordability of the measure. Implementing an effective environmental metric requires a lot of money which most institutions do not have.
Determine how SU specifically gained support for implementing the STARS model and whether this was good management practice.
There are several ways through which the university gained support for the implementation of the STARS pilot study. The top administrators of the university were first contacted by the director of the program for permission to contact the pilot study in the institution. Just as well, the university was appointed as a suitable site for conducting the study. Several entities were soon contacted as the main correspondents of the study who were going to ensure that the collected data was accurate. More specifically, all the staff were notified by two vice presidents of the school of the need for them to introduce STARS program and to notify them of the need to work with the Sustainability office to provide any data that was required.
The involved entities in this case included the faculty, operating staff, and the professional staff. The students were not involved with this pilot study except for the one undergraduate student who was working with the Associate Director to obtain data, as well as, collating and submitting it. The faculty members were found to be the least supportive members, though a few of them remained supportive of the university’s initiative. It was found that a majority of faculty members did not respond to the surveys carried out by the sustainability office, or any information requests that were directed at them. It was thought that the reason for this was maybe because of the faculty’s unclearness as to what constituted research or teaching that was related or focused to sustainability.
However, the faculty and other members of staff soon realized and learned something as the project progressed. They started to understand more fully what the sustainability program was all about. Specifically, they learned that the program did not only involve operations but also academic research and programs. As a result of this new understanding, the sustainability office was provided with more support and opportunities to partner with other individuals in the university. In addition to this, the model was used to come up with other new initiatives for the school such as a sustainability awards program. To implement these new projects, the sustainability office would have to work directly with several offices in the campus. This was an excellent management practice. This is because the support of the sustainability program was gained only after the staff received some incentive and motivation. Motivation and incentives are good management practices (Patricia, et al., 1997). The incentive was that the program was going to make the academic research and programming better, as well as, improve the programs of the institution. This motivated the staff to give the program support.
Determine the most difficult challenge faced by SU in implementing the STARS model.
In implementing the sustainability model, the institution faced several challenges. The main one, however, was that the faculty was difficult when it came to giving the program support. While some member were involved and were supportive of the program, many remained unresponsive and unsupportive of the program. They, therefore, did not answer or provide questions, surveys or other types of requests the sustainability office asked. It, therefore, became extremely difficult to collect useful information.
Analyze whether or not SU’s participation in the STARS pilot study will/did add value to the institution.
The participation of the institution in the pilot study was extremely useful in adding value to the university. This is because the study provides the institution with more information on how advance in numerous causes, in addition to, academic research. The STARS model also introduced some essential new initiatives in the university such as the sustainability awards program. The participation in the pilot study would also add the value of the institution if the university scored higher on the score card provided by the sustainability program. For example, the value of the institution would be higher if it scored higher on such items as higher education sustainability, research and sustainable performance. If the university obtained more scores on these items, it would increase its reputation as an excellent institution and, therefore, its value. The sustainability program would also make the institution work harder in establishing and improving on the items on the scorecard of the program so as to score higher points. As a result, the value of the institution would also be increased.
Evaluate whether or not the STARS model rewards higher education for focusing on the “low-hanging fruit” or its more long-term strategic sustainability challenges.
The STARS model is most suitable for rewarding and commenting strategic sustainability actions that are more focused on long- term effects than short- term. This is because the model seemed to award SU with fewer points for not accomplishing sustainable performance that was meant to last and to be valuable for a long time. For example, the university received fewer points for not implementing LEED- certified systems and buildings that were to add long- term value and benefits for the institution. The program also gave more points to such projects as installing bike racks near a building, and implementing systems that were energy efficient in the institution, than such programs as academic courses. This shows that the program was more focused on value that was long- term than in attaining results that were short- term, and ‘low hanging’.
Were there downside risks relative to SU’s participation in the STARS pilot? Explain
Yes. The program seemed to put more focus on programs that were not academic. There was a risk that the program would make the institution focus more on other issues like sustainability and less on academic programs. This was because STARS gave student activities, and other energy saving activities more points that academic programs, course and research. There is a risk that the academic position of the institution would be compromised.
Compare the Balanced Scorecard framework to the STARS model in the following areas, noting similarities and differences: stakeholders addressed, primary use of performance metrics for rating or ranking (or both), and the relative focus of each of the two models on the link to organizational strategy.
The two programs are slightly different in different aspects. For example, the balanced scorecard addresses businesses, academics, as well as consultants, the STARS has been shown to only address academic institutions. While the balanced score card measures such metrics as customer perspective, financial perspective, learning and growth perspective, the STARS addresses such issues as operations, education and research, and planning, engagement and administration. The two programs are, however, similar in that they require the full support of the available management resources and systems.
Use Web resources to learn about your institution’s sustainability strategy, sustainability infrastructure, and sustainability performance measurement systems in place and answer the following question: Would your institution benefit from adopting STARS at this time? Explain why or why not.
My institution would only benefit slightly from the STARS pilot study. This is because my institution has developed and adopted numerous sustainability projects. It can, however, benefit from the project in that STARS would provide it with suitable measurement metrics, which the institution lacks, and other systems that the institution can use in furthering and advancing these projects.
References
Patricia, K. et al. (1997). Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Network security and policy
Final Analysis
Author
Institution
Introduction’
Network security has become one of the most common aspects in most organizations. It consists of the policies and provisions that network administrators adopt to monitor and prevent unauthorized access, modification, misuse, or denial of network accessible and computer network resources (Kizza, 2005). This underlines the importance of policies in network security.
A). What is a policy?
A network security policy refers to a generic document that lays the rules for accessing computer networks, lays out the fundamental architecture of the company security environment and determines the enforcement of the policies (Kizza, 2005). Policies refer to the declared objectives of the security administrators seeking to achieve, as well as preserve the company’s security interests.
B). Distinguish between policy and implementation.
Policies are different from implementation in that, while policies refer to the declared objectives that guide the fundamental architectures of security networks implementation refers to the stage where policy action takes place. In this stage, the respective administrative agencies execute or put into effect the design of the policy proposal (Ciampa, 2008).
C). Why is it important to separate policies from implementation?
It may be impossible to envisage the varied ways in which different people would use a certain security system in the life of the product. In essence, any hard-coded policies would be potentially inappropriate or inadequate to the users. This underlines the importance of separating implementation from policy specifications, as it would allow different applications to utilize the same implementation mechanisms with varied policies, which enhances the utility derived from the systems over time (McNab, 2008).
D). Why is oversight important?
It ensures that the data and information in a certain network is secure and protected from outside manipulation.
E). Compare the specificity of policies, implementation guidance, and implementation.
Specificity of policies, implementation and implementation guidance may be compared in their emphasis on application of priority. Aspects that have higher specificity are considered as high-priority than the others that have lower specificity. In the same case, the implementation guidance outlines the aspects that have to be prioritized on at a certain time (Kizza, 2005).
F). Distinguish between standards and guidelines.
Guidelines refer to a statement or any other indication of a procedure or policy by which the course of action will be determined. Standards, on the other hand, refer to the agreed and repeatable ways of carrying out a certain course of action. It refers to a published document that incorporates a technical specification or any other precise criteria that are designed for consistent use as a guideline, definition or a rule (Ciampa, 2008).
g) Must guidelines be considered?
It is always imperative that security network administrators consider guidelines otherwise the ambiguity would allow for opportunities of dilution and compromise of the security networks. Guidelines eliminate the potential for uncertainty, as well as confusion in the process of implementing the security networks, thereby reducing the possibility for compromise.
H). List the three types of oversight listed in the text.
Firewall – enhances the difficulty of an individual getting into the network.
IDS – enhances the difficulty for an individual to destroy a company’s security network
NAT – protects the network from any possibility of being mapped out from outside.
I). What is vulnerability testing, and why is it done?
Vulnerability testing refers to the evaluation of all aspects of the security network system as seen remotely from the internet. This is done in an effort to reveal the potential security changes and vulnerabilities that attackers may exploit and remedy them before they can be exploited (McNab, 2008).
J). Why is it important for policy to drive both implementation and oversight?
Policy provides the rules or framework within the network security will be implemented. In essence, it should be incorporated in the implementation so as to eliminate confusion and uncertainty, as well as lower the possibility of compromise. In oversight, it ensures that all the loopholes in the network security systems are covered.
References
Kizza, JM, (2005). “Computer Network Security”. New York: Springer
Ciampa, M (2008). “Security+ Guide to Network Security Fundamentals”. New York: Cengage Learning
McNab, C (2008). “Network Security Assessment: Know Your Network”. London: O’Reilly Media, Inc
(Kizza, 2005) (Ciampa, 2008) (McNab, 2008)
The Great Depression, A Letter To Eleanor Roosevelt
The Great Depression, A Letter To Eleanor Roosevelt
This is a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt expressing how I feel in regards to the economic crisis in the United States. In my opinion, I think President of the United States should do all that is in his power to help end the economic crisis facing the people of America in the near future. Not only have the economic crisis affected the America’s free market economy, but it has also affected me as an individual where I have been forced to lose my job as well as, putting my children at risks of getting poor medical care. This has been a great depression. For many years, I have had trouble in keeping my firm to acquire its competitive advantage because most of my employees wanted high salary for the job performed; however, fewer products were produced, most employees on the other hand lost their jobs as a result of global recession and inflation (Taylor, pg.143). Despite of the entire economic crisis in the U.S, I have managed to cope up with the situation to keep myself and my family going. Economic crisis is a grave threat to the individuals, stability as well as, the future of the young republic. Therefore, I think that if the President of the United States helps in ending the economic crisis in the U.S, the America as a whole will reshape, and the American debt crisis will definitely be over and thousands of banks and businesses which had failed will rise again. Conversely, the millions of people who were left homeless and drifted from towns to towns hunting for fruitless jobs and non-existent jobs will at the end return to their homes (Sandbrook, pg.183).
Works Cited
Sandbrook, Dominic . “DOMINIC SANDBROOK: Could this be the end of America’s economic supremacy.” Mail Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2021313/US-debt-crisis-Could-end-Americas-economic-supremacy.html>.
Taylor, Nick. “The Great Depression.” Great Depression (1930’s) News. N.p., 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/great_depression_1930s/>.
Works Cited